# Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.







Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State,  and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing.  These are they.













Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.  And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point?  This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation* here* and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect?  By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

So are all of our warmers unable...or unwilling to identify simple graphics depicting the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

They're YOUR graphics.  YOU identify them.  No one here wants to play your infantile games.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> They're YOUR graphics.  YOU identify them.  No one here wants to play your infantile games.




Not my graphics...graphics from the atmospheric sciences departments of various universities....if you are afraid to identify them as depictions of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, I understand...not much actual science there anyway...I can see how you would be fearful of engaging in any discussion based on them...pseudoscience is hardly a basis for any actual conversation...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2017)

I haven't looked at your graphs in any detail, and haven't read any IPCC documents, so I have no comment on your basic question. But you have to recognize that many here do not trust anything you say or do since you have been so obstinate in not believing well understood physics for so long. You have gone around in circles so many times that the warmers who believe the science of the last 150 years are truly suspicious you are continuing to play some sort of game.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

I identified where the graphics came from....But here are the links to the pages...You sure are a f'ing whining milquetoast baby, aren't you...Since you claim to be thoroughly versed in the "science" of climate change...I would have thought you could identify simple graphics...and not become a whining baby over the sources..

Here is a link to the page from the University of Washington...

ATM S 211 - Notes

For this graphic...








Here is the link for the graphic from Harvard...

CHAPTER 7.      THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT






Here is the link to Penn State...

One-Layer Energy Balance Model | METEO 469: From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming D7






Now buzz off...maybe an adult will come around who actually wants to discuss this...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I haven't looked at your graphs in any detail, and haven't read any IPCC documents, so I have no comment on your basic question. But you have to recognize that many here do not trust anything you say or do since you have been so obstinate in not believing well understood physics for so long. You have gone around in circles so many times that the warmers who believe the science of the last 150 years are truly suspicious you are continuing to play some sort of game.




I am asking if those graphs, from the atmospheric sciences departments of respected universities depict the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect....once I can establish that they are indeed depictions of the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect, and that me and whoever cares to discuss my questions are beginning on the same page, then I would like to discuss the topic....

Either you can...or you can't....clearly crick can't because he is afraid to even say whether or not they depict the mechanism of the greenhouse effect...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> 
> So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.
> 
> ...


I am not an alarmist or warmer but I am very well versed in the sciences.  Those graphs do represent a very basic understanding of the Green House Effect but they do not deal with secondary routes of energy loss so they are incomplete in defining the GHE.

They know this and they are afraid if they admit that it is the basic premise they will be shown for What they are..  petulant children who don't like to be put on the spot.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...



I didn't have any questions about secondary routes of energy loss....my questions were pretty much restricted to the graphs and the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect...

Damned telling that for all the warmers around here who claim to understand the science, none of them are up to even a very basic discussion for fear of....something......damned telling.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2017)

The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.

I got a lot of my atmospheric information from a long article by the American Institute of Physics.
Simple Models of Climate
They go through what happens layer by layer. The more valuable information  starts with Fourier. Search his name in the article. The radiation flow has to be integrated (calculus) by a pile of infinitesimally thin layers.

Edit: 
Note what they do is similar to the mean value theorem in calculus, where they take what should be an infinitesimal and widen it to the entire atmosphere in one shot. It's too much of a short cut for me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> 
> So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.
> 
> ...


Links, dumbass.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2017)

*

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth* 
*                                    239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4*

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result.  Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F): 

*                        T = 255 K*

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.






*This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere.  It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F).  This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.  Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.*

ATM S 211 - Notes

*As usual, SSDD totally lies about what the site really says. He is, and continues to be as big a liar as the orange clown.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...


LOL  Well versed in silly bullshit. A fucking burger flipper pretending to have some knowledge of science and showing the depths of his ignorance with his every post, that is what Silly Billy is. LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.
> 
> I got a lot of my atmospheric information from a long article by the American Institute of Physics.
> Simple Models of Climate
> They go through what happens layer by layer. The more valuable information  starts with Fourier. Search his name in the article. The radiation flow has to be integrated (calculus) by a pile of infinitesimally thin layers.


 
Again. the failure is in the secondary routes and the modeling you have pointed to is incapable of prediction and fails every time. So why would we believe that which fails repeatedly?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



WOW..

Personal attacks.. and not a shred of empirical evidence to back up anything you say.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.
> 
> I got a lot of my atmospheric information from a long article by the American Institute of Physics.
> Simple Models of Climate
> They go through what happens layer by layer. The more valuable information  starts with Fourier. Search his name in the article. The radiation flow has to be integrated (calculus) by a pile of infinitesimally thin layers.



So the universities in question are promoting falsehood...or at least the information they are providing is useless...is that what you are saying?

And again...my question/observations were limited to the basic mechanism...if the data provided in those graphs is not depicting the basic mechanism, then it is good to know that the universities are promoting fake/useless info...if the graphics do depict the basic mechanism, then they are sufficient for my questions/observations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2017)

*The Greenhouse Effect* 


The treatment in the textbook (box on page 43) illustrates the greenhouse  
effect by assuming an isothermal atmosphere-- (an atmosphere that is  
all at the same temperature) that is perfectly transparent to solar  
radiation, but acts like a blackbody in the infrared part of the  
electromagnetic spectrum, where the planet emits radiation. It  
absorbs all the radiation emitted from the surface of the planet, and  
re-emits it: half in the upward direction to space, and half in the  
downward direction, back to the surface of the planet. The problem is  
solved by means of simultaneous equations: one is the radiation (or  
energy) balance for the surface of the planet and one is for the radiation  
balance of the atmosphere. Here is one alternative approach, which doesn't require solving simultaneous equations.

*A simple approach*

We can get the above results directly by recognizing that the top 
layer of the atmosphere must emit 239.7 W/m2 of infrared radiation  
to space (same amount of solar radiation that enters the atmosphere: 
what goes in must go out).  The bottom layer of the atmosphere 
will emit an equal amount downward to the surface of the planet.  
Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit  
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the  
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward  
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission 
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2.  Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann 
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2.  We thus calculate T = 303 K.  
The figure below illustrates this calculation.   Contrast it to the figure 
above where we assumed no atmosphere, and you will see where 
the greenhouse effect comes in.






The effective temperature we calculate in this manner is much warmer than the actual temperature of the Earth (288 K), because we made a number of simplifying assumptions.

*Limitations of this calculation*

1) It's assumed that the atmosphere is isothermal. The layer of the  
real atmosphere that's most important in terms of the greenhouse  
effect is the troposphere, where temperature decreases with height.  
Because of this height dependence, the real atmosphere emits more  
radiation in the downward direction than in the upward direction (88  
units vs. 70 units in Fig. 3-19). 

2) It's assumed that the atmosphere absorbs all the outgoing  
radiation at all wavelengths in the infrared part of the  
electromagnetic spectrum. In reality, the absorption of radiation by  
the atmosphere is highly wavelength dependent. At some wavelengths  
there's very little absorption and the radiation emitted by the  
earth's surface escapes to space, while at other wavelengths it gets  
absorbed, reemitted, absorbed and reemitted many times before it  
finally escapes. To carry out this calculation accurately it has to  
be done wavelength-by wavelength... to capture the fine scale detail  
in the spectrum requires literally thousands of calculations  
analogous to the one we did in class. 

3) Radiative transfer isn't the only process by which energy escapes  
from the earth's surface. Conduction of heat and evaporation of water  
transfer about twice as much energy from the earth's surface to the  
atmosphere as the net upward flux of infrared radiation from the  
radiation does. If the temperature distribution on earth were  
determined only by radiative transfer (as in this example) the Earth  
would be so hot as to be uninhabitable. In this sense the true  
'greenhouse effect' on Earth is much larger than the 33 K difference  
between the observed surface temperature (288 K) and the effective  
radiating temperature (255 K) ascribed to it in your text. 

ATM S 211 - Notes

*So the scientists at the University of Washington have a far different view of what is happening than you do, SSDD. Seems that most would go with the scientists at the U of W.*


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...



I gave links dumbass...after whiner crick went on like some sort of great baby for them...post #7


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *
> Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
> 239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4*
> 
> ...




F'ing idiot..if you go on down the page, you get to the graphic I posted...what makes you so dishonest rocks?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.
> ...


LOL  No, the Universities in question stated exactly what they meant. That AGW is real, and here is how it works. It is dumb asses like you that seem to think that you can lie about what they say and get away with it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *The Greenhouse Effect*
> 
> 
> The treatment in the textbook (box on page 43) illustrates the greenhouse
> ...



All I am asking is if that graph depicts the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect...I have never seen such equivocation over such a simple question...either the graphic depicts the basic mechanism and the information is useful...or it doesn't and the university is publishing shit...which is it?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



What lie have I told rocks...I am trying to get to a starting point for a discussion...but there is no point in starting if we aren't on the same page...either we agree that the graphic in question depicts the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect, or we don't...if we do, then I am willing to proceed even with a vulgar old whore such as yourself...if we don't, then there is no point in proceeding.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.
> ...


I did not say falsehood. I said oversimplification. Their explanation is not at the level of a graduate course or science journal. It is compressing many pages and equations into a simplified picture for beginning students. Is that the level you want?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I am trying to get to a starting point for a discussion...but there is no point in starting if we aren't on the same page


A better starting point would be Trenberth's cartoon.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I did not say falsehood. I said oversimplification. Their explanation is not at the level of a graduate course or science journal. It is compressing many pages and equations into a simplified picture for beginning students. Is that the level you want?



I don't have a graduate level question...my questions/comments are pretty much restricted to the graphics and what they say...either the information is accurate at a basic level or it isn't...if its, then we are on the same page and can proceed...if it isn't then there is really no point....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am trying to get to a starting point for a discussion...but there is no point in starting if we aren't on the same page
> ...



Trenberths cartoon is shit and everyone knows it....the graphics above are far more straight forward and I don't want to get side tracked by trivialities and tangents...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You are exaggerating. There is one point that is shit and that is when he subtracts large uncertain numbers and gets a small result that is meaningless. Otherwise the diagrams you show are a simplification of what Trenberth shows.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So since my questions/observations are basic in nature, can we proceed with the graphics above assuming that they depict the bare fundamentals and describe the most basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2017)

This is a lower division course, and not a course that goes deeply into the mechanics of AGW. And the authors of the course definately state that the warming is real. Apparently you just looked at the graphs and were stupid enough not to read the text that went along with it. What one would expect of someone with no education beyond grade school.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Their calculations fail every time. They are incapable of ANY predictive value.  Thus they are not reflective of reality.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> This is a lower division course, and not a course that goes deeply into the mechanics of AGW. And the authors of the course definately state that the warming is real. Apparently you just looked at the graphs and were stupid enough not to read the text that went along with it. What one would expect of someone with no education beyond grade school.




My questions/observations go to the fundamentals...it is at the bare bones foundation that I want to start...either you can discuss the topic at that level...or you can't...I deliberately chose the most fundamental description of the greenhouse effect that I could find.  Like I said...I don't want to get diverted by trivialities and tangents...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

got to say...I am surprised and not surprised at the unwillingness of you warmers to engage in even a basic conversation even when we are using your materials...33 posts in and still not apparently willing to confirm that the graphics from respected universities are true...at even a basic level.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

This unwillingness to engage in a simple conversation...even using your materials exposes a pretty big issue if you ask me..despite all the confidence you exude on the topic...your unwillingness to discuss the basics speaks a different story.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> This unwillingness to engage in a simple conversation...even using your materials exposes a pretty big issue if you ask me..despite all the confidence you exude on the topic...your unwillingness to discuss the basics speaks a different story.


They are either unwilling to defend an indefensible position or they are incapable of defending their position. 

In either case, it stems from a lack of understanding of the science and the inability to articulate their position from verifiable facts. Just throwing up a link, without highlighting the relevant point area within it, tells me they don't have a F-ing clue.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2017)

Why argue with a dumb ass lying brick wall. The OP was a lie. The class notes did not indicate that AGW was false. In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works. That the notes were supporting the science involved in AGW is evident in #13 and #18.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Why argue with a dumb ass lying brick wall. The OP was a lie. The class notes did not indicate that AGW was false. In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works. That the notes were supporting the science involved in AGW is evident in #13 and #18.



Paranoid much rocks....in the first place,  I haven't even mentioned AGW, and had no intention of mentioning it...I had questions about the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect...I went out and got the most basic material I could find from supposedly respected sources...The OP was the truth and I haven't said a single thing that would lead a rational person to think otherwise....

Either you can discuss the fundamentals of the greenhouse effect or you can't...if you can't, then kindly buzz off and make room for someone who can...if there are any warmers here who can....that is.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > This unwillingness to engage in a simple conversation...even using your materials exposes a pretty big issue if you ask me..despite all the confidence you exude on the topic...your unwillingness to discuss the basics speaks a different story.
> ...




Interesting to watch...isn't it?  Someone wanting to discuss the bare bones fundamentals of the greenhouse effect, and they aren't even willing to confirm that the materials published by respected universities on the topic are, in their opinion...true..

Genuine fear of engaging on the topic...hell of a thing...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If they agree to the basic premises then they can not him and haw when that premise is shown false.  IF they agree then they must also agree that premise is false when it is shown. 

This they must avoid at all costs..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Guess so....doesn't say much for the "settledness" of the science though if they are afraid to even discuss the basics using their own materials...it isn't as if I had brought some "denier" material here to try and trick them with it...it is their own materials...I just have a couple of questions regarding them...

I have to tell you, I didn't expect this degree of fear...for all their bluster on varying topics to exhibit this degree of timidity when it comes to discussing the basics is just a bit surprising....Doesn't do much to support the swaggering bluster they exhibit on the rest of the board when they are tiptoeing as quiet as church mice around this topic.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2017)

Sorry, I had to leave in a hurry. The references you quoted are pretty much the same. I read the following reference in more detail
ATM S 211 - Notes

The author makes two simplifying assumptions:

1) It's assumed that the atmosphere is isothermal.

2) It's assumed that the atmosphere absorbs all the outgoing radiation at all wavelengths in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Of course the atmosphere is far from being all at the same temperature, and not all IR is absorbed, but it simplifies everything.

Using those assumptions he explains how you can make a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the temperature of the earth given the input radiation from the sun. The explanation starts at the heading, *A simple approach
*
He does the calculation only by assuming an energy balance and the S-B equation. The input energy from the sun must equal the output IR out of the top of the atmosphere. From that and the S-B equation you can calculate the surface temperature.

It should be understood that this approach does not discuss the exact mechanism of the green house effect. The only aspect of the GH effect he uses is that the atmosphere radiates equally up and down. That's quite a simplification and is only a short cut to estimating the surface temperature, and why the earth does not freeze.

Where do you want to go from here?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Where do you want to go from here?



I am still trying to get to a place of agreement....I wan't to be sure I am not reading anything into your statements that you didn't intend to say..  Are we in agreement that the various graphics I copied from the various universities are, in fact, stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?

If yes, then I have questions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

Answers

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works.



Yep.  So, why not go for a more accurate model?

For a stable climate, a balance is required between incoming solar radiation and the outgoing radiation emitted by the climate system. Therefore the climate system itself must radiate on average 235 Wm-2 back into space. Details of this energy balance can be seen in Figure 1.2, which shows on the left hand side what happens with the incoming solar radiation, and on the right hand side how the atmosphere emits the outgoing infrared radiation. Any physical object radiates energy of an amount and at wavelengths typical for the temperature of the object: at higher temperatures more energy is radiated at shorter wavelengths. For the Earth to radiate 235 Wm-2, it should radiate at an effective emission temperature of -19°C with typical wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectrum. This is 33°C lower than the average temperature of 14°C at the Earth's surface. To understand why this is so, one must take into account the radiative properties of the atmosphere in the infrared part of the spectrum.​


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you want to go from here?
> ...


Yes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Great... 
refer to the graphic below....in the simplest most unambiguous language you can muster, can you tell me what this equation says...

239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
=>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8)  = 303K

Never mind about the slight differences between the numbers on the different graphics...I assume they are saying the same thing and reaching their numbers with the same equation....I am only interested in what the equation says...and more interested in the second expression than the first.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works.
> ...



Mainly because that isn't a more accurate model...there are problems with that model that even warmers cringe at...trenberths cartoon is exactly that and there is a reason that even warmers call it a cartoon.


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

So what were your questions?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> So what were your questions?


 

I asked as clearly as possible in post 48...which part slipped by you?


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They, not it, are the equations you copied from the text box in your graphic and which, as it explains, illustrate the "Energy balance at the Earth's surface".  

Was that so hard?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 11, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works.
> ...



Here's an even prettier one, perhaps that helps:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...


*
but I am very well versed in the sciences.*

Your claim that "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" tends to disprove that claim.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



What's the matter crick...can't even state in your own words what the equations...very basic ones I might add say?...I know what the web site says...I am asking for a straight forward description of what the equation is stating...clearly you aren't up to it...so buzz off.


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

And his later suggestion that magnetic fields might be responsible for the photon behavior SSDD contends.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Not interested in pretty...or tangents...I am interested in the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect...do you see anything in any of your graphs that address the basic mechanism?  Didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD is demonstrating with his basic misunderstanding of what the notes stated, the lack of comprehension he demonstrates in all basic physics.



All I have demonstrated is an interest in what the equations are stating....clearly, you can't state in your own words what they say...so again..if you can't contribute, why are you here?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> And his later suggestion that magnetic fields might be responsible for the photon behavior SSDD contends.



Not the topic here...and clearly you aren't up to discussing the actual topic...so why are you here?


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

The equation is stating that for a closed system in equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.  How much more of a "straight forward description" do you require?  And, since your efforts here are all obviously rhetorical, why don't you just cut to the chase and tell us what you believe to be wrong with those equations?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Covailence is the magnetic bands which bond molecules together. How do you suppose that they affect photons? The solar system and the earth itself is an observable demonstration of how that works on our level to see. Its very sad that you are incapable of this.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> The equation is stating that for a closed system in equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.  How much more of a "straight forward description" do you require?  And, since your efforts here are all obviously rhetorical, why don't you just cut to the chase and tell us what you believe to be wrong with those equations?




Sorry crick..that isn't what the equation is saying.....do you care to hazard a guess as to what the expression  T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K is stating...in plain english?  Not that I expect for you to even be able to get such a simple task right..but never let it be said that I didn't give you a chance...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*How do you suppose that they affect photons?*

Post a real source that shows they repel photons from cooler matter and we can talk.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> And his later suggestion that magnetic fields might be responsible for the photon behavior SSDD contends.


Its actually a well established Quantum Mechanical Hypothesis.  But I would not expect someone, with as little training as you, to know that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD is demonstrating with his basic misunderstanding of what the notes stated, the lack of comprehension he demonstrates in all basic physics.
> ...


*
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth* 
*239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4*

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F): 

*T = 255 K*

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.






*This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.*

ATM S 211 - Notes

*There you go, anyone can go to the site and see what it says.*


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Do you guys not have any words of your own?....and to top it off, you are addressing the wrong graph and the wrong equation...my question comes from this graph which is further down the page... and is regarding what this equation is stating...

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.  There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

*A simple approach*

We can get the above results directly by recognizing that the top 
layer of the atmosphere must emit 239.7 W/m2 of infrared radiation  
to space (same amount of solar radiation that enters the atmosphere: 
what goes in must go out).  The bottom layer of the atmosphere 
will emit an equal amount downward to the surface of the planet.  
Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit  
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the  
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward  
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission 
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2.  Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann 
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2.  We thus calculate T = 303 K.  
The figure below illustrates this calculation.   Contrast it to the figure 
above where we assumed no atmosphere, and you will see where 
the greenhouse effect comes in.






The effective temperature we calculate in this manner is much warmer than the actual temperature of the Earth (288 K), because we made a number of simplifying assumptions.

*Limitations of this calculation*

1) It's assumed that the atmosphere is isothermal. The layer of the  
real atmosphere that's most important in terms of the greenhouse  
effect is the troposphere, where temperature decreases with height.  
Because of this height dependence, the real atmosphere emits more  
radiation in the downward direction than in the upward direction (88  
units vs. 70 units in Fig. 3-19). 

2) It's assumed that the atmosphere absorbs all the outgoing  
radiation at all wavelengths in the infrared part of the  
electromagnetic spectrum. In reality, the absorption of radiation by  
the atmosphere is highly wavelength dependent. At some wavelengths  
there's very little absorption and the radiation emitted by the  
earth's surface escapes to space, while at other wavelengths it gets  
absorbed, reemitted, absorbed and reemitted many times before it  
finally escapes. To carry out this calculation accurately it has to  
be done wavelength-by wavelength... to capture the fine scale detail  
in the spectrum requires literally thousands of calculations  
analogous to the one we did in class. 

ATM S 211 - Notes

*OK, the text surrounding that graph. And why do I need words of my own? This is atmospheric physics, not geology. So let the people teaching atmospheric physics address it.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2017)

ATM S 211 - Notes

3) Radiative transfer isn't the only process by which energy escapes  
from the earth's surface. Conduction of heat and evaporation of water  
transfer about twice as much energy from the earth's surface to the  
atmosphere as the net upward flux of infrared radiation from the  
radiation does. If the temperature distribution on earth were  
determined only by radiative transfer (as in this example) the Earth  
would be so hot as to be uninhabitable. In this sense the true  
'greenhouse effect' on Earth is much larger than the 33 K difference  
between the observed surface temperature (288 K) and the effective  
radiating temperature (255 K) ascribed to it in your text. 

*Sample exercises:*

*(a) Inverse square law* 
Take two planets, planet A and planet B.  Planet B is at 10 times the 
distance from the Sun as planet A.  We know the solar flux at A is 
2000 W/m2. What is the flux reaching planet B? 
Based on the inverse square law, we have the following relationship between the fluxes arriving at both planets:

Fb/Fa = (Da/Db)2
Where Fa and Fb are the solar fluxes arriving at planets A and B, and Da and Db are the respective distances of these planets from their sun.  We are given the following information: 
Fa = 2000 W/m2 and Db =10 x Da

so we can write: 
Fb = Fa * (Da/Db)2 = 2000 * (Da/(10 x Da))2 = 2000 x (1/10)2 = 2000 x 1/100 = 20 W/m2 

We thus find that the flux arriving at planet B is 120 W/m2 (100 times less than the flux arriving at planet A).

*(b) Planetary energy balance and effective radiating temperature* 
We calculated the effective radiating temperature for Earth in class, as summarized in the above notes. Let's do the same for Mars.  Here is the information we have: the albedo on Mars is A = 0.22, and the solar flux reaching Mars is equal to 593 W/m2. 
Based on the planetary energy balance applied to Mars, the solar radiation reaching the planet's surface must be equal to the infrared energy emitted by the planet: 
F(1-A)/4 = constant x T4 
with F = 593 W/m2, A = 0.22, constant = 5.67 x 10-8 W /m2/K4 
so we find T4 = F(1-A)/4/constant = 593 x (1-0.22)/4/(5.67 x 10-8) = 20.4 x 10+8 K4 
Now let's take the fourth root of 20.4 x 10+8 K4, we find T = 212 K. The effective radiating temperature of Mars is thus 212 K.  The observed temperature on Mars is 218 K, so it's atmosphere has a small greenhouse effect of 218-212 = 6 K.

*Ah yes, equations. LOL*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Do you guys not have any words of your own?....and to top it off, you are addressing the wrong graph and the wrong equation...my question comes from this graph which is further down the page... and is regarding what this equation is stating...
> 
> T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K


this equation fails to take into account storage or the earths own created heat.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> ATM S 211 - Notes
> 
> 3) Radiative transfer isn't the only process by which energy escapes
> from the earth's surface. Conduction of heat and evaporation of water
> ...



OK...you have proven that you can cut and paste...now can you demonstrate that you have some understanding of what you are cutting and pasting and state in plain english what this equation is stating...if you can, then by all means proceed...if you can't, stop wasting my time and I will wait for someone who can.

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys not have any words of your own?....and to top it off, you are addressing the wrong graph and the wrong equation...my question comes from this graph which is further down the page... and is regarding what this equation is stating...
> ...



Not important to my question...it is clear that these guys have been faking all along...when asked to state in plain english what a simple equation is stating, they simply can't do it...I am wondering if there is a warmer here who is up to such a simple task...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K



(239.7 + 239.7)

This implies that the atmosphere will conduct 1/2 of its energy downward and the other half to space. If the earth were a flat plane this might apply, but it is not. Being a sphere, its more likely a 65/35 split, making any further assumptions garbage.

Any assumptions made using this will result in a failure of modeling as shown in Trenberths cartoon.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?*

Tell me.
*
What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?*

Tell me.
*
What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?*

Tell me.

*There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. *

Hold a photon? With what?
*
There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.*

What is that reason?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Great...
> refer to the graphic below....in the simplest most unambiguous language you can muster, can you tell me what this equation says...


I'm working on it. Will be a few minutes.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LOL... Basic Atomic Sciences (structure) taught to first year chemistry students..  DO some research.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.

When you get a real source that says "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons from cooler matter", then I'll take your silliness more seriously.
Until then, your idiocy is damaging the anti-AGW argument. Moron.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


The whole graph starts out with an assumption about the sun's downward short-wave energy, the black arrow. It is only the energy that actually hits the earth surface, and does not include reflected energy that does not warm the surface.

The surface must radiate the exact same amount of energy. Otherwise the earth would exhibit global warming or cooling. That is the upward blue arrow.

The gray patch is the mysterious atmosphere. It doesn't matter how anything happens between the earth and top of the atmosphere, the top of atmosphere *must* radiate the same amount to space. That is the upward red arrow. If it did not, the earth or atmosphere would globally warm or cool.

Now comes the basic assumption: the atmosphere (gray patch) is a scattering medium. IR can not penetrate very far without being scattered in an arbitrary direction. So half the energy (239.7) goes up and half goes down.

If you look at the diagram you will see the black arrow down and a red arrow down, both having the same energy. The total is twice 239.7. That is shown in the 239.7 + 237.7 in the upper equation. That energy is the left hand side of the S-B equation, and the sigmaT^4 is the usual right side of the S-B equation.

The only unknown in that equation is T at the earth surface. So they solve for T by taking the 4th root of T, etc. That is done in the second line of the equation. The result is 303K which is close to the actual average earth surface temperature.

That is the sole purpose of the diagram and equations, to compute the temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



OK....at long last someone has the cojones required to state the obvious...or more likely, the brains and education required to see the obvious....can you believe 83 posts just to get someone to state what that simple equation is saying?

So here is the point of my thread....we have 239.7 more or less radiating from the surface...and 239.7 more or less radiating down from the atmosphere which combine to give us enough radiation to achieve an approximate of the average global temperature.

At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....I could, replace the atmosphere with a block of ice radiating at 32 degrees rather than the -18 degrees that the 239.7 equates to...and put it next to another block of ice radiating at 32 degrees and combined, they would radiate at some temperature higher than 32 degrees.

That, my friend, is a thermodynamic impossibility...you could have a swimming pool full of ice blocks and their combined radiation would never result in an effective radiating temperature of more than 32 degrees....now, if you have a thermodynamic impossibility represented in the most basic version of your model....no matter how complicated you make that model, you will never make that thermodynamic impossibility true.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.


Todd, shame on you for ignoring BIlly. I will answer his thoughtful questions for you.

*What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?*
23 Macro Farsteds

*What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?*
92.6 femptoFouriers

*What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?*
42.0 HertzSoBad

*There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.*
Yes. Water creates an anti-vortex of positronium. CO2 is only a diaevialieant subspace.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....I could, replace the atmosphere with a block of ice radiating at 32 degrees rather than the -18 degrees that the 239.7 equates to...and put it next to another block of ice radiating at 32 degrees and combined, they would radiate at some temperature higher than 32 degrees.
> 
> That, my friend, is a thermodynamic impossibility...you could have a swimming pool full of ice blocks and their combined radiation would never result in an effective radiating temperature of more than 32 degrees....now, if you have a thermodynamic impossibility represented in the most basic version of your model....no matter how complicated you make that model, you will never make that thermodynamic impossibility true.


Your first sentence doesn't make sense. As far as your second sentence, a block of ice does not have the same properties as the earth and atmosphere.

Your second paragraph says that all the universities you referenced are spreading falsehoods. Actually you are right in the sense that they are using oversimplified assumptions. The authors and  everyone in this thread already told you that.

Finally you should probably continue this discussion with BillyBob. He is well versed in your level of science.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Your first sentence doesn't make sense. As far as your second sentence, a block of ice does not have the same properties as the earth and atmosphere.
> 
> Your second paragraph says that all the universities you referenced are spreading falsehoods. Actually you are right in the sense that they are using oversimplified assumptions. The authors and  everyone in this thread already told you that.
> 
> Finally you should probably continue this discussion with BillyBob. He is well versed in your level of science.



Does that equation care whether I put 239.7 which is the IR from the earth and atmosphere or 314 which is the approximate wm^2  that an ice cube radiates?  Does that equation care whether we are talking about atmosphere or ice cubes or rocks?  

The equation doesn't care what we are talking about...or where the radiation comes from....it is stating that you can take two objects radiating at roughly the same wm^2 and add the two numbers together, run them through the SB equation and the result will be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...ice cubes....ground and atmosphere....floor and ceiling...the equation doesn't care.....the result will be a final temperature greater than either of the objects....

Again...a thermodynamic impossibility...now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs if you like, but the fact is that you have a thermodynamic impossibility at the heart of the claimed mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I asked you if you knew. It is basic atomic structure of atoms. I got taught this in high school AP chemistry.

How can this point damage a failed hypothesis? It clearly demonstrates that the CO2 monster is but a fallacy.







This doesn't show the magnetic bonds, but you can determine the covalent field strength of each layer and dominating polarity with what is shown.






While simplistic, this gives you the basic picture of the varying fields.

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge, will react to a low energy third level shell with a positive imbalance? (one or two negative charges vs 6 positive in the core) as is the case with CO.  Remember like charges repel and if the predominate charge is positive what happens to the positively charged particle?

It is deflected..






Again the outer shell is positive and why photons are not held.





Water  vapor's outer shell is NEGATIVE and the positive photon affects it by being held by it until it is dislodged by another photon or the molecule changes up due to chemical reaction (such as re-nucleating into a water droplet where the bonds share the outer bands making its cumulative charge positive repelling the photon particle).

Each of these molecules are resonating at their temperature values. This is important because that wavelength coupled with resonate frequency of the magnetic band can stop penetration of the outer shell.  This is why there are bands of emission and absorption for each molecule.

Its pretty basic stuff..

The wave length of the dislodged photon is determined by the temperature of the molecule it was dislodged from.

A molecule resonating at a higher frequency will deflect a lower frequency photon. A warmer object will deflect a cooler objects radiated energy. Again this is shown in the absorption and emission bands of all matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
I asked you if you knew.*

Yes, I know your claims are silly and unsourced.
*
Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge
*
When you see your first year chemistry teacher on Monday get him to explain the error in your above quote.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.
> ...



To Funny;

You got some of basic numbers and some of the basic theroy.. 

Congrats!

Now, what do like charges do and unlike charges do? And how do we determine this in molecules?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What quote are you referring too? I wrote that.  LOL


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Valence and conduction bands are not magnetic.  They are energy bands occupied by the electrons in a material created by the quantized nature of energy on that scale. The photon has an electrical charge of zero.  A photon can spontaneously break into a virtual electron and positron which will respond to a magnetic field, but since they will do so in mirrored directions (and are no longer photons), the net response is still zero.  Photons traveling through materials susceptible to the Faraday Effect within a strong magnetic field can experience a rotation of the polarization of their electrical field.  This is an indirect effect caused by charged electrons within the material and does NOT effect the motion or momentum of the photon.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Does that equation care whether I put 239.7 which is the IR from the earth and atmosphere or 314 which is the approximate wm^2 that an ice cube radiates? Does that equation care whether we are talking about atmosphere or ice cubes or rocks?
> 
> The equation doesn't care what we are talking about...or where the radiation comes from....it is stating that you can take two objects radiating at roughly the same wm^2 and add the two numbers together, run them through the SB equation and the result will be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...ice cubes....ground and atmosphere....floor and ceiling...the equation doesn't care.....the result will be a final temperature greater than either of the objects....
> 
> ...


You are putting science words in sentences and referencing the S-B equation with no context. You will have to show a diagram like the one from the university with arrows and energy flows before you can get your point across. 

Otherwise all I can say is that for you to compare ice cubes with the University example, one of the ice cubes or something else will have to be continually receiving thermal energy from an outside source (such as the sun.). You have to specify the full configuration of your "counterexample" before it makes any sense.

I still think you should continue this dialog with BillyBob.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Does that equation care whether I put 239.7 which is the IR from the earth and atmosphere or 314 which is the approximate wm^2 that an ice cube radiates? Does that equation care whether we are talking about atmosphere or ice cubes or rocks?
> ...



Nothing else to talk about...the expression at the heart of the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is bullshit...it is a thermodynamic impossibility....you can't take two radiators radiating at 239.7wm^2...or any other amount of radiation put them together and end up with an output temperature greater than their individual temperatures....such a claim would certainly be provable in a laboratory....

In addition to that....you have the problem associated with adding an emissive gas to the atmosphere...CO2 is emissive...it emits IR...and adding an emissive gas to the atmosphere increases its emissivity....by definition..what happens to temperature when emissivity is increased...

Now run along and do your best to ignore the thermodynamic impossibility at the core of the greenhouse hypothesis..tell yourself that it is a basic model and if you make it complicated enough, that thermodynamic impossibility will become possible...tell yourself that you can start with a flawed concept and build a model complicated enough to overcome the flaw.....recognizing and accepting the truth is a pretty big job and most people aren't up to it...especially those of the liberal persuasion....  (239.7 + 239.7)  Two radiators radiating at -18 C combined to give a net radiation of 479.4 wm^2 and a temperature of 28.5 C....frankly, I am surprised that you would admit to believing such bullshit....but hey...you are invested and accepting truth is a big job....don't worry if you aren't up to it...not many people are.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

So check this out...using the formula which describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect....


239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
=>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K  or 29.85C

We can plug in the radiation emitted from a couple of ice cubes....approximately 315.64wm^2 each

315.64 + 315.64 = sigma T^4
=> T + (315.64 + 315.64) / (5.67 x 10^-8) = 324K or 50.85C

Imagine...putting two ice cubes at 32 degrees and getting an output of 631wm^2 or almost 51 degrees C....who would have thought....and this thermodynamic impossibility is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Remember a couple of months ago I asked the question what an IR gun would see if you point it at 2 soda cans standing close to each other. That`s when the same people who refused to answer your question replied "a temperature somewhere in the middle of the 2 temperatures of the 2 soda cans". And now they won`t tell you what`s in the middle of (239.7 + 239.7) although they all say that they are experts in sophisticated statistics.


----------



## yiostheoy (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> 
> So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.
> 
> ...


I personally believe that global warming is cyclical and beyond the means of men and insects to influence.

There are also some advantages of warming -- it stimulates plant growth and favors reforestation.

We are also getting more rain and storms out of the warming process too.  We should build more dams and reservoirs to contain and conserve the water.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> you can't take two radiators radiating at 239.7wm^2...or any other amount of radiation put them together and end up with an output temperature greater than their individual temperatures....such a claim would certainly be provable in a laboratory....



That is true. However, what you fail to realize is that in the GHG example one of the radiators is the sun. That is much hotter than anything else, including ice cubes, and it will out-radiate anything else. The phrase, "output temperature greater than their individual temperatures", does not apply since one of the "output temperatures" is much greater than anything else involved.

So when you say "output temperature greater than their individual temperatures" that is certainly true with two ice cubes, but not when one of the ice cubes is replaced by the sun.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you can't take two radiators radiating at 239.7wm^2...or any other amount of radiation put them together and end up with an output temperature greater than their individual temperatures....such a claim would certainly be provable in a laboratory....
> ...



Sorry guy...according to climate science, the sun's input is 239.7wm^2...which the earth then radiates upward..and then the atmosphere radiates downward....

If I plug two ice cubes into the formula which claims to describe the fundamental mechanism for the radiative greenhouse effect, the formula tells me that those two ice cubes will radiate 631 wm^2 at a temperature of better than 50 degrees C.  That formula is for two radiators and it doesn't matter a whit which two radiators you plug in....IR radiation is IR radiation and the source is completely irrelevant....

The formula says that those two ice cubes combined will radiate 631wm^2 at better than 50 degrees....such a claim is of course, bullshit, but it is the core claim of climate science to be the fundamental mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect....no matter how complicated you make your model you still have that combined radiation upward from the earth and downward from the atmosphere resulting in more energy than either and a greater temperature than either...a thermodynamic impossibility which is the basis of the radiative greenhouse effect....you can't design a model complicated enough to make that impossibility a reality.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Remember a couple of months ago I asked the question what an IR gun would see if you point it at 2 soda cans standing close to each other. That`s when the same people who refused to answer your question replied "a temperature somewhere in the middle of the 2 temperatures of the 2 soda cans". And now they won`t tell you what`s in the middle of (239.7 + 239.7) although they all say that they are experts in sophisticated statistics.


As I remember, one of the guys did answer that to your satisfaction. It had to do with the FOV and how much of the cans or gap was in the FOV.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



If they have the stomach to continue the discussion, I am eager to see what sorts of appeals to complexity they make in an attempt to turn that thermodynamic impossibility into reality...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge*

^That one.
*
I wrote that. 
*
You sure did.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Remember a couple of months ago I asked the question what an IR gun would see if you point it at 2 soda cans standing close to each other. That`s when the same people who refused to answer your question replied "a temperature somewhere in the middle of the 2 temperatures of the 2 soda cans". And now they won`t tell you what`s in the middle of (239.7 + 239.7) although they all say that they are experts in sophisticated statistics.
> ...




two cans at 4 degrees C  radiating 336wm^2....

According to the formula we have

(336.7 + 336.7)/(5.67 X 10^-8) = 637.4wm^2 or  330K or  56.87 degrees C

You think that anywhere within that field of view, the radiation from those two cans at 40F is generating a temperature in excess of 134 degrees F?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> If I plug two ice cubes into the formula which claims to describe the fundamental mechanism for the radiative greenhouse effect, the formula tells me that those two ice cubes will radiate 631 wm^2



As you said earlier one ice cube radiates at approximately 315.64 *W per square meter*.
Two ice cubes will radiate the same.
One million ice cubes will radiate the same.
The S-B equation explicitly uses units of *W per square meter*.
If you have a 1 square meter ice cube, it will radiate *315.64* *Watts total*.
If you have an ice cube of 100 square meters it will radiate *31,564 Watts *total.
But that large ice cube still radiates *315.64* *W per square meter.*

You have got to be careful with the units involved and not just throw around numbers.

There is a difference between *Watts per square meter *and *Watts*

The GHG example was able to add the two energy rates together because they were both coming from the same area – *the same square meter*. Two ice cubes don't share the same square meter.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> two cans at 4 degrees C radiating 336wm^2....
> 
> According to the formula we have
> 
> ...


You really don't know how to apply the S-B equation! Now you are essentially saying S-B gives ludicrous results! Have you ever thought to yourself that you might be wrong?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*"They are energy bands occupied by the electrons in a material created by the quantized nature of energy on that scale."
*
You fucking moron, what the hell do you think magnetism is? Magnetism IS the energy produced by matter relevant to its mass.

And the magnetism is incapable of influencing the photon? REALLY? So I guess a black hole doesn't exist and light can not be bent by gravitational pull?

Do you read what you write? All of what has been stated can be proven by empirically observed evidence.

Keep digging....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*And the magnetism is incapable of influencing the photon? REALLY? so i guess a black hole doesn't exist and light can not be bent by gravitational pull*

Why do you keep conflating gravity and magnetism? Besides stupidity.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So tell me what the value is retaliative to the outer shells polarity..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



They are both a function of electromagnetic activity. Thus the laws governing them are the same.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Value of what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Gravity is a function of "electromagnetic activity"?

Reference please.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If I plug two ice cubes into the formula which claims to describe the fundamental mechanism for the radiative greenhouse effect, the formula tells me that those two ice cubes will radiate 631 wm^2
> ...



I wondered what sorts of appeals to complexity you would make in an attempt to turn that thermodynamic impossibility into reality....land and atmosphere are no more and no less in the same area than the two ice cubes...the two are clearly delineated and named....if they are in the same space, then there should be no need to separate them and then erroneously add them together....in a word...bullshit...but it was an interesting try...any others?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2017)

polarbear said:


> [Remember a couple of months ago I asked the question what an IR gun would see if you point it at 2 soda cans standing close to each other. That`s when the same people who refused to answer your question replied "a temperature somewhere in the middle of the 2 temperatures of the 2 soda cans". And now they won`t tell you what`s in the middle of (239.7 + 239.7) although they all say that they are experts in sophisticated statistics.



Here's the thread.
The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

Nothing like you claimed happened. You're making crazy stories up. Stop it. It's not fooling anyone.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > two cans at 4 degrees C radiating 336wm^2....
> ...



No...the SB law gives accurate results...misusing the SB law...applying it incorrectly as in the greenhouse effect yields ludicrous results....attempting to add together the output of two radiators so that the result is a temperature higher than either is erroneous and the results are ludicrous.....

The example adding the output of the cans to yield a wildly exaggerated result is precisely as valid as adding together the radiation from the surface of the earth and the radiation that supposedly radiates from the atmosphere...that is to say..neither is valid....


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

So, all of this boils down to your thermodynamic lunacy.  You wonder why people didn't want to humor you?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The GHG example was able to add the two energy rates together because they were both coming from the same area – *the same square meter*. Two ice cubes don't share the same square meter.



Exactly.  Somewhat clearer - perhaps - there's two different kinds of radiation, from the sun and the atmosphere, adding up radiative energy from two different sources hitting the earth, every square meter of it (on average).


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I wondered what sorts of appeals to complexity you would make in an attempt to turn that thermodynamic impossibility into reality....land and atmosphere are no more and no less in the same area than the two ice cubes...the two are clearly delineated and named....if they are in the same space, then there should be no need to separate them and then erroneously add them together....in a word...bullshit...but it was an interesting try...any others?


Appeals to complexity? The difference between power and power density is quite elementary. At least three others on this thread understood it. I made it as simple as possible for you. The rest of your post does show you are confused. It's really too bad you don't understand these simplest aspects of science. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No...the SB law gives accurate results...misusing the SB law...applying it incorrectly as in the greenhouse effect yields ludicrous results....attempting to add together the output of two radiators so that the result is a temperature higher than either is erroneous and the results are ludicrous.....


You say it's ludicrous? Yes it is. But that's precisely what you did here.


SSDD said:


> two cans at 4 degrees C radiating 336wm^2....
> According to the formula we have
> (336.7 + 336.7)/(5.67 X 10^-8) = 637.4wm^2 or 330K or 56.87 degrees C



That is so wrong. You really are in the same league as JC and BillyBob.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No...the SB law gives accurate results...misusing the SB law...applying it incorrectly as in the greenhouse effect yields ludicrous results....attempting to add together the output of two radiators so that the result is a temperature higher than either is erroneous and the results are ludicrous.....
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Crick said:


> So, all of this boils down to your thermodynamic lunacy.  You wonder why people didn't want to humor you?




So you think that if you want to determine the radiative output of two radiators....and their temperature...that you add the output together so that you end up with a temperature considerably higher than either of the radiators individually?  Is that what you think...can you show me an example of such thinking anywhere on earth other than climate science...can you show me an example of such a thing happening anywhere...you believe that happens and you claim that I don't grasp thermodynamics?


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2017)

*


			
				Crick said:
			
		


			"They are energy bands occupied by the electrons in a material created by the quantized nature of energy on that scale."
		
Click to expand...

*


Billy_Bob said:


> You fucking moron, what the hell do you think magnetism is? Magnetism IS the energy produced by matter relevant to its mass.
> 
> And the magnetism is incapable of influencing the photon? REALLY? So I guess a black hole doesn't exist and light can not be bent by gravitational pull?
> 
> ...



Wow... just... wow...  You didn't graduate high school, did you.

PS, empiric and observed are synonymous terms.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Here's an even prettier one, perhaps that helps:




The picture above says: There are two radiative sources, one of them (the sun) radiating through the other (the atmosphere), which is why their radiation combines (adds up) radiative energy reaching the earth's surface (every square meter of it).

It takes staggeringly stubborn, fierce, belligerent determination not to see the difference between the greenhouse effect and "adding" two cans or ice cubes or whatever.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an even prettier one, perhaps that helps:
> ...



Since there is only one energy source...the sun....there is nothing to add but the sun...anything that isn't an energy source, decreases the energy...you think the atmosphere has its own energy source?....there is no example in all of thermodynamics where you add the radiation of multiple sources and end up with an output temperature greater than either...the combined output of any two or more energy sources is determined by the difference (that's subtraction) between the energy sources...the final temperature is somewhere between the temperature of the warmer source and the cooler source...

According to climate science...the energy coming in and absorbed by the earth from the sun is enough to raise the temperature of the earth to about -18 degrees...that in and of itself should clue you in to a fundamental problem....then climate science claims that the earth radiates out at a temperature of about -18 degrees and the atmosphere radiates back at a temperature of -18 degrees...so you have them claiming radiation out from the earth..and radiation in from the atmosphere...two sources radiating at -18 degrees combining to make an output of 33 degrees.

Don't count the incoming from the sun with regard to the atmosphere because the incoming from the sun is mostly shortwave and doesn't warm the atmosphere...



Olde Europe said:


> It takes staggeringly stubborn, fierce, belligerent determination not to see the difference between the greenhouse effect and "adding" two cans or ice cubes or whatever.



According to thermodynamics...what the radiator is is completely irrelevant...it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a gas...a rock...a soda can....the corpse of a goldfish...anything...it doesn't matter...it radiates at some temperature...then climate science adds the sum of two radiators and then figures the temperature based on the sum of the output of the two radiators...it doesn't matter what the radiators...according to the formula that climate science uses to determine the temperature of the earth,using the radiation emitted from the earth..and the radiation emitted from the atmosphere....the temperature of two objects radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees equals 33 degrees.... the combined output of two soda cans radiating at a temperature of 40 degrees...according to the formula climate science uses...and thermodynamically, it doesn't matter what the radiators are, the combined output of two cans at 40 degrees is 134 degrees....it takes a staggeringly stubborn, fierce, belligerent determination to accept that claim...or accept that thermodynamically, the output of the earth and the atmosphere is somehow different and must be handled differently than every other radiator known to man...the greenhouse effect, mathematically is no different thermodynamically than adding two cans...in thermodynamics a radiator is a radiator...and when you have more than 1 radiator...the radiating temperature is somewhere between the temperature of the warmest radiator and the temperature of the coolest radiator...not considerably warmer than either radiator...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> The picture above says: There are two radiative sources, one of them (the sun) radiating through the other (the atmosphere), which is why their radiation combines (adds up) radiative energy reaching the earth's surface (every square meter of it).
> 
> It takes staggeringly stubborn, fierce, belligerent determination not to see the difference between the greenhouse effect and "adding" two cans or ice cubes or whatever.


Half the people on this thread agree with the basics of the atmospheric energy flow diagram. The other half have an amazingly ignorant idea of what science is, or they have absolutely no idea. SSDD is one who has the misfortune of seeing variables in equations and totally misinterpreting what they mean. He then makes statements that defy all scientists dating back to the beginnings of thermodynamic science. He thinks he is right and all the millions of scientists are wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Half the people on this thread agree with the basics of the atmospheric energy flow diagram. The other half have an amazingly ignorant idea of what science is, or they have absolutely no idea. SSDD is one who has the misfortune of seeing variables in equations and totally misinterpreting what they mean. He then makes statements that defy all scientists dating back to the beginnings of thermodynamic science. He thinks he is right and all the millions of scientists are wrong.



So you feel free to show me a single example in all of thermodynamics where the radiation of two radiators are added together and the combined output is used to determine a temperature...lets see it.  You really believe that combining the output of two radiators emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees can ever, in reality, result in a temperature of 33 degrees?...you really believe that?   if so then you are an abject idiot...if that could ever happen, we would have a limitless energy source to power every device on earth and it wouldn't cost any more than simply placing objects near each other and collecting the increased energy emitted by them being in proximity...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Since there is only one energy source...the sun....there is nothing to add but the sun...anything that isn't an energy source, decreases the energy...you think the atmosphere has its own energy source?....there is no example in all of thermodynamics where you add the radiation of multiple sources and end up with an output temperature greater than either...the combined output of any two or more energy sources is determined by the difference (that's subtraction) between the energy sources...the final temperature is somewhere between the temperature of the warmer source and the cooler source...
> 
> According to climate science...the energy coming in and absorbed by the earth from the sun is enough to raise the temperature of the earth to about -18 degrees...that in and of itself should clue you in to a fundamental problem....then climate science claims that the earth radiates out at a temperature of about -18 degrees and the atmosphere radiates back at a temperature of -18 degrees...so you have them claiming radiation out from the earth..and radiation in from the atmosphere...two sources radiating at -18 degrees combining to make an output of 33 degrees.
> 
> Don't count the incoming from the sun with regard to the atmosphere because the incoming from the sun is mostly shortwave and doesn't warm the atmosphere...


The sun heats the earth. The GHG's keep the earth from loosing as much heat as it would without them. Period. 


SSDD said:


> According to thermodynamics...blah blah blah.


You must have misunderstood. Here is the correct physics:

One ice cube radiates at approximately 315.64 *W per square meter*.
Two ice cubes will radiate the same.
One million ice cubes will radiate the same.
The S-B equation explicitly uses units of *W per square meter*.
If you have a 1 square meter ice cube, it will radiate *315.64* *Watts total*.
If you have an ice cube of 100 square meters it will radiate *31,564 Watts *total.
But that large ice cube still radiates *315.64* *W per square meter.*

You have got to be careful with the units involved and not just throw around numbers.

There is a difference between *Watts per square meter *and *Watts*

The GHG example was able to add the two energy rates together because they were both coming from the same area – *the same square meter*. 

The energy rates of two ice cubes cannot be added together because they *don't share the same area*.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So you feel free to show me a single example in all of thermodynamics where the radiation of two radiators are added together and the combined output is used to determine a temperature...lets see it. You really believe that combining the output of two radiators emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees can ever, in reality, result in a temperature of 33 degrees?...you really believe that? if so then you are an abject idiot...if that could ever happen, we would have a limitless energy source to power every device on earth and it wouldn't cost any more than simply placing objects near each other and collecting the increased energy emitted by them being in proximity...


Listen very carefully: Two ice cubes cannot heat up anything hotter than the two ice cubes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The sun heats the earth. The GHG's keep the earth from loosing as much heat as it would without them. Period.



So you say...except we find very warm temperatures on planets that have little if any greenhouse gas in their atmospheres and not enough incoming solar radiation to power a greenhouse effect even if they did.



SSDD said:


> According to thermodynamics...blah blah blah.



Right...



Wuwei said:


> You must have misunderstood. Here is the correct physics:



According to which magic grimoir?




Wuwei said:


> If you have a 1 square meter ice cube, it will radiate *315.64* *Watts total*.



And because you have more surface area...the temperature will still be 32 degrees



Wuwei said:


> The energy rates of two ice cubes cannot be added together because they *don't share the same area*.



If I place them in direct contact...of course they do....and the atmosphere and the earth share the same area any exactly as much as two ice cubes in direct contact..  your whole "same area" bullshit is exactly that...show me a thermodynamic example...show me two radiators "sharing the same area" producing a temperature greater than either of them alone.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you feel free to show me a single example in all of thermodynamics where the radiation of two radiators are added together and the combined output is used to determine a temperature...lets see it. You really believe that combining the output of two radiators emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees can ever, in reality, result in a temperature of 33 degrees?...you really believe that? if so then you are an abject idiot...if that could ever happen, we would have a limitless energy source to power every device on earth and it wouldn't cost any more than simply placing objects near each other and collecting the increased energy emitted by them being in proximity...
> ...



And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...


Yea! You finally got it!!!


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...
> ...



Naw, he hasn't, and you're wrong saying so, as a square meter of the earth, receiving radiation from two distinct radiators, but from the same direction, the sun and the atmosphere, clearly demonstrates.  Neither did he understand that adding another ice cube doesn't change the Wm^⁻2.

We clearly need a shrug button here.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...
> ...




I have always had it...I am afraid that it is you who is missing the point....look again at the graphic...cliimate science is claiming that the upward radiation from the earth...at -18 degrees and the downward radiation from the atmosphere...again, -18 degrees are combining to create enough radiation to account for a temperature of 303K..or 29.8C....two objects radiating at -18 can never generate a temperature of more than -18


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Two distinct radiators...the ground is getting the energy it radiates from the sun....where do you suppose the atmosphere is getting its energy if it is mostly invisible to incoming solar radiation...that means that the sun isn't warming the atmosphere...

And by the way...adding another ice cube does change the wm^2...but because you are increasing the surface area, the temperature doesn't change....I am afraid that you really don't get the topic at all as you are making some very basic errors...and I get that you like to pretend that I don't know what I am talking about because I don't agree with you...but when I ask for examples within thermodynamics for what climate science is claiming...neither you, nor anyone else can come up with any because they don't exist...climate science claiming that the earth radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere radiating downward at -18 degrees results in a net radiating temperature of more than 29 degrees...and that is precisely what that equation is saying...clearly you can't read even a basic equation or you would get that...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Naw, he hasn't, and you're wrong saying so, as a square meter of the earth, receiving radiation from two distinct radiators, but from the same direction, the sun and the atmosphere, clearly demonstrates. Neither did he understand that adding another ice cube doesn't change the Wm^⁻2.
> 
> We clearly need a shrug button here.


Right. I didn't read it carefully. I thought he was still talking about two ice cubes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

def


Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Naw, he hasn't, and you're wrong saying so, as a square meter of the earth, receiving radiation from two distinct radiators, but from the same direction, the sun and the atmosphere, clearly demonstrates. Neither did he understand that adding another ice cube doesn't change the Wm^⁻2.
> ...




So two ice cubes at -18 could never radiate a temperature more than -18...but the surface of the earth radiating upwards at -18 and the atmosphere radiating downward at -18 can combine to equal a temperature of 29 degrees?

Do you really believe that...no...I know you believe it...the better question is how do you believe it?....what sort of mental gymnastics do you engage in to believe that radiation emitting from two ice cubes behaves fundamentally differently from radiation emitting from the surface of the earth and the claimed radiation emitting downward from the atmosphere?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> show me two radiators "sharing the same area" producing a temperature greater than either of them alone.


You still don't understand! It is *absurd *to say that two radiators share the same area. The topic is about a single area of an absorber. That absorber has two radiators radiating energy at it. Just look at the diagram you posted! 

Secondly. In the diagram you posted one of the radiators is the SUN!!!! The sun is very very hot. You don't understand that either. My gosh.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I have always had it...I am afraid that it is you who is missing the point....look again at the graphic...cliimate science is claiming that the upward radiation from the earth...at -18 degrees and the downward radiation from the atmosphere...again, -18 degrees are combining to create enough radiation to account for a temperature of 303K..or 29.8C....two objects radiating at -18 can never generate a temperature of more than -18


Nope you have never had it. You forgot the sun is radiating down at a temperature of thousands of degrees.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So two ice cubes at -18 could never radiate a temperature more than -18...but the surface of the earth radiating upwards at -18 and the atmosphere radiating downward at -18 can combine to equal a temperature of 29 degrees?


First, ice cubes do not radiate temperature. They radiate EM energy.

Second, you forgot to mention that the *SUN* is also radiating down. That is where the energy comes from in the first place.


SSDD said:


> ...what sort of mental gymnastics do you engage in to believe that radiation emitting from two ice cubes behaves fundamentally differently from radiation emitting from the surface of the earth and the claimed radiation emitting downward from the atmosphere?



I have told you so many times and you still don't understand. Two ice cubes can never warm anything that is hotter than ice cubes. I think you agree with that. But if one of the ice cubes is thousands of degrees (as in the sun) then you can warm a surface above the temperature of the other ice cube. It is such a simple point!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2017)

SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.


Yes, I agree that he is not worth talking to. He is a troll and I am feeding him. But I am always curious how deep his layering of stupid on top of stupid will go. And yes, it is quite futile because he pretends to disbelieve all the science starting at the dawn of thermodynamics.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Right. I didn't read it carefully. I thought he was still talking about two ice cubes.



I find it doesn't matter what he's talking about.  The situation as described in the model concerning the earth's energy balance is fairly unique insofar as the GHG atmosphere lets through most of the sun's radiation while being warmed up by, and radiating back most of, the earth's infrared radiation.  That results in the earth's surface receiving radiation from the same direction from two different sources, which is the main difference from "two ice cubes" doubling the generated radiative energy per square meter.  To anyone with a lick of scientific sense that would be a case of satire gone awry, but then, real life turns out to be even less funny than that.

I find, he's just fond of generating nonsense, and watching the "warmers" tying themselves into knots to find the best way to explain fairly simple concepts, which he then reliably fails to understand.

As I said elsewhere, debating the goof is tantamount to erecting a monument to pointlessness.  I, for one, am strongly disinclined to do that.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > show me two radiators "sharing the same area" producing a temperature greater than either of them alone.
> ...



I understand perfectly...what you don't seem to get is exactly how absurd the claims are that climate science is making...







Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> I find it doesn't matter what he's talking about. The situation as described in the model concerning the earth's energy balance is fairly unique insofar as the GHG atmosphere lets through most of the sun's radiation while being warmed up by, and radiating back most of, the earth's infrared radiation. That results in the earth's surface receiving radiation from the same direction from two different sources, which is the main difference from "two ice cubes" doubling the generated radiative energy per square meter. To anyone with a like of scientific sense that would be a case of satire gone awry, but then, real life turns out to be even less funny than that.
> 
> I find, he's just fond of generating nonsense, and watching the "warmers" tying themselves into knots to find the best way to explain fairly simple concepts, which he then reliably fails to understand.
> 
> As I said elsewhere, debating the goof is tantamount to erecting a monument to pointlessness. I, for one, am strongly disinclined to do that.


Yes. You are right. I have been able to back him into corners of absurdity in things like the meaning of the 2nd law of thermo, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, the cosmic microwave background, etc. and he will just drop the thread only to come back maybe in another thread with the same thing. Yes, he is playing a game and I think we both know it's a game. The game is really not about science at all because he makes up his own rules and I follow his rules to an absurdity. It is an interesting game for me, but the plot of the game gets bogged down and moves along too slowly. So you are right, it is a monument to pointlessness.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have always had it...I am afraid that it is you who is missing the point....look again at the graphic...cliimate science is claiming that the upward radiation from the earth...at -18 degrees and the downward radiation from the atmosphere...again, -18 degrees are combining to create enough radiation to account for a temperature of 303K..or 29.8C....two objects radiating at -18 can never generate a temperature of more than -18
> ...



So then why does climate science say that the incoming solar radiation is 239.7wm^2....that is a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....is the absurdity of the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect starting to sink in yet?  

As you say, the sun is radiating at thousands of degrees...if it were just one thousand degrees, that would be...according to the SB law 56,700wm^2


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > I find it doesn't matter what he's talking about. The situation as described in the model concerning the earth's energy balance is fairly unique insofar as the GHG atmosphere lets through most of the sun's radiation while being warmed up by, and radiating back most of, the earth's infrared radiation. That results in the earth's surface receiving radiation from the same direction from two different sources, which is the main difference from "two ice cubes" doubling the generated radiative energy per square meter. To anyone with a like of scientific sense that would be a case of satire gone awry, but then, real life turns out to be even less funny than that.
> ...




I am laughing at you wuwei..pretending to be superior...it has become clear now that you haven't had even the slightest idea of what the greenhouse effect has been claiming...you have had no idea..for all this time that 239.7wm^2 equals a radiating temperature of -18..did you think I just pulled -18 degrees out of my hat?....do you even know how to plug numbers into the SB equation to get either a radiating temperature or a wm^2?....apparently not.....you haven't had a clue about any of it...and now you seem to be claiming that the incoming radiation from the sun and the so called back radiation from the atmosphere occupy the same space even though the sun isn't heating the atmosphere...the atmosphere is invisible to the incoming short wave...as far as the atmosphere is concerned..it's only source of energy is the IR coming from the surface of the earth..


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Yes. You are right. I have been able to back him into corners of absurdity in things like the meaning of the 2nd law of thermo, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, the cosmic microwave background, etc. and he will just drop the thread only to come back maybe in another thread with the same thing. Yes, he is playing a game and I think we both know it's a game. The game is really not about science at all because he makes up his own rules and I follow his rules to an absurdity. It is an interesting game for me, but the plot of the game gets bogged down and moves along too slowly. So you are right, it is a monument to pointlessness.



If you look at his elaborations on this thread alone, the ignorance is patently staggering.  He's been debating this "equation" over 137 posts, and has yet to realize that the radiation coming from the sun is at 1370W/m^2.  He has no clue that radiative energy dissipates over the distance, and thus the W/m^2 radiated off at the sun's surface isn't the same as the W/m^2 received at the earth's surface, or top of the atmosphere.  Just for starters...  Pointless.  Upon further consideration, there's a benefit to be had letting him stand as a monument to ignorance, as opposed to erecting a monument to pointlessness.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. You are right. I have been able to back him into corners of absurdity in things like the meaning of the 2nd law of thermo, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, the cosmic microwave background, etc. and he will just drop the thread only to come back maybe in another thread with the same thing. Yes, he is playing a game and I think we both know it's a game. The game is really not about science at all because he makes up his own rules and I follow his rules to an absurdity. It is an interesting game for me, but the plot of the game gets bogged down and moves along too slowly. So you are right, it is a monument to pointlessness.
> ...



You are a laughing stock....and don't have the first clue as to what you are talking about....I know precisely what the incoming radiation from the sun is...Here...lets take a look at your cartoon...  How much energy does it say is coming in from the sun?...how much of that is actually striking the ground?  Look at the idiocy of your cartoon...163.3 absorbed from the sun by the surface...398 emitted by the surface....absorbing 163...emitting 398...how much sense does that make?  and you actually believe that bullshit...one more idiot drone who believes in magic...people like you are absolutely laughable...mostly because you believe climate science.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> If you look at his elaborations on this thread alone, the ignorance is patently staggering. He's been debating this "equation" over 137 posts, and has yet to realize that the radiation coming from the sun is at 1370W/m^2. He has no clue that radiative energy dissipates over the distance, and thus the W/m^2 radiated off at the sun's surface isn't the same as the W/m^2 received at the earth's surface, or top of the atmosphere. Just for starters... Pointless. Upon further consideration, there's a benefit to be had letting him stand as a monument to ignorance, as opposed to erecting a monument to pointlessness.


Yes it is staggering, but he has a new gimmic in his game that he wants to play out. He doesn't realize that it is already played out.

When he is backed in to a corner he reverts to taunting. He reminds me of the knight in a Monte Python movie where an adversary chops off his limbs one by one. Armless and legless he continues taunting his "cowardly" adversary who leaves the scene.

These are out of context excerpts of some of SSDD's childish taunts to me in this thread.
now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs...
There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...
I am surprised that you would admit to believing such bullshit...
Now run along and do your best to ignore ...
.in a word...bullshit...
..you haven't had a clue about any of it....
I am laughing at you wuwei..pretending to be superior...​
He seems to be especially emotional in the taunts aimed at you in your last post. 
You are a laughing stock...
Look at the idiocy of your cartoon...
and you actually believe that bullshit...
one more idiot drone who believes in magic...
.people like you are absolutely laughable...​
When he gets that emotional it is a sign that he is running out of steam.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Yes it is staggering, but he has a new gimmic in his game that he wants to play out. He doesn't realize that it is already played out.



So when you realize that you didn't, in fact, have a clue...you switch to bullshit...you girls should get a room...stroking each others delicate little egos like that in public is just lewd....



Wuwei said:


> When he is backed in to a corner he reverts to taunting.



And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.

how does it feel to find out that you didn't have a clue...hell, I bet you really thought the greenhouse effect was based on reality rather than a world that is bathed by sunlight only capable of raising its temperature to -18 degrees and must rely on magic doubling of radiation to get up to a habitable level...

Your whole aire of superiority sort of flops now that you have been exposed as not having a clue...the sun is hot.....bbbbwwwawhhhhaaahahahahhah

He sun is hot...and yet, you didn't have the slightest idea that climate science says that the sunlight we receive is sufficient to raise the temperature to -18 degrees...laughing out loud at you and your butt buddy....


----------



## expat_panama (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> ...radiation coming from the sun is at 1370W/m^2...





SSDD said:


> ....how much sense does that make?


Everyone seems to be making this harder than it really is.  

Look, about two hundred solar terraWatts hits the earth on one side (plus or minus about sixteen terraWatts depending on whether it's July or December) while some thirty terraWatts is coming up from the earth's core.  Total energy input say, 230 terraWatts.

We're talking about global warming.  Temperature is heat energy per mass.  That energy input for the earth's mass means every one of the earth's 6 (with 24 zeros) kilograms will increase by 9°F every year.  That would happen if we had a green house effect that was 100% efficient. 

We don't. 

NOAA's temp record shows that for the past 10K years we've had global cooling---






--because apparently the greenhouse efficiency is not even enough to keep the heat we got.


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.



He can't be taunting you when he is not speaking to you.  And the word would be spelled "loser".  Loser.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.
> ...


I'm trying to wrap my brain around being accused of my post taunting a person. Puzzling, since my "taunting" post was largely a list of that person taunting me.

Is a list of taunts by person S aimed at person W considered to be person W taunting person S? 

Seems like Alice In Wonderland logic.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.
> ...



And once again..you prove ignorance on yet another topic...go learn the definitions and usages of words...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Guess you don't know basic definitions and usages either...you and crick belong together.....

And about that CO2 in the atmosphere....CO2, being an emitter raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...if you raise the emissivity of an object, by definition....what happens to its temperature?

And did you bother to relieve your ignorance regarding the claims of climate science regarding the greenhouse effect?  got any idea how a radiator radiating up at -18 and a radiator radiating down and -18 manage to generate a temperature of 28C?....such an energy exchange would be easily proven in a lab....got any evidence that it can happen?

Got any instances in thermodynamics where you add the output of two radiators to get a combined output and temperature?

Can you show me a formula based on any physical law where you can combine the output of two radiators and end up with an output 48 degrees warmer than either?...because that is what those graphs from those supposedly respected universities are claiming..maybe you could write to their physics departments and some warmer there could invent a story complicated enough to make the impossible possible....I, for one, would be interested in hearing it...and such a thing certainly could be demonstrated in pretty much any modestly equipped lab...lets see it....


----------



## Crick (Feb 13, 2017)

I'm all ears here SID. What is the temperature of the surface of the Earth and how does it get there?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> I'm all ears here SID. What is the temperature of the surface of the Earth and how does it get there?



Not through magic...that's for damned sure..

I have already stated repeatedly...there is an atmospheric thermal effect that perfectly accounts for the temperature here on earth and every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...whereas the greenhouse effect only works here and only with a fudge factor and you have to believe that two radiators radiating at -18 degrees can combine to produce an output temperature 18 degrees warmer than either....

care to show me a physical law that says that is possible?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Look SSDD, you have a barrier in your acceptance of science: something has to be observable, measurable, testable before you believe it. It also cannot be a model. That leaves you only with 19th century science. The invisible 20th century world of atoms and photons lie outside your realm.

You also have a preordained faith that there is no such thing as back-radiation. The hard sciences do not start out with a hard faith like that. So any discussion with you turns into a game. You interpret some formula or picture in a way that you think supports your preordained idea, and others show where that is wrong or leads to a contradiction.

People here can beat to death your game, and it will just go round in circles. It's sort of like a game of chess where after several moves you brush the board clear and start over with the same opening moves. When that game is done you will invent a new game.

We beat to death your new current game on this thread, but I don't think you realize it yet. Your current challenge is for us to analyze something about a radiators radiating at -18. Your example is too vague, and I for one am not going to try to second guess what is bothering you. You need explicit diagrams of what you are thinking, how it differs from current science thinking, how it is similar and how variables in your diagram relate to formulae. Then you may see for yourself what is wrong.


----------



## expat_panama (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> I'm all ears here SID. What is the temperature of the surface of the Earth and how does it get there?





SSDD said:


> two radiators radiating at -18 degrees can combine to produce an output temperature 18 degrees warmer than either....  care to show me a physical law that says that is possible?


We need to agree on how heat and temperature work.  Heat is energy and temperature is the amount of heat that a mass has.  When heat (AKA "energy") flows it's called "power".

A one watt light bulb (just a little bit of 'power') can heat up an entire mountain to a temperature so hot that it can vaporize --but what's required is that we first have to make sure none of the heat escapes (we need a very very big thermos bottle) and second we have to wait a long time.

The green house effect is our thermos bottle, and the neat NASA pic (at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1164px-The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg) seems to say the efficiency is about 0.2% --and that means the entire earth heats up 1°F every year.

It doesn't.  Our neat NASA pic is not all that complete after all.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I'm trying to wrap my brain around being accused of my post taunting a person. Puzzling, since my "taunting" post was largely a list of that person taunting me.
> 
> Is a list of taunts by person S aimed at person W considered to be person W taunting person S?
> 
> Seems like Alice In Wonderland logic.



He's just trolling you, and in the most primitive, "Naw, you are (taunting)!" fashion.  Logic has as much to do with that as it has with his "discussion" of the GHE, that is, nothing whatsoever.  Smart move, not to let yourself be bothered by same, and, in particular, not to respond in kind.  That's just what trolls hope to attain.

Whatever... he still hasn't understood how the sun's radiative flux (short wave) combines with the atmosphere's flux (IR) to a combined 479.6W/m^2, and that the earth's flux needs to be of that magnitude in order to get rid of the energy, and for that, in that simplified model, the surface temperature has to be 303°K to generate that flux.

... 150 postings (mostly) of either folks explaining things to him, and he, inadvertently, obliviously, sneering at his own incomprehension.  Four years of discussing climate science, and that's his top-level attainment: Climate science is shit, because I don't understand the most basic GHE concept.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*got any idea how a radiator radiating up at -18 and a radiator radiating down and -18 manage to generate a temperature of 28C?....*

Smart photons. DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> He's just trolling you, and in the most primitive, "Naw, you are (taunting)!" fashion. Logic has as much to do with that as it has with his "discussion" of the GHE, that is, nothing whatsoever. Smart move, not to let yourself be bothered by same, and, in particular, not to respond in kind. That's just what trolls hope to attain.


Yes, I know he is a troll. He is smarter than his minions -- those who rate his posts as "Winner". Staunch stubbornness isn't always synonymous with lack of intelligence. But the thing that is puzzling is why does he degrade himself with his unviable stance. It seems that he has no self respect. But you are right -- a troll. Lack of self respect is one requirement of a troll.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Look SSDD, you have a barrier in your acceptance of science: something has to be observable, measurable, testable before you believe it. It also cannot be a model. That leaves you only with 19th century science. The invisible 20th century world of atoms and photons lie outside your realm.



Nope..I love science...I have a very low tolerance for pseudoscientific bullshit pretending to be science however...



Wuwei said:


> You also have a preordained faith that there is no such thing as back-radiation. The hard sciences do not start out with a hard faith like that. So any discussion with you turns into a game. You interpret some formula or picture in a way that you think supports your preordained idea, and others show where that is wrong or leads to a contradiction.



For the purpose of the conversation..I accepted the bullshit of back radiation...earth radiating up at -18 degrees...atmosphere radiating down at -18 degrees...show me the physical law that states that the two can combine to produce a radiating temperature 48 degrees warmer than either...



Wuwei said:


> People here can beat to death your game, and it will just go round in circles. It's sort of like a game of chess where after several moves you brush the board clear and start over with the same opening moves. When that game is done you will invent a new game.



No amount of game playing will ever make to radiators emitting at -18 degrees realize an output of 48 degrees warmer than either...to even attempt to defend such bullshit is to attempt to defend the indefensible...and your claim that you can combine the two because they "share the same space" is some of the most ridiculous balderdash I have ever heard...inject a container with two gasses...both radiating at any temperature you like...they are sharing the same space and there is no way that they combine to produce a radiating temperature that is higher than either...if you don't raise the pressure that is...



Wuwei said:


> We beat to death your new current game on this thread, but I don't think you realize it yet.



Actually, you didn't...you spewed some pseudoscience and then, you and a couple of twits who share your politics went about congratulating each other...I am afraid that you lost that one but aren't quite sharp enough and perhaps never will be sharp enough to realize it...you gave yourself away with your ignorance of even the temperatures involved...



Wuwei said:


> Your current challenge is for us to analyze something about a radiators radiating at -18.



NO...sorry...not vague at all...right there from the chart...earth radiating up at -18 degrees...atmosphere radiating down at -18 degrees...and according to the graphic..the resulting temperature is almost 29 degrees C....show me the physical law that says such a thing can happen....I'll wait.

[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 16563861You need explicit diagrams of what you are thinking, how it differs from current science thinking, how it is similar and how variables in your diagram relate to formulae. Then you may see for yourself what is wrong.[/QUOTE]

The explicit diagrams are right there in the first post....and the formula is right there....now kindly produce the physical law that says that the earth radiating up at a temperature of -18 and the atmosphere radiating down at -18 result in a temperature of almost 29 degrees C....again..I'll wait.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > He's just trolling you, and in the most primitive, "Naw, you are (taunting)!" fashion. Logic has as much to do with that as it has with his "discussion" of the GHE, that is, nothing whatsoever. Smart move, not to let yourself be bothered by same, and, in particular, not to respond in kind. That's just what trolls hope to attain.
> ...




Whistling by the graveyard is not going to find you the physical law that accounts for the pseudoscientific bullshit in those graphics from supposedly respected universities...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The explicit diagrams are right there in the first post....and the formula is right there....now kindly produce the physical law that says that the earth radiating up at a temperature of -18 and the atmosphere radiating down at -18 result in a temperature of almost 29 degrees C....again..I'll wait.


In one sentence you say the earth's temperature is -18C and also +29C. Contradiction. That's not in the OP diagram.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > show me two radiators "sharing the same area" producing a temperature greater than either of them alone.
> ...


so are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't touch the surface?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.


that is exactly what you are saying.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.
> ...


and yet you can't seem to answer his most basic question.  How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29?  It is the only way to achieve greenhouse effect.  You know this right? or have you answered how the earth surface could emit more than it absorbs.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > If you look at his elaborations on this thread alone, the ignorance is patently staggering. He's been debating this "equation" over 137 posts, and has yet to realize that the radiation coming from the sun is at 1370W/m^2. He has no clue that radiative energy dissipates over the distance, and thus the W/m^2 radiated off at the sun's surface isn't the same as the W/m^2 received at the earth's surface, or top of the atmosphere. Just for starters... Pointless. Upon further consideration, there's a benefit to be had letting him stand as a monument to ignorance, as opposed to erecting a monument to pointlessness.
> ...


so it seems your tactic is to talk shit rather than discuss the topic.  gotcha.  answer the man's question about how the earth can emit more than it absorbs from the sun.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

expat_panama said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm all ears here SID. What is the temperature of the surface of the Earth and how does it get there?
> ...


wow!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The explicit diagrams are right there in the first post....and the formula is right there....now kindly produce the physical law that says that the earth radiating up at a temperature of -18 and the atmosphere radiating down at -18 result in a temperature of almost 29 degrees C....again..I'll wait.
> ...


he stated that's what you are saying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


*
How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29?* 

Who said that? Where?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


it states it all the cartoons that have posted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Which cartoon mentions -18?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


post #135


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You said, "you all think -18 to -18 will get 29"
That looks like SSDD on his own.
You should ask him about his confusion.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


there is also this one:
QUOTE="Old Rocks, post: 16550216, member: 13758"]
*Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4*

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

*T = 255 K*

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.






*This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.*

ATM S 211 - Notes
*Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.*[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Thanks. Now where did Old Rocks say -18 and -18 gets you to 29?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


with his link and this cartoon:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure they do


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Underline the part that states that.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The explicit diagrams are right there in the first post....and the formula is right there....now kindly produce the physical law that says that the earth radiating up at a temperature of -18 and the atmosphere radiating down at -18 result in a temperature of almost 29 degrees C....again..I'll wait.
> ...




Congratulations...in one sentence you managed to spend whatever small bit of credibility you may have had.  I have to admit, you had me fooled...I believed that you had some grasp of this topic however misguided you may have been, but you have made it painfully obvious that you don't have the first clue...hell, you can't even plug numbers into the SB equations to figure out how much wattage must be emitted in order to emit at a particular temperature...the two numbers above that you claim are not in the OP diagram are there as clear as day to someone who has a clue...someone who even managed to pass high school algebra...but they are completely invisible to you...

That just makes your self congratulation over being so superior priceless....

OK...my error...I though you had some grasp of math but since it has become painfully obvious that I have been talking way over your head this whole time...let me take you through this step by step and I will explain each step for you...


Since this one has all the pertinent material on it...we will use it...the rest are the same, they just don't show you the math by which they are arriving at their temperatures....






But we need to back up one step since I want to make sure I explain all this to you...so we will begin with this graph...

Rocks posted it from the university of washington site.....I think the poor old dear thought he was giving me some information that I was unaware of...he should have been addressing his comment to you..but in his post, he would have been talking over your head as well...






See the black arrow...pointing down at the earth surface...it is the climate science representation of the incoming solar energy...they state that the amount of energy reaching the surface for the purpose of their model is 239.7wm2....OK...if we run that 239.7wm2 through the SB equation, which they have done...we get an emitting temperature of 255K...which is an emitting temperature of -18.15 degrees C....so there is where the -18 degrees C begins...according to climate science...the surface of the earth receives 239.7wm2 from the sun (-18C) and in turn emits 239.7wm2 upwards toward the atmosphere...emitting temperature....255K or -18.15C.   Note that none of the incoming solar radiation has any effect on the atmosphere (occupying same space bullshit you posed) because the atmosphere is mostly invisible to the incoming short wave from the sun...

OK...enter the next chart....note that the black incoming solar radiation arrow is still there...and the blue radiation from the surface arrow is still there....






Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2  coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere...don't forget that 239.7 wm2 works out to an emitting temperature of -18.15 degrees C....

At this point, they factor in "back radiation"....note that the back radiation is also 239.7 wm2....radiating back towards the surface of the earth...again...-18.15 degrees C....

Now watch closely...because this is where the magic happens...

They combine the upward and downward radiation...both at -18 degrees C...wave the magic wand over the equation and abracadabra......they get an emitting temperature of 303k.......two objects radiating towards each other...each emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees C...and from those two radiators and those two radiators alone, they get an emitting temperature of 303K...which is 29.85 degrees C...that is a temperature that is 48 degrees warmer than either of the emitters....

And of course it is a contradiction...hell...it is a lot more than that...it is a thermodynamic impossibility....and yet, that forms the basis of the climate model that supposedly explains the temperature of planet earth...

Now that I know we are way over your head, I am not going to ask you to point to any physical law that says that it is possible to have two radiators emitting towards each other at a radiating temperature of -18 degrees each and end up with an emitting temperature of 29.85 degrees C...48 degrees warmer than either emitter....but maybe you can get one of these other geniuses on the warmer side who also believe this bullshit to help you find such a physical law...here is a hint...there is no such law...because two emitters radiating towards each other at -18 degrees C could never produce an emitting temperature of more than -18 degrees C....

And before you start that bullshit about the radiators sharing the same square meter...consider a container of 1 cubic meter...you put in a gas radiating at -18 degrees...and then add another gas radiating at -18 degrees...being sure to keep the internal pressure the same so you aren't being fooled by the heat of compression due to higher pressure..those two gasses sharing the same cubic meter are never going to radiate at a temperature of more than -18 degrees...

Am I still talking over your head?....is any of this bullshit sinking in?...are you starting to see exactly how insane the greenhouse model is?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.
> ...




Rocks is old...he is rarely aware of what he is saying...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



Of course that is the tactic...it is always the tactic...show them how wrong they are and their response is to congratulate each other on their superiority...liberals are f'ing stupid and you just can't fix stupid...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


exactly


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



another one who can't read a simple graphic and understand what is being stated...  Here...let me help you out...

At the bottom of the graph....see the line where it says T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K

That is where it says precisely that...239.7 wm2 radiating up from the surface of the earth  (239.7wm2 = radiating temperature of -18C) plus 239.7 wm2 radiating down from the atmosphere and some judicious misuse of the SB equations yields you a radiating temperature of 303K   which is 29.85C

It has become more than obvious that none of you yahoos has even the slightest idea of the wacko misuse of the SB law and the laws of thermodynamics that go into the lunacy that is the greenhouse effect...you have just been believing because all the questions that you ask...and the comments that wuwei has made make it more than clear that you can't read the equations for yourself and know what they say..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The inaccuracy is the claim that -18 and -18 get you to 29.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You really don't have even a little clue...do you?  are you another one who doesn't know how to plug numbers into the SB equation to find radiating wm2...or what temperature that wm2 equals?....239.7 wm2 equals a radiating temperature of -18 degrees C...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well that's what the equation results in.  Just the way I described it.  feel free to correct the part of the equation shown as you having a problem with.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


even old doors figured that out.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You guys are the ones who are confused because you can't even read basic mathematical equations and apparently don't have the slightest idea of how to convert a radiating wm2 into temperature....i always have known that you don't have a clue...but thanks for finally proving it beyond a doubt...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


^^^^^^^^^winner^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The stupidity is absolutely amazing...isn't it...and these guys are constantly congratulating each other on how smart and superior they are....what a f'ing laugh..


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'm laughing, truly amazed.  I would never had thunk these folks didn't know how to do math.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The claim is certainly...most definitely...beyond a doubt inaccurate...and yet...that claim describes the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


or at least the one being promoted.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And this isn't even hard math...hell...it really doesn't even rise to the level of algebra...and you certainly don't need algebra to determine temperature...or calculate what a radiating temperature is if you know how many wm2 the object is radiating...and none of them had a clue...they didn't have the slightest idea where the -18 or the 29 degrees was coming from....as if I just made them up...that simply goes beyond clueless...I really need to snag some of these quotes for my sig lines...they show a level of cluelessness that I haven't really seen on this board before...from people who fancy themselves the smartest guys in the room...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2 coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere. [...]
> 
> Now watch closely...because this is where the magic happens...
> 
> They combine the upward and downward radiation...both at -18 degrees C...wave the magic wand over the equation and abracadabra......they get an emitting temperature of 303k.



That would indeed be magic.  But that description is courtesy of you being not quite capable of reading that graph, or rather, reading your assumption into it.  The equation says something far different.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I was following the discussion and why I finally got in where I did.  I couldn't believe what I was witnessing from these supposed science junkies.  And I ain't no science junkie and they know it.  I get the math and I understood the numbers.  wow.  just wow.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2 coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere. [...]
> ...


oh, well tell us what it means to you?

What the question really is how does -18 and -18 get you 29?  What lab assignment can show that gain of heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*two objects radiating towards each other...each emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees C...*

Why are you trying to add energy radiating away from the Earth to energy radiating toward the Earth?

*And before you start that bullshit about the radiators sharing the same square meter*

The Sun can't radiate thru the atmosphere at the same time the atmosphere is also radiating? Why not?

*is any of this bullshit sinking in?...*

No, your bullshit isn't sinking in.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2 coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere. [...]
> ...



And yet, that is precisely what the equation says...but hey, if you want to be entertaining...why don't you tell us what you think it says....

I see 239.7 wm2 radiating up + 239.7 wm2 radiating down divided by the Stefan Boltzman constant equals a radiating temperature of 303 degrees kelvin or 29.85 degrees celsius...

What do you see?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*At the bottom of the graph....see the line where it says T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K*

*That is where it says precisely that...239.7 wm2 radiating up from the surface of the earth (239.7wm2 = radiating temperature of -18C) plus 239.7 wm2 radiating down from the atmosphere
*
Radiating up and radiating down don't get added together.
Radiating down from the Sun and radiating down from the atmosphere is what you should add.
*
another one who can't read a simple graphic*

Irony is ironic.

You never did explain how photons from the cooler surface of the Sun manage to travel through the much hotter corona of the Sun. Unless you think they are somehow blocked? Are they?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


*Why are you trying to add energy radiating away from the Earth to energy radiating toward the Earth?*

bingo!!!!! Ask old rocks.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How does it feel to be the smartest guy in the room?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
The claim is certainly...most definitely...beyond a doubt inaccurate...*

Like most of your claims.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*You never did explain how photons from the cooler surface of the Sun manage to travel through the much hotter corona of the Sun. Unless you think they are somehow blocked? Are they?*

no one has.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


they didn't want to admit it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You want me to ask Old Rocks why SSDD can't add correctly?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Are they blocked? Or do they manage to leave the Sun's surface?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If you want to know what the radiating temperature of two radiators will be, you can always bet that the temperature will be somewhere between the temperatures of the highest and the lowest...not some number far higher than either...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


but it isn't his claim.  derp


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Well...you see...that's where the magic comes in....no where in thermodynamics do you get such an idiot claim but it is the basis for the model of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well it isn't known now is it?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^exactly^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

I see old europe just showed up to type in a one liner and now has exited from the building...relieving him of his duty to tell us what he thinks that equation says...and I was so looking forward to it...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



His claim was -18 and -18 give you something warmer.

Who else claimed that besides SSDD?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I see old europe just showed up to type in a one liner and now has exited from the building...relieving him of his duty to tell us what he thinks that equation says...and I was so looking forward to it...


me too


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


he never claimed that all.  not sure what thread your in?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't know if photons can leave the surface of the Sun? Wow.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well post it up bubba, show us


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *two objects radiating towards each other...each emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees C...*
> 
> Why are you trying to add energy radiating away from the Earth to energy radiating toward the Earth?



May as well stop playing smart...again...you completely miss what the equation is saying...just like you had no idea where the temperatures were coming from...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees..._

Post #135.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Trying to divert attention away from the fact that you had no idea where those temperatures were coming from...or that you don't know how to plug numbers into the SB equation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You need me to show you photons from the Sun? Wow.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yep...absolutely stupid...but it forms the basis for the greenhouse effect...and apparently you are a firm believer in it...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Trying to divert attention away from the fact that you had no idea where those temperatures were coming from*

If the only radiation hitting the surface was from the Sun, the temperature would be 255K.
Is that the only radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface is the greenhouse effect. And?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So this is the part where they come in and try to bury how badly they lost in post after post of inane bullshit....I suppose the contents of this thread would make good fodder for another thread...the fact that these people argue in favor of the greenhouse effect and are perfectly willing to tell you how smart they are and you aren't...when they are clearly incapable of even the simplest math would make a damned fine thread I think..complete with some absolutely hilarious examples of the level of ignorance they presented.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I have already pointed it out to him numerous times...he just doesn't like it so he lies and says that no one has explained it to him....the fact is that energy won't SPONTANEOUSLY move from cool to warm..it can move from cool to warm..just not spontaneously...energy radiating from the surface of the sun isn't doing so spontaneously...it is being ejected by a nuclear reactor...toddster likes to think that there is no work going on in the sun or on its surface...all that conversion of elements into heat and light in toddsters world doesn't equate to work...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I see old europe just showed up to type in a one liner and now has exited from the building...relieving him of his duty to tell us what he thinks that equation says...and I was so looking forward to it...



Nope, I have not left.  I am just watching eminently smart Same Shit, Different Day debasing himself, compounding his embarrassment, reinforced by his doubly smart sock puppet, JC, and I am thoroughly enjoying it.  Do please proceed, SSDD.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I see old europe just showed up to type in a one liner and now has exited from the building...relieving him of his duty to tell us what he thinks that equation says...and I was so looking forward to it...
> ...




I can't help but notice that you aren't saying what you think that equation says....what's the matter genius...it isn't even algebra...surely a smart guy like you can tell me what you think it says...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

let me guess...you aren't going to say because your mom is calling you home for dinner...lucky for me...right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*energy radiating from the surface of the sun isn't doing so spontaneously...it is being ejected by a nuclear reactor...*

You're confused, there is no fusion taking place at the surface.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're confused, there is no fusion taking place at the surface.



So you think that what happens in side the sun has no effect on the surface...interesting...instead of being an idiot...go learn how to figure out temperatures based on radiating wm2 or wm2 based on temperatures...something actually useful...and you might take some time to learn to read a simple equation...because you clearly don't know how to do that either...


----------



## polarbear (Feb 13, 2017)

So all these engineers who design electronics have it all wrong when they add more fins to a power transistor heat sink, because they radiate back at each other.





Without fan cooling these radiative heat sinks can get it down to as low as 0.3 deg C per watt








Scroll down to page 7 on this pdf, thats where the math & data is for radiative heat transfer for a TO3 style heat sink:
https://www.comsol.co.in/paper/download/83831/eppes_presentation.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> So all these engineers who design electronics have it all wrong when they add more fins to a power transistor heat sink, because they radiate back at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But the atmosphere is magic...in the atmosphere apparently you add radiative output of two objects together to get a high output rather than calculate their combined output based on the difference between their temperature giving you some value in between the highest and the lowest...makes you wonder why we don't build power stations based on that magic principle...personally, I think it would be great if my power bill were only 50 cents or so a month..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're confused, there is no fusion taking place at the surface.
> ...



*So you think that what happens in side the sun has no effect on the surface*

That would be a stupid claim. Who made it? Where?

Are you claiming that photons from the cooler surface can travel toward the hotter corona because work was done at some distance from the surface?


----------



## Crick (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> [energy radiating from the surface of the sun isn't doing so spontaneously...it is being ejected by a nuclear reactor



Do tell.  How about you explain what it means for photons to be "ejected", how the fusion reaction in the solar core would do so and how those photons would make it through a large portion of the solar radius without being absorbed and reemitted?

Wikipedia, "The Sun"

*Radiative zone*
Main article: Radiative zone
From the core out to about 0.7 solar radii, thermal radiation is the primary means of energy transfer.[77] The temperature drops from approximately 7 million to 2 million kelvins with increasing distance from the core.[68] This temperature gradient is less than the value of the adiabatic lapse rate and hence cannot drive convection, which explains why the transfer of energy through this zone is by radiation instead of thermal convection.[68]* Ions of hydrogen and helium emit photons, which travel only a brief distance before being reabsorbed by other ions.*[77] The density drops a hundredfold (from 20 g/cm3 to only 0.2 g/cm3) from 0.25 solar radii to the 0.7 radii, the top of the radiative zone.[77]


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yeah he posted that. He did that to see who agreed with the formula. Nothing more nothing less


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well the rest of the world doesn't know what's happening but you obviously do!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


How do you know? Post someone saying what is going on there!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Yeah he posted that.*

You claimed he didn't. Were you lying?
*
He did that to see who agreed with the formula.*

Yes, he posted an inaccurate formula and was shocked that no one agreed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Well the rest of the world doesn't know what's happening but you obviously do!*

The rest of the world knows that photons from the Sun travel thru the much hotter corona...
except for you and SSDD.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*How do you know?*

How do I know that fusion doesn't occur on the Sun's surface? Wow.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The links provided from universities are the ones claiming it.  And it hilarious to see the hoard defending it. SSDD didn't claim that it does he was exposing the fact that our ivory towers of science are full of shit and there are a whole lot of people swallowing it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
The links provided from universities are the ones claiming it.*

None of the links said 2 radiators at -18C warmed up something to 29C

*And it hilarious to see the hoard defending it.*

I see a hoard pointing out SSDD's errors.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Dude you need to get out of the mud! I'm not going down your rat hole


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Another rat hole post


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Pointing out your error (lie?) is mud?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What error


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Pointing out his error (lie?) is a rat hole?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Yeah he posted that.
*
You claimed he didn't.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What error


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Rat hole


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



2 radiators at -18C warmed up something to 29C


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Caught you in a lie. Your own rat hole.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Did it?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You did? What lie?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, 2 radiators at -18C did not heat something up to 29C.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You forgot your lie already? Even after I reposted it? Are you ill? Drunk?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> None of the links said 2 radiators at -18C warmed up something to 29C



And even when it is explained to you in very simple terms...and the temperatures are converted for you...you still can't read and understand what a simple equation is stating....here genius...if it doesn't say that one radiator radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiator radiating down at-18 degrees combine to produce an output of 29 degrees..do tell what it does say...or don't and prove once again that you don't grasp any of this and 5th grade level one liners are really all you are capable of...

 T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I see a hoard pointing out SSDD's errors.



So after you tell us what the above equation is describing...then perhaps you can describe exactly what errors I have made...funny from you since you can't even read the above equation...but entertain me anyway.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K


Lets hear it genius...what does it say?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees.....see the 303K at the end...that is their radiating temperature according to that equation...303K is about 29 degrees....

So once again....explained to you in basic detail....if that isn't what it says...then by all means...lets here what you think it says...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > None of the links said 2 radiators at -18C warmed up something to 29C
> ...



*...if it doesn't say that one radiator radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiator radiating down at-18 degrees combine to produce an output of 29 degrees..do tell what it does say...*

Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....*

You got one right! What happened?

*see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees.....*

Bzzzz...239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.
The surface receives 239.7 W/m2 from the Sun and 239.7 W/m2 from the atmosphere (back radiation).
Those 2 inputs result in the surface temperature of about 29C.

Now that I've pointed out your confused understanding, explain how those pesky photons from the Sun travel through the hotter corona.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.


Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.



That's just a very minor part, as it's a shorthand for saying that "a body at a temperature of  -18°C emits 239.7 W/m^2".  That doesn't even begin to describe SSDD's error interpreting this "simple equation".


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
> And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!




Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bzzzz...239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.



F'ing moron...are you unaware that you can run that 239.7 through the SB equation and find out what the radiating temperature is for something that is radiating at that wm2?....clearly not...an object radiating at 239.7wm2  has a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you people are proving your ignorance beyond any shadow of a doubt...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The surface receives 239.7 W/m2 from the Sun and 239.7 W/m2 from the atmosphere (back radiation).
> Those 2 inputs result in the surface temperature of about 29C.



Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees...and certainly not a temperature of 48 degrees warmer than either..



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Now that I've pointed out your confused understanding, explain how those pesky photons from the Sun travel through the hotter corona.



All you have pointed out is that you don't have a clue and can't read even the simplest of equations and had no idea that the wm2 output of a radiator equals a radiating temperature....


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.
> ...



Yes, I agree, but I was focusing on a very simple idea that the sock puppets might understand, not that it will do any good. 

The basic flaw as I see it is that if you want to assume a specific power density and use the S-B equation to calculate the temperature, you are actually calculating a temperature that provides an *outgoing *radiation from a surface. SameShits idea is to immediately turn that around and call it *incoming *radiation to that surface. And that is insane.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.
> ...



So you admit that you don't have any idea how to plug that wm2 value into the SB equation and get a radiating temperature?...that's what I thought...all your consdesending superiority is absolutely laughable...

and I am not substituting the temperature...I am merely pointing out what the radiating temperature of a particular wm2 is....you know so little about this that you don't even know what you don't know...I am laughing my ass off at the lot of you...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
> ...




*Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say*

No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.
> ...



You are so full of it that it is ridiculous....you have no idea what the equation says and you put your trust into a couple of yahoos who didn't even know where the numbers where coming from till it was explained to them at a 5th grade level....the level of ignorance is astounding...Not from you...I knew you were a no nothing poser...but wuwei had me fooled till it became clear that he had no idea what the equation was about or what it was saying...congratulations on picking the losing team.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I haven't mis interpreted anything...but if you believe I have, by all means tell me what you think it says...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bzzzz...239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.
> ...



*Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees*

The Sun is radiating down. The Sun is not -18 degrees.

Two inputs of 239.7 W/m2 each can certainly result in a temperature of more than -18C.

Now explain how those pesky photons from the Sun travel through the hotter corona


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.

As though you don't know the difference between a positive number and a negative number.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees*
> 
> The Sun is radiating down. The Sun is not -18 degrees.



Of course it isn't...but that's not what climate science says...we are talking about their model...not mine...clearly you had no idea what their model said...you just believed...well, now you know what it says...or maybe you still don't...either way I have described exactly what the equations in question are saying..



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Two inputs of 239.7 W/m2 each can certainly result in a temperature of more than -18C.



Sorry, but they can't...you think you can pour a bucket of water at 40 degrees in a container of water...and another bucket of water at 40 degrees into the same container and raise the temperature above 40 degrees?...you must because that is what you are claiming when you claim that two inputs of the same temperature can somehow combine to make the temperature higher.


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2017)

???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.

I admit I havent read the article that goes with the graph. the graph makes little sense out of context but it appears to be more related to Willis's shell problem than the Earth. it goes from a simple energy in, energy out example to a example where the new added atmosphere is at equilibrium but the surface is not. all changes in surface or atmospheric temperatures are powered by solar input that is not released to space but instead is retained by the system (the amount that would continue to radiate to space if solar input stopped).


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure you did.
> You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.
> 
> As though you don't know the difference between a positive number and a negative number.


On further thought, that outgoing radiation is long wave and is the same value as the energy of the incoming shortwave radiation. So the calculated -18C is the temperature the earth would be if there were no atmosphere at all. In short, equilibrium requires that the input from the sun is balanced by the output of the earth since it is a situation of radiation only.

That is only a curiosity and has nothing to do with today's climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees*
> ...


*
Of course it isn't...but that's not what climate science says...we are talking about their model...not mine...*

Their model does not say the Sun is -18C.
Their model says the input from the Sun combined with back radiation can heat up the Earth above -18C.
*
Sorry, but they can't*

They clearly do.

*Sorry, but they can't...you think you can pour a bucket of water at 40 degrees in a container of water...and another bucket of water at 40 degrees into the same container and raise the temperature above 40 degrees?...*

No. No one does.

*you must because that is what you are claiming when you claim that two inputs of the same temperature can somehow combine to make the temperature higher.*

Why do you keep saying the inputs are the same temperature?
The Sun is clearly warmer than the Earth's atmosphere.
Are you confused when you make that claim? Or just stupid?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You really are behind the curve here aren't you...in fact, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even see the curve from here...OK...very slowly and perhaps at a 4th grade level this time...  see the pretty blue arrow?...it represents upward radiation at 239.7wm2...that means it is radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees....see the equation down at the bottom..see where it says 239.7?  the pretty blue arrow is representing that 239.7...now, see the pretty red arrow pointing down..that represents the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere....also at 239.7 degrees also a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....now look again at the equation at the bottom of the graphic...see the second 239.7 that is added to the first 239.7?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...see the 6.85 x 10^-8?...that is an operation involving the SB equation which converts the radiation into a temperature....see the 303K at the end of the equation...that means that they are saying that those to radiation emissions at 239.7wm2 have combined to produce a temperature of about 29 degrees...that is 48 degrees warmer than either of the emitting temperatures....now if you can't grasp that I am sorry...I can't make it any simpler than that...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you did.
> ...



Save your further thoughts...you outed yourself when you admitted that you had no idea where the numbers were even coming from...you don't have a clue and it is a bit late to pretend that you do now...

I will agree with you that the fake radiative greenhouse effect has nothing whatsoever to do with todays climate as it does not exist.  It is an artifact of a complete misuse of the SB Law..


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

polarbear said:


> So all these engineers who design electronics have it all wrong when they add more fins to a power transistor heat sink, because they radiate back at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


great post polarbear!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...
*

They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers.
Inside your own damn picture. See the box?
Solar radiation + Infrared radiation from the atmosphere.

Radiation going up from the surface is a negative.

*now if you can't grasp that I am sorry*

Your idiocy is sorry. We all grasp that.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> ???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.



No ian.....i don't think that...but that is what the graphics from the "respected" universities say...

Tell me that you know how to plug numbers into the SB equation and determine a radiating temperature from wm2...or are you unable to do that?.....if you can then tell me what the radiating temperature is of an object radiating at 239.7wm2....

And I agree...anyone who would build a model of what causes our temperature to be what it is who begins with the premise that the radiation coming in from the sun is 239.7 wm2.....or -18 degrees is a f'ing idiot...but that is what I have been saying about climate science since they switched from ice age scares to global warming scares...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> ???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.
> 
> I admit I havent read the article that goes with the graph. the graph makes little sense out of context but it appears to be more related to Willis's shell problem than the Earth. it goes from a simple energy in, energy out example to a example where the new added atmosphere is at equilibrium but the surface is not. all changes in surface or atmospheric temperatures are powered by solar input that is not released to space but instead is retained by the system (the amount that would continue to radiate to space if solar input stopped).


The graph is an oversimplified back-of-the-envelope calculation for undergraduates. It assumes a constant temperature atmosphere and a constant density. But it is a cute trick to give an order of magnitude result.

But you are right that, as simple as it is, idiots can misinterpret it and call everyone else idiots who understand the science better.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers*

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? wow.

Now, the other piece of that is how the temperature of like inputs can cause heat?  Still waiting on that demo.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Save your further thoughts...you outed yourself when you admitted that you had no idea where the numbers were even coming from...you don't have a clue and it is a bit late to pretend that you do now...


You are right I had no clue that someone would be so stupid to misinterpret the equation like that.  But my post #273 shows what the number means. Try Googling: how cold would earth be without greenhouse effect


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? *

That's SSDD's idiotic claim. Not mine. Not the university's.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well actually it was old rocks.  I posted his post.  why did you ignore that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Old Rocks did not claim the Sun was -18C.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what did he claim then?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Some, seemingly, can't read.  The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:

Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2.  Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2.  We thus calculate T = 303 K.​


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Some, seemingly, can't read.  The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:
> 
> Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
> enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
> ...


you mean runaway temperatures?  excuse me while I laugh..


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2017)

The quality of the Sun's radiation is such that it could heat the Earth to 5000C if perfectly insulated. Likewise, the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond.

The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.

Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> The quality of the Sun's radiation is such that it could heat the Earth to 5000C if perfectly insulated. Likewise, the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond.
> 
> The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.
> 
> Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.


so there you go, nicely put, *the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond*...so how is it the surface gets hotter than the atmosphere as was in that equation?  I supposed I should first ask, you agree the sun does not heat the atmosphere right?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.



Why is the use of Celsius misleading?  The latter part, I think, is nonsense, since energy stored away would suggest not-equilibrium (just as energy stored away in the deep oceans is indicating the earth's energy budget is not in equilibrium, even if the surface temperatures don't budge much).


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.


The angles and areas are already implicitly included by adjusting the incoming radiation from the sun to be a day/nite east/west average. 


IanC said:


> Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.


I agree. Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Search the thread if you think it matters.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


seems it matters to you you keep disputing the facts presented.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nope. Just pointing out SSDD's confusion.
If you think something Old Rocks claimed makes SSDD look like less of an idiot, feel free to show me.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.



Really, Wuwei?  Energy coming in versus energy going out (to space) gives us all we need to know, including energy "stored".  In the longer term, it doesn't really matter where the energy accumulates at one time or another; if the system is out of balance, disaster will ensue.   I cannot find the "ecological comfort", whichever way I look at it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.
> ...



And yet, that is precisely what the university of washington did....again...you don't have a clue...the more you talk the less you seem to know...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.
> ...



says the guy who doesn't even know how to plug numbers into the SB equations...says the guy who at first said that it was a simple but accurate representation of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect...says the guy who doesn't have a f'ing clue...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Save your further thoughts...you outed yourself when you admitted that you had no idea where the numbers were even coming from...you don't have a clue and it is a bit late to pretend that you do now...
> ...




I didn't misinterpret anything....sorry that you can't read such a simple equation...sorry that you don't have a clue...

As to your post 273...again, I suppose you clearly missed the fact that if you go to any of the "respected universities" they all label those graphs as simple models of the greenhouse effect...they aren't making bullshit claims like you..they are apparently proud of their belief in magic...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Some, seemingly, can't read.  The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:
> 
> Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
> enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
> ...




Yeah...and it sounds real "science" doesn't it...except that when you use the Stefan Boltzman equation to determine the radiative output of two radiators...you subtract the respective wattages...you don't add them...use your brain for just a second...and here is an experiment you can do for yourself to perhaps....just maybe...see reality...

Grab yourself a cup of cold water....take its temperature...now grab yourself a cup of water of the same temperature...both are radiating at some wm2 that equates to their temperature...now pour them into a single container...and take the temperature again...dollars to donuts, the temperature is going to be somewhere between the two original temperatures...it certainly won't be higher than either glass of water....that's because you have to subtract...not add...the use of addition in that equation was a blatantly incorrect application of the SB Law...but hey..it sounds sciency so you believe it...and even if you go and do the water experiment, and see that the temperature is less than the warmer of the two...you will still believe what you are told to believe...because you are a useful idiot...such people are necessary if you want to promote pseudoscience...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> The quality of the Sun's radiation is such that it could heat the Earth to 5000C if perfectly insulated. Likewise, the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond.
> 
> The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.
> 
> Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.



The universities in question identified those graphs as basic descriptions of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect...if you start with bullshit and a thermodynamic impossibility, you can't then create a model complicated enough to make that thermodynamic impossibility reality..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.
> ...




The models don't characterize climate as the surface temperature...the surface radiation was only one of the thermal inputs...the more you talk...the more evident it becomes that you really don't have a clue...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.
> ...


I think energy in/out is what really matters. If temperature is changing slower than energy I/O might indicate, it may give a hint of latent problems. What I was saying is that energy measurement uses different instruments. The problem is do we have historical data that can give those energy changes?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



As I said before, the graphs are a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation as an approximation of the GHE. What I was referring to as a stupid misinterpretation is you coming up with a computation of the temperature of -18C that would be the temperature of the earth if there were no GHG. You thought it of paramount importance when it actually has nothing to do with the GHE.

.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I think energy in/out is what really matters. If temperature is changing slower than energy I/O might indicate, it may give a hint of latent problems. What I was saying is that energy measurement uses different instruments. The problem is do we have historical data that can give those energy changes?



Do we really need "historical data"?  Interesting.  We have a radiative profile of the earth only since we have satellites measuring radiation, of course, and an undiluted input of the sun's radiation, too.  Whatever the historical data were, that alone should (satellite measurement continuing) give us a pretty clear idea what kind of excess energy the earth is absorbing.  The only thing left to do is to examine the consequences, namely, which parts of the earth are heating up, and by how much.  Since more than 90% of the excess energy is stored in the oceans anyway, I don't know what the problem is, frankly.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Some, seemingly, can't read.  The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:
> 
> Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
> enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
> ...


As you were reading what is "right there in the text" you missed the boat.
Right at the start the author of this page got the 1370 W/m^2 solar radiation down to 239.7 because he spread it out over the entire surface of the sphere:
_Solar radiation incident on the Earth's disk (1370 Watts per square meter) --comparable to energy incident a flat, horizontal surface when the sun is directly overhead on a clear day. _
_We need to multiply the incoming solar energy by the factor 1/4--the  _
_ratio of the area of the earth's disk (pi R2) to the Earth's surface area (4 pi R2)-- You can think of this as spreading out the incident solar radiation uniformly over the earth's surface (the night side of the earth as well as the day side) 1370 / 4 = *342.5 *watts per square meter. _
And after that he reduced it even more to the final number, 239.7 W/m^2  with a .7 albedo .
Next thing this idiot does is using the StB equation to backtrack this to an "effective" temperature of -18 C. Then realizing his "effective" temperature idiocy he noticed that he was quite a few Watts short of playing with a full deck of cards. No matter he makes up that monumental shortfall  using the earth atmosphere like some sort of slush fund:
_This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere.  It would be awfully cold!_
At this point he failed his own reality check:
_In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F)._
And then makes the brilliant deduction the 33 deg K he could not account for must be on deposit under "greenhouse gas effect"
_This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect_.
If that`s an indication how dumbed down it got at universities that are supposed to teach science then I no longer wonder why they turn out nothing but zombies.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I think energy in/out is what really matters. If temperature is changing slower than energy I/O might indicate, it may give a hint of latent problems. What I was saying is that energy measurement uses different instruments. The problem is do we have historical data that can give those energy changes?
> ...


I suppose there may be enough history going back a few decades. I would be surprised if total energy imbalance is not already available. Maybe not easily available to the public. People would not be interested in reading headlines such as "The earth has received a record number of petaJoules this year"


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I suppose there may be enough history going back a few decades. I would be surprised if total energy imbalance is not already available. Maybe not easily available to the public. People would not be interested in reading headlines such as "The earth has received a record number of petaJoules this year"



The imbalance is actually available.

*Earth's energy imbalance*
If the incoming energy flux is not equal to the outgoing energy flux, the result is an energy imbalance, that amounts to net heat added to or lost by the planet (if the incoming flux is larger or smaller than the outgoing respectively). Earth's energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats have detected an accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC). *The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 to be 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m².[12] Later research estimated the surface energy imbalance to be 0.60 ± 0.17 W/m².[13]*​
It seems, there's just over three decades of satellite measurements available.

*Measurement*
Several satellites indirectly measure the energy absorbed and radiated by Earth and by inference the energy imbalance. The NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) project involves three such satellites: *the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), launched October 1984; NOAA-9, launched December 1984; and NOAA-10, launched September 1986.[14]*

Today NASA's satellite instruments, provided by CERES, part of the NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS), are designed to measure both solar-reflected and Earth-emitted radiation.[15]​


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose there may be enough history going back a few decades. I would be surprised if total energy imbalance is not already available. Maybe not easily available to the public. People would not be interested in reading headlines such as "The earth has received a record number of petaJoules this year"
> ...


That is very interesting. It puts quite a different slant on displaying trends. GW assessment by looking at temperature rise requires a decade to see a trend given by a slope. 

Energy imbalance can show a trend with only one years of data given by a single value. A graph would show a flat line above zero if the GHG's rise linearly per year. I haven't looked, but it would be interesting to find a satellite energy imbalance graph over the 3 decades and see the correlation with the temperature history. I'm sure that is available somewhere too.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



And when you start with a basic model that doesn't describe anything approaching reality...you can't make it complicated enough to make it true...the model of the GHE is flawed at its very foundation...no amount of complication can make that correct...when you have two radiators, using the SB Law, you don't add their output together to find a combined radiating temperature..you subtract them so that you can predict the actual radiating temperature of the two radiators which will ALWAYS be somewhere between the temperature of either...NEVER greater than the temperature of either...

And that -18 is the radiating temperature of 239.7wm2....the first graphic...the one with two arrows...a black one pointing down...a blue one pointing up is the climate science model of the earth with no atmosphere....and it says incoming solar and outgoing IR give you a radiating temperature of -18...then in the next graphic..the one with red arrows, they add in radiation from the atmosphere...and then they ADD the radiation leaving the surface of the earth to the radiation from the atmosphere and end up with a temperature 48 degrees higher than either...that is not a description of reality....and no amount of complication can ever make it reality..  That graphic describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect and it is completely wrong...if you have a radiator radiating at 20 degrees and a radiator radiating at 10 degrees their radiating temperature together will be somewhere between 20 degrees and 10 degrees...never any number higher than either...no matter what the radiators are...it is not possible to end up with a radiating temperature higher than either...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Some, seemingly, can't read.  The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:
> ...



Don't forget...that they state clearly that they are using the Stefan Boltzman equation...and they ADD the two radiation outputs together...when the SB Law clearly states that when you have two radiators, you subtract the two....and then calculate the radiating temperature based on the difference between the two...not the sum of the two....The SB law when you have two radiators looks like this.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ..you don't add.

When the fundamental model is this wacked out...you can't make it complicated enough to bring it back to reality...and no power on earth will make that thermodynamic impossibility of two radiators emitting at 239.7 wm2 (which isn't reality itself) to combine to result in a radiating temperature of 303K or 29 degrees...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

It sure is interesting...and entertaining to watch you two yahoos stroke each other's egos and tell each other how smart you are when you couldn't...and still can't grasp what that simple graph was saying....I laugh all day over the sheer stupidity...so smile, you are bringing sunshine into someone's world...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> That is very interesting. It puts quite a different slant on displaying trends. GW assessment by looking at temperature rise requires a decade to see a trend given by a slope.
> 
> Energy imbalance can show a trend with only one years of data given by a single value. A graph would show a flat line above zero if the GHG's rise linearly per year. I haven't looked, but it would be interesting to find a satellite energy imbalance graph over the 3 decades and see the correlation with the temperature history. I'm sure that is available somewhere too.



Ah, I see how my overly simplistic depiction might have given rise to your assumptions.  However, things are a bit more complicated than that.

Of course, the sun's energy flux shows some inter-annual variation, as does the earth's.  That's why one year's worth of data tells us nothing.  Also, remember, the energy radiated is a function of the fourth power of temperature.  In the simplest form, the rate of radiative change then should not be a constant.  On top of that, the ENSO oscillation, that is, non-linear fluctuations in surface temperatures, along with changing cloud cover / albedo etc. add further variability, as do increasing (and variable) concentrations of GHG and their limiting impact on energy radiated to space.  And that's just the beginning, and the fact that satellites detect and measure just a small sample of the earth's emission, makes that overall energy budget a case fraught with uncertainty.  All told, thirty years of energy budget measurement may just be enough to give a reasonably certain assessment.

Yes, the graph you guessed would be "somewhere" would be interesting, but I wasn't able to find it.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That is very interesting. It puts quite a different slant on displaying trends. GW assessment by looking at temperature rise requires a decade to see a trend given by a slope.
> ...


I don't keep track of the latest news in satellite data or all the data corrections and accusations of "fraudulent manipulations" etc. .. I assumed that data from thousands of orbits per year was enough to give statistically significant results.
However in my post a while back I said:


Wuwei said:


> I agree. Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.


I assumed you proved me wrong. I read a few months ago there was a launch of a system that was supposed to be dedicated to analyzing global climate change. Hopefully that will be better at shorter term assessments.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I don't keep track of the latest news in satellite data or all the data corrections and accusations of "fraudulent manipulations" etc. .. I assumed that data from thousands of orbits per year was enough to give statistically significant results.
> 
> However in my post a while back I said:
> 
> ...



If you referred to the latest "Bates" "scandal", yeah, that was another hyperventilating Lamar Smith bust, denialism at its finest.

I didn't intend to prove you wrong so much as I tried to get a better grasp of measuring / assessing the earth's energy budget / climate change.  It would seem, though, that satellite data is rather sparse (at least it was), but more is going to be collected.  Here's an article from 2009, for starters.  Don't know what's been implemented up to now, and I am not very confident climate research will continue to be funded during the next budgets at anywhere near the current level, so all that hangs in the balance right now.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> If you referred to the latest "Bates" "scandal", yeah, that was another hyperventilating Lamar Smith bust, denialism at its finest.
> 
> I didn't intend to prove you wrong so much as I tried to get a better grasp of measuring / assessing the earth's energy budget / climate change. It would seem, though, that satellite data is rather sparse (at least it was), but more is going to be collected. Here's an article from 2009, for starters. Don't know what's been implemented up to now, and I am not very confident climate research will continue to be funded during the next budgets at anywhere near the current level, so all that hangs in the balance right now.


The cubeSat system is a nifty "Legos" idea for quick-to-launch experiments. 

The system I was thinking of is the GOES-R system (NOAA and NASA) launched a last November. It reached geosynchronous orbit and sent some hi-res pictures. They plan on having 4 geosynchronous systems for  complete coverage of weather and solar activity. 
GOES-R MISSION NOAA/NASA


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> It sure is interesting...and entertaining to watch you two yahoos stroke each other's egos and tell each other how smart you are when you couldn't...and still can't grasp what that simple graph was saying....I laugh all day over the sheer stupidity...so smile, you are bringing sunshine into someone's world...


There is no reason to be jealous! You have your own soulmates, JC, BillyBob, Frank,  Skookerasbil, et.al. I can see from your intercourse that you fondly share your science ideas as though you are all of one mind.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The cubeSat system is a nifty "Legos" idea for quick-to-launch experiments.
> 
> The system I was thinking of is the GOES-R system (NOAA and NASA) launched a last November. It reached geosynchronous orbit and sent some hi-res pictures. They plan on having 4 geosynchronous systems for complete coverage of weather and solar activity.
> GOES-R MISSION NOAA/NASA



I've looked, but didn't find anything about GOES measuring the earth's radiative flux in the mission statement.  Also, a geosynchronous orbit is ill-suited to measure that flux, as that would require as many daily measurements as possible from all directions.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> I've looked, but didn't find anything about GOES measuring the earth's radiative flux in the mission statement. Also, a geosynchronous orbit is ill-suited to measure that flux, as that would require as many daily measurements as possible from all directions.


I didn't look at it in detail. Maybe it's just for short term weather forecasting, but there was a lot of hoopla. There is supposed to eventually be a total of 4 satellites in geosynchronous orbit (if the program is not killed by present administration). I assumed there would be continual full coverage of the earth with some overlap, although, as I said, I didn't read about it in detail.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I didn't look at it in detail. Maybe it's just for short term weather forecasting, but there was a lot of hoopla. There is supposed to eventually be a total of 4 satellites in geosynchronous orbit (if the program is not killed by present administration). I assumed there would be continual full coverage of the earth with some overlap, although, as I said, I didn't read about it in detail.



To me it seems it's clear these are "just" weather and imagery satellites.  However, NASA does indeed have plans to deploy these nifty CubeSats for all kinds of observatory aims, including infrared measurements.  However, I cannot get any access to NASA's Earth Science Technology Office, or ESTO, which is supposed to develop and deploy these critters.  Can you?  Earth science technology may just have taken a hit in the U.S. of Trumpistan.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> To me it seems it's clear these are "just" weather and imagery satellites. However, NASA does indeed have plans to deploy these nifty CubeSats for all kinds of observatory aims, including infrared measurements. However, I cannot get any access to NASA's Earth Science Technology Office, or ESTO, which is supposed to develop and deploy these critters. Can you? Earth science technology may just have taken a hit in the U.S. of Trumpistan.


This is what I got.
*This site can’t be reached*
*esto.nasa.gov* took too long to respond.

I know the WH took off climate change references from whitehouse.gov.
But for NASA to take things off is very scary.
It is the modern equivalent of book burning and scientific censorship. Very scary.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> This is what I got.
> *This site can’t be reached*
> *esto.nasa.gov* took too long to respond.
> 
> ...


​Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  They may just be in the process of revamping their website.  Up to now I couldn't find any protestations about a (another) case of censorship.  On the other hand, I wouldn't put it beyond the Trumpletons to purge more than just the WH website, sparking more "And Poof, it was gone..." celebrations.  Let's look into it tomorrow.

Here's more on the Argo fleet to measure the earth's energy imbalance, with this helpful comment:

Earth's energy imbalance is thus the single most crucial measure of the status of Earth's climate and it defines expectations for future climate change.​
Happy to seem my contention supported by Mr. James "Goddard" Hansen himself.

And it would appear this fleet is either already in orbit, or is scheduled to be launched soon:

*Four CubeSats in Three Launches*

Scheduled to launch this month, RAVAN, the Radiometer Assessment using Vertically Aligned Nanotubes, is a CubeSat that will demonstrate new technology for detecting slight changes in Earth's energy budget at the top of the atmosphere - essential measurements for understanding greenhouse gas effects on climate. RAVAN is led by Bill Swartz at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland.

In spring 2017, two CubeSats are scheduled to launch to the International Space Station for a detailed look at clouds. Data from the satellites will help improve scientists' ability to study and understand clouds and their role in climate and weather.

IceCube, developed by Dong Wu at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, will use a new, miniature, high-frequency microwave radiometer to measure cloud ice. HARP, the Hyper-Angular Rainbow Polarimeter, developed by Vanderlei Martins at the University of Maryland Baltimore County in Baltimore, will measure airborne particles and the distribution of cloud droplet sizes with a new method that looks at a target from multiple perspectives.​
All three reasonably appear to be connected to the earth's energy budget, either by way of measuring IR radiation or albedo, cloud cover, etc.  All the while we're still waiting for SSDD to come to grips with the equation with which he's been struggling.


----------



## expat_panama (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> *This site can’t be reached*
> *esto.nasa.gov* took too long to respond.
> 
> I know the WH took off climate change references from whitehouse.gov.
> ...


Y'all can take the tinfoil off your heads, my isp got it w/ no prob at all:


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

expat_panama said:


> Y'all can take the tinfoil off your heads, my isp got it w/ no prob at all:



Apparently, the site could no longer be accessed via the old link because it switched from http to https.  Thanks!


----------



## IanC (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




I have often wondered whether you actually believe the tripe that you spew, or if just like to play Devil's advocate for nonsensical ideas.

The Sun radiates at a known quantity and quality, but the intensity varies according to the inverse square law (1/d^2). A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in. A simple experiment would show this. Take a large magnifying glass and concentrate sunlight on a small object. Obviously the object couldn't get hotter than the Sun because that would mean it would be sending back more radiation than it received, heating the Sun! Sunlight always carries the characteristics of its source, no matter the intensity.

Therefore any surface temperature of the Earth is possible up to a maximum of the Sun's temperature, depending on the amount of insulation.

At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources. While the atmosphere/surface can be described at least somewhat adequately by the S-B equations, the Sun/surface relationship is dominated by the inverse law. You cannot pretend that the Sun is -18C just because the energy being received is attenuated by distance.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


Exactly! The StB law for radiative heat transfer rates from warmer to colder clearly states that it is proportional to the difference of the 4th power of the 2 temperatures.
But they are doing this: (H and C denoting the 2 temperatures and "they" stands for the idiots)
H Watts/m^2 + C Watts/m^2 = σ ( H T^4 + C T^4) = H+C Watts/m^2
Then they solve for a T(combined) by taking the 4th root of H+C Watts/m^2
Which yields the absurd situation where the resulting temperature is the sum of 2 temperatures that were derived from the H number and C number of Watts/m^2.
Example: T(C)= 10 Celsius ==> 363.7 Watts/m^2 and T(H)= 15 Celsius ===> 390.1 Watts/m^2
Adding the Watts/m^2 they get 753.71 Watts/m^2 which solves for 66.5 deg Celsius.
So adding the watts/m^2 and then solving for T is totally ridiculous.
But you can get the temperature of an absorber to a higher temperature by the addition of the watts/m^2 i if you  concentrate the total number of watts/m^2 on a smaller surface.
Like this:







Or like that:


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here.  You've been informed and continue to slap the truth aside.  It's ok.  Your rat hole is yours to occupy.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

expat_panama said:


> Y'all can take the tinfoil off your heads, my isp got it w/ no prob at all:


https did the trick. Thanx, tinfoil was making my head sweaty.
I think I have a right to be paranoid these days.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in.



At the same distance as is the earth from the sun, an object perpendicular to the sun's radiation - in a vacuum, hence perfectly insulated against convection - would receive 1370W/m^2.  Radiating out that same amount of energy would, according to Stefan-Boltzmann, equate to a temperature of about 121°C.

If, on top of that, you also isolate that system against all outgoing radiation ("perfectly insulated"), it's an otherwise perfectly closed system to which you continuously add energy.  This means that this object's temperature would, if you wait long enough, reach billions and then trillions of degrees - assuming for the sake of the argument that there's an "object" capable of withstanding such temperatures.

So, no matter how I look at the above, it doesn't seem right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here.*

Simply pointing out SSDD's idiocy.


----------



## IanC (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in.
> ...




No. As my magnifying glass example pointed out, the object can only increase in temperature until it matches the Sun's temp. Otherwise it would be heating the Sun not the other way around.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why?  it wasn't him with the explanation.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> No. As my magnifying glass example pointed out, the object can only increase in temperature until it matches the Sun's temp. Otherwise it would be heating the Sun not the other way around.



Sadly, your "proof" also makes no sense.  The temperature in the object in the focus of the magnifying glass is a function of incoming flux and the ratio of concentration.  Imagine an earth-size magnifying glass squeezing the sun's flux into a square inch.  You can plug the resulting flux into Stefan-Boltzmann, and do the calculation yourself.  I guarantee the resulting temperature is higher than the sun's surface.  Moreover, every bit of radiation absorbed by the sun, even the earth's light, transfers energy and thus "warms" the sun, just a tiny bit.  

Every normal physical object radiates, and in all directions, and not just "upwards".  In the example, the whole flux received by the earth concentrated on that small, square-inch object would constitute a far bigger energy flux than the tiny slice of energy radiated from that object into the direction of the sun.  Think about it, Ian, you'll figure it out.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Deliberately obtuse...not very bright...or simply trying to complicate to the point that the original point is lost?  Which is it...the discussion is about the simple models describing the greenhouse effect...go back and look at them if you have something pertinent to say..and if you can get through the smoke screen that goes on for pages after the warmers realized they were wrong..feel free to look at my posts...and the graphic....and by all means, if you think I missed something or got something wrong ON THE GRAPHICS..then point it out...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It is all he has...his statements bear no resemblance to the point...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> expat_panama said:
> 
> 
> > Y'all can take the tinfoil off your heads, my isp got it w/ no prob at all:
> ...


Interesting discussion of aerosols and GHG's, but there wasn't anything in the way of error bars in the data. I guess the imbalance energy they gave at the site are what Trenberth has at  the bottom of his diagram. I knew subtraction of all those large uncertain numbers could not get something that small with any meaning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He explained that the incoming radiation from the Sun....

_ "that -18 is the radiating temperature of 239.7wm2"_

means that radiator (the Sun) has a temperature of -18c .
He also claimed that doubling that incoming radiation can't heat something above -18C


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no, he never claimed that.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> No. As my magnifying glass example pointed out, the object can only increase in temperature until it matches the Sun's temp. Otherwise it would be heating the Sun not the other way around.


That's right. I think it is Liouville’s theorem in optics that proves that there are constraints on energy bundles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He did, several times.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


where?  If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it.  but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Sadly, your "proof" also makes no sense.  The temperature in the object in the focus of the magnifying glass is a function of incoming flux and the ratio of concentration.  Imagine an earth-size magnifying glass squeezing the sun's flux into a square inch.  You can plug the resulting flux into Stefan-Boltzmann, and do the calculation yourself.  I guarantee the resulting temperature is higher than the sun's surface.  Moreover, every bit of radiation absorbed by the sun, even the earth's light, transfers energy and thus "warms" the sun, just a tiny bit.



Why yes, you can plug that into the Stefan Boltzman equation...well maybe you can't...but luckily some of us can...the incoming radiation from the sun is actually 1370wm2......reduce that from a square foot, to a square inch...and that square inch will have a radiating temperature of 2473.8K...or 2200 C...or less than half the temperature of the surface of the sun...you seem to live on magic where you can magically increase temperatures just because you wish it so....


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No. As my magnifying glass example pointed out, the object can only increase in temperature until it matches the Sun's temp. Otherwise it would be heating the Sun not the other way around.
> ...


A magnifying glass of any size would just create an image of the object. The ratio of the focal length to the lens diameter (f-stop) gives the image size and thus the energy density. There are physical limits to the f-stop.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Here's one example in post #257
_
?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees_

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it isn't his claim.  let me know when you learn how to read. and again, I gave you the old socks post where it came from and you ignored it. so again, you're still in your rat hole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it.* 

Where did a university state that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

Maybe you didn't know how to read?
*
the link to the university was given and their statements.*

The -18C radiating down was strictly SSDD's statement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That wasn't his claim in his own words in his own post? That's funny!

When you find those words in a university link, be sure to get back to me.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no, no it wasn't still in your hole I see.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope, not at all. not his claim at all. rat hole


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Interesting discussion of aerosols and GHG's, but there wasn't anything in the way of error bars in the data. I guess the imbalance energy they gave at the site are what Trenberth has at the bottom of his diagram. I knew subtraction of all those large uncertain numbers could not get something that small with any meaning.



No clue to which discussion you're referring, really.  The imbalance, as best I can tell, was assessed at 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m², later revised to +0.60 ± 0.17 W/m².  That would be the incoming radiation, minus the outgoing radiation, measured during a deep solar minimum (2005 - 2010).  What's your problem with it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K*


*Lets hear it genius...what does it say?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees.....see the 303K at the end...that is their radiating temperature according to that equation...303K is about 29 degrees....*

*So once again....explained to you in basic detail....if that isn't what it says...then by all means...lets here what you think it says...*

DERP.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> No clue to which discussion you're referring, really. The imbalance, as best I can tell, was assessed at 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m², later revised to +0.60 ± 0.17 W/m². That would be the incoming radiation, minus the outgoing radiation, measured during a deep solar minimum (2005 - 2010). What's your problem with it?


OK. I probably was looking at something else. Your figures for imbalance look statistically significant.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> A magnifying glass of any size would just create an image of the object. The ratio of the focal length to the lens diameter (f-stop) gives the image size and thus the energy density. There are physical limits to the f-stop.



Point taken.  Let's not get into the weeds, shall we?  If I place the magnifying glass just a few meters from the sun, and concentrate the energy flux by a factor of four, or ten, the resulting temperature of the object in the focal point would still be hotter than the sun.  So, Ian's "proof" makes no sense, just as the original thesis that an object here on earth, in a vacuum and thus insulated against convection, could be heated up to the temperature of the sun (radiation in equal to radiation out).  That makes no sense - and I frankly admit that a few meters from the sun the magnifying glass would evaporate first, not to mention the human holding it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Tell me toddster...are you really this stupid...or do you just like to appear stupid?

That the sun is radiating down at -18C is not my claim...it is the claim being made by climate science....how many times do you need to be told that....or if there is no amount of times that will be enough for you to grasp that very basic fact, just say so...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The abject stupidity is amazing...isn't it?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Geez guy...is there any limit to how stupid you can be?  How many times must this basic fact be explained to you...  Once again...there is the graphic...see where it says that the radiation incoming from the sun...that's the black arrow pointing down is 239.7wm2?  Their claim...not mine...and since you clearly can't work it out for yourself...radiation at 239.7wm2 works out to 255K or about -18 degrees...the same -18 degrees that they show radiating up from the surface of the earth..  It isn't possible to explain it in more simple terms...if you can't get that...then you are way less intelligent than I thought...and I have always thought that you were a borderline cretin....


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yep, that's what the university claimed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*That the sun is radiating down at -18C is not my claim...it is the claim being made by climate science*

It should be easy for you to provide a "climate science source" that says the sun is radiating down at -18C.

*....how many times do you need to be told that*

I only need a single source that claims that. Besides you.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Rat hole, and no class


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




*Once again...there is the graphic...see where it says that the radiation incoming from the sun...that's the black arrow pointing down is 239.7wm2? Their claim...not mine...*

You bet. Their claim.
*
...radiation at 239.7wm2 works out to 255K or about -18 degrees*

Nope. They never claim that the Sun's incoming radiation means the Sun is radiating at -18C.
They do claim that for the Earth to radiate that much energy from the surface, with no atmosphere, would require an Earth surface temperature of -18C.

You understand the Earth's surface and the Sun's surface are different, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



But enough about you.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you admit that you are incapable of plugging a number into the SB equation which you have claimed to know so much about and determine a radiating temperature..thought so....

As to the source...the graphics I provided,  came from the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard...and they all showed the same thing....and I already provided a source...the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington...

*



			Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
		
Click to expand...

*


> *                                    239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4*
> 
> To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result.  Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (*-18 °C*, 0 °F):
> 
> *                        T = 255 K*




So what's your next lie?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It should be easy for you to provide a "climate science source" that says the sun is radiating down at -18C.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I just did you moron...are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources?  If the atmospheric science departments of respected universities who are teaching the topic aren't sources...what exactly is?....exactly how deep is your denial?


----------



## Crick (Feb 15, 2017)

How deep is your inability to comprehend a diagram like that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources?* 

They are all good sources. None of them said the Sun is radiating down at -18C.
None said the Sun is radiating 239.7 W/m2.

*exactly how deep is your denial?*

I would never deny your failure to prove your claims.


----------



## IanC (Feb 15, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No. As my magnifying glass example pointed out, the object can only increase in temperature until it matches the Sun's temp. Otherwise it would be heating the Sun not the other way around.
> ...



Hahahaha. The irony is delightful. You are saying that a cool object can make a warm object warmer! 

Have you actually given this any thought?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. The irony is delightful. You are saying that a cool object can make a warm object warmer!
> 
> Have you actually given this any thought?



Heavens, why is that so difficult?  

Every object radiates.  Radiation is energy transfer.  If that radiation coming from one object hits another object, and is being absorbed, the energy is transformed in warmth.  That remains true even though the net energy transfer might run into the other direction.

That's fairly straightforward, and still, none of the denialists I have seen understands it.  Hence they don't understand back radiation, hence they don't understand the greenhouse effect, hence they're at a loss explaining why the moon (no atmosphere, no GHG) is significantly colder than the earth.

But I see them snickering a lot - however inadvertently - at the countless demonstrations of their own ignorance.  Tell me you don't count amongst this lot.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Crick said:


> How deep is your inability to comprehend a diagram like that?



I understand it perfectly...and ran my understanding by a MSc in applied mathematics...and was right in my understanding of what the graphics were stating...you, on the other hand don't have a clue...you couldn't even identify the graphics as basic models of the greenhouse effect...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Well that's precisely what the graphic model of the greenhouse effect that this whole thing is about is stating....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> [
> 
> That's fairly straightforward, and still, none of the denialists I have seen understands it.



It isn't that we don't understand what you are saying...its that we know it is bullshit...you on the other hand have swallowed it hook line and sinker..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> That's fairly straightforward, and still, none of the denialists I have seen understands it.



We understand what you are saying perfectly...we also recognize bullshit when we see it.



Olde Europe said:


> But I see them snickering a lot - however inadvertently - at the countless demonstrations of their own ignorance.  Tell me you don't count amongst this lot.



Yes...we snicker a lot because you guys and your ignorance are just too funny...like your lecture above to ian about how you can point a magnifying glass at something and raise its temperature higher than the surface of the sun...hell you even told him that he could plug it into the SB equation...which was true...but alas, you don't know how so rather than speak from a position of knowledge, you spoke from a position of faith...and were dead wrong...According to the SB law, the most you could raise the temperature of anything with your magnifying glass would be 2200 degrees...less than half the temperature of the sun....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources?*
> 
> They are all good sources. None of them said the Sun is radiating down at -18C.
> None said the Sun is radiating 239.7 W/m2.



I will never understand how you think being stupid is cute....  See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting...which I suppose is the whole point of your stupidity...it does say that the radiation from the sun that is striking the surface of the earth and being absorbed at  239.7wm2...which when run through the SB equation equals 255k...or -18 degrees...  so deny on garth...and be just as stupid as you can....since apparently you aren't capable of much else...


----------



## Crick (Feb 16, 2017)

Dear Shit (Same Shit Different Day is just too long),

Your rant only works if we assume your utter nonsense regarding radiation and CO2.  You might want to back up and see if you can convince someone here (Billy Bob, the "Physicist" seems a good candidate) that cold matter cannot radiate to warmer matter and/or that CO2 has no warming effect or that it even has a cooling effect, in the atmosphere.  Once you've established those points, you'll make much more headway convincing everyone here that the Earth is actually a snowball that we simply cannot see.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources?*
> ...



*See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting.*

When you said the Sun was radiating 239.7W/m2, you were wrong. Got it. Moron.

*...it does say that the radiation from the sun that is striking the surface of the earth and being absorbed at  239.7wm2...*

Radiation that reaches the surface is different than that radiated by the Sun, as you first claimed. Got it. Moron.

*which when run through the SB equation equals 255k...or -18 degrees...*

Yes, the Earth's surface, not the Sun. Got it. Moron.

You've come a long way in this post. Congrats.

Next step, if the surface is -18C with only the Sun's radiation, is it possible that hitting the surface with additional radiation will raise the surface temperature above -18C?

Think carefully. Maybe you can ask the person who pulled your head out of your ass and finally explained your previous errors on this thread?

Be sure to get back to me.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope, they claim the incoming radiation from the sun is 239.7 wm2.  Period.  next. You even agreed with your first response!  you a goofy fella who loves rat holes.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why?  he is showing you the ridiculous teachings of those climate sourced  Universities.  So, you want more details provide the correct values the universities missed on their graphs.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


do you know what this image represents?





So curious, do you believe the baffles make the object their cooling hotter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why, should they?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


they're radiating right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Is that all they're doing?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


they're radiating correct?  which direction are they radiating? are they cooler than the object?  do they radiate at the object.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting.*
> 
> When you said the Sun was radiating 239.7W/m2, you were wrong. Got it. Moron.



Sorry...I thought you were bright enough to realize that the greenhouse effect is about energy being absorbed by the earth and not the radiation emitting from the surface of the sun....turns out that you are every bit the moron I thought you were...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Radiation that reaches the surface is different than that radiated by the Sun, as you first claimed. Got it. Moron.



You really think being that stupid and dishonest is cute?...geez you get stupider all the time...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting.*
> ...


don't you just love his art of dragging threads into a rat hole?  he is a clever rat.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He isn't clever...he is immature...and just plain stupid....his arguments stink of preadolescence.....and in all the time I have been here, I don't think I have ever seen him actually defend an idea.....juvenile one liners is about all he is capable of and the really sad thing is that apparently he thinks it makes him cute....again, just like a child doing something stupid thinks it is being cute...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting.*
> ...


*
Sorry...I thought you were bright enough to realize that the greenhouse effect is about energy being absorbed by the earth and not the radiation emitting from the surface of the sun....*

So why do you claim the radiator was -18C?

You know, you said two radiators at -18C can't warm something above -18C.
Which two radiators did you mean?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Did you ever defend your idea that photons from the cooler surface of the Sun can't move toward the hotter corona?
It seems like you're avoiding the topic. I know why. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
they're radiating correct?*

They are radiating. What else are they doing to shed heat?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


exactly, he promotes his style for everyone but him to ever produce any link.  I don't think I can remember a link from him. Basically, just his one liners.  like,...'sure it is show me' type of replies.  It's hilarious his rat hole.  It must be very large.  especially in this thread, old socks clearly posted the university images, and he ignored it is all I guess.  then the one liners back and forth that got us absolutely nowhere, his rat hole.  funny stuff.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Simple....I thought you were smart enough to grasp the meaning of what I was saying...no one else was as far behind the curve as you...my apologies...I gave your intelligence more credit than it deserved...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


tell me


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Of course I did...sorry that you didn't like the explanation....


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


again, as I posted before, show us them moving spontaneously, post that link you reference.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I thought you were smart enough to grasp the meaning of what I was saying*

You said two radiators were radiating at -18C.
What two radiators did you mean?
Spell it out, for the rest of the class.......

*...no one else was as far behind the curve as you..*

I've been pointing out your errors, so you're further behind.
JC has less of a clue than you, so he's even further behind.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



that's why I keep him on ignore most of the time...if he ever had anything to actually say I might talk to him more often...I have grandchildren who can bore me with why?why?why? to the point of exhaustion which is OK because I love them...toddster...he is just a juvenile who I don't really give a shit about....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The metal is conducting heat away. That's why they use metal in heat sinks.
Does a better job than just radiating.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You said something about work, but as you know, there is no fusion at the surface.
So how does work, thousands of miles away allow photons to travel toward hotter matter?
Spell out your theory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Do your grandchildren also poke holes in your claims? LOL!


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2017)

The concept of the S-B law is simple, but the actual calculation is complex.

For example, take a rectangular room with a lamp in it. The spot(s) on the wall closest to the lamp, at right angles, gets the most illumination. All other spots get less, they vary by distance and angle. This does not change the lamp or its output. Likewise the Sun is not changed by our distance from it, but the amount of radiation we receive is. The angle is also important. The poles receive less than the equator.

You cannot derive the temperature of a radiating object by the amount you are receiving, only by the type of radiation you are receiving.


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2017)

Some people think you can raise the temperature of a small object to hotter than the Sun by concentrating sunlight via some mixture of mirrors or magnifying glasses. This is wrong. Right next to the Sun's surface is the strongest intensity possible, therefore the hottest temperature. The Sun's radiation at its surface is also diffuse, therefore no magnification is possible. Mirrors go in both directions therefore as the smaller object approaches the Sun's temperature it is radiating almost as much as it is receiving. 

Hopefully that clears that topic out.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> Some people think you can raise the temperature of a small object to hotter than the Sun by concentrating sunlight via some mixture of mirrors or magnifying glasses. This is wrong. Right next to the Sun's surface is the strongest intensity possible, therefore the hottest temperature. The Sun's radiation at its surface is also diffuse, therefore no magnification is possible. Mirrors go in both directions therefore as the smaller object approaches the Sun's temperature it is radiating almost as much as it is receiving.
> 
> Hopefully that clears that topic out.



Point taken.

What do you make of this?



IanC said:


> The Sun radiates at a known quantity and quality, but the *intensity varies according to the inverse square law* (1/d^2). A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun *would warm up to the temperature of the Sun* at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


good thing I can follow a thread discussion unlike you! so you sir fall farthest from the clue!

I see you are still posting from your rat hole.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


but that wasn't my question to you sherlock.  It was is it radiating? It's just a simple yes or no question.  Not an open ended one.  Is it?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


actually SSDD stated the universities showed two radiators in their drawing.  I see you continue to misrepresent that. How unusual from a guy like you?


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Some people think you can raise the temperature of a small object to hotter than the Sun by concentrating sunlight via some mixture of mirrors or magnifying glasses. This is wrong. Right next to the Sun's surface is the strongest intensity possible, therefore the hottest temperature. The Sun's radiation at its surface is also diffuse, therefore no magnification is possible. Mirrors go in both directions therefore as the smaller object approaches the Sun's temperature it is radiating almost as much as it is receiving.
> ...




Are you questioning the perfect insulation, or the line of sight?

It is an obviously nonrealistic scenario with two objects tethered with a single vector. Radiation can only be passed back and forth along that vector, hence it will come to equilibrium at the same temperature.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> Are you questioning the perfect insulation, or the line of sight?
> 
> It is an obviously nonrealistic scenario with two objects tethered with a single vector. Radiation can only be passed back and forth along that vector, hence it will come to equilibrium at the same temperature.



I am questioning the whole argument.

At the distance of the earth, radiative flux would be 1370W/m².  That equal radiation out would not match the temperature of the sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It was is it radiating?*

I already said it was. Are you having reading issues again?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


ok, I missed it then.  thanks.  BTW since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?

And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?  To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



actually SSDD stated the universities showed two radiators in their drawing

He said the 2 sources of downward radiation were both at -18C.
The university didn't say that.
He also said 2 radiators at -18C can't heat the Earth any warmer than -18C.
The University didn't say that.

FYI, there are 3 radiators in the drawing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*since you agree it is radiating, is it making the object warmer?*

Warmer than what?
*
And what do you supposed is the purpose of the heat sink?* 

To remove heat.

*To slow the heat off the object or to get rid of heat as quickly as it can.*

To get rid of heat as quickly as it can


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so, finally getting somewhere,  thank you.  Ok, so you asked warmer than what.  who knows, the object is to cool it not slow the rate of emittance off the object.

The device acts like our atmoshpere is supposed to.  The atmosphere is the surface's heat sink.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The heat sink makes the object cooler, not warmer. And?


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Are you questioning the perfect insulation, or the line of sight?
> ...




the theoretical maximum temperature of any object being warmed by the Sun is the temperature of the Sun. it will obviously be lower because of losses in the system. people here have complained that the surface cannot be radiating at a temperature higher than the incoming solar insulation. I say it can, because of conditions that retain energy within the earth system. reality supports this. the energy to do this comes from the energy not lost immediately to space. the surface does receive more incoming radiation from the atmosphere than the sun but the original source of that energy is the sun.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so, if the atmosphere acts as a heat sink, it cools the earth surface, not warm it.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 16, 2017)

Hi IanC
Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
_"At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources."_
"Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
Why do you think it`s necessary to do this addition?
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.
It seems that everybody goes down that path, adding watts/m^2 because they think that they can use the sum after that to conveniently solve for temperature.
But that is a pitfall,not a valid shortcut. The only way to get the temperature is to use the StB equation with the 2 temperatures as it is written and then specify the time and the mass & specific heat while allowing for the changes of T1 and T2 during the specified time interval.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You aren't going to confuse a metal heat sink that cools mostly by conduction with our atmosphere, are you?
You know that the metal fins on your heat sink send photons in all directions, even back toward the hot object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Hi IanC
> Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
> _"At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources."_
> "Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
> ...


*
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.*

Lessen the heat loss by causing the warmer body to "dial down radiation emitted"?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so are you saying the surface and the atmosphere don't touch?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No.
Are you saying the fins don't radiate back to the source?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sort of goes against the objective of cooling the object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yup. Sometimes physics works against you.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


are you saying there isn't conduction going on in our atmosphere?  wow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nope. Never said that. Not even once.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


maybe you will find a time when that happens. but for now, I'm good. heat sink cools and the surface is cooled by the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_*You aren't going to confuse a metal heat sink that cools mostly by conduction with our atmosphere, are you*_

dude you said it right here!!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And the atmosphere radiates, even back toward the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure it does.  If you haven't noticed, I don't go with that one.  So, what you gonna do?  And BTW, the atmosphere is a heat sink.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



But the radiation from one is invisible to the atmosphere....the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere directly...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You aren't confusing one thing, a metal heat sink that cools mostly by conduction, compared to something that is completely different than a metal heat sink, our atmosphere, are you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*If you haven't noticed, I don't go with that one.*

Yes, I've noticed your problem with basic physics.

*And BTW, the atmosphere is a heat sink.*

Are you under the impression that heat sinks don't radiate?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope not at all.  Are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't touch the surface and that the atmosphere is warmer than the surface?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not at all, I bet they are quite hot, since it is their purpose.

So now you're at the part where you think the heat sink, the device to cool an object warms up the object.  excuse me while I chuckle at you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



One arrow is the Sun radiating to the surface. One arrow is the surface radiating to the atmosphere.
And, of course, the atmosphere radiates toward the surface and toward space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't touch the surface*

Why would I say something like that? Of course it touches the surface.

*and that the atmosphere is warmer than the surface?*

Are you talking about the surface of the Earth or the surface of the heat sink from your diagram?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the surface of the earth since I was discussing the atmosphere.  you really do have a hard time following along.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




*So now you're at the part where you think the heat sink, the device to cool an object warms up the object.* 

Are you at the part where you think the heat sink refuses to radiate toward the hotter object?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
was that arrow pointing to the sky present in that document?*

Yes.
*
the surface of the earth since I was discussing the atmosphere.* 

Sometimes the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, sometimes cooler, sometimes the temperatures are the same.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it does?  show me.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


when is it cooler than the atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Rare temperature inversions...usually when warm air masses move over ice or snow...


----------



## Crick (Feb 17, 2017)

So, Same Shit, are you saying there is no greenhouse effect?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> the theoretical maximum temperature of any object being warmed by the Sun is the temperature of the Sun.



Seemingly, if I am following your reasoning correctly, it makes no difference if that object is 100 meters, 100 million kilometers, or a billion light years away.  If that's the case, and the earth sure receives energy from from a few billion stars every second and from all directions, and is surrounded and perfectly isolated by a vacuum, why aren't we at 5000°C surface temperature?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I think Crick has a point about reading too much into SSDD. SSDD isn't that smart. I can see your point. SSDD said,,
> 
> _And again...if you build a model that is flawed when it is stripped down to its bones...no amount of fleshing out is going to make it a valid model..._​
> But that was 355 posts into this thread, and I see that as an afterthought.
> ...



I've moved that text of yours over to the appropriate thread, since here's where that "the model is flawed" action originated, hoping you won't mind.

I've made up my mind about SSDD, and he isn't debating, or rather, he's behaving as a parasite to debate, taking advantage of features of debate while contributing nothing but slander, smear, falsehoods, and pseudo-reasoning.  That said, there is nothing left to do other than pointing out ignorance, or spurious reasoning, as the case may be, so as to have the record corrected.

What's the benefit?  Of course, the simplified model (with GHG atmosphere) deviates in many respects from reality, as it captures just one or two basic mechanisms.  The difference between "adding more complexity" to save that basic model (along with its flaws) or the ones built on it, and embedding that basic mechanism (back radiation) into a more complex model (closer to reality), should be immediately obvious by now, and the flaws of the simplistic model are not to be found in the more complex ones.  That's what I thought was worth pointing out, SSDD's crowing notwithstanding.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> I've moved that text of yours over to the appropriate thread, since here's where that "the model is flawed" action originated, hoping you won't mind.


Don't mind. He cross-posted the same thing in 3 different threads.


Olde Europe said:


> I've made up my mind about SSDD, and he isn't debating, or rather, he's behaving as a parasite to debate, taking advantage of features of debate while contributing nothing but slander, smear, falsehoods, and pseudo-reasoning. That said, there is nothing left to do other than pointing out ignorance, or spurious reasoning, as the case may be, so as to have the record corrected.


Yes, I think there is no question that SSDD is just a troll. I know that I along with others have been guilty of feeding the troll. The problem is that he along with his admirers, are wallowing in invectives. The huge bulk of their intense rantings on the "stupidity" of those that don't agree with him may give the impression to others, less involved in the climate question, that he knows what he is talking about. 

So, I think his intense ranting is not aimed at the more science savvy. His intended audience is his bootlicking minions and newcomers that may be on the fence about the climate issues. 


.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I think Crick has a point about reading too much into SSDD. SSDD isn't that smart. I can see your point. SSDD said,,
> ...


ahhh isn't that a sweet a post. he asks a question and you go to the mud.  hmmmmm.  So is the image correct or not.  It's a simple question.  why are you avoiding an answer?  that isn't considered debate at all, and neither is name calling.  that merely shows you're weak.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > I've moved that text of yours over to the appropriate thread, since here's where that "the model is flawed" action originated, hoping you won't mind.
> ...


so you won't comment on the image?


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the theoretical maximum temperature of any object being warmed by the Sun is the temperature of the Sun.
> ...




????

Because we are not in a perfect insulator. Almost the exact opposite for the Earth as a whole, with space as a limitless depository for radiation expelled, never to return. The Earth's surface has some insulation, the atmosphere, which does return part of the radiation, hence a warmer surface temperature. The more insulation, the warmer the surface temperature, but the theoretical maximum is the temperature of the heat source. Which of course could never be attained due to entropy.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> Because we are not in a perfect insulator. Almost the exact opposite for the Earth as a whole, with space as a limitless depository for radiation expelled, never to return.



Yeah, but ...



IanC said:


> The Sun radiates at a known quantity and quality, but the intensity varies according to the inverse square law (1/d^2). *A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in.*



... you spoke of a "perfectly insulated object" that radiates out as much as it takes in.

You also said, the theoretical limit would be the temperature of the sun because otherwise that object would warm the sun, again, hinting there's outgoing radiation.

So, again, Ian, how does any of that make sense?


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Because we are not in a perfect insulator. Almost the exact opposite for the Earth as a whole, with space as a limitless depository for radiation expelled, never to return.
> ...




Now you're just talking like SSDD. If you can't separate out one separate mechanism from the background and follow it to a logical conclusion then how are you going to have any understanding of a complex system? Newton's laws are at best incomplete, with no physical examples to prove them. Does that make them less useful? Can you jump from understanding nothing to understanding all without intermediary steps?


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2017)

Crick said:


> So, Same Shit, are you saying there is no greenhouse effect?




You ignore and talk past SSDD. Is it any wonder that he does the same to you?

He looks at the problem from a different angle than you. He sees CO2 as a radiator at the top of the atmosphere, you see it as an absorber at the bottom. You both refuse to consider the other's point of view.

He sees the mass of the atmosphere as the main determinant of temperature at the surface, you dismiss because you say it does no work.

I try to integrate all of those factors and more. Which is why I think both of you are fools. Hahahaha

Personally I appreciate SSDD more because he thinks for himself and you just repeat other's thoughts with no understanding.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> If you can't separate out one separate mechanism from the background and follow it to a logical conclusion then how are you going to have any understanding of a complex system?



I am just trying to understand where you are heading with your argument.  You claimed that the sun can heat an object (at whatever distance) to the surface temperature of the sun, at which point radiative equilibrium would be achieved, while that object's radiation is also prevented from getting out of that object's system.  That's not a "complex system", that is an obvious self-contradiction, for you can either theoretically create a system that doesn't allow radiation to escape, or one that heads for a radiative equilibrium, meaning radiation escapes, but not both at the same time.  Now I am just waiting for you to see it, and either amend your initial wording, which would be interesting, or to leave it there, and move on.


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't separate out one separate mechanism from the background and follow it to a logical conclusion then how are you going to have any understanding of a complex system?
> ...




Have you studied how Blackbody Radiation was first examined? A container was heated to various temperatures, a small port was opened and the radiation was measured.

My thought experiment runs in the other direction. A perfectly insulated object collects sunlight along a single vector and warms until the source and the object come to equilibrium. There is no loss via 1/d^2, only the characteristics of the radiation from the source. 

I am stripping the example down to one process. It is unrealistic, no perfect insulator is possible, no perfect emissivity is possible. So what?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> My thought experiment runs in the other direction. A perfectly insulated object collects sunlight along a single vector and warms until the source and the object come to equilibrium. There is no loss via 1/d^2, only the characteristics of the radiation from the source.



Now I sense we're getting somewhere, and maybe we all learn something about radiation.

So, we have an object that is so perfectly insulated that neither by way of convection nor radiation any energy can escape, receiving the full impact of the sun's undiluted surface radiation - not subject to the 1/d² law - meaning it is in close proximity to the sun.  The insulation lets all radiation in, but none out.

I agree, that object would at one point reach the temperature of the sun.  

What happens next?  After all no radiation escapes nor any energy otherwise, but the sun still radiates into that object, meaning that the energy content of that object still rises.  Shouldn't that object's temperature rise even above the sun's surface temperature?


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2017)

I sense we are getting nowhere if you still think the object can get hotter. Temperature of a blackbody is derived by the quality of its radiation, not its intensity.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2017)

I'm not sure what kind of object you are talking about. If it's totally insulating, then its emissivity is zero. That means it can't absorb nor radiate anything. It reflects all EM.

If it has a little spot or hole (if it's hollow), then radiation can get in and warm it until the temperature of that spot/hole reaches the temperature of the source. Then it will radiate as much as it absorbs.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> I sense we are getting nowhere if you still think the object can get hotter. Temperature of a blackbody is derived by the quality of its radiation, not its intensity.





Wuwei said:


> I'm not sure what kind of object you are talking about. If it's totally insulating, then its emissivity is zero. That means it can't absorb nor radiate anything. It reflects all EM.
> 
> If it has a little spot or hole (if it's hollow), then radiation can get in and warm it until the temperature of that spot/hole reaches the temperature of the source. Then it will radiate as much as it absorbs.



In a way we're talking an extreme version of the Greenhouse Effect.  Radiation can get in, but GH gasses are so thick, nothing can get out.  This means, as I am trying to argue, that the receiving object can be warmer than the incoming radiation would suggest.  Ian does no longer seem to follow the argument at all (see above), and rather repeat what he's been saying, falsely, I am convinced.  [Of course, I know the analogy is deeply flawed, since an object approaching the temperature of the sun would radiate at the shortwave spectrum, and thus radiation would get through the GH gasses.  But heck, we're merely talking through a thought experiment Ian brought up.]  Oh, and BTW, the setup is his idea, the sun's radiation can get in, but no radiation can get out (perfectly insulated), even if that's physically impossible.

Tell me you understand the argument better than he does, please.


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Bump for OE


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > the earth sure receives energy from from a few billion stars every second and from all directions, and is surrounded and perfectly isolated by a vacuum, why aren't we at 5000°C surface temperature?
> ...



Bump for Ian.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> In a way we're talking an extreme version of the Greenhouse Effect. Radiation can get in, but GH gasses are so thick, nothing can get out. This means, as I am trying to argue, that the receiving object can be warmer than the incoming radiation would suggest. Ian does no longer seem to follow the argument at all (see above), and rather repeat what he's been saying, falsely, I am convinced. [Of course, I know the analogy is deeply flawed, since an object approaching the temperature of the sun would radiate at the shortwave spectrum, and thus radiation would get through the GH gasses. But heck, we're merely talking through a thought experiment Ian brought up.] Oh, and BTW, the setup is his idea, the sun's radiation can get in, but no radiation can get out (perfectly insulated), even if that's physically impossible.
> 
> Tell me you understand the argument better than he does, please.



I think this is a conundrum where the rules have to be refined as you go along. How much is real physics and how much is what-if physics. It's more complex than the well-known, unstoppable object hitting an immovable object.

There are lots of spoilers, like enough heat will blow away the CO2, or as you say, the short-wave radiation leakage. The dense GHG is kind of hard to deal with because it is a scattering medium and will always have some leakage at the top.

However, in the spirit of things it might be simpler to think about an actual greenhouse, where the glass is a perfect highpass optical filter that traps low temperature radiation emission.

I think you actually hit on the actual spoiler. This is my wordier version of your idea. We can even choose a fantasy BB radiation function. As the temperature inside the greenhouse reaches the temperature of the sun, the short-wave portal will be equally efficient at letting out the the same amount in the same band of radiation as the sun is poring in.The long wave aspect of the filter will be unimportant. This is independent of the BB fantasy curve we choose. Equilibrium will be reached when both temperatures are the same.

I have to agree with IanC on this.

As far as a focusing lens, there are limitations with the f-number that will not allow focus of an image beyond the power density of the sun, but I won't go into that here.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Equilibrium will be reached when both temperatures are the same.
> 
> I have to agree with IanC on this.



In Ian's "what-if physics" (I'm going to steal that) example (all radiation in, none out, as he maintains part time) I see an otherwise closed system into which you continuously pump energy, and that should heat up beyond all limits.  At least, common sense would dictate that.  In that scenario, the term "equilibrium" makes no sense.  And no, in a "real physics" situation, equilibrium is reached when the emission from the object equals the absorbed radiative flux (subject to the inverse square law), and thus the object's equilibrium temperature is way below the sun's, practically and also theoretically.  Thank physics for that, for otherwise we'd all be cooked.

Otherwise, I've by now reached the conclusion that Ian's example isn't as enlightening as it seemed initially (even if we could work out the contradictions), as it (as I think you suggested) doesn't really shed a light on the Greenhouse Effect.

I am happy to realize that on the "real" physics side Ian, you and I agree that back radiation is huge, even exceeds the sun's flux absorbed by the earth: 340.3 vs 240,3 W/m².  That is the main reason why the earth is at an average temperature far higher than the -18°C it would reach without the GHE.   Let the denialings gnaw on that.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Equilibrium will be reached when both temperatures are the same.
> ...


I agree with everything you say.

But I have a problem with the idea of a system of all radiation in, none out. There is a classical optical reciprocity theorem that says that the path of a light beam from point A through the system to point B is the same that a beam would follow from from B to A. 

If we want to drop that requirement, we would need to invent a one-way optical valve. I think this would be the EM version of Maxwell's Demon for particles which highly frowned upon.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> But I have a problem with the idea of a system of all radiation in, none out. There is a classical optical reciprocity theorem that says that the path of a light beam from point A through the system to point B is the same that a beam would follow from from B to A.
> 
> If we want to drop that requirement, we would need to invent a one-way optical valve. I think this would be the EM version of Maxwell's Demon for particles which highly frowned upon.



I agree with the practical impossibility of creating a "perfectly insulated" system that lets radiation in.  Whether Maxwell's Demon would be a good analogy I don't know.  Telling apart particles' velocity (and opening / closing a valve accordingly) may not be the same as some fictional material letting photons pass in one direction only.  Here's a nice discussion dealing with a similar problem:

Now, if as you suggest, we have a fictional "perfectly reflecting" material, then the energy density will build without limit even with a finite energy source. But this would be true only if the coupling mechanism of the photons into the cavity is also "perfectly unidirectional". That is, the coupling mechanism will dump photons into the cavity, but allow none to "leak" out backwards. Alas, there's no such thing as a perfectly reflecting surface, nor is there anything like a perfectly unidirectional coupler. And, of course no material can sustain infinite energy densities.​


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

We didn't really get into this you jack monkeys started hooting over my blasphemy of questioning the cult of AGW...

But in the graphic, the greenhouse effect is taking credit for the temperature gradients in the atmosphere..that is to say, that the greenhouse effect is being given credit for the fact that the closer to the surface you get, the warmer the atmosphere is and inversely the higher you go, the cooler the atmosphere is...this is evident because the diagrams depict that the radiation from the atmosphere is what causes the surface to warm...note back to the first graphic...with no atmosphere...the earth was radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees...

The problem with this claim is that the lapse rate, while it exists, has a cause that is entirely independent of the claimed greenhouse effect....The adiabatic lapse rate is accurately calculated without using any reference to radiation at all...

If the greenhouse effect induced its own additional lapse rate...which it would have to since climate science is claiming that radiation from the atmosphere is what causes the earth to be warmer than -18C...then the lapse rate should be higher than the adiabatic lapse rate which is calculated with no reference to radiation at all...it isn't... 

The measured dry lapse rate is -10 degrees kelvin per kilometer...the measured wet lapse rate is -6.5 degrees kelvin per kilometer...

Look again at that sentence....THE MEASURED DRY LAPSE RATE IS -10K/km....THE MEASURED WET LAPSE RATE IS -6.5K/km....

Doesn't look like much does it? Doesn't look like the arrow through the heart of the radiative greenhouse effect...but it is...aside from all the errors early on...this one fact completely refutes the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...*WHEN THE STRONGEST GREENHOUSE GAS (WATER VAPOR) IS PRESENT (WET LAPSE RATE) THE LAPSE RATE DECREASES!!!! WHICH LEADS TO COOLER SURFACE TEMPERATURES......NOT WARMER.*


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 18, 2017)

Ah, I see, the lapse rate is another thing SSDD doesn't understand, and, inevitably, this misunderstanding is yet another "arrow through the heart of the radiative greenhouse effect".  It patently has to be.

Reality is this: The wet adiabatic lapse rate is lower than the dry one since, as moist air rises upwards, it cools and eventually the water vapor condenses.  Condensation releases energy and that's why, when moist air rises, the atmosphere higher up is warmer than it would be if dry air rises (no condensation).

There's another self-inflicted hole in SSDD's foot.  What good are arrows, if not for that?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Ah, I see, the lapse rate is another thing SSDD doesn't understand, and, inevitably, this misunderstanding is yet another "arrow through the heart of the radiative greenhouse effect".  It patently has to be.
> 
> Reality is this: The wet adiabatic lapse rate is lower than the dry one since, as moist air rises upwards, it cools and eventually the water vapor condenses.  Condensation releases energy and that's why, when moist air rises, the atmosphere higher up is warmer than it would be if dry air rises (no condensation).
> 
> There's another self-inflicted hole in SSDD's foot.  What good are arrows, if not for that?



Sorry goober...the lapse rate is calculated entirely without reference to radiation...now you can invent some radiative reason....something good enough to fool yourself and those like you who are prone to believing in magic...but the fact is that the lapse rate is the result of the mass of the atmosphere and has nothing whatsoever to do with a fictional radiative greenhouse effect..


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry goober...the lapse rate is calculated entirely without reference to radiation...now you can invent some radiative reason....something good enough to fool yourself and those like you who are prone to believing in magic...but the fact is that the lapse rate is the result of the mass of the atmosphere and has nothing whatsoever to do with a fictional radiative greenhouse effect.



Good weasel, not spectacular, but nice.

Note to those interested in facts:

The "adiabatic lapse rate" (wet or dry) describes temperature changes of blobs of warm air rising upwards due to decompression with altitude.  The cooling because of decompression is partly compensated by condensation in the case of moist air rising.  That describes an adiabatic process occurring due to an instability in the atmosphere.

Now, the "lapse rate" (temperature over height) of a stable atmosphere (next to no vertical movement) is something entirely different, and is somewhat changed due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

The two shall not be confused with each other - except, of course, in order to deceive gullible ignoramuses.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

In addition, repeatable experimental lab work has shown temperature gradients in columns of air...if you want to know why the temperature on earth is what it is, refer to the ideal atmosphere...and the ideal gas laws...it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws and slight adjustments for the incoming solar radiation are able to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..while the greenhouse effect can only produce an accurate temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> I agree with the practical impossibility of creating a "perfectly insulated" system that lets radiation in. Whether Maxwell's Demon would be a good analogy I don't know. Telling apart particles' velocity (and opening / closing a valve accordingly) may not be the same as some fictional material letting photons pass in one direction only. Here's a nice discussion dealing with a similar problem:
> 
> Now, if as you suggest, we have a fictional "perfectly reflecting" material, then the energy density will build without limit even with a finite energy source. But this would be true only if the coupling mechanism of the photons into the cavity is also "perfectly unidirectional". That is, the coupling mechanism will dump photons into the cavity, but allow none to "leak" out backwards. Alas, there's no such thing as a perfectly reflecting surface, nor is there anything like a perfectly unidirectional coupler. And, of course no material can sustain infinite energy densities.


I think the conclusion is that heating something hotter than the source (breaking the 2nd law) can only happen with what-if physics that stretches things too far.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Hi IanC
> Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
> _"At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources."_
> "Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
> ...




Sorry polarbear, I missed your post earlier.

There are various 'classes' of calculations when applying the S-B equations.

The simplest is one object radiating into void, where there is no returning radiation.

The next simplest is when one object is enclosed by another. The diffuse nature of radiation can be cancelled out at the boundary (assuming spherical shapes). Eg. object into environment and vice versa.

The third is much more complex. Two objects embedded in an environment which is typically ignored because it affects both objects equally. In this case the line-of-sight faces must take into consideration angle/distance of the radiation. Most of the radiation produced by the objects misses the other and escapes to the environment.

The Earth/Sun belongs in the third class, dominated by the inverse square law.

The surface/atmosphere is in the second class. No radiation is directly lost at the boundary. No inverse square loss.

SSDD'S graph shows a highly simplified scenario. First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal. Then they add a shell (already at equilibrium) and input and output are still equal but because radiation is released in all directions then the same amount escaping to space is also returned to the surface. The new surface temperature must be enough to provide the energy output plus the energy returned. If another shell were added then the surface radiation would double again and the temperature would rise. 

Most people find it hard to believe that an input of 300w can raise the (insulated) surface to 600w or higher (to a maximum of the source) but the explanation is the energy not released to space as the system moves to equilibrium. Which of course would be emitted if the source was cut off.

There is a huge amount of energy stored in our atmosphere keeping its mass aloft via potential and kinetic energy. That is the source of the returning energy that makes the surface warm enough to live on. GHGs contribute to warming the atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...
> 
> In addition, repeatable experimental lab work has shown temperature gradients in columns of air...if you want to know why the temperature on earth is what it is, refer to the ideal atmosphere...and the ideal gas laws...it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws and slight adjustments for the incoming solar radiation are able to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..while the greenhouse effect can only produce an accurate temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...




Atmospheres are controlled by the amount of energy stored in the system (in the gravity field) and the energy inputs. We do not have the detailed information for other planets but we can make robust assumptions on the data we do have.

I agree with you that any atmosphere has a basic framework derived by the ideal gas laws. I disagree that composition makes no difference.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2017)

Does everyone know that there are two types of power sources?

The controlled nuclear explosion powers the Sun's surface by thermal transfer. The Sun's surface powers the Earth's surface by radiation, the Earth's surface warms the atmosphere by thermal transfer. At each stage along the path of energy flow the maximum temperature is the preceding step but is always lower because of losses (entropy).

You could go further and say the Moon is warmed by the IR from the Earth but the effect is negligible. The IR is subject to the inverse square law. An interesting factoid is that the IR is reasonable collimated by the time it reaches the Moon therefore you could magnify it.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Hi IanC
> ...


No need to apologize. SSDD`s thread has been hijacked by a bunch of sycophants complementing each other. With "SSDD`s graph" I`m sure you meant to say the U of Washington`s graph which is of course absurd....and that`s why he probably decided to post it here as an OP.
You replied "_First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal."_...*but that is not what they did.* They used the atmosphere as 1 of the 3 factors to get the radiation reaching the ground to that 239.7 W/m^2 number. The other 2 were the disc to spherical m^2 surface conversion and a 0.7 factor which stands for as they say:"_Then we need to multiply by the factor 0.70, which takes into account the fact that 30% of the incident solar radiation is reflected back to space by* clouds,* snow and ice,_"
ATM S 211 - Notes
So at this point they did do it with an atmosphere that has clouds *and not as you would have done it first *without an atmosphere.
Now they are way below the temperature that you would have assigned to how warm a surface would be if there were no atmosphere.
Your (and my ) next step would be to get a fix on the radiative balance after we have added an atmosphere.
But they did not take these steps in the same order.In fact they repeated step 1 and used it again later on in their "explanation"
Click on the link to that page and scroll down to:
_"This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have *if it didn't have an atmosphere. * It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F).  This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect._"
See now how they contradicted the statement they made at the beginning, when they used an atmosphere to "explain" their 239.7 W/m^2 and 255 deg K...and then go on to say later that`s how cold it would be *without *an atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2017)

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy.  I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



_Then we need to multiply by the factor 0.70, which takes into account the fact that 30% of the incident solar radiation is reflected back to space by_* clouds,*_ snow and ice,_"

If the Earth had no atmosphere, but the same albedo, how much radiation would be absorbed by the surface?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...
> ...



And yet, using nothing but the ideal gas law, we can derive a temperature that is damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp =* 737 K*

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = *~750 K*


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp =* 288 K*

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = *~294 K*


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = *165 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) =* ~169 K*


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = *134 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = *~133 K*


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = *76 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = *~77 K*

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp =* 72 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = *~73 K
*
Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get? 

 It is no coincidence that the ideal gas law predicts temperatures that are damned close to the actual temperatures of the various planets with atmospheres...no fictional greenhouse effect needed.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of predictions the greenhouse effect makes for the various planets..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > I've moved that text of yours over to the appropriate thread, since here's where that "the model is flawed" action originated, hoping you won't mind.
> ...


So anyone who disagrees with the AGW pseudoscience is now a troll?

You cant defend the math and the ignorance of the graph so instead of learning you scream like a spoiled brat and throw a tantrum...  That is AGW science at its best.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I think the conclusion is that heating something hotter than the source (breaking the 2nd law) can only happen with what-if physics that stretches things too far.



Really?  The cooler atmosphere via back radiation warming the warmer surface violates the 2nd?  You know that leads straight towards "smart photons".  Sure you misspoke, didn't you?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...
> 
> <non-pertinent denialist propaganda erased>



This is just to note that SSDD still doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate - which supposedly runs an arrow through the heart of climate change - and the process it describes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...
> ...


Once again...if there were a radiative greenhouse effect as climate science describes...the adiabatic lapse rate would be higher...and the presence of water vapor, a very powerful, so called, greenhouse gas actually reduces the lapse rate..it does not increase as the greenhouse model would predict.....

And there is still the problem of the ideal gas law coming very close to the actual tempera rue of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Once again...if there were a radiative greenhouse effect as climate science describes...the adiabatic lapse rate would be higher.
> 
> <non-pertinent denialist propaganda erased>



This is just to note that SSDD still doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate - which supposedly runs an arrow through the heart of climate change - and the process it describes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Once again...if there were a radiative greenhouse effect as climate science describes...the adiabatic lapse rate would be higher.
> ...



like the model of the greenhouse effect, when you start with a flawed assumption, you end with a flawed assumption....repeating your bullshit claim ad nauseum is not going to change it into anything other than a bullshit claim...

try the greenhouse equations on a couple of the planets with atmospheres...lets see how close you get to the actual temperatures...certainly nowhere as close as the ideal gas law predicts...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I think the conclusion is that heating something hotter than the source (breaking the 2nd law) can only happen with what-if physics that stretches things too far.
> ...


No, I didn't misspeak. "warming a warmer surface" are just words that do not describe the physical process correctly. 

This is the way I see it:
Only the sun warms the earth. The GHGs prevent the earth from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. 

If you want to think of back-radiation as heat you have to understand that the back-radiation energy originally came from the sun. No new energy was created. Finally, there is more upward earth surface radiation than downward back-radiation, so the 2nd law is preserved. Of course I'm ignoring internal earth heat manifested in conduction through the mantle and volcanoes, etc. 

That view conjures up the idea that the GHGs mimic a sort of blanket. Everyone knows what a blanket does: On a cold day your skin will get cold. If you cover yourself with a blanket your skin will get warmer. The blanket is not furnishing any heat. You are. The blanket helps you retain your own heat.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Thanks. It is an interesting topic. I don't really know why your comment is wrong, or perhaps just misleading. I am suspicious that volume is the wrong variable in an atmosphere. Perhaps density?

I'll give it some thought.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 19, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> No, I didn't misspeak. "warming a warmer surface" are just words that do not describe the physical process correctly. [...]
> 
> If you want to think of back-radiation as heat



No, I don't want to think of back radiation as heat, because it isn't.  More generally, radiation, photons, aren't heat, and that's why they cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics.

And yes, back radiation (measured and quantified) is the reason why the earth's surface is warmer than it would be without.  And yes, since the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, on average, "the atmosphere is warming a warmer surface" is an adequate way to put it, counter-intuitive as that may sound.



IanC said:


> Thanks. It is an interesting topic. I don't really know why your comment is wrong, or perhaps just misleading. I am suspicious that volume is the wrong variable in an atmosphere. Perhaps density?



It's wrong because it calculates the temperature of a planet without reference to energy input, and thus it calculates the exact same temperature for a planet orbiting at 10,000 km from the sun and the otherwise exact same planet lost in space, 10,000 light years from nearest star.  That should immediately strike you as utterly risible.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy.  I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.
> 
> The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.
> 
> ...


I know that you are  focusing on the concept, but I also know from what you posted in the past that you disagree with the numbers the IPCC cranked out so far.
For example the serious discrepancies in the proxy series you exposed a couple of years ago.
It turned out that the concept using tree ring proxies is not any better than using what the groundhog did on groundhog day as a climate proxy.
Overall I do not disagree with the concept as you lay it out, but somewhere along the line that has to be expressed in numbers.
If we use empirical data then we have to rely on the tree ring proxy and M.Mann speaking as the master of ceremony for the Yamal tree instead of the groundhog.
So the best way would be as you suggested as a step#1 to start out with a sphere that has no atmosphere and hash it out what kind of numbers we get with the numbers we picked for the factors that determine the outcome for step #1.
There is no way to avoid picking some numbers like for example the albedo.
There is also no way to short circuit the thermal property and the mass that has to be warmed during a 12/24 hour exposure cycle using the StB equation....and proceed by using an average value between the maximum and the minimum for that cycle.
I`m looking forward to see what you and others who wish to discuss the  step by step concept you suggested have to say regarding step#1.
One thing is for sure the way the U of Washington "solved" step #1 is ridiculous.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And yet, using nothing but the ideal gas law, we can derive a temperature that is damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...



The ideal gas law does work everywhere. It's based on simple physics of molecules banging around. It will work anywhere on earth and on any planet, (assuming that the atmospheres are within reasonable pressures and molecular sizes.)

If you look at the pressure-temperature variables in a cubic meter for the molar values for the earth atmosphere, you can test the ideal gas law.
If you go near the arctic cold you will find that the pressure, temperature are consistent.
At the top of Mt. Everest, you will find that the pressure, temperature are consistent.
At the equator, you will find that the pressure, temperature are consistent.

What you can't predict from the ideal gas law alone is the predicted lapse rate. You can't predict anything about climate.

The ideal gas law alone is almost a physics tautology. Exclaiming that gasses everywhere on planets and earth follow the ideal gas law is saying nothing except that the gas law is largely valid. It says nothing about climate.

.


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No, I didn't misspeak. "warming a warmer surface" are just words that do not describe the physical process correctly. [...]
> ...




Yes, I have told SSDD in the past that this 'proof' is nothing more than circular reasoning. Using variables or assumptions that already carry the information purportedly derived. 

The gravity field and density continuum would give you a very good idea of how much energy was stored in the system, radiation out would give you a good idea of solar input, or lead you to look for extra internal sources.

There is still something about SSDD'S comment that has triggered my 'apple vs oranges' alert.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Might it be that the ideal gas laws come damned close to the actual temperatures....needing some adjustment for solar input on the planets closer to the sun while the greenhouse model won't even get you close on any planet but earth...and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor?

And yes there is an apples and oranges thing...that being the ideal gas laws represent actual science while the greenhouse effect described by climate science represents nothing more than mediocre pseudoscience.


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy.  I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.
> ...




Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum.

I still haven't figured out a good way to get people here to realize a watt of highly ordered, short wavelength solar input is much more capable of doing work than a watt of diffuse IR. The two are not interchangeable but they are assumed to be.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Might it be that the ideal gas laws come damned close to the actual temperatures....needing some adjustment for solar input on the planets closer to the sun while the greenhouse model won't even get you close on any planet but earth...and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor?
> 
> And yes there is an apples and oranges thing...that being the ideal gas laws represent actual science while the greenhouse effect described by climate science represents nothing more than mediocre pseudoscience.


Looking at the ideal gas laws for different atmospheres is nothing but a verification of the ideal gas laws, not a statement about climate. 

Can the ideal gas law predict the temperature/pressure on a mountain and why it differs from the temperature/pressure at the equator?


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




I'm sorry but I just don't follow what is happening with the R constant. How are they deriving it?


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Can you link us up to these greenhouse equations?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Looking at the ideal gas laws for different atmospheres is nothing but a verification of the ideal gas laws, not a statement about climate.



And yet, they accurately predict the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system with atmospheres while the greenhouse effect only works here and only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

And they work because the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant to climate beyond it's mass...



Wuwei said:


> Can the ideal gas law predict the temperature/pressure on a mountain and why it differs from the temperature/pressure at the equator?



Doesn't the US ideal atmosphere do that?..and is the US ideal atmosphere not based on the ideal gas laws?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



Look at the graphs...they are right there...they claim to get within a  couple of degrees of the temperature here on planet earth...if they are of any value at all, they should be able to get within a couple of degrees of any of the other planets...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And yet, they accurately predict the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system with atmospheres while the greenhouse effect only works here and only with an ad hoc fudge factor...
> 
> And they work because the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant to climate beyond it's mass...


My point is the ideal gas law doesn't predict climate variations at various points on the earth. It only computes one variable when you know all the others.



SSDD said:


> Doesn't the US ideal atmosphere do that?..and is the US ideal atmosphere not based on the ideal gas laws?


"US ideal atmosphere" is not a science term. You need to define it and say how it predicts atmospheric pressures or temperatures.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The mean molecular weights of the atmospheres in g/mole can be found in the Nasa Planetary Fact Sheets here..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> My point is the ideal gas law doesn't predict climate variations at various points on the earth. It only computes one variable when you know all the others.



Neither does the greenhouse effect...the ideal gas laws do predict the temperatures at various altitudes however..and it does accurately predict the temperatures of other planets...a feat the greenhouse model is entirely unable to do...




Wuwei said:


> "US ideal atmosphere" is not a science term. You need to define it and say how it predicts atmospheric pressures or temperatures.



Then look up US standard atmosphere or international standard atmosphere...want to claim a minor victory because I said ideal instead of standard?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Neither does the greenhouse effect...the ideal gas laws do predict the temperatures at various altitudes however..and it does accurately predict the temperatures of other planets...a feat the greenhouse model is entirely unable to do...


As I said the ideal gas law only predicts one variable when given all the others.


SSDD said:


> Then look up US standard atmosphere or international standard atmosphere...want to claim a minor victory because I said ideal instead of standard?


Thanks, I had no idea what you were referring to. There was no victory. Just a clarification.

I looked it up, and  International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is a complex model "of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth's atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations."
The ideal gas law cannot begin to do anything near that level of complexity. So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 19, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?



It's not really SSDD "talking", he's just resurrecting the old denialist hoax by Steve Goddard, as amended and expanded by another crappy WUWT post, pompously titled the "Unified Theory of Climate", all based on the gross misunderstanding / abuse of the adiabatic lapse rate and the ideal gas law.  They all suggest that pressure is the sole determinant of an atmosphere's temperature, and voilà, "climate change" just disappeared.

Really, what these goofs try to sell is this: If you compress a gas, it heats up (which it does - ideal gas law), and it keeps that temperature forever, and that's why Venus is so hot (92bar!), and that is what determines a planet's climate.  If Venus were dragged out of its orbit by some rogue planet and were to find another orbit at the outer fringes of this solar system, its climate wouldn't change one whit.  Kid you not.

You even find phrases like this (from the second Goddard link above):

If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT.​
Because the ideal gas law says so.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I looked it up, and  International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is a complex model "of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth's atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations."
> The ideal gas law cannot begin to do anything near that level of complexity. So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?



You didn't look it far enough up...it is pretty well known througout the rest of science that the standard atmosphere is derived from the ideal gas law...climate science ignores it because it is damned inconvenient.

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/atmosphere_lecture_slides.pdf
http://snowball.millersville.edu/~adecaria/ESCI241/esci241_lesson01_composition.pdf
Equations - Air Density and Density Altitude


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?
> ...



One need look no further than climate science to see a gross misuse of science...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I looked it up, and  International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is a complex model "of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth's atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations."
> ...



I looked at the references you cited. The International Standard Atmosphere model is definitely not derived from the ideal gas law (IGL). The IGL is useful as a lemma in the complex equations that derive the air density as a function of altitude, but you simply can't derive the ISA from the IGL alone. 

It is similar to saying you can derive the orbit of Jupiter from the relation xy=1 implies x=1/y. That relation may be useful or necessary, but it does not solve the problem.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Really, what these goofs try to sell is this: If you compress a gas, it heats up (which it does - ideal gas law), and it keeps that temperature forever, and that's why Venus is so hot (92bar!), and that is what determines a planet's climate. If Venus were dragged out of its orbit by some rogue planet and were to find another orbit at the outer fringes of this solar system, its climate wouldn't change one whit. Kid you not.


Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Wow, you really aren't smart! Now you're going to use your tactics of blaming someone for the university errors times two. You da man!!!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Does the atmosphere touch the surface? If so how can there be any difference between the atmosphere and a heat sync. And what is the purpose of a heat sync?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Really, what these goofs try to sell is this: If you compress a gas, it heats up (which it does - ideal gas law), and it keeps that temperature forever, and that's why Venus is so hot (92bar!), and that is what determines a planet's climate. If Venus were dragged out of its orbit by some rogue planet and were to find another orbit at the outer fringes of this solar system, its climate wouldn't change one whit. Kid you not.
> ...




There is a difference between the static conditions in a bottle of compressed gas and the chaotic movement of the atmosphere

As to venus...how does the greenhouse effect work there....very little solar energy actually reaches the ground to be radiated back up...then there is the fact that there is no temperature difference between the daylight side of the planet and the night time side of the planet even though the night lasts 121 of our days....explain that fact using the greenhouse effect.....


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 20, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.



Exactly.

The denialings have to face a quandary.  If they acknowledge the sun, they need to talk radiative balance.  Once they do that, they have to acknowledge the sun isn't enough to explain the earth's mean temperature.  Since the earth only radiates long wave, the only way to correct the radiative balance is IR absorbers / emitters in the atmosphere.  And that way lies disaster for the denialings.  So, they eliminate the sun, radiation and radiative equilibrium along with it, while claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't explain anything.

Of course, right next the denialings are running into massive problems because, with the earth (Venus) at a temperature way above the effective temperature - and without GHG and heat trapping, which they deny - it would radiate out way more than it takes in.  In other words, the wold they describe is one of a planet without atmosphere, and it should adjust to the effective temperature in short order.  That again isn't what they'd very much like to discuss.  Also, without radiative input, and pressure determining temperature, the difference of temperatures at the equator and the poles is a bit hard to explain, but that's just the fun stuff on top of the overall hilarity.

Now, let's acknowledge that the real-world greenhouse effect is enormously complex, with a multi-layered atmosphere, temperature and pressure gradients, and well-mixed and non-well-mixed greenhouse gasses at various levels with their different absorption and emission profiles, and the atmospheric window somewhere in there, not to mention clouds and the changes in albedo over time...  So, soon enough, calculating the whole thing is going to pose a challenge for super computers, which it does.  Here is the simplest of beginning - a paper on the radiative balance of a planet without atmosphere - demonstrating nothing more than the need for the greenhouse effect to explain the earth's temperature (or any planet's temperature above the effective one).  There already the math is daunting.  Adding a GHG atmosphere would explode that complexity.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Wow...! Your reply got buried under a pile of verbal fist-fighting  in this thread.
I am sorry I`m taking so long to respond while you wind up having to fight multiple battles during that time. It`s not even possible for SSDD to discuss your concept with us in the order you suggested because he gets dog-piled with arguments that do not even come to play yet at step#1 & a sphere with no atmosphere. The 2 points you mentioned here are a good example of how some of the most basic physics have become stumbling blocks instead of building blocks.
_"Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum._"
Which is exactly where I also would have continued at step#1.
For convenience`s sake I decided to use a typical RC charge/discharge curve to illustrate this:




The temperature curve approaching the daily maximum would look quite similar to a capacitor being charged with a limited output power supply. The power supply being the incident solar radiation being distributed over 1/2 the sphere while the capacitance simulates the mass of the spherical shell that is being warmed during the (12 hour) "charging" cycle.
Assuming a situation where we begin with  the very first charging cycle it would be unreasonable to think that we already arrived the temperature plateau we will reach after that cycle has been repeated many times over. I say that because during each cycle the mass being warmed will increase by the amount of heat that penetrates to a slightly greater depth of that shell.
We can observe this with the temperature/depth gradient on land and in a body of water.
That will affect what happens next when the warmed portion of the shell rotates into the discharge portion of each cycle. As the number of cycles progresses the charge (or heat) which is retained to the end of the discharge cycle and the beginning of the next charge cycle will not be the same as it was at the start when we "booted" this system...but will have increased by a small amount.
However eventually we will reach a plateau for both, the charge and the discharge cycle.
I`m looking forwards to see what your thoughts are regarding this up to this point are.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> There is a difference between the static conditions in a bottle of compressed gas and the chaotic movement of the atmosphere


That is very true. But neither example is adiabatic.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.
> ...


Yes, those assumptions lead to a mess. Great point that the SSDD model would give the same atmospheric temperatures at the poles as it would the equator. Well actually it's not a great point for everyone. It's just a great point for SSDD to ponder, if he does that at all. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Which is exactly where I also would have continued at step#1.
> ......For convenience`s sake I decided to use a typical RC charge/discharge curve to illustrate this:......


The earth on average is 287K. At night temperatures decrease on the average to around 20C. So the diurnal temperature spread is from 277K to 297K. If you apply the Stefan Boltzman law, there isn't all that much difference (14%) in earth's heat loss, day to night. So, in that sense the earth "capacitor" will only discharge 14%.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




Sorry, but your example does not resonate with me.

For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats.

The output from the surface is relative to T^4, that is why it warms up faster in the morning and cools down faster in the evening and at a slower and more even pace as the night wears down.

The atmosphere fluffs up during the daytime as it stores energy from the Sun and surface, only to shrink again during nighttime as it loses that extra bolus of energy, roughly half to the surface.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Venus would appear to be a poor choice to compare to the Earth. The mechanism for heating the atmosphere is different. Very little sunlight reaches the surface, so it is not the surface warming the air.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Weird. Yes, that process works if it's adiabatic forever which in itself is stupid. But pretending there is no energy from the sun is inexcusable.
> ...




Yes, the complexity is daunting. Water in its various forms is the joker in the deck.

There are two main bottlenecks in the system. A hard boundary at the surface (mostly ocean), and a fuzzy one at the cloudtops. Water already moves the majority of energy from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection. Any extra retained energy from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle already. Clouds increase the albedo and decrease the incoming solar radiation. You don't even have to have more clouds. Cloud formation at 11am instead of noon would be an effective umbrella to cool the surface. Likewise delayed formation to 1pm would warm the surface. That is one of the reasons the Earth stays in the Goldilocks Zone despite changing conditions.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats.



No, it's not.




The daylight portion is sinusoidal.  The diurnal cycle is not a "sine curve".


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Do you believe water in all its various forms is undergoing significant changes?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> Venus would appear to be a poor choice to compare to the Earth. The mechanism for heating the atmosphere is different. Very little sunlight reaches the surface, so it is not the surface warming the air.



We seem to know that very little visible sunlight reaches the surface.  What really do we know about even shorter wavelengths?  Methinks it isn't all that much.  My reading suggests there is just speculation on "unknown UV absorbers" in some layer of the atmosphere or the other.

Large, non-spherical cloud particles have also been detected in the cloud decks. In 2012, abundance and vertical distribution of these unknown ultraviolet absorber in the Venusian atmosphere has been investigated from analysis of Venus Monitoring Camera images.[57] But their composition is still unknown.[51] In 2016, disulfur dioxide has been identified as a possible candidate for causing the so far unknown UV absorption of the Venusian atmosphere.[58]​
But yes, the "greenhouse effect" on Venus may differ markedly from the one on earth.

And then, you learn a thing every day, like ...

The density of the air at the surface is 67 kg/m3, which is 6.5% that of liquid water on Earth.[1] *The pressure found on Venus's surface is high enough that the carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical carbon dioxide forms a kind of sea that covers the entire surface of Venus.* This sea of supercritical carbon dioxide transfers heat very efficiently, buffering the temperature changes between night and day (which last 56 terrestrial days).​
____________________________



Crick said:


> The daylight portion is sinusoidal. The diurnal cycle is not a "sine curve".



Heads up:

"For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve *followed by zero input*, then repeats."​


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> There are two main bottlenecks in the system. A hard boundary at the surface (mostly ocean), and a fuzzy one at the cloudtops. Water already moves the majority of energy from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection. Any extra retained energy from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle already. Clouds increase the albedo and decrease the incoming solar radiation. You don't even have to have more clouds. Cloud formation at 11am instead of noon would be an effective umbrella to cool the surface. Likewise delayed formation to 1pm would warm the surface. That is one of the reasons the Earth stays in the Goldilocks Zone despite changing conditions.



Not sure I am able to follow you here, Ian.  Let me focus on two phrases I think are most in need of clarification:

Water already moves the *majority of energy* from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection.​
Majority meaning what part of energy?  The energy from the earth's surface, or the energy driving cloud formation?

Any *extra retained energy from CO2* is mostly shunted into the water cycle already.​
No clue, really, what "extra retained energy from CO2" is supposed to mean, nor how it would be shunted into the water cycle.  Care to clarify?  If you meant to say, the overwhelming part of the extra energy trapped in the earth's system due to the rising CO2 concentration is stored away in the oceans, we're on the same page.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats.
> ...




For any point on Earth the solar input is sinusoidal for a period of time, followed by zero input for a period of time, and the cycle repeats with small changes in solar intensity and the time periods due to angular changes relative to the Sun as the Earth circles the Sun. 

Do I have to specifically mention the procession too? What a nitpicking idiot you are.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...




No


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There are two main bottlenecks in the system. A hard boundary at the surface (mostly ocean), and a fuzzy one at the cloudtops. Water already moves the majority of energy from surface to cloud top via latent heat and convection. Any extra retained energy from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle already. Clouds increase the albedo and decrease the incoming solar radiation. You don't even have to have more clouds. Cloud formation at 11am instead of noon would be an effective umbrella to cool the surface. Likewise delayed formation to 1pm would warm the surface. That is one of the reasons the Earth stays in the Goldilocks Zone despite changing conditions.
> ...




Sure, you're new here. I don't mind repeating it for the (n)the time.

Trenberth's cartoon is a graph showing radiative balances. I don't necessarily agree with the numbers but it is a start. In the middle it states that ~100w of the 165w of solar insulation at the surface is moved aloft by latent heat and convection. Another 40w directly escapes to space through the atmospheric window. That leaves 25w that churns through the atmosphere to the cloud tops.

CO2 interferes with that 25w. The radiative change returning to the surface can warm the surface or take the alternate route out by water cycle. But not both. 

Obviously the surface must warm at least a little, otherwise more energy would ALREADY be going up the latent/convection route.

100 out of 165 is more than half, therefore it is the majority of the heat loss for the surface.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> Do I have to specifically mention the procession too? What a nitpicking idiot you are.



The prEcessesion?  Yes, why not?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe water in all its various forms is undergoing significant changes?
> ...



Then why do you believe it to be the "joker in the deck"?


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do I have to specifically mention the procession too? What a nitpicking idiot you are.
> ...



Reduced to being a grammar cop? Hahahaha, how sad.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You're not new here.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Venus would appear to be a poor choice to compare to the Earth. The mechanism for heating the atmosphere is different. Very little sunlight reaches the surface, so it is not the surface warming the air.
> ...




Thanks for that. I was going to comment that Venus's atmosphere acted more like an ocean but I didn't want to go into the weeds.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> 100 out of 165 is more than half, therefore it is the majority of the heat loss for the surface.



I am still not sure I follow your whole aggregation, but obviously you omit the almost 400W/m² emitted by IR radiation.  Why is that?


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > 100 out of 165 is more than half, therefore it is the majority of the heat loss for the surface.
> ...




I don't remember his exact numbers. 396- 333 perhaps? Roughly 65w leaves the system between surface and cloud tops by radiation, 100w leaves by water cycle, which matches the 165w solar that reaches and stays at the surface.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> I don't remember his exact numbers. 396- 333 perhaps? Roughly 65w leaves the system between surface and cloud tops by radiation, 100w leaves by water cycle, which matches the 165w solar that reaches and stays at the surface.



That's NASA Earth's energy budget poster containing the figures I am using:


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I don't remember his exact numbers. 396- 333 perhaps? Roughly 65w leaves the system between surface and cloud tops by radiation, 100w leaves by water cycle, which matches the 165w solar that reaches and stays at the surface.
> ...


so what happens to the 77.1 absorbed by the atmosphere from the incoming radiation? It seems it doesn't re-emit?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

The atmosphere absorbs 77.1 from incoming solar radiation and 358.2 from IR emitted from the surface. Look harder.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Venus would appear to be a poor choice to compare to the Earth. The mechanism for heating the atmosphere is different. Very little sunlight reaches the surface, so it is not the surface warming the air.
> ...



There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus...or anywhere else...there are gravitothermal atmospheric effects on any planet with an atmosphere...the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond its total mass.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

Oi vey!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Oi vey!


says the biggest schmendrick on the board...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> The atmosphere absorbs 77.1 from incoming solar radiation and 358.2 from IR emitted from the surface. Look harder.


well if it is absorbed on the way in it is shortwave and not longwave radiation.  the figure in the claims back radiation, and yet there is no emitted source for that 77.1.  feel free to show me where that is going. Your numbers don't balance out.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

How about a brief explanation of your conclusion that there is no greenhouse effect?  Your objection is based on your belief that cold can't radiate to warm, right?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> How about a brief explanation of your conclusion that there is no greenhouse effect?  Your objection is based on your belief that cold can't radiate to warm, right?


dude, I don't believe in back radiation. I'm merely commenting on a graphic that shows something that doesn't add up.  Sums up the entire greenhouse nonsense. so where did that 77.1 go?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere absorbs 77.1 from incoming solar radiation and 358.2 from IR emitted from the surface. Look harder.
> ...



Uh... are you expecting it to be re-emitted as shortwave?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I was told fking everything emits.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


> dude, I don't believe in back radiation. I'm merely commenting on a graphic that shows something that doesn't add up. Sums up the entire greenhouse nonsense. so where did that 77.1 go?



Are you purposely trying to be useless?  There are four paths of energy transfer into the atmosphere.  Three paths of transfer out of the atmosphere.  Adding up the two sides and comparing them should be about 3rd grade math.  Show us what you get.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I still haven't been able to succinctly form a rebuttal to your IGL comment on deriving surface temps.

The main problem is that you are using a specific volume in an existing atmosphere. The specific quantity is not universal to the quality of the system as a whole.

The proper measurement would be density caused by the known gravity. This would be a universal quality, that would describe the amount of stored energy, regardless of the solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere).

If you used the IGL on three Earth's, one at 0C, one at 15C and one at 30C, the IGL would give you the right answer for volume in each case. Circular reasoning.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > dude, I don't believe in back radiation. I'm merely commenting on a graphic that shows something that doesn't add up. Sums up the entire greenhouse nonsense. so where did that 77.1 go?
> ...



And radiation is the smallest...so small, in fact, that it is damned near insignificant till you reach the top of the atmosphere...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> *The proper measurement* would be density caused by the known gravity. This would be a universal quality, that would describe the amount of stored energy, regardless of the solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere).



I fear, you are being unclear again.  The proper measurement for what?  Of course, the density isn't "caused by" gravity (a function of gravity alone), as we can easily see comparing earth to Venus.  And density would denote just a small part of the amount of energy stored, presumably, in the atmosphere.



IanC said:


> [...] regardless of the *solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere)*.



You probably think that rogue planets' temperatures are close enough to 0°K, and thus all "gas" would occur in liquefied or frozen form.  That's certainly not true in all cases.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And radiation is the smallest...so small, in fact, that it is damned near insignificant till you reach the top of the atmosphere...



Show us your math, SSDD.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And radiation is the smallest...so small, in fact, that it is damned near insignificant till you reach the top of the atmosphere...
> ...




The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:

Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?

A: About 1 nanosecond

Q: Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

A: The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is around 1 second....how much longer is that than the mean time between molecular collisions through which unexcited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom...why its about a billion times as long.

Q: Can you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

A: Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


That`s okay with me, but consider that the wave form portions of that RC curve matches a sine wave that has the top chopped off. And that is only because that particular RC circuit is paused for an arbitrary time between the end of the charging phase and the beginning of the discharge.
If you don`t pause it then you get the sine wave oscillations you are looking for.
So far so good keep going on with your concept. Anything is better than this rather crude averaging concept and these attempts to make a straight line function out of an empirical scatter plot would you not say so also?


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > *The proper measurement* would be density caused by the known gravity. This would be a universal quality, that would describe the amount of stored energy, regardless of the solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere).
> ...




I thought I made it clear that my understanding was incomplete in the first sentence of my post.

SSDD reiterated the claim that mass is the only determining factor in surface temperature. He produced calculations based on the Ideal Gas Law for several planets.

I instinctively disagree with that but find it difficult to pinpoint the actual error and propose a better method.

I called it circular reasoning, Wuwei called it tautology. It is simply restating the IGL.

Why? Because using a specific volume at one bar is a local property defined by the IGL. Using density is a universal property of the whole atmosphere. The IGW would give the correct answer for Earth over a range of possible surface temperatures. We are not getting any extra information from his method.

Energy input to the system is easily derived by measuring the output to space. The real question is how much energy is stored in the atmosphere, as that will determine how much is being returned towards the surface.

The amount of energy stored is a function of composition. GHGs absorb IR and it is converted to potential and kinetic energies via molecular collisions. More energy leads to a higher atmosphere, therefore less dense. Density would be a good indicator of atmospheric composition and surface temperature, at least on Earth.

Does this method apply to other planets? Questionable. Gas planets have no surface to transform solar input to IR at a specific boundary. Venus has surface but solar input does not reach it in appreciable amounts.

To me it is a conondrum that I cannot solve. I cannot find generalities that work for all cases.

In the end I find SSDD'S method unsatisfactory because it only restates the IGL but cannot replace it with something better except for Earth.

Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




I don't agree with the numbers but the concept is correct.

You still haven't explained where you think the energy deficit goes when you compare the amount of energy inputted at the surface compared to the amount leaving at the TOA.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




Hey polarbear, why don't you jump into the discussion on whether solar input is equivalent to a body at -18C. I would be interested to see how you interpret it. My explanations don't seem to be convincing anyone on the other side.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:



Ah, radiation (photon emission by GHGs) is basically a nonevent, other than molecules at the very top of the atmosphere that - all of a sudden - decide that it's now time to radiate.  Those GHG molecules are smart that way, which probably explains why their photons are also very smart.

Other than that, of course, as Wuwei has already explained to you, there are gazillions of excited oxygen or nitrogen molecules (as your unlinked source describes, accounting for a warming atmosphere) bumping into GHG molecules, and these GHG molecules excited by collisions will emit most of the radiation, at all layers, and downward as much as upward.

Obviously, you're too ashamed of your source to provide a link.  One of the Mods should look into that possible copyright violation.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.



SSDD's IGL "argument" is a denialist hoax, in effect stating that a gas upon compression will heat up, and then, in that compressed state, keep that temperature indefinitely.  It's not worth anybody's time.

If my comment on the rogue planet is a "non sequitur", please explain that statement of yours: 

"*solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere)*."​
In my understanding: A planet without solar input cannot have an atmosphere.  Why is that?

TIA.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.
> ...


so does Venus get solar input to the surface? Doesn't Venus have an atmosphere? D'OH!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:
> 
> Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?
> 
> ...



That dialog is correct for the one narrow aspect of it covered. Yes, a CO2 molecule will probably loose its excited vibration state through a collision rather than an emission.

What the dialog didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
Equipartition of Energy

There will be equal amounts of energy divided among all the GHG vibration states, rotation states and kinetic energy. Most of the vibration states will arise from the churning energy of the atmospheric molecules hitting the GHGs and not from the earth's upward LWIR. The upward IR will increase the population of the GHG vibration part of the total energy, and that energy will dissipate through collisions and some LWIR in arbitrary directions.

One way of looking at it is that CO2 can absorb IR, but CO2 excited by collisions will emit most of the IR.

In short, a single CO2 molecule absorbing IR and emitting the same energy is rare. In reality an large statistical ensemble CO2 molecules will absorb IR and the statistical ensemble will emit IR, although an individual molecule most likely won't do both in a small time window. Remember through the equipartition theorm there is a tremendous amount of energy in the vibrational states that scatter the LWIR.

Edit: Oops, I see Olde Europe already stated the same thing above.

.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:
> ...




How is your invoking of the ET any different than what SSDD did? A narrow aspect, applicable only to a local condition.

The atmosphere has temperature and density gradients that overwhelm your point although it IS good to keep in mind.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> How is your invoking of the ET any different than what SSDD did? A narrow aspect, applicable only to a local condition.
> 
> The atmosphere has temperature and density gradients that overwhelm your point although it IS good to keep in mind.



SSDD cited a process that has a very low probability of happening. I'm looking at a general process of collisions at the molecular level. It doesn't matter what the temperature or gradient is. The ET shows that there are lots of excited and ground state GHG molecules that can absorb or radiate EM energy anywhere in the atmosphere. The fact that a single GHG molecule can't absorb and re-radiate is overwhelmed by the sheer number and high probability in the ET process.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.
> ...




I don't like typing. My comment in parentheses was aimed at those who scoffed at extracting temperature estimates without explicitly using solar inputs.

Your example of a rogue planet is just a conglomerate of matter bound by gravity that is berift of any of the radiation transfer problems that is the basis of this discussion.

I am starting to get annoyed at your tendency to nitpick rather than discuss the topic. Why don't you start expressing your own ideas rather than criticizing other people's ideas written down in less than exact and comprehensive fashion.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> I am starting to get annoyed at your tendency to nitpick rather than discuss the topic. Why don't you start expressing your own ideas rather than criticizing other people's ideas written down in less than exact and comprehensive fashion.



I am sorry you see it that way.  If I may suggest, see it as an interest in your thinking, which occasionally comes with some questions so as to clarify some of your argument's steps, so that I can follow.



IanC said:


> I don't like typing. My comment in parentheses was aimed at those who scoffed at extracting temperature estimates without explicitly using solar inputs.



Okay.  Good to see we're on the same page then.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How is your invoking of the ET any different than what SSDD did? A narrow aspect, applicable only to a local condition.
> ...


 

Temperature/density control the rate of molecular collisions. ET does nothing to explain how we go from a state of  absorption at the bottom to released radiation at the top. It is the change that matters, not equality of local partitions. A CO2 specific IR photon has almost zero chance of escape near the surface and near 100% chance of escape at the TOA if moving towards space.

I better put in a codicil of about 100 metres from the surface or OE will nipick that they can 'escape' back to the surface.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> Temperature/density control the rate of molecular collisions. ET does nothing to explain how we go from a state of absorption at the bottom to released radiation at the top. It is the change that matters, not equality of local partitions. A CO2 specific IR photon has almost zero chance of escape near the surface and near 100% chance of escape at the TOA if moving towards space.
> 
> I better put in a codicil of about 100 metres from the surface or OE will nipick that they can 'escape' back to the surface.



I understand. My comment was aimed at his "dialog" post  545, where I focused on ET minimizing the importance of the improbability of CO2 emitting a photon just after absorption. He claims that the improbability makes the AGW assumption that CO2 scatters photons unlikely.

.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 21, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I understand. My comment was aimed at his "dialog" post 545, where I focused on ET minimizing the importance of the improbability of CO2 emitting a photon just after absorption. He claims that the improbability makes the AGW assumption that CO2 scatters photons unlikely.



Let me add a thought to that.

Whatever IR radiation is being absorbed by GHG, would travel, or so that "dialog" would suggest, through the rest of the atmosphere "upward" by conduction, probably tens of kilometers, in a medium of very low conductivity.  Think a kilometers-thick insulation layer.  The consequences would be huge.  Heat would essentially be trapped at the lower ranges of the atmosphere, as there's no reason why an "excited" GHG molecule should transfer its energy by collision exclusively "upward", when downward an O2 or N2 molecule is hit first.  Moreover, for the heat to escape to space in the end, according to this model, the atmosphere needs to be heated up right to the top.  However, what we actually see is the stratosphere cooling.  A cooler stratosphere is not consistent with a warming earth and exclusively conductive heat transfer.  It is, however, consistent with more radiation absorbed and trapped at lower levels due to higher GHG concentrations, and consequently less energy transfered to higher levels to heat up the stratosphere.

So, I'd say that so-called "dialog" is yet another denialist fraud, not worth the electrons used for posting it.  Small wonder it doesn't come with a link.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.
> ...



Sorry, I dealt with the second part of your comment and forgot to return to this.


"Denialist hoax" ? "not worth anyone's time" ?

I don't mean to sound harsh but are you crazy? Air under compression by gravity is the framework of the atmosphere. The biggest factor.

The atmosphere swells in daylight by storing more energy, shrinks at night by releasing energy.

How is that not worth talking about?

An admittedly poor analogy is pumping up a leaky balloon. If you put as much air in as is leaking out the balloon will stay the same size. If you slightly increase the input the balloon will grow until the extra pressure equalizes the input output. And vice versa. Or you could change the size or number of leaks keeping the air input steady to the same effect. The air input corresponds to solar, the leaks corresponds inversely to GHGs.

You can't have an Earthlike atmosphere without an input of energy, the IGL will give you the temperature if rearranged to use density rather than a proscribed volume. And it would be sensitive to changes in composition such as adding GHGs.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Sure, if you wish. But what makes you think they would believe it when I say it?
It always comes down to this silly average everything, no matter what it is concept.
I already talked about this -18 C idea early on in this thread, but the whole thing got side tracked into spats that had little to do with the subject.
Just go to that U of brainWash web page and take a look at it.
ATM S 211 - Notes
They get the -18 C by averaging the radiation over the 2 hemispheres, the illuminated side + the dark side, then reduced the radiation further with an albedo and dimming it even more with clouds that they say can exist around a mass-less body which has no gravity and atmosphere.
I say this is a pile of garbage and the only thing that is true, is that the 4th root of the garbage pile divided by the StB constant converted to deg C is -18.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 21, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Let me add a thought to that.
> 
> Whatever IR radiation is being absorbed by GHG, would travel, or so that "dialog" would suggest, through the rest of the atmosphere "upward" by conduction, probably tens of kilometers, in a medium of very low conductivity. Think a kilometers-thick insulation layer. The consequences would be huge. Heat would essentially be trapped at the lower ranges of the atmosphere, as there's no reason why an "excited" GHG molecule should transfer its energy by collision exclusively "upward", when downward an O2 or N2 molecule is hit first. Moreover, for the heat to escape to space in the end, according to this model, the atmosphere needs to be heated up right to the top. However, what we actually see is the stratosphere cooling. A cooler stratosphere is not consistent with a warming earth and exclusively conductive heat transfer. It is, however, consistent with more radiation absorbed and trapped at lower levels due to higher GHG concentrations, and consequently less energy transfered to higher levels to heat up the stratosphere.
> 
> So, I'd say that so-called "dialog" is yet another denialist fraud, not worth the electrons used for posting it. Small wonder it doesn't come with a link.


I agree conduction would be very small. The last sentence in SSDD's post 545 wrongly says that convection is more important than IR radiation. Convection, of course, is easy to measure. There would be continuous large updrafts. He has no empirical support for that conclusion.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Let me add a thought to that.
> ...


He has no empirical support for that conclusion because according to you there are no continuous large updrafts like these:




So you say then that all this talk about more frequent & more severe storms was fake news
But lets just go see if these "large updrafts" are continuous:
LMGTFY
Lightning strikes reach the ground on Earth as much as 8 million times per day or *100 times* per second, according to the National Severe Storms Laboratory
I would say that qualifies as continuous.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I agree conduction would be very small. The last sentence in SSDD's post 545 wrongly says that convection is more important than IR radiation. Convection, of course, is easy to measure. There would be continuous large updrafts. He has no empirical support for that conclusion.



Oops, I actually missed that last "convection".  Thanks for the correction.  So, we're treated to a theory that requires continuous updrafts, right through the Tropopause and all the way up to the top of the atmosphere, where radiation to space is supposed to happen.  That whole thing is even more ridiculous than I thought.



IanC said:


> You can't have an Earthlike atmosphere without an input of energy, the IGL will give you the temperature if rearranged to use density rather than a proscribed volume.



The IGL tells you what temperature a gas will have if you compress it from one to 92 bar.  It doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of that compressed gas an hour later, or a year later, or 10,000 years later.  That requires, I thought we agreed on that, some calculations concerning energy input in the form of solar radiation, as compared to energy radiated out to space.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

So in the end, your argument is that it is merely coincidence that the ideal gas law accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with a moon.....is it also coincidence that the greenhouse can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor?


----------



## Crick (Feb 22, 2017)

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions in the past, the ideal gas law applies to closed systems - systems that have no energy or mass entering or leaving.  The Earth receives energy from the sun and radiates it away to space.  The same is true of every other planet in this solar system and beyond. The heat that developed as our atmosphere grew radiated away billions of years ago.

You seem to believe that compression continues to produce heat forever and ever. That is absolute nonsense - as are so many of your contentions.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So in the end, your argument is that it is merely coincidence that the ideal gas law accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with a moon...


Tell me how the ideal gas law predicts the temperature at the earth surface at the equator and how the math differs from a prediction in the arctic circle.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Lightning strikes reach the ground on Earth as much as 8 million times per day or *100 times* per second, according to the National Severe Storms Laboratory
> I would say that qualifies as continuous.


That is happening continuously from the deserts to the arctic circle?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So in the end, your argument is that it is merely coincidence that the ideal gas law accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with a moon...
> ...


Tell me how the greenhouse hypothesis predicts the temperature at the surface..at the equator...on any planet in the solar system with an atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

Crick said:


> As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions in the past, the ideal gas law applies to closed systems - systems that have no energy or mass entering or leaving.  The Earth receives energy from the sun and radiates it away to space.  The same is true of every other planet in this solar system and beyond. The heat that developed as our atmosphere grew radiated away billions of years ago.
> 
> You seem to believe that compression continues to produce heat forever and ever. That is absolute nonsense - as are so many of your contentions.



It has been proven...in the laboratory...repeatedly that there are temperature gradients in still columns of air...in a constantly moving air mass such as the atmosphere, of course the pressure will continue to produce heat, till such time as the atmosphere is all the same temperature which will never happen...funny you can't differentiate between a gas bottle and the atmosphere...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Lightning strikes reach the ground on Earth as much as 8 million times per day or *100 times* per second, according to the National Severe Storms Laboratory
> ...



Not necessary...tell me, where do you suppose the atmosphere remains still for any appreciable amount of time?  Denial of reality won't make the greenhouse effect real...it is flawed from its foundations...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Tell me how the greenhouse hypothesis predicts the temperature at the surface..at the equator...on any planet in the solar system with an atmosphere?


You are dodging the question. I have not studied GHG predictions. 
Tell me how the ideal gas law predicts the temperature at the earth surface at the equator and how the math differs from a prediction in the arctic circle.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Not necessary...tell me, where do you suppose the atmosphere remains still for any appreciable amount of time? Denial of reality won't make the greenhouse effect real...it is flawed from its foundations...


The atmosphere isn't still. But do you agree with polarbear. that there are huge towering clouds from updrafts happening continuously from the deserts to the arctic circle?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 22, 2017)

Here goes:


*File:Map of  projected global warming across the globe by the 2050s. Projections based on three SRES greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Data from CMIP3 (2007).jpg*

The following description is based on the cited public-domain source (Gardiner _et al,_ 2012): These maps show the average of a set of climate model experiments projecting changes in surface temperature for the period 2050-2059, relative to the period from 1971-1999. There are three different maps. Each map shows projected temperatures for a different scenario of future greenhouse gas emissions. The top left map corresponds with IPCC emissions scenario A1B; the top right map IPCC emissions scenario A2; and the bottom left map IPCC emissions scenario B1. These emissions scenarios are described in the following paragraphs. All models project some warming for all regions, with land areas warming more than oceans.

"The net impacts of [...] human actions and choices on future greenhouse gas concentrations are fed into models as different “scenarios.” For example, [IPCC Scenario B1] assumes that humans worldwide will make more sustainable development choices by using a greater range of, and more efficient, technologies for producing energy. In this scenario, carbon emissions are projected to increase from today’s rate of about 9 billion metric tons per year to about 12 billion tons per year in 2040, and then gradually decline again to 1990 levels—5 billion tons per year—by 2100.

[IPCC Scenario A2] assumes humans will continue to accelerate the rate at which we emit carbon dioxide. This is consistent with a global economy that continues to rely mainly on coal, oil, and natural gas to meet energy demands. In this scenario, our carbon emission increases steadily from today’s rate of about 9 billion tons per year to about 28 billion tons per year in 2100. [IPCC Scenario A1b] assumes humans will roughly balance their use of fossil fuels with other, non-carbon emitting sources of energy.

Because temperature projections depend on the choices people make in the future, climate scientists can’t say which one of the scenarios is more likely to come to pass by the end of the century. These scenarios are estimates, and greenhouse gas concentrations may grow at rates that are higher or lower than the scenarios shown in the graph. If future carbon dioxide emissions follow the same trajectory as they have over the last decade, increasing at a rate of more than 3 percent per year, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would exceed [the IPCC A2 scenario] by the end of this century, if not before."​





That's how climate science struggles to project warming anomalies (compared to the period from 1971-1999), and comes up with quite a range of different warming regionally and due to different emission scenarios, where as the IGL pressure theory has us believing one bar of pressure leads to the exact same temperature around the globe.

Ludicrous.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> It has been proven...in the laboratory...repeatedly that there are temperature gradients in still columns of air...in a constantly moving air mass such as the atmosphere, of course the pressure will continue to produce heat [...]



Pressure does not produce heat.  Ever.  Compression - change of pressure - does.

Of course, in downward drafts air will be compressed, and warm up.  The other side of the coin is, for every cubic meter of air flowing downward, a cubic meter has to flow upward, and cool down because of decompression.  That sums up to, in effect, no temperature change.

Your scientific illiteracy, after four years of posting about climate science, is patently amazing.  Small wonder then that a concept like the adiabatic lapse rate, the difference between the dry and wet rate, and the huge difference between that and the (environmental) lapse rate remains incomprehensible.  Even less of a wonder is that you'd fall for that IGL-pressure nonsense.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessary...tell me, where do you suppose the atmosphere remains still for any appreciable amount of time? Denial of reality won't make the greenhouse effect real...it is flawed from its foundations...
> ...


They happen continuously in the intertropical convergence zone. 




But according to you this massive convection process has no influence whatsoever on the rest of the global climate. After the 97%  of the "climate science consensus" who  thought otherwise endorsed your idiotic fluid-dynamic non-event version they will be so impressed with your genius that they might name a street or some landmark after you


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2017)

You guys are arguing with SSDD (and me to a certain extent) because you think everything he says is wrong.

He is saying you can derive the temperature at a certain pressure of an existing atmosphere by examining it. I concur with the minor improvement of using density as a universal quality rather than the local quality of volume, because my method picks up GHG composition as well.

I think you guys who disagree should put forth your own explanation of how an atmosphere stays in place. You cannot have mass suspended in the gravity field without stored energy, and that stored energy is proportional to the temperature.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> He is saying you can derive the temperature at a certain pressure of an existing atmosphere by examining it. I concur with the minor improvement of using density as a universal quality rather than the local quality of volume, because my method picks up GHG composition as well.



As far as I have seen, SSDD is wrong on everything, he isn't thinking, and neither debating.  All he does is grab whatever he can from Wattsupwiththat or hockeyschtick or whatever denialist blog he reads, and endlessly repeat it here.  Whenever he is asked a question, he can't or won't answer.

You have, on earth, atmosphere of pretty much the same pressure / density at sea level, and at temperatures ranging from -70°C to +50°C.  According to SSDD, that's inexplicable.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


Yesterday I spotted a bunch of posts where the same idiots that keep defending that idiotic U of brainWashington greenhouse gas radiation diagram were using an easy bake oven as an example to prove the concept of back-radiation.
I don`t even want to bother looking for it but it was hilarious because for some strange reason the whole lot brandished it with glee that you can cook batter in it by powering it with a 100 watt light bulb. Yet none of them would have even the slightest idea why that is so, because there is no way to use the StB equation in order to be able to explain how that oven would get to over 250 deg F past room temperature.
I looked up the dimensions for one of these that use  100 watt incandescent light bulbs at Amazon.com. It has a surface area of 4.75 ft^2.
If you do the StB math in metric then the 100 watts get spread out over 0.442 m^2 and the oven would radiate out as much power as it gets from the 100 watt bulb at -22 C .
But just like in the U of W radiation energy balance that`s no problem.All you have to do is add enough GHG back radiation till you can bake a cookie.
No wonder none of these idiots can get a real life engineering job.
Most of the R-value tables for insulating walls are in btu per hour and for an oven like that 4 is a good enough number. It will then dissipate the same number of watts or btu per hour as it gets heated by the light bulb....100 watts=341.3 btu/hr when it is 287 F warmer than it was before it`s been turned on.
delta T [F] = 341.3 x 4[R] / 4.75[ft^2] = 287 [deg F] warmer than ambient...
F--k these idiots are too stupid to figure out which equation they should apply to what  and would not even qualify to work for a toy company.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 22, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


*
as an example to prove the concept of back-radiation.
*
There is no back radiation?


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Ian the one who brought up Easy Bake ovens. Am I one of the idiots? Hahahaha

It was to prove a point. Objects in thermal equilibrium, such as a room and it's contents are simply moving existing radiation back and forth.

Adding a light source is adding energy to the room by extracting it from elsewhere.

The radiation we receive from the Sun is attenuated by the inverse square law. We are not in thermal equilibrium with the 294w, it is an addition. Plus it is in the form of a 5500C radiator. Applying the S-B laws without taking the additional calculations for angle and area is incorrect, as is ignoring the power source within the Sun.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> You guys are arguing with SSDD (and me to a certain extent) because you think everything he says is wrong.
> 
> He is saying you can derive the temperature at a certain pressure of an existing atmosphere by examining it. I concur with the minor improvement of using density as a universal quality rather than the local quality of volume, because my method picks up GHG composition as well.
> 
> I think you guys who disagree should put forth your own explanation of how an atmosphere stays in place. You cannot have mass suspended in the gravity field without stored energy, and that stored energy is proportional to the temperature.


Many things he says are just plain wrong. The rest are non sequitars. Yes the ideal gas law can give you temperature if you know all the other variables in the IGL as they change. His problem is that you don't know all the other variables. 

Of course there is stored energy, and it is proportional to temperature along with density and other things. But you still can't calculate things like lapse rate with just the IGL alone. Yet that is all he has. He avoids the question of how the IGL can compute the temperature and how the computation differs from the desert to the arctic circle. Obviously because he can't. He ignores the sun energy input and the fact that the surface is radiating close to 400 W/m2. 

.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are arguing with SSDD (and me to a certain extent) because you think everything he says is wrong.
> ...




You are pointing out local variation as if it disproves universal qualities.

We make numerous assumptions when we talk about planets and atmospheres.

For example, we assume the axis of the planet is roughly perpendicular to the orbit. Days and years would take on a different aspect if it was parellel.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are arguing with SSDD (and me to a certain extent) because you think everything he says is wrong.
> ...




I agree that SSDD is wrong on many things. But you have to look at everything he says with fresh eyes every time. You cannot assume he is wrong just because he has usually been wrong in the past.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> You are pointing out local variation as if it disproves universal qualities.



Nope.  Wuwei points out that SSDD's "theory" describes the atmosphere's temperature as (nearly) universal (a function of pressure at the surface), and for that reason can't explain local variations.  That's a way of proving that a "theory" is found lacking.



IanC said:


> I agree that SSDD is wrong on many things. But you have to look at everything he says with fresh eyes every time. You cannot assume he is wrong just because he has usually been wrong in the past.



I've seen no one on here who would look at SSDD's "theories" with such fresh eyes, and devote as much energy and good will, not to mention wit and research, to explain why they are nonsense as does Wuwei.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You are pointing out local variation as if it disproves universal qualities.
> ...



In real science, a single predictive failure is enough to result in a hypothesis being tossed out and research begun anew seeking a more viable hypothesis...the greenhouse effect, and its bastard child AGW have left a string of predictive failures stretching out over nearly 3 decades now...how many failures do you think it should get before it is tossed to the trash where it belongs?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> In real science, a single predictive failure is enough to result in a hypothesis being tossed out and research begun anew seeking a more viable hypothesis...the greenhouse effect, and its bastard child AGW have left a string of predictive failures stretching out over nearly 3 decades now...how many failures do you think it should get before it is tossed to the trash where it belongs?



Just more lies, ignorance and denier cult insanities.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> I agree that SSDD is wrong on many things. But you have to look at everything he says with fresh eyes every time. You cannot assume he is wrong just because he has usually been wrong in the past.


I think we can agree on some of the worst of SSDD. But what has he said that you think has some merit? I'm willing to listen objectively.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that SSDD is wrong on many things. But you have to look at everything he says with fresh eyes every time. You cannot assume he is wrong just because he has usually been wrong in the past.
> ...




OK. He posted some facts and figures on various planets and shoes that the IGL makes a reasonable estimate of surface temp. Coincidence? Circular reasoning?

What parts have merit, which parts can be improved? What variables are local, which are universal. What happens when you average them over the whole globe?

I instinctively disagreed that mass was the only factor because composition seems to also be a factor in increasing the stored energy. After giving it some thought I came to the conclusion that using density would convert the local property of volume at the surface to a universal quality of the whole atmosphere. Interesting. But it gives a good answer when different compositions affect the surface temperature due to the greenhouse effect. Still coincidence or circular reasoning? Maybe. But I understand the atmosphere and IGL a lot better from thinking about it.

There are lots of topics I have learned more about simply because SSDD made a seemingly outrageous statement about it.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> OK. He posted some facts and figures on various planets and shoes that the IGL makes a reasonable estimate of surface temp. Coincidence? Circular reasoning?



I don't think it's either a coincidence nor circular reasoning. When SSDD first came up with the IGL (from some blog I presume), I looked at the NASA site where the numbers originated. There was no explanation of how the temperature and pressure were measured or computed. But accepting that they somehow more or less accurately got those numbers, my first reaction was that, of course the ideal gas law would fit those numbers. If it didn't, something would be wrong with the numbers (or the IGL).

To me those numbers were more of a wide test of the IGL
For example, consider ohm's law: V=IR. or voltage = current x resistance.
If you get a voltmeter and ampmeter and a pile of resistors. You can test different voltages on the same resistor and check what the current is. Or you could try different resistors and see if you get the right current, etc.

You may find that V=IR is a little off, perhaps the resistor tolerance is too wide, or your meters are slightly off calibration. But in the end you are only testing Ohm's law, and not discovering anything exciting like how a TV works. 

That is similar to thinking the IGL can predict the climate.

Next he made a reference to International Standard Atmosphere. This is my reply.


Wuwei said:


> The International Standard Atmosphere model is definitely not derived from the ideal gas law (IGL). The IGL is useful as a lemma in the complex equations that derive the air density as a function of altitude, but you simply can't derive the ISA from the IGL alone.
> 
> It is similar to saying you can derive the orbit of Jupiter from the relation xy=1 implies x=1/y. That relation may be useful or necessary, but it does not solve the problem.



So, I don't see any merit to saying the ideal gas law has any predictive power of the atmosphere. I think I beat this subject to death. Sorry.

.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2017)

As you wish. I'm sure curiosity simply carries you in different directions.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 23, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I don't think it's either a coincidence nor circular reasoning. When SSDD first came up with the IGL (from some blog I presume), I looked at the NASA site where the numbers originated. There was no explanation of how the temperature and pressure were measured or computed. But accepting that they somehow more or less accurately got those numbers, my first reaction was that, of course the ideal gas law would fit those numbers. If it didn't, something would be wrong with the numbers (or the IGL).



Let us try to understand what the IGL actually does, and does not do.  If you subject a fixed amount of gas at a known temperature to increased pressure, the IGL allows you to calculate the reduction in volume.  If you heat a fixed amount of gas and keep the pressure constant, the IGL calculates the resulting increase in volume.  The IGL itself does not calculate the temperature of a gas subject to radiative heating, particularly if the energy input isn't showing up anywhere in the calculations.  I really don't know how to explain it any better.  The whole exercise is about as ridiculous as the attempt at calculating relative humidity based on a temperature reading.  Yes, you might occasionally hit the mark, and yes, the concepts are somewhat related, but the determinant aspect (energy input / water content) is missing in either case.

Let's also note that the "calculation" of the earth's average temperature is off by 6°K.  +/- 6°K is, of course, the difference between an ice age (most of the U.S. under a thick layer of ice) and the worst-case scenario of global warming, with temperatures not seen since the Eocene, consistent with an ice-free world, that is to say, in the longer term an end to the world as we know it.

Yes, the calculations arriving at results somewhat similar to reality is a mere fluke, particularly given the vast, enormous differences between GHG-driven temperatures on Earth and Venus, and mostly internal-heating driven temperatures on, say, Neptune (radiating out more than twice the energy it receives).  Yes, there is a faint, merely indirect relation, as GHGs under high pressure are far more effective at heat trapping than they are at lower pressure.  But that indirect relation works out to a valid temperature prediction only if you include energy transferred / trapped.

What then is the "merit" of the whole exercise, which amounts to little more than curve-fitting and happenstance?  I see two things.  First, of course, there's nothing more "compelling" than an "alternative" theory to explain the Earth's temperature, as it assures the denialings that it's all about pressure, and, as we all know, there's nothing we can do about that.  Secondly, it is yet another distraction, for, as long as folks discuss yet another denialing hoax, we're not paying attention to reality.  For if reality sank in, folks might get serious about climate change, and that threatens a lot of very well-filled rice bowls.

Yes, as Ian rightly remarked, there are things to learn even while dealing with SSDD's denialist humbug, even though it would be a catastrophic mistake to learn anything from the stooge.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> If you meant to say, the overwhelming part of the extra energy trapped in the earth's system due to the rising CO2 concentration is stored away in the oceans, we're on the same page.



CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources.  We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C.  Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist. We also know that this wave length is incapable of oceans penetration of more than 10um or skin surface.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources. We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C. Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist.



I fear, I cannot find my way through the above, as it consists of largely unrelated assertions, some of which seem to be wrong.

Of course, rising CO2 concentrations cause higher temperatures, which entail more evaporation, which entail, in moist regions, a tropical tropospheric hot spot due to the change in the lapse rate, which, while inconclusive over longer timescales, has been shown to exist over monthly timescales.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources. We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C. Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist.
> ...



Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?

Thank you


----------



## polarbear (Feb 23, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


No you are certainly not one of the idiots I was referring to. I know it was you that brought up the easy bake oven and I am glad you did. Because it serves as a good example which of the  heat transfer concepts are significant and which one has a negligible impact.
An easy bake oven is just one of the examples which contrasts heat conduction and heat radiation.
Right away one of the idiots I was referring to squealed "so you say there is no back radiation" with that easy bake oven. He did even though it is abundantly clear that the heating process had been accounted for solely using the equations that apply for heat conduction and without applying radiative heat transfer. Right away some Bozos try $ twist that into a "denial of established science" because I did not give a shit about any photons that bounce around inside that oven.
That`s not what powered it up to the temperature it can achieve with 100 watts from an incandescent light bulb. Of course there are photons being radiated & absorbed.
So what? A car doing 70 mph makes noise but only an idiot would say that the car is powered by sound.
When you are considering various concepts how to overcome a heat transfer problem any engineer worth his salt would look at heat conduction and convection.
You won`t even get off the mark using heat radiation alone. Try and heat  a bulb thermometer to 100 C by holding it 6 inches off the side of a BIC lighter flame.
The lighter will run out of fuel long before that thermometer registers a significant rise in temperature. If you hold it 6 inches above the flame the temperature will go past 100 C faster than you can say one Mississippi. If radiative transfer were the avenue that really mattered then it  should not matter much where you position that thermometer.
You can verify that if you look at the lighter flame with an IR (optic) thermometer which registers W/m^2. Only then it does not make much of a difference if you aim it at the flame from above or from the side. Reading todays posts here I can see the same idiotic statements the same idiots make now about pressure & temperature. But I`ll wait a while till they maxed out on the bullshit meter.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 23, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?
> 
> Thank you



Glad to see your burning interest in climate change, and the intricate interactions of CO2 with the Earth's climate system.  I have some reading material for you, and follow the embedded links, too:

To start in, for _the scientific story_, a good starting-point is the keystone essay on the basic discoveries about The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, followed perhaps by attempts to explain changes with Simple Models of Climate. If you are interested especially in _the social connections_ of climate studies you could start, for example, with the facts of The Modern Temperature Trend and proceed to the long essay on U.S. Government: The View from Washington, followed by International Cooperation. For _basic information and recent developments_, see the page of links and bibliography.​
If you are done with that and still have questions:

*Influences on climate*
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect 
Other Greenhouse Gases
Roger Revelle's Discovery 
Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds
Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate
Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
Interview with Jack Eddy
Ocean Currents and Climate

*Climate data *
The Modern Temperature Trend 
Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change
Uses of Radiocarbon Dating
Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth)
Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages 
Temperatures from Fossil Shells 

*Theory*
Simple Models of Climate Change  
Chaos in the Atmosphere 
Venus & Mars 
General Circulation Models of Climate
Basic Radiation Calculations
Arakawa's Computation Device​
If you're finally through with that, you should be able to understand that the climate system with its feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and changing ocean currents, is way too complex to be replicated by any "lab work".  That is to say, the "lab" is the earth itself, and the experiment we're conducting doesn't have a safety switch, but thousands of scientists and quite a few satellites are quite busy measuring the experiment's results - a.k.a. temperature records.  See you in a few weeks when you're done, and you're able to answer your question yourself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?
> ...



That's not what I asked.  I had a very specific request that you seem to have either misunderstood or ignored.

Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?

Also, if "the climate system with its feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and changing ocean currents, is way too complex to be replicated by any "lab work", how can you say with any certainty that a hummingbird's farts worth of CO2, 200PPM, is changing Earth's climate.  Seems like a rather large claim without any support whatsoever.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 23, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> That's not what I asked.



That's exactly what you've asked, and because you didn't read anything, you didn't understand anything, particularly not the part about the Earth being the lab, and the results being continuously measured and documented, accompanied with a load of links detailing the history of the experiment.  Conversely, I have asked that you make an effort to understand why your question, as posed, doesn't make any sense.  It almost seems as if you weren't quite up to that task.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources.



Deceptive denier cult pseudo-science bullshit!

Warmer air at the surface warms the ocean waters through conduction.

*Global Climate Change
Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.*

The oceans ARE getting warmer, this is an observed fact.....and, over time, they are getting warmer at greater depths.

*Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature*
*United States Environmental Protection Agency*

*This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.*

*Figure 1.* *Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880–2015*






*This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
Data source: NOAA, 2016*






Billy_Bob said:


> We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C.  Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist. We also know that this wave length is incapable of oceans penetration of more than 10um or skin surface.



More denier cult myths from the cultic troll....

In the real world....

*Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters 


Provided by: University of New South Wales 

*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > That's not what I asked.
> ...



More squid ink defense where you throw up a cloud of irrelevant bullshit to escape answering on point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2017)

Q. How much does the temperature increase from an increase in CO2 from 200 to 400PPM?

A. Vast cloud of squid ink + links to irrelevant articles + admission that Climate system is complicated so the AGW cult never bothered with experiment, they just published their predetermined conclusion


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 23, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> More squid ink defense where you throw up a cloud of irrelevant bullshit to escape answering on point.



You could just admit you didn't understand the answer.  Or you could do some reading (as opposed to dismissing texts you obviously didn't read), and understand it, finally.  Your choice, mate, and no skin off my nose either way.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?
> ...


I discovered those American Institute of Physics articles you cited several months ago. They are very valuable. They cover everything in detail and are well cross referenced.

.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 23, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I discovered those American Institute of Physics articles you cited several months ago. They are very valuable. They cover everything in detail and are well cross referenced.



Yep, they're excellent, and quite readable.  Add Skeptical Science and Science of Doom, and you're well prepared.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > More squid ink defense where you throw up a cloud of irrelevant bullshit to escape answering on point.
> ...



I understood your answer to be, "we don't have any lab work"


----------



## jc456 (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?
> ...


why don't you pull an abstract out of one of those links that demonstrates the answer to frank's question.  Please obviously we're unclear which piece is the answer.  Why don't you just pull out that abstract!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I discovered those American Institute of Physics articles you cited several months ago. They are very valuable. They cover everything in detail and are well cross referenced.
> ...



Yes, add in High Times as well because you'd have to be in an altered state to believe you've answered the "how much does temperature increase for  200ppm increase in CO2?" question


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 23, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources.
> ...


The AGW bullshit machine continues to make shit up.. The "skin" of the oceans block conduction very effectively. Very little heat is actually conducted downward. Sea spray is actually a convective cooling mechanism and does not heat the oceans.



> Meridional heat and freshwater transfer: The ocean and atmosphere work together to move heat and freshwater across latitudes, as required to maintain a quasi-stationary climate pattern. The wind-driven and thermohaline ocean circulation accomplish this task for the ocean, by moving warm waters poleward, colder water toward the Equator. On average the ocean meridional heat flux is higher or at least equivalent to that of the atmosphere between the equator and 30° latitude, with the atmosphere becoming dominate at higher latitudes. Ocean currents of differing salinity also move freshwater from place to place to close the global hydrological budget. For example, salty water flows away from the evaporative subtropics to be replaced with lower salinity water from the tropics.
> Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean;* heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface*
> Any imbalance of the heat or freshwater budgets due to sea-atmosphere fluxes is compensated by transfer of heat and freshwater by ocean currents. Generally heat transport across latitudes is from the tropics to the polar regions, but in the South Atlantic Ocean the oceanic heat transport is directed towards the equator. This is due to the thermohaline circulation - as warm upper kilometer water is carried northward, across the equator, offsetting the southward flow of cooler North Atlantic Deep Water near 3000 m. Much of the heat lost to the atmosphere in the North Atlantic is derived from this cross equatorial heat transfer. The flux of freshwater in the North and South Atlantic is southward, as freshwater excess of the Arctic is brought into off set the net evaporation and influx of salty water from the Indian Ocean




Funny how the experts know a lot of things differently than you think they should be..

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it's either a coincidence nor circular reasoning. When SSDD first came up with the IGL (from some blog I presume), I looked at the NASA site where the numbers originated. There was no explanation of how the temperature and pressure were measured or computed. But accepting that they somehow more or less accurately got those numbers, my first reaction was that, of course the ideal gas law would fit those numbers. If it didn't, something would be wrong with the numbers (or the IGL).
> ...




Thanks for that second link of yours. Interesting but it did nothing to dissuade me from believing the IGL law has a very real ability to estimate the temperature at a specific pressure. 

The IGL was discovered by experiment using a piston and cylinder. The relationship was found to be the constant R. The assumptions are that the molecules are points and that they are perfectly elastic and don't interact with each other.

Transferring the argument, and the relationship R, to an atmosphere is done by replacing the piston and cylinder with gravity, and using density rather than a specific amount of molecules. Local properties to universal properties. Knowing the energy input does not matter, because energy in equals energy out, only the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential counts.

This is under idea conditions, myriad complexities ensue in reality, but it is the basic framework of an atmosphere and the reason why the IGL gives decent estimates even for wildly differing planets.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 23, 2017)

IanC said:


> Knowing the energy input does not matter, because energy in equals energy out, only the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential counts.



Sorry, that's gross.  Assume, if you will, the sun gets lazy, and halves her output for a few millennia.  Certainly, the earth will adjust to a new equilibrium, so that "energy in equals energy out".  Alternatively, she decides that the best shine bright and die young, and doubles her output.  Again, there'll be an equilibrium.  However, we won't see anything like the temperatures we'll see today.  The energy input is crucial, and your "argument" is a non sequitur if there ever was one.

Sorry, Ian, this denialist hoax has more than over-stretched my patience, and I'll join Wuwei, and you can keep that long-dead horse.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 23, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


*THESE* Lab experiments won`t be done just like the surveys that would reveal something which does not fit the narrative will never be held either.
That`s why all the temperature graphs they publish don`t have ppm CO2 on the X-axis.
They plot CO2 and temperature as a function of time to fake a direct correlation
For a while they did update a graph which had ppm CO2 on the X-axis and the temperature as a function of X. But they stopped updating that graph just before X approached 400 ppm when they realized that the temperature started flat lining:


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing the energy input does not matter, because energy in equals energy out, only the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential counts.
> ...




The Sun has brightened by 25% over the course of it life, yet this planet has always had liquid water. The Goldilocks Zone.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing the energy input does not matter, because energy in equals energy out, only the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential counts.
> ...





IanC said:


> The Sun has brightened by 25% over the course of it life, yet this planet has always had liquid water. The Goldilocks Zone.



When the sun was significantly dimmer, hundreds of millions of years ago, the natural CO2 levels produced by the biosphere were considerably higher, as much as 4 or 5000ppm, which kept the Earth in your "_Goldilocks Zone_".


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2017)

polarbear said:


> *THESE* Lab experiments won`t be done just like the surveys that would reveal something which does not fit the narrative will never be held either.
> That`s why all the temperature graphs they publish don`t have ppm CO2 on the X-axis.
> They plot CO2 and temperature as a function of time to fake a direct correlation
> For a while they did update a graph which had ppm CO2 on the X-axis and the temperature as a function of X. But they stopped updating that graph just before X approached 400 ppm *when they realized that the temperature started flat lining*:



Another denier cult nutjob pops up with more bullshit propaganda, lies, and a phony graph that IS NOT sourced from the CRU.

Of course, you must have had your head shoved pretty far up your ass, PottyBear, if you missed the fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record....until it was surpassed by 2015, which was even hotter.....and then along came 2016, which was even hotter than 2015. The first seven months of 2016 were the hottest months of that name on record since 1880 (and almost certainly much, much longer according to proxie data) and August was tied with July as *the hottest month ever recorded*....September was only the second hottest month on record after September 2015. It is a measured and recorded  scientific fact that 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have happened since 2000, the exception being 1998. Pretty good for "_flat lining_", you silly delusional moron.

*2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record*
*Both NASA and NOAA declare that our planet is experiencing record-breaking warming for the third year in a row
Scientific American*
By Andrea Thompson
January 18, 2017
(excerpts)
*2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

Several spots around the globe had record heat for 2016, including Alaska and a swath of the eastern U.S. The contiguous U.S. had its second hottest year on record, according to NOAA, but with the remarkable warmth experienced by Alaska factored in, 2016 would be the hottest for the country as a whole.

The first eight months of the year were all record hot globally; in NOAA’s data, they were part of an unprecedented streak of 16 record hot months in a row.

Of the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have occurred in the 21st century (the exception being the strong El Niño year of 1998).*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 23, 2017)

polarbear said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...





Kind of amazing how the decoupling of temp and CO2 rise is so dramatically seen, when it is properly  shown.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> The Sun has brightened by 25% over the course of it life, yet this planet has always had liquid water. The Goldilocks Zone.



Heavens.

First, there's near certainty that the world was frozen over at least once.

Second, you do understand that the Goldilocks Zone looks differently for significantly brighter and dimmer stars, don't you?

Third, energy in equals energy out means two things. 1) There's no significant internal heating. 2) With constant input, temperatures do not change overall.  It does NOT mean the temperature remains the same with vastly changing input levels.

Fourth, and final: I did not say that input level is the only influence on the earth's temperature.  A look at Venus should clear that up.  However, were the sun to cut output in half, earth would freeze over.  Moreover, no one in the climate science community uses the IGL to calculate the earth's temperature.  There's a reason for that.  And no one lives in a bubble at 1.5 bar, because that's always a balmy 24°C.  That's absurd.  Enough with this nonsense already.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 24, 2017)

Global air temperature anomaly, Climatic Research Unit (CRU):


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Global air temperature anomaly, Climatic Research Unit (CRU):



We had reading accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880...who knew?

Essay: I have confidence in the deep ocean temperature reading from 1890 because...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Global air temperature anomaly, Climatic Research Unit (CRU):
> ...


the aliens gave us the their findings as archived to a tenth of a degree.  That's why.  Hey, you seen that temperature CO2 lab experiment yet from that list of links?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2017)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



So many links, so little evidence and still not one lab experiment

The lab work must be the Missing Link


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2017)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> So many links, so little evidence and still not one lab experiment
> 
> The lab work must be the Missing Link



So many links to scientific facts, so much hard evidence, and still no indication of rational thought or intelligence from the denier cult dingbats.

The CrazyFruitcake must be The Missing Link.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


here, I'll explain it to you since it went over your head when Frank posted it:

*So many links, so little evidence and still not one lab experiment

The lab work must be the Missing Link*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So according to your side, you only need 1 single CO2 molecule to ignite the irreversible "Manmade global climate warming change" or whatever you call it today


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> Thanks for that second link of yours. Interesting but it did nothing to dissuade me from believing the IGL law has a very real ability to estimate the temperature at a specific pressure.
> 
> The IGL was discovered by experiment using a piston and cylinder. The relationship was found to be the constant R. The assumptions are that the molecules are points and that they are perfectly elastic and don't interact with each other.
> 
> ...


If you are dealing with the atmosphere, you are right, the density should be used in the ideal gas law.

It is a simple rewrite since density (d) is mass per unit volume.
Temperature is, T = P / (d R)
Ideal Gas Law Equations Formulas Calculator - Density

So, in order to compute temperature, you need pressure and density. Those two variables must come from something else.

You can compute P from the usual exponential decrease in pressure with altitude.
Atmospheric pressure - Wikipedia




That leaves density still unknown. I still don't see how the IGL can fill in the blanks. Especially with solar energy and GHG's.

Do you agree with SSDD that the IGL is sufficient, and back-radiation is not needed to explain atmospheric temperature?

.


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




The Reference Frame: Hyperventilating on Venus

I know you are sick and tired of this topic but...

Here is a post by a real physicist who assumed a 'denialist blogger' was wrong, mostly from reputation.

After giving it more thought and investigation, he came to the conclusion that the blogger had been essentially right in principle but that many other factors come into play.

Kinda like what I was saying. Both with respect to SSDD'S claim for the IGL and for the need to investigate claims on their intrinsic worth despite who utters them.


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for that second link of yours. Interesting but it did nothing to dissuade me from believing the IGL law has a very real ability to estimate the temperature at a specific pressure.
> ...




Sufficient? No. A basic building block? Yes.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> Sufficient? No. A basic building block? Yes.


I can agree with that. As a building block it subtracts one from the number of degrees of freedom in any atmospheric formula.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> The Reference Frame: Hyperventilating on Venus
> 
> I know you are sick and tired of this topic but...
> 
> Here is a post by a real physicist who assumed a 'denialist blogger' was wrong, mostly from reputation.



I'd suggest you do some research on Luboš Motl.  He may have excelled in his undergrad years on string theory (and my admiration for that couldn't possibly be greater), but was thrown out of Harvard for cause, and hasn't published anything of any note since.  He knows not one whit about atmospheric physics, and by now he's an insulting, know-it-all crackpot.  And no, the adiabatic lapse rate doesn't make Venus hot, and his rambling blog post (linked by you) doesn't prove anything.  He can't even get a simple calculation right (and it's disconcerting to watch):

The concentration of CO2 on Venus is something like 300,000-500,000 times greater than the same quantity on the Earth (92 times higher total pressure; 3,000-5,000 times higher a percentage, depending on whether we calculate the molar/mass percentage) - but the warming attributed to this gas is only 100-200 times greater than it is on the Earth (at most *3 °C from all the CO2*, including the natural one).

Clearly, the warming increases much more slowly than linearly with the amount of CO2 when the concentrations get really large. However, it increases faster than logarithmically when they're large: 300,000 is equal to 2^{18} or so and 18 CO2 doublings should give about 18 x *1.2 °C* = 22 °C (no water feedbacks on Venus): that would be a sensible calculation if the greenhouse effect were the cause.​
I didn't even bother to check whether or not the 3°C value for CO2-induced warming was correct.


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Sufficient? No. A basic building block? Yes.
> ...




Sure. There are hundreds of them. Like speed of rotation, longer days lower average temps.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Reference Frame: Hyperventilating on Venus
> ...


Yeah none of the Warmers ever bothers to check their assumptions, it's an article of Faith


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2017)

YOU check YOUR assumptions?  HAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAAaaaaaa


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 25, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yeah none of the Warmers ever bothers to check their assumptions, it's an article of Faith



Is that so... Except, the 3°C value for CO2-induced warming was Motl's claim, not mine.  Look, Motl is confusing the adiabatic lapse rate with the environmental lapse rate (just like SSDD), one describing a local phenomenon in a chaotic atmosphere (an updrift), the other a stable atmosphere.  Moreover, since the atmosphere and climate on Venus follow quite different paths and energy flows, Motl's litte curve-fitting exercise may somehow yield results close to the temperature of Venus (that's what curve-fitting is all about), but conclusions from that concerning the Earth's climate and energy flows forbid themselves.  For one, little if any energy from the sun directly heats the surface of Venus, and, what Motl also doesn't know, GHGs become vastly more efficient at trapping heat if vastly more compressed than on Earth.  There's more than that, which I can't care to list here.  The conclusion that Motl knows very little about climate science is well-founded.

So, the whole thing doesn't make all that much sense, is riddled with errors, and thus I decided it isn't worth my time to analyze and check the whole thing in greater detail.  Your claim thus falls flat on its face for multiple reasons, not least because there's no evidence you've read, let alone understood, Motl's blog post.  So I am led to conclude, you're just brawling, venting your anger at the obnoxious "Warmers".  It's what you do, isn't it?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 25, 2017)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


? 
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.


----------



## IanC (Feb 25, 2017)

It's hard to believe that OE and I read the same article.

Motl predominantly described lapse rates. The physical basis for them and why atmospheric composition affects them. All in a comparison to Goddard's article which I have not read (at least lately).

How OE arrives at his mistaken claims baffles me. Poor comprehension, or just a need to insult regardless of what was actually said?

Death Valley is warmer because it is lower than sea level. Lower still would even be warmer because of the physical properties of the stored energy needed to keep the atmosphere aloft. Higher altitudes have a higher proportion of potential energy, lower altitudes have a higher proportion of kinetic energy (temperature). The reason for lapse rates.

Are there different ways of inputting energy into the various types of atmospheres? Of course. But the physical requirements to keep an atmosphere in place are universal, with adjustments made for a thousand other factors.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2017)

So if clicks IR chart with no temperature axis is all the Warmers have to offer as evidence, we can infer that one single CO2 molecule is all it takes to cause, what do you call it today, "global climate warming change"?

Volume is irrelevant


----------



## IanC (Feb 25, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




So make it more obvious what you mean.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So if clicks IR chart with no temperature axis is all the Warmers have to offer as evidence, we can infer that one single CO2 molecule is all it takes to cause, what do you call it today, "global climate warming change"?
> 
> Volume is irrelevant



The information in that graphic would apply to single molecules, yes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

You warmers never stop cracking me up.....when  CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....

Now, by definition, what happens to the temperature of an object or system when you increase its emissivity?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So if clicks IR chart with no temperature axis is all the Warmers have to offer as evidence, we can infer that one single CO2 molecule is all it takes to cause, what do you call it today, "global climate warming change"?
> ...



So we can Terraform Mars into a tropical Paradise by dropping a single CO2 molecule there? 

Then you wonder how we know your "theory" is an epic fail


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> when CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....
> 
> Now, by definition, what happens to the temperature of an object or system when you increase its emissivity?



More CO2 in the atmosphere means it absorbs more radiation, and in order to emit more, it has to have a higher temperature.

That was easy.  You couldn't figure it out?


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So we can Terraform Mars into a tropical Paradise by dropping a single CO2 molecule there?
> 
> Then you wonder how we know your "theory" is an epic fail



No.  I wonder how you've been able to remain so incredibly ignorant.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > when CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....
> ...



Again...you are making an appeal to complexity...you believe that because the terribly flawed basic model has been made far more complex, that somehow the complexity untucked it...it didn't.

In thermodynamics, there are two ways to raise temperature...AND ONLY TWO....you can raise the temperature via work, or heat.   Back radiation, even if it existed, would not constitute work as it is not a mechanical process...as is the case with friction...or an adiabatic change...that being the case, back radiation would have to function as heat in order to raise temperature...and alas, that is not possible either...backradiation, even if it existed could not function as heat because heat can only flow from hot to cool...not the other way around...

And the bullshit claim that additional CO2 "slows" heat flow from the surface, leading to warmer temperatures is just one more appeal to complexity...  Heat flow simply isn't a conserved quantity....it wants to be zero and in fact, seeks zero....when you get close to equilibrium....the quantity that is being conserved is energy...

Energy isn't always heat...but heat is always energy..  Look







The two curves represent energy...the only difference between them is heat....  pick either curve....it is entirely energy but neither one of them can be entirely heat....And the difference between the two...again...heat...goes to zero as the heat flow from the warmer one moves to the cooler one bringing them to thermal equilibrium....

Q = P2 – P1 where P is the energy level of the object, and Q is the heat flow...  Q moves closer to zero the closer the two objects get to thermal equilibrium and therefore Q is not a conserved quantity...  Where this is going is that as Q nears zero, the warmer object is still emitting its energy, it just isn't transferring heat to the cooler one...the claim that slowing the rate of heat flow is nothing more than bullshit...an ad hoc construct resulting from the attempt to make a failed model successful by making it more complex...

And even more basic is the fact that there simply is almost zero radiation between air layers as they are in intimate contact. it is all convection..and radiation is the basis for your bullshit model..if there is so little radiation between layers of air, and your model assumes all radiation....it fails every possible reality test..

And even more basic than that....adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emmisivity...you claim to be a smart boy....by definition, what happens to an object or a system when you increase its emissivity?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> More CO2 in the atmosphere means it absorbs more radiation, and in order to emit more, it has to have a higher temperature.



Sadly...not true...in order to transfer more heat it must have a higher temperature..



Olde Europe said:


> That was easy.  You couldn't figure it out?



Apparently for you it is very difficult...your position is not based in reality...it is based in the teachings of a glassy eyed chanting cult...as evidenced by your belief that increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere will somehow make it warmer....how stupid do you have to be to believe that you would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself by adding a radiative gas?


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

How does CO2 radiate without absorbing energy first?  Is this another of your perpetual motion fantasies?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*...you believe that because the terribly flawed basic model has been made far more complex, that somehow the complexity untucked it...it didn't.*


Sounds like your "smart photon" model.

Still won't explain how photons from the cooler Sun can travel toward the hotter corona. I wonder why?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> How does CO2 radiate without absorbing energy first?  Is this another of your perpetual motion fantasies?



The point is...skidmark....that because the time it takes for a molecule to absorb IR and then emit a photon (assuming photons exist) is about a billion times longer than the time between collisions between CO2 and some other molecule like N2 or O2...it doesn't radiate because the energy is being converted into heat by collisions between the CO2 molecule and some other molecule...ususally N2.


It doesn't matter whether the CO2 molecule acquires that energy via radiation or through collision with another molecule...it is far...far...far...far....far...far a billion times more likely to pass that energy on via another collision than it is to emit a photon..assuming that photons exist.  

If you have an energy transfer model of the atmosphere that depends heavily on radiation before the upper reaches of the atmosphere..your model is dead in the water..


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> how stupid do you have to be to believe that you would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself by adding a radiative gas?



You know, SSDD, here's the thing you keep missing despite having been remembered of same: That "radiative gas" is also very absorptive (as Crick tried to tell you above).  If you included that in your analysis, and also this graph you helpfully provided...






... you'd be all set to understand the basics of CO2-driven global warming in general, and back radiation in particular.  You'd understand, in particular, that without GHGs in the atmosphere, surface radiation would get out to space immediately, cooling the surface, whereas with GHG most of that radiation would be absorbed and about half kicked back to the surface, thus by comparison warming the surface.

Alas, you understand neither that graph, nor radiation, but you're delusional enough to believe you have the wherewithal to prove climate science wrong, based on your misunderstanding of the science involved.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > How does CO2 radiate without absorbing energy first?  Is this another of your perpetual motion fantasies?
> ...



*it doesn't radiate because the energy is being converted into heat by collisions between the CO2 molecule and some other molecule...ususally N2.*

CO2 absorbs the IR, before it escapes to space, and transfers the energy to N2.
What happened to your claim that it causes the planet to cool...faster?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


This thread started out with an oversimplified concept of pressure and temperature. You are bringing complexity far beyond the scope of simpler atmospheric models. Speed of rotation, longer days and more complex factors are used in short term weather prediction. Not simpler atmospheric models.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > how stupid do you have to be to believe that you would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself by adding a radiative gas?
> ...



First...there is no basics of CO2 driven warming because there is no CO2 driven warming....and no...if there were no GHG's in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by some small degree because without GHG's the emissivity of the atmosphere would be lower...and as such, the atmosphere would depend on nothing but convection to move energy to the top of the atmosphere where it would very slowly radiate out to space....far from being a blanket...so called GHG's are small holes in the blanket moving what small bit of energy they are able to move radiatively much more quickly than convection...raising the emissivity of the atmosphere means that it cools more quickly...not that it cools more slowly...more of your glassy eyed chanting which has no bearing on reality...by definition when you raise the emissivity of an object or a system, its temperature drops...

And there is no back radiation...and has never been a measurement of it made with an instrument at ambient temperature despite the fact that you wackos claim that back radiation is equal to the amount of energy coming in from the sun...if you want to measure back radiation moving down from the atmosphere, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere...and then it isn't back radiation at all...is it..it is just energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument as the second law predicts.

And climate pseudoscience has been long for a very long time...I just caught on more quickly than you... you believe that you can complicate a f'ked model to the point that it becomes reality...I live under no such delusion..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




No..this thread started with how f'cked up the radiative greenhouse hypothesis is at its very foundations..then moved on to the rantings and chantings of the glassy eyed cult and eventually cam to the point where you believe it is mere coincidence that the ideal gas law accurately predicts the temperatures of the planets with atmospheres...requiring adjustment for incoming solar for the planets closer to the sun and less and the distance from the sun increases..


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> First...there is no basics of CO2 driven warming because there is no CO2 driven warming....and no...if there were no GHG's in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by some small degree because without GHG's the emissivity of the atmosphere would be lower.



Didn't think it possible, but you still add to the vastness of your incomprehension.  Without GHG's, the earth's average surface temperature would be -18°C.  The 15°C we're seeing is the consequence of the greenhouse effect.  You're still lacking the first hint of the beginnings of a clue.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > First...there is no basics of CO2 driven warming because there is no CO2 driven warming....and no...if there were no GHG's in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by some small degree because without GHG's the emissivity of the atmosphere would be lower.
> ...



No...without an atmosphere the earths' temperature would be -18....if the atmosphere were the same as it is now without so called GHG's...the emissivity would be much lower and as a consequence, it would be a much slower process bleeding heat into space and as a result, the temperature would be warmer...the radiative greenhouse effect is nothing more than bullshit...it doesn't exist because the amount of energy that actually gets radiated when contrasted with the amount of energy that gets convected is so small as to be inconsequential....you claim a radiative greenhouse effect when radiation in the lower atmosphere accounts for almost none of the energy transfer...and to top it off, your hypothesis requires that increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere would actually cause it to become warmer...go look up emissivity and get it through your head that if you increase the emissivity, by definition the temperature drops...not the other way around...this is what happens when you get involved with, and actually believe glassy eyed cultists...you end up chanting right along with them..


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There is both mechanical work and heat input being done to the atmosphere. Raising and lowering the air in the gravity field, and the solar input q.

As well as many other things that are more minor factors. Edit- less basic factors that are not as germaine to the topic of temperature being a function of height in the gravity field.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

So show us the cooling that you believe has taken place since the Industrial Revolution began pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > when CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....
> ...


And to do that how much higher does that temperature have to be?
The back-radiation experts (like you) keep saying that this higher temperature is when the atmosphere emits the same # of w/m^2 as it absorbs.
So what`s going on at 40 to 60 000 feet a.g.l?
Above that the lower stratosphere is as warm as -3 C because of the UV the ozone absorbs
Are you telling us that the air below that, which is colder than -40 C will have to warm up to that temperature  before it can radiate heat outwards?
And should you not worry a whole lot more how much of a (heat) radiation barrier the ozone layer is .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> So show us the cooling that you believe has taken place since the Industrial Revolution began pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.



You don't get it......
by absorbing IR emitted by the surface and then re-emitting that IR to space (and back to the surface), the planet cools much faster than if the emitted IR had instantly escaped into outer space.
Because a slower escape cools faster. Because a slower escape is like holes in a blanket. Get it?

Holes in a blanket cool you much faster than no blanket at all. Because of the 2nd Law. Get it?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> There is both mechanical work and heat input being done to the atmosphere. Raising and lowering the air in the gravity field, and the solar input q.
> .



Yes...but CO2 has nothing to do with it beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere..


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


 
I brought them in? You brought them in and I was just acknowledging them. I would prefer to just talk about the basic concept without talking about geometry, etc of a real world system that has gradients etc due to shape, tilt etc. Averages are good enough for me at this point but the complexities are still important in the real world.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> So show us the cooling that you believe has taken place since the Industrial Revolution began pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.



You get that the temperature was already rising before the industrial revolution don't you...you  know...coming out of the LIA and all...

There is a poor...no, make that a piss poor correlation between temperatures and CO2...CO2 has risen 110ppm since 1750 and we are responsible for a whopping 17ppm...

Here have a look at a new paper accepted for publication

Blockbuster Paper Finds Just 15% Of CO2 Growth Since Industrialization Is Due To Human Emissions


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> go look up emissivity and get it through your head that if you increase the emissivity, by definition the temperature drops...not the other way around.



Absorptivity still doesn't figure in your "argument".  Same Shit, Different Day.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > go look up emissivity and get it through your head that if you increase the emissivity, by definition the temperature drops...not the other way around.
> ...



You don't seem to get the fact that ignorer to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters. and by definition when you increase the emissivity of an object or a system, the temperature drops...  That universal fact should clue you in to your belief that adding CO2 to the atmosphere which increases its emissivity will cause warming...but it isn't, is it?  Again....you are paying the intellectual price for involving yourself with glassy eyed cultists....chanting won't make the model real..it is a failure from its foundation and no amount of complexity will ever make it reflect reality.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You don't seem to get the fact that in order to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.



That's exactly what Crick and I have been trying to tell you over several dozen postings.  Thanks for finally acknowledging what has been obvious to all but you.  Now, how about you adjust your argument regarding temperature by including absorption as well as emission?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to get the fact that in order to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.
> ...



Are you this dim?...really?  All emitters are absorbers...every one of them...the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the emissivity of an object, or a system...the temperature drops.  Which part of that are you having a problem with?  Raise the emissivity drop the temperature of anything even though in order to raise its emissivity, you had to add an absorber/emitter...

What?  Do you think CO2 is some magic substance that is alone among all the substances in the universe which can raise the emissivity of a thing and result in warming?  Disassociate yourself from the glassy eyed cultists and stop chanting...a first class seat on the AGW crazy train is nothing to be proud of.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the absorptivity of an object, or a system...the temperature increases.*


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Are you this dim?...really? All emitters are absorbers...every one of them...the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the emissivity of an object, or a system...the temperature drops.



Ah, okay.  Obviously, including the role of absorption into your discussion of the temperature is too much complexity.


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Somewhere back in the discard pile you complained that the basic atmospheric principle didn't predict temps at location s poleward. That is a step beyond the basics, not using the overall average. 

You have to grasp the basic before you add complexities.

Do you?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you this dim?...really? All emitters are absorbers...every one of them...the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the emissivity of an object, or a system...the temperature drops.
> ...



OK...real slow...can you name any other absorber/emitter that you can add to a system which will increase the emissivity but will not result in a temperature drop other than the magic molecule CO2?


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

Your "blockbuster paper" is in an "open access" journal.  I'm not impressed.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> Your "blockbuster paper" is in an "open access" journal.  I'm not impressed.




And yet you gobbled up that Best paper from a pay to publish journal volume 1....guess that's just how you roll...stupid all the way.  I note that you have no complaint or argument other than you don't like how this one is being published but if it told you what you want to hear, then it is fine no matter where it comes from...got it.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> I brought them in? You brought them in and I was just acknowledging them. I would prefer to just talk about the basic concept without talking about geometry, etc of a real world system that has gradients etc due to shape, tilt etc. Averages are good enough for me at this point but the complexities are still important in the real world.


That didn't make sense to me


IanC said:


> Somewhere back in the discard pile you complained that the basic atmospheric principle didn't predict temps at location s poleward. That is a step beyond the basics, not using the overall average.
> 
> You have to grasp the basic before you add complexities.
> 
> Do you?


That clarification does make more sense. 

Yes, you need to grasp the basics. If you want to think about a physics process in one column of atmosphere with average values, that is useful. However if that physics process such as the ideal gas law fails to address something as important as solar input radiation, then it is not the basics and has little value in grasping basic average atmospheric properties. The ideal gas law alone doesn't address the solar input. 




.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I brought them in? You brought them in and I was just acknowledging them. I would prefer to just talk about the basic concept without talking about geometry, etc of a real world system that has gradients etc due to shape, tilt etc. Averages are good enough for me at this point but the complexities are still important in the real world.
> ...



Using the ideal gas law does not discount solar input..had you actually looked at the temperatures the IGL predict, you would see that it predicted a lower temperature for the planets as you move closer to the sun...it predicted a temperature of 737K at the surface of venus...the actual temperature is closer to 750K....For earth the IGL predicts 288K...the actual temperature is more like 294K.... The predicted temperatures and the actual temperatures get closer as you move further from the sun and the solar input becomes less.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So show us the cooling that you believe has taken place since the Industrial Revolution began pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.
> ...



"We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, *we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.*"

Residency time of just 4 years... And everything except 17ppm over 150 years is naturally occurring... that DEFINITELY PUTS A KNOT IN THE AGW HYPOTHESIS.

So man is responsible for just 17ppm of our current 403ppm. How can 17ppm place us in great peril of runaway anything? Not only can CO2 not warm the oceans, it is now primarily naturally caused and the earths sinks are dealing with it in short order.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 26, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > First...there is no basics of CO2 driven warming because there is no CO2 driven warming....and no...if there were no GHG's in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by some small degree because without GHG's the emissivity of the atmosphere would be lower.
> ...


It would be -18C without GHG? It`s back again to the easy bake oven that should not get warmer than -22 C with a 100 watt light bulb.
And you don`t have  clue why it can bake cookies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So we can Terraform Mars into a tropical Paradise by dropping a single CO2 molecule there?
> ...



Its ignorant because it repeats back your answer every time you're asked to show us the link between CO2 and temperature.  There may be hope for you yet


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

"It's ignorant"?  "It repeats back"?  What is "it"?


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Your "blockbuster paper" is in an "open access" journal.  I'm not impressed.
> ...



I see nothing to refute the isotopic analyses that tell us very close to 100% of the CO2 added since 1750 came from the combustion of fossil fuel.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Fake news....fake science...fake engineering degree...with you its all fake all the time isn't it?


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

You need to consider why you can't find research backing your contentions among peer reviewed journals.  Everyone else here figured it out a long time ago.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> You need to consider why you can't find research backing your contentions among peer reviewed journals.  Everyone else here figured it out a long time ago.


Pal review and echo chamber logic... its been a problem for far to long.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

And I suppose you think Trump is going to solve it.  How many delusions can one person hold?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


> OK...real slow...can you name any other absorber/emitter that you can add to a system which will increase the emissivity but will not result in a temperature drop other than the magic molecule CO2?



Now, that's very silly, but I sort of understand your quandary.  With absorption of LW radiation from the surface acknowledged, you get higher temperatures in the bottom layers of the atmosphere.  With rising temperatures there, you get higher radiation from the atmosphere, up as well as down.  And that downward radiation heats the earth.  So, with all that acknowledged, you got back radiation, and the basic building blocks of the Greenhouse Effect.  Congratulations.

Aw, wait, that way lies disaster for the denialings, and that must not happen.  And that's why we get your three-legged-hippo tap dance laced with insulting language with no purpose other than to avoid to acknowledge what your use of the word "emissivity" with necessity entails.  For if you start to acknowledge real science (for a change), there are unavoidable logical consequences leading straight to what is acknowledged scientific fact-finding, such as - horrible as it is - back radiation, greenhouse effect, AGW.

__________________________________________



Wuwei said:


> Yes, you need to grasp the basics. If you want to think about a physics process in one column of atmosphere with average values, that is useful. However if that physics process such as the ideal gas law fails to address something as important as solar input radiation, then it is not the basics and has little value in grasping basic average atmospheric properties. The ideal gas law alone doesn't address the solar input.



Let me sharpen that a bit, if I may.

Calculating the temperature on a planet using the IGL isn't just some numeric curve-fitting exercise.  It establishes that pressure / density is the only determining factor of temperature (nothing else except constants shows up in the equation).  That doesn't just imply, it states outright that there is no other influence.  Introducing radiation after that fact to explain regional differences (not proportional to density) is to violate the previously stated reigning principle.  That way a "theory" self-destructs.

When, in fact, the temperature at every point is the result of an energy balance, as is the overall average temperature.  Pressure might have some impact on that balance (as in, for instance, GHGs under high pressure are more effective at heat trapping), but that doesn't change - in fact, reconfirms - that the temperature is the result of an energy balance, just as it has to be if the theoretical underpinnings are sound.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > OK...real slow...can you name any other absorber/emitter that you can add to a system which will increase the emissivity but will not result in a temperature drop other than the magic molecule CO2?
> ...



I have no quandary...and there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?  If the answer is yes, then the claim that it causes warming is dead in the water...if the answer is no, then you really don't have a clue....

Again...disassociate yourself from the glassy eyed cult and stop chanting their chants...who knows how long you have before their madness infects the rest of your life...or perhaps it already has...

And there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.which can predict the temperatures of none of the planets with atmospheres and can only predict the temperature here with an ad hoc fudge factor....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which respects the laws of physics, depends on no fictional back radiation, and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere but does not depend on the composition of the atmosphere beyond its total mass....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I have no quandary...and there is no downward radiation*

DERP!


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


> there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?



Yep, because more absorption due to higher CO2-concentrations means more heat, that increases emissions, in fact, also downward longwave radiation (measured, quantified).

We already know you've well understood that.



SSDD said:


> You don't seem to get the fact that ignorer to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.



So, don't lie now: Does backradiation exist?  For if it doesn't, you need to disavow your claim of higher emissivity.  So?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2017)

Q. If a 200ppm increase in CO2 made temperature on Earth rise by 1C, what's the expected increase from 400ppm?

A. Denier!!
B. What a stupid question!
C. The lab research tells us....look a squirrel!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?
> ...


no back radiation exists.  It's why you can't show it or test it in a lab.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?
> ...


*Yep, because more absorption due to higher CO2-concentrations means more heat, that increases emissions, in fact, also downward longwave radiation (measured, quantified).*

where is that heat?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?
> ...



Sorry guy...this is what happens when you believe glassy eyed cultists...who, by the way are easily fooled by instrumentation...backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an identical instrument next to the cooled one that is stripped of its cooling system and you won't measure any back radiation..

I could show you how to prove beyond any doubt that there is no back radiation to yourself for about $50 dollars, but I doubt that you would be interested in doing the experiment...can't question the chant...


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2017)

Once again, everything Same Shit has is based on his claim that matter cannot or will not radiate towards warmer matter.  His explanation as to how matter can tell the temperature of distant matter and control its own emissions, requiring the routine violation of special relativity, has yet to appear.  Same Shit tells us it is probably just one of "those unknowables". 

And, of course, all data showing Same Shit's claims to be insane nonsense are rejected as "lies".

How could we *not *be sold on this?


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2017)

Radiation, or more correctly thermal radiation, is electromagnetic radiation emitted by a body by virtue of its temperature and at the expense of its internal energy. Thus thermal radiation is of the same nature as visible light, x rays, and radio waves, the difference between them being in their wavelengths and the source of generation. The eye is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation in the region from 0.39 to 0.78 ~tm; this is identified as the visible region of the spectrum. Radio waves have a wavelength of 1 x 10 3 to 2 x 101° ~tm, and x rays have wavelengths of 1 × 10 -5 to 2 x 10 -2 ktm, while the bulk of thermal radiation occurs in rays from approximately 0.1 to l00 ktm.* All heated solids and liquids, as well as some gases, emit thermal radiation.* The transfer of energy by conduction requires the presence of a material medium, while radiation does not. In fact, radiation transfer occurs most efficiently in a vacuum. On the macroscopic level, the calculation of thermal radiation is based on the StefanBoltzmann law, which relates the energy flux emitted by an ideal radiator (or blackbody) to the fourth power of the absolute temperature: eb = t~T 4 (1.8) Here ~ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, with a value of 5.669 × 10 -8 W/(m2.K4), or 1.714 x 10 -9 Btu/(h.ft 2" °R4). Engineering surfaces in general do not perform as ideal radiators, and for real surfaces the above law is modified to read e = et~T 4 (1.9) The term e is called the emissivity of the surface and has a value between 0 and 1. *When two blackbodies exchange heat by radiation, the net heat exchange is then proportional to the difference in T 4.* If the first body "sees" only body 2, then the net heat exchange from body 1 to body 2 is given by q = aAI(T~ - T~) (1.10) 1.4 CHAFFER ONE When, because of the geometric arrangement, only a fraction of the energy leaving body 1 is intercepted by body 2, q = ~A1F~_2(T 4 - T 4) (1.11) where FI_ 2 (usually called a shape factor or a view factor) is the fraction of energy leaving body 1 that is intercepted by body 2. If the bodies are not black, then the view factor F~_ 2 must be replaced by a new factor ~1- 2 which depends on the emissivity ~ of the surfaces involved as well as the geometric view. Finally, if the bodies are separated by gases or liquids that impede the radiation of heat through them, a formulation of the heat exchange process becomes more involved (see Chap. 7).

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...nline; filename=Handbook_of_Heat_Transfer.pdf


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry [...]



Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.



SSDD said:


> ..backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument



Yeah, same shit, different day.  There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones.  Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account.  Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.



SSDD said:


> I could show you how to prove beyond any doubt [...]



You did demonstrate beyond any doubt you're just an eminently silly troll, and it didn't cost a single dime.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2017)

Crick said:


> Once again, everything Same Shit has is based on his claim that matter cannot or will not radiate towards warmer matter.  His explanation as to how matter can tell the temperature of distant matter and control its own emissions, requiring the routine violation of special relativity, has yet to appear.  Same Shit tells us it is probably just one of "those unknowables".
> 
> And, of course, all data showing Same Shit's claims to be insane nonsense are rejected as "lies".
> 
> How could we *not *be sold on this?



And still not the first measurement of back radiation at ambient temperature...belief in models over belief in observation...trait number one if you want to be a member in good standing of the glassy eyed chanting cult.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry [...]
> ...



Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult... 

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker



> During the day, the sun's rays are reflected onto the cooking vessel which becomes hot quickly. At night, heat from the vessel is radiated_ outward_, towards empty space, which is very cold indeed (a "heat sink").
> 
> As a result, the cooking vessel now becomes a small refrigerator. We routinely achieve cooling of about 20º F (10º C) below ambient air temperature using this remarkably simple scheme.
> 
> In September 1999, we placed two funnels out in the evening, with double-bagged jars inside. One jar was on a block of wood and the other was suspended in the funnel using fishing line. The temperature that evening (in Provo, Utah) was 78º F. Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE. I invite others to try this, and please let me know if you get ice at 55 or even 60 degrees outside air temperature (minimum at night). A black PVC container may work even better than a black-painted jar, since PVC is a good infrared radiator - these matters are still being studied.



Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it...  Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2017)

At night you will, of course, lose the 168 W/m^2 direct solar insolation.  As far as shortwave goes, at night the oven is exchanging energy with a 2K vacuum.  The 324 W/m^2 back radiation is coming from all directions above the horizon. The parabolic reflector has an input angle of a few degrees and is designed to be discriminatory.  It is only receiving a tiny fraction of the back radiation striking the surface.  Back radiation DOES drop slightly at night.  And the term "24/7/365" is redundant. Seven days a week IS 365 days a year.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE.*

You should ask yourself, with such rapid radiation toward space, why doesn't _everything_ on Earth cool that quickly at night? It's almost as though some mysterious mechanism in the atmosphere is keeping us warm.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



Water vapor?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2017)

You yahoos get funnier all the time...direct energy exchange with space?...skip the atmosphere all together and exchange energy directly with space?...if that can happen, why do you suppose the IR radiating directly from the surface doesn't bypass the atmosphere and go directly to space?  Do you even think about what you are saying before you say it?...do you ever think at all?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 28, 2017)

Crick said:


> Once again, everything Same Shit has is based on his claim that matter cannot or will not radiate towards warmer matter.  His explanation as to how matter can tell the temperature of distant matter and control its own emissions, requiring the routine violation of special relativity, has yet to appear.  Same Shit tells us it is probably just one of "those unknowables".
> 
> And, of course, all data showing Same Shit's claims to be insane nonsense are rejected as "lies".
> 
> How could we *not *be sold on this?


Why don`t you confront the real problem instead of the same straw-man you keep using to score your victories?
There is no "radiation problem" with  emission from cold towards warm, but there is a problem when you claim that warm absorbed this emission and got warmer from it.
If all you got are the 2 radiation sources, warm and cold it`s a zero sum game !
That also means that in your world a warm body just cooled off a colder one even more because the warm one got warmed more by the cooler one.
And if it`s not a zero sum process then you were breeding photons like bacteria in an incubator !


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2017)

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


gravity?


----------



## jillian (Feb 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> 
> So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.
> 
> ...



you really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers".

everything after that makes you look like a twit.... and you might want to stop relying on "memet" for your "science" and get real scientific sources


----------



## jc456 (Feb 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?
> 
> A. Denier!
> B. The Science is settled!
> C. We have Consensus, Denier!


frank, did you watch Bill Nye on the Tucker Carlson show last night?  dude hysterical.  asked a similar question and Nye sounded like a chain saw, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba,


----------



## jillian (Feb 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?
> 
> A. Denier!
> B. The Science is settled!
> C. We have Consensus, Denier!



well, Frankie, I'd explalin it to you, but you're pretty much off the deep end now. at some point, maybe you should pry yourself away from the rightwngnut blogosphere and actually assess the information.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 28, 2017)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...


well a warmer is a 'warmer'


----------



## jillian (Feb 28, 2017)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?
> ...



yes, hysterical... tucker Carlson is a moron and bill bye is really smart.

I can see where that would confuse you.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 28, 2017)

jillian said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


a smart guy that didn't have a single answer to one question asked.  real smart dude there.


----------



## jillian (Feb 28, 2017)

jc456 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



no, wackadoodle...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 28, 2017)

jillian said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


sure it is, here a little slower for ya...w a r m e r.     can you read that one?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2017)

jillian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?
> ...


I'm all ears.

Explain away


----------



## jc456 (Feb 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


well it's blah, blah, blah blah and then there is blah, blah, blah, blah and when you combine them you get blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah


----------



## expat_panama (Feb 28, 2017)

jillian said:


> ...really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers"...


Let's face it, folks that understand the consensus don't matter and we don't want to go there.  What we want is to understand the science --namely observations and not mere beliefs.

Please share any evidence that shows---

the hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since say, 50 years ago,
that it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions to stop it,
what the proof is that it's people that caused it.
and show what we could possibly hope to accomplish by spending $trillions to stop it.
--and if I'm able to reproduce the numbers independently, then I'll join you.. Meanwhile, let's agree that there been no independently reproducible evidence presented here.
.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hold on, does water vapor cause back radiation?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course not


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2017)

jillian said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I think Bill was off his meds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Does water vapor keep heat from escaping to space?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2017)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...



People who think that consensus has anything to do with science are not to be listened to..nor trusted...consensus is a political arrangement, not a scientific one...the science of climate is so far from settled that we have barely...just barely started scratching the surface...and anyone who claims that the science that is just barely starting to scratch the surface is settled is also not to be either listened to or trusted...

People who believe such people when they speak are called rubes...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 28, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


does water vapor make contact with the surface?


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2017)

Frank, when asked if water vapor causes back radiation, you reply "Of course not".  Why?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2017)

I don't know, that response seemed clear to me.


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2017)

Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?


I'm aware there is water vapor yes. does it touch the surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?



That's impossible! Greenhouses are made of glass while water vapor is a gas.....


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?



It's kind of hard to have an honest debate with people who are deliberately acting stupid, isn't it?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?
> ...


You have no idea what is truth, so I agree you can't discuss with deliberate stupid


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 1, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?
> ...



JC isn't acting......


----------



## jc456 (Mar 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Correct, I walk around and I observe, I read and I question. Then expect that experts do their jobs. And in climate, experts who are honest back what I believe. It's simple and you can insult and slander me all you want I'm going nowhere and I'll challenge the idiots like you support


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?
> ...



Yes, Frank, it touches the surface.

Being a greenhouse gas, it is the source of a large portion of the atmosphere's backradiation.  Why do you believe otherwise?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


otherwise what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*Correct, I walk around and I observe, I read and I question.*

Ever observe the cooler surface of the Sun radiating toward the hotter corona?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you have? When was you last visit?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I walked outside a few minutes ago and observed this happening.
Doesn't the Sun know it's violating the 2nd Law?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


water is heavier than air right?  so explain how it violates anything?

Oh and you can observe the surface of the sun and have a thermometer to record temperatures?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*water is heavier than air right? so explain how it violates anything?*

It doesn't.
*
Oh and you can observe the surface of the sun and have a thermometer to record temperatures?*

Yes, we are able to observe the surface of the Sun and measure temperatures there.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you can?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You can't?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope I can record my temperatures here on earth.  explain how you record the Sun's surface temp?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Is it possible to measure the temperature of the Sun? (Beginner) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude too funny.  again, no observable actual temperature, merely a model with inference to determine the temp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It's weird!
They actually used science to make measurements at a distance.

Much less impressive than saying the Sun's surface can't emit toward the corona because....2nd Law. DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well since the 2nd law doesn't say that cool can move to warm, I'm not sure how you get there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*well since the 2nd law doesn't say that cool can move to warm,*

Does the 2nd Law mention photons? Where?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


quote me where it says it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It doesn't mention photons.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so you can't quote it.  thanks


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I can't quote the portion that proves the Sun's surface can't radiate toward the hotter corona.
Can you?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so you can't quote the 2nd law eh?  too bad, means your statement is in error.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The *second law of thermodynamics* states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


k


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2017)

jc, Todd is telling you that the 2nd law doesn't say what you just suggested it says.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2017)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


There is no back radiation...water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy..a trick that CO2 can't do...that is why it is warmer at night in humid begins than it is in dry regions...nothing whatsoever to do with imaginary back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2017)

Crick said:


> jc, Todd is telling you that the 2nd law doesn't say what you just suggested it says.


what is 'it' i suggested?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy*

Absorbing and never releasing, eh?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> There is no back radiation...water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy..a trick that CO2 can't do...that is why it is warmer at night in humid begins than it is in dry regions...nothing whatsoever to do with imaginary back radiation.


Can you give us a link or source of that?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no back radiation...water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy..a trick that CO2 can't do...that is why it is warmer at night in humid begins than it is in dry regions...nothing whatsoever to do with imaginary back radiation.
> ...



On top of everything else, now you tell me that you are unaware of the fact that water vapor actually absorbs and retains energy...tell me that so I can put one more mark in the wuwei doesn't have a clue column...

Go learn about it yourself...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Don't be such an asshole. I'm asking for a reference that says that water vapor is the complete explanation for the earth's temperature and back-radiation is not needed as an explanation. If you have no reference, then it is obvious that you just made that up.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Don't be such an asshole. I'm asking for a reference that says that water vapor is the complete explanation for the earth's temperature and back-radiation is not needed as an explanation. If you have no reference, then it is obvious that you just made that up.



So we can also conclude that you are unable to read what a person writes and understand what is being said?...When did I ever say that water vapor is the complete explanation for the earth's temperature?

And it is a good thing that back radiation is not needed as there is no such thing....

The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect being responsible for the temperature of a convective atmosphere is stupidity of the highest order...you glassy eyed chanting  cultists are heading right over the AGW cliff...actual science will sooner or later step in and hand climate science the slap down it so richly deserves..


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

You said this


			
				Same Shit Different Day said:
			
		

> There is no back radiation...water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy..a trick that CO2 can't do...that is why it is warmer at night in humid begins than it is in dry regions...nothing whatsoever to do with imaginary back radiation.



So, let's see a reference that supports that contention.

Mainstream scientists - all of them - are going to be really upset that you've destroyed the entire idea of a greenhouse effect. I can't wait to see their reaction.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> You said this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I suppose the climate pseudoscience community will be devastated...and then be replaced by a climate science community that is actually interested in science rather than a political agenda...


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

And when do you foresee that happening?  When the EPA's budget is cut?

While we're waiting, how about a link to something reputable supporting your contention regarding water vapor versus back radiation?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> And when do you foresee that happening?  When the EPA's budget is cut?
> 
> While we're waiting, how about a link to something reputable supporting your contention regarding water vapor versus back radiation?


Here is what you could do while we are waiting...:
Fry some eggs on your cook stove and see if they fry faster if you crank up the house furnace thermostat instead of the stove. For added measure use your fire extinguisher to double the CO2 in the kitchen air. The added back radiation should allow you to cook the top of the eggs "over easy" without having to turn them over.
Make a video and post it on youtube. It will go viral with all the clicks you get from democrats.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So we can also conclude that you are unable to read what a person writes and understand what is being said?...When did I ever say that water vapor is the complete explanation for the earth's temperature?
> 
> And it is a good thing that back radiation is not needed as there is no such thing....
> 
> The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect being responsible for the temperature of a convective atmosphere is stupidity of the highest order...you glassy eyed chanting cultists are heading right over the AGW cliff...actual science will sooner or later step in and hand climate science the slap down it so richly deserves..


You are lying, Troll.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> With rising temperatures there, you get higher radiation from the atmosphere, up as well as down. And that downward radiation heats the earth.



Quantify your assumption.

This requires knowledge of that heat/energy transfer, emitter, receiver, and wavelength. AGW warmers skip this step.

For instance; CO2 emits at 16um or greater wavelength. The oceans will not absorb it beyond 10um, thus the skin evaporates causing cooling of the ocean, not warming. The effect of your back-radiation is net negative.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2017)

expat_panama said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ...really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers"...
> ...



Over 70% of papers supporting AGW can not be reproduced with information given from the writers. This is the slip shod science that AGW is based on.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Another good observable evidence is heat in the desert where humidity is very low. During the day it gets very hot, very quickly as there is less atmospheric mass to absorb energy from the sun. At night as there is no humidity and less mass it cools rapidly (3-5 times faster) due to the same reason. Increasing CO2 will only increase the heat release as seen in experiments done in the lab.

Simple observation shows the lack of power CO2 has above 300ppm.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> And when do you foresee that happening?  When the EPA's budget is cut?
> 
> While we're waiting, how about a link to something reputable supporting your contention regarding water vapor versus back radiation?


No you won`t have to wait for a heavy rain fall to see how that works till the EPA`s fat gets trimmed.
> 0.3 inches rain per hour dumps > 67 983 lbs of water per acre.
That water has been evaporated somewhere out in the ocean where storms brew.




It takes 972 btus to evaporate just 1 lb H2O and that`s also the amount of heat you get back later when it condenses.
For the time being, that water (67983 lbs per acre) and it`s heat content (66 079 476 btu) is stored in the atmosphere until it condenses. When it finally does condense and result in a 0.3 inch per hour rain fall it releases the equivalent of 4786.5 watts/m^2.
So here it is:  the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So we can also conclude that you are unable to read what a person writes and understand what is being said?...When did I ever say that water vapor is the complete explanation for the earth's temperature?
> ...


In the end, we will all see that you glassy eyed chanting cultists are the liars....actual science will win out over political expediency in the end


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



It never stops amazing me that they apparently believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which increases the emissivity will cause warming...pure magic...CO2, the only substance in the universe which increases the emissivity of a system and causes warming at the same time.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



CO2 requires a secondary molecule that will absorb and warm up. They thought they had this with water.  But it didn't play well with CO2 and has been observed as a negative forcing.

Now they cant understand why and refuse to acknowledge the science that shows it wrong and why..


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

Show us the fucking research that finds these points Billy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> Show us the fucking research that finds these points Billy.



It's related to "covailent (sic) bonds repelling cooler photons".


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

Hmm...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2017)

Two peas in a pod.. that haven't a clue..

Do either of you know why a capacitor works? What the quantum level mechanics are behind its function?

When you figure it out, let me know..


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

The quantum level mechanics behind the function of a capacitor?  HAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa, what a marOON.

Were you perhaps thinking of something a little more like an STM?


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 requires a secondary molecule that will absorb and warm up. They thought they had this with water.  But it didn't play well with CO2 and has been observed as a negative forcing.



Show us some support for this nonsense you coward.  If you can't, think about giving up your practice of posting absurd unsupportable bullshit on your apparent belief that the world is filled with people stupider than you are.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Here is what you could do while we are waiting...:
> Fry some eggs on your cook stove and see if they fry faster if you crank up the house furnace thermostat instead of the stove. For added measure use your fire extinguisher to double the CO2 in the kitchen air. The added back radiation should allow you to cook the top of the eggs "over easy" without having to turn them over.



No, it shouldn't.

Someone who isn't scientifically incompetent would simply point out that the tiny, tiny increase in backradion is overwhelmed a million-fold by the heat of the stove, hence it has no effect on the experiment.

That's why you suck so badly at science. You don't understand of scale or numbers, and you have no engineering or experimental common sense.



> Make a video and post it on youtube. It will go viral with all the clicks you get from democrats.


And you'll only accept political propaganda as science, so that also causes you to always suck at the science.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> So here it is:  the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?



Less. 

Was there any point to that?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So here it is:  the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?
> ...


Zero is certainly less...


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 requires a secondary molecule that will absorb and warm up. They thought they had this with water.  But it didn't play well with CO2 and has been observed as a negative forcing.
> ...




Still waiting.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Which is the precise amount of evidence you've provided to support you insane contentions.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So here it is:  the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?
> ...


Less you say?
Was there any point to that? you ask
*You just made that point *that we have less influence on the climate than H2O vapor.
But you take the 5th amendment to make a definitive statement how much less.
I`ll make it easier for you:
4788/ X = ?
Pick a number for X
You don`t want to?
Your skeptical science asshole says it`s 1.66
How much less is that?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 5, 2017)

polarbear said:


> *You just made that point *that we have less influence on the climate than H2O vapor.



No, I didn't. And you didn't either. 

If you think you did, explain how.

You showed water vapor can transport heat upwards.

Congrats. Everyone else has known that for a long, long time. It's been a staple of climate science and every climate model. It's been taken into account in excruciating detail.

Why did you think it was news?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You can't pull that crap on me. I really don't believe that current climate science has any predictive powers. We can't even predict the weather all that well a few days in advance. All I'm saying here is that your ability to understand science is crap. If you want to disbelieve climate science, so be it. But when you substitute crap science that you pick up from blogs, you become the glassy eyed chanting cultist. You have an amazing obsession to invent crap science to support your belief.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > *You just made that point *that we have less influence on the climate than H2O vapor.
> ...


It`s not news, at least not to everyone else who isn`t in the group of idiots who insist that IR radiation is the only process that "can transport heat upwards"...like you`ve been saying until just now


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Ditto


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > *You just made that point *that we have less influence on the climate than H2O vapor.
> ...


He did explain his point and how, your turn now


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"The Physical Science Basis" contains over 1,800 pages of evidence that supports (and is the origin of) my view.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Good for you! Now post evidence of back radiation


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

I have posted direct measurements of it.  Repeatedly.




















If you ask for this again jc, I will, with complete justification, tell you to fuck off.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 5, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> You can't pull that crap on me.



Why would the troll you're feeding care what he can pull, or not?



Wuwei said:


> I really don't believe that current climate science has any predictive powers. We can't even predict the weather all that well a few days in advance.



That's a rather surprising mis-comment coming from you.  Weather is chaotic, and thus inherently hard to predict.  Climate in the end is just the result of an energy balance, radiation in vs. radiation out, and thus far more predictable than weather.  In case you referred to making predictions of changing weather patterns as brought about by a changing climate, you'd have far more of a point, but still, as worded, your comment doesn't hold up.  That said, I, for one, am quite convinced of climate science's predictive powers, even while they're providing ranges of uncertainty - or rather because of that.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> I have posted direct measurements of it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well again, if there were any measurements it was done using a cooled receiver which proves absolutely nothing


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> I have posted direct measurements of it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a dupe...that's all I can say...what a dupe...did you even look at the instruments in use at site 7 (dark horse)?  

Pyrometer...it measures solar irradiance between  0.3 μm and 3 μm.
Pyrogeometer..the only thing that instrument is measuring is the temperature change of an internal thermopile..
Net Radiometer...again..measuring nothing but the temperature change of an internal thermopile...

Not a single one of those instruments is capable of measuring a discrete wavelength.

All your graphs are simply made up...none of the instruments in use are capable of generating them...fake news...fake science...all fake all the time..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have posted direct measurements of it.  Repeatedly.
> ...



None of the instruments employed at site 7 (dark horse) were capable of producing those graphs...they are fake in so far as his claim goes...one of them measures nothing more than solar irradiance and the other two measure nothing more than temperature changes of an internal thermopile...if you want to measure a discrete wavelength which his top two graphs show, you must have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....fake science...fake results...all fake all the time..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> The quantum level mechanics behind the function of a capacitor?  HAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa, what a marOON.
> 
> Were you perhaps thinking of something a little more like an STM?


good at throwing insults but no facts  or science..


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> I have posted direct measurements of it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





SSDD said:


> None of the instruments employed at site 7 (dark horse) were capable of producing those graphs...they are fake in so far as his claim goes...one of them measures nothing more than solar irradiance and the other two measure nothing more than temperature changes of an internal thermopile...if you want to measure a discrete wavelength which his top two graphs show, you must have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....fake science...fake results...all fake all the time..



The usual quite insane and very crackpot denier cult claim that the uneducated, extremely ignorant, dumb-shit reality deniers are smarter and know more than all of the world's real scientists.....who write, peer-review, and read and comment on the scientific studies that generate the graphs Crick cited......and who agree with the experiments, techniques and methods of analysis used in those spectrum studies of greenhouse gas radiation.

SSoDDumb makes lots of ridiculous claims about climate science but can never back them up with any evidence, as he once again demonstrates.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


until you can tell me my a capacitor works you will be...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 5, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> That's a rather surprising mis-comment coming from you. Weather is chaotic, and thus inherently hard to predict. Climate in the end is just the result of an energy balance, radiation in vs. radiation out, and thus far more predictable than weather. In case you referred to making predictions of changing weather patterns as brought about by a changing climate, you'd have far more of a point, but still, as worded, your comment doesn't hold up. That said, I, for one, am quite convinced of climate science's predictive powers, even while they're providing ranges of uncertainty - or rather because of that.



I agree.  We do know the energy imbalance right now. It has been measured by satellite. It has not been predicted from a full knowledge of climate variables because it requires the subtraction of numbers that have error bars much larger than the subtracted value.

I'm referring to prediction of the climate as it will be about 100 years from now -- the rather wide range of uncertainty of ocean rise. I have seen estimates of about 0.5 m to 2.0 meters rise. I have no idea what values are credible. The question is whether it will be slow enough that there would not be a catastrophic adjustment. Long term extrapolation is always iffy in any complex science.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

I don't know why folks get so concerned about the error bars.  What are the odds the ocean is NOT rising?  What are the odds it is actually getting lower?  The answer to both is: extremely low.  The odds that the ocean will follow the mean prediction are roughly 68%.  We certainly know enough to act.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 5, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I'm referring to prediction of the climate as it will be about 100 years from now -- the rather wide range of uncertainty of ocean rise. I have seen estimates of about 0.5 m to 2.0 meters rise. I have no idea what values are credible. The question is whether it will be slow enough that there would not be a catastrophic adjustment. Long term extrapolation is always iffy in any complex science.



Long range predictions are always kind of hard.  The biggest unknown variable is, of course, how humankind will react to the challenge at hand, whether it is prepared to reduce CO2 emissions, and how much.  Of course, ice melt is subject to a variety of parameters, such as changing ocean currents, that are highly uncertain.  So, yes, predictions of climate consequences are rather hard.  Agreed.  The point remains, the general direction into which we're heading, more weather extremes, killer heat waves near the equator, droughts and floodings, rising sea levels, and a variety of impacts on fragile ecosystems, isn't really in doubt, even if the figures behind the decimal point, and the exact details of qualitative changes, aren't all that certain.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> All your graphs are simply made up...none of the instruments in use are capable of generating them...fake news...fake science...all fake all the time..



Good god are you stupid.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I've got an engineering degree.  You don't.  You don't seem to have a degree at all.  I think it's extremely likely that I understand circuit theory better than you do, particularly if you think QM is required to explain it.

But, hey, I could always be wrong.  Why don't you give us the QM explanation for a capacitor and I'll make certain you didn't copy it from some website.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have posted direct measurements of it.  Repeatedly.
> ...



So go ahead buckwheet...tell us how an instrument measuring temperature change of an internal thermopile can detect a discrete wavelength...this should be interesting..


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All your graphs are simply made up...none of the instruments in use are capable of generating them...fake news...fake science...all fake all the time..
> ...


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




I've got a better idea, jackass.  Why don't you show us where I said those instruments produced those plots?  Eh?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All your graphs are simply made up...none of the instruments in use are capable of generating them...fake news...fake science...all fake all the time..
> ...



Alas, crick..it is you who is stupid...perhaps you would like to elaborate on how an instrument that only measures the temperature change of an internal thermopile managed to produce that absorption spectra graphic...and by the way...absorption spectra are not measurements of downwelling radiation...

So this is a description of their instrumentation...from their web site...
_Since the terrain, an irrigated cotton field, could not be considered homogeneous, radiation measurements were made at nine sites using a variety of radiation instruments, including pyranometers, pyrgeometers and net radiometers._

All you have provided is further evidence of climate scientists fooling themselves with their own instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



You provided the picture showing the instrumentation from the dark horse site 7....was that just to show that instruments were used even though you don't have a clue as to what they are actually for?


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

It was for jc's edification.  He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons.  You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie.  You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> It was for jc's edification.  He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons.  You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie.  You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy


Well those are really well trained monkeys. Box of 64 colors from crayola?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> It was for jc's edification.  He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons.  You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie.  You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy



You provided the picture...and apparently you were just lying to JC in an attempt to trick him...typical...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It was for jc's edification.  He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons.  You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie.  You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy
> ...



Climate science doesn't use them all...they only use the warm colors for their projects...up till now, that was the only way to keep the money flowing in...I suppose now that they are going to have to be honest and do actual science that can be replicated by other scientists and provide their data...they will be using the cooler colors in the future.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

Wanna bet?  I'd love to take your money. Just watching you shown wrong over and over and over again is getting old. We should make it more interesting... and profitable.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Crick the "engineer" posted this graph:




And Crick the "engineer" would be able to tell you from that,..:
Oct 3,  ~ 290 w/m^2  at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius
same date, midnight 330 w/m^2 means it warmed up by 8 deg to +3
Then on the next day
Oct 4, 310 w/m^2 it has cooled down from +3 to -- 1 C at high noon
and warmed up again during the night to  + 11 C (370w/m^)
Billings OK reports an average of ~ +15 C for that time frame..
So according to that downward radiation and "engineer" Crick there was quite the negative temperature anomaly recorded in Billings OK.
The other graph he posted to make his point about back radiation is even more ridiculous.




He got all exited when he spotted the "W" on the Y- axis. While we are discussing Watts/*m^2*
Crick the "engineer" produced a plot that has the radiance in Watts per *cm^2* per steradian...
and even then it amounts to only 8 e-8 watts per steradian and square centimeter.
There is no way that will budge a thermometer  by 1 mark and you need a spectrophotometer with a photomultiplier to detect that minute amount.
What kind of engineer is he anyway? I remember him saying he is an "ocean engineer".
I suppose physics is a lot more complicated for somebody who is  accustomed to count the clams that the tide left behind or playing with the sediment mud he scooped up.
If he [asks any woman] I`m pretty sure she would  call an electrician to get her washing machine fixed because he has no idea what thingamajigs all these wires are connected to.
Yet he lectures us on how a spectrophotometer & the electronics inside one of these work.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

I've done no such thing.  And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist.  I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky.  The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 5, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*And Crick the "engineer" would be able to tell you from that,..:
Oct 3, ~ 290 w/m^2 at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius*

What makes you think that's the temperature?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> I've done no such thing.  And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.
> 
> I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist.  I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky.  The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.


I believe what polar stated is you have no idea what you posted and should perhaps go back to engineering school. It is how I read his post. Now, do you know exactly what you posted, or are you convinced monkeys made the graphs with crayons?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> I've done no such thing.  And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.
> 
> I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist.  I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky.  The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.


Sure, I have no intention to belittle [anyone...] smart enough to know that you don`t know anything about a simple thing like a washing machine.
About these "scientists"...I can leave them out of it just like [personal references as requested], because any trained monkey can switch on a Perkin Elmer IR spec and rip off the paper that came out of the strip chart recorder.
There is nothing amazing about a spectrophotometer being able to scan a wave band by turning the monochromater and a photomultiplier detecting the light.
What is amazing is the technology it takes to etch an optically perfect mirror with all these perfectly aligned grooves and the science and engineering it took to make a photomultiplier.
These "scientists" that planted these spectrophotometers on tripods in a farmers field in Oklahoma know just as little about the inner workings of these instruments as you do about the inner workings of a washing machine.
I don`t know w.t.f you are ranting about me and "back"-radiation.
Nobody I know, ever stated that there is no thermal radiation and that it is not dissipated into all possible directions or that it is not depending on temperature.
It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.
Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.
I just finished an exchange with this toddster guy in Skook`s thread how stupidly you "back"wards guys use the StB equation on 2 different temperatures in a backward way to get a final temperature....and here he is again with the same stupid questions.
He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons while he needs photons  with a birth certificate that tells him where all these photons came from after a cooler body lessened the cooling rate of a warmer one which is being baked by the sun.
He can tell you which and how many photons the warmer body got from the colder one and which & how many came from the sun after the cooler body got just as warm as the other one.
*I could tell you* what winds up where in terms of *wattsec*, but not in terms of *photons*( like Toddster can ), unless you or him have found a way to overcome Werner Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when,.. then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then...not knowing the momentum means you don`t know the energy. In terms of watts you need a cross section (an area) that a large number of photons traverse at the same time and not a large number of photon cross-hair "dots" in different places at the same time. Having some trouble visualizing it? Maybe they got a pretty gif image of that concept somewhere on the net. Go fish !


----------



## mamooth (Mar 5, 2017)

polarbear said:


> It`s not news, at least not to everyone else who isn`t in the group of idiots who insist that IR radiation is the only process that "can transport heat upwards"...like you`ve been saying until just now



I never said any such thing.

If you're not lying, you'll be able to show where I said that.

So man up and do so, or apologize.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 5, 2017)

polarbear said:


> It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.



No, nobody except some addled cultists dispute that cooler objects can warm warmer objects. That's basic science and simple common sense.



> Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.



So were you an affirmative action baby? After all, you do misunderstand the very simple SB equation.



> He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons



Because your theory requires smart photons. That's why it's obviously a crackpot theory.



> If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then..



That was your "Let me retype some commonly known science which has no relevance so I can pretend to be smart" thing. It's not pertinent to the topic under discussion.

The topic is your claim that a cooler object can't warm a warmer object, something disproved by theory, experiment and common sense.


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I've done no such thing.  And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.
> ...



1) I am an engineer, not a biologist.
2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.
3) That is the basis behind the claim that the atmosphere cannot radiate towards the surface
4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.
5) WTF does Heisenberg have to do with this discussion?

PS: bringing family members into these discussions, as you've now done twice, is a rather serious breach of USMB rules.  I ask you again to cease.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Crick said:


> .
> 2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.



Does the claim that rocks fall when dropped require smart rocks?..or simply a force, the mechanism of which we, as yet, don't understand?  Might energy not move from cool to warm for the same reason?



Crick said:


> 4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.



What you posted was instruments that measure nothing more than a temperature change within an internal thermopile...what you posted was proof that it is easy to fool a dupe with instrumentation...if you want a direct measurement of "back radiation" you must use an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't measuring back radiation, you are merely measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument..

And you are no engineer...no one could possibly graduate an engineering program and remain as unable to read a simple graph as you...unless our educational system is further down the tubes than I ever imagined...


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2017)

A claim that rocks will fall on, say, limestone but will not fall on granite is a much closer analogy to your nonsensical claim regarding radiative heat transfer.

You aren't an engineer or anyone with any grasp of basic science whatsoever, so you're hardly the person to judge.  And I'm no shrink, but I think your inability to see and amend the 'error of your ways' indicates some severe psychological issues that you really need to have treated.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Crick said:


> A claim that rocks will fall on, say, limestone but will not fall on granite is a much closer analogy to your nonsensical claim regarding radiative heat transfer.



As bad at analogy as you are at reading graphs....why is that not surprising.



Crick said:


> You aren't an engineer or anyone with any grasp of basic science whatsoever, so you're hardly the person to judge.  And I'm no shrink, but I think your inability to see and amend the 'error of your ways' indicates some severe psychological issues that you really need to have treated.



Actually skid mark...I have a BS in chemistry although I never did anything with it....I grasp the science to an extent far beyond any grasp that you have as evidenced by the fact that I can distinguish between real, and models...observation and unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...between solutions derived from basic physical principles, and assumed solutions with equations custom tailored to reflect the assumed solution...as in the misuse of the SB equations...  You don't have a clue...you accept anything as real so long as it satisfies your political leanings...


----------



## polarbear (Mar 6, 2017)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Oh no, I seriously violated the officer`s & gentlemen`s code of conduct while your name calling of anyone who criticizes your opinions is not?
Alrighty, I`ll change the 3rd party from wife to girlfriend...does she still qualify as a family member?
Back to business! So you are certain that you can furnish scientific proof that 15 μm photons can not be emitted by anything else than the CO2 or by matter at a higher effective thermodynamic temperature than the stuff you like to attribute to human activity ?
Let`s see what that implies. The effective T  for 400 ppm CO2 is derived from 3.32 w/m^2.
Which is -185 C. So if you got air at a temperature of +20 C that means that 400 (volume) parts of that air is at -185 C and coexists with the other 999 600 parts which are at +20 C.
Now we got "smart" molecules instead of "smart" photons
Lets get back to these Billings OK thermographs you posted.
The first one does not even show anything at the shorter wavelength where most of the incoming solar heat is absorbed by the ground. It`s a graph deliberately truncated at that point to mislead a casual observer. Even more blatant is the Y-axis scale where the "W" jumps out to be easily seen but the exponent is not visible at all unless your PC has been set up to the best possible screen resolution
This one is more of the same:





It`s  totally one sided and deliberately misleading since it would have been no trouble at all to record & display the *real temperature *on the same chart.
Why has this not been done?
For one thing, because it would have shown that there was no relation ship or at the least only a dubious one..and the other thing might be that these "researches" were plainly to dumb to consider the most important part of the data it takes to support the claims that are supposed to help make the case for AGW.
If that`s good enough for you despite that then you can`t be an engineer and if you are I hope to god you are not getting near anything where people pay with their lives for miscalculations.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Does the claim that rocks fall when dropped require smart rocks?..or simply a force, the mechanism of which we, as yet, don't understand?



But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.



> Might energy not move from cool to warm for the same reason?



First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.

Second, no, it couldn't happen that way, as it violates the laws of causality, which are inviolate.



> What you posted was instruments that measure nothing more than a temperature change within an internal thermopile..



As has been pointed out over and over, cheap non-cooled IR cameras, which do not use thermopiles or any electronics that depend on temperature, can give a very clear image of a very cold sky. Your theory is utter shit, completely debunked by cheap consumer electronics.



> and then you aren't measuring back radiation, you are merely measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument..



Horseshit. Those IR cameras give a very clear image of clouds that are miles away, so they are clearly not absorbing warmth from the local atmosphere. And again, they contain no thermopiles, so absorbing local warmth wouldn't do jack.

Conclusion? You're a lying cult moron.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 6, 2017)

polarbear said:


> It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.



Having given up on our "hard core" deniers of radiative transfers  -- the ones that TRULY believe laws of Thermo ARE being abused by "back radiation" -- there are OTHERS who will misinterpret the energy exchange as an "energy gain".  So I don't envy you. I hope you're more patient than I was.  It's all because the basic Thermo classes leave all this radiative stuff as a footnote.

I think a large part of the problem is that the AGW folks refer to this part of the LWIR exchange as a "Forcing Function".  Putting it into the same class as solar forcing or albedo changes. And all those "Energy balance diagrams" that are really "Power Balance diagrams make it LOOK like an "energy gain".. 

Heads are exploding at this point at this point however -- so you are doing an excellent job.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 6, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Back to business! So you are certain that you can furnish scientific proof that 15 μm photons can not be emitted by anything else than the CO2 or by matter at a higher effective thermodynamic temperature than the stuff you like to attribute to human activity ?



No.

That was simple.

So what did that question have to do with the topic being discussed?



> Let`s see what that implies. The effective T  for 400 ppm CO2 is derived from 3.32 w/m^2.



Huh? No matter, being your strawman was already shot down with a simple "no".



> Which is -185 C. So if you got air at a temperature of +20 C that means that 400 (volume) parts of that air is at -185 C and coexists with the other 999 600 parts which are at +20 C.



You're totally off in your own little weird reality. You're not stunning us with brilliance, you're baffling us with bullshit. Nobody has any idea of what you're babbling about.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 6, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



I'm not gonna unwind UTC time for Billings OK. I've got to get back to work. But your objection seems to ONLY apply to the DAYTIME hours. And I see a 24 hour record there.  Hmmmmm.....


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

mamooth said:


> But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.



No hairball...we know that gravity exists...and we can predict its effect on objects...beyond that, it is all guessing...we don't have the first clue as to what actually causes gravity.



mamooth said:


> First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.



Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.
> ...



*Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...*

I observe energy moving from the cool surface of the Sun toward the hotter corona, everyday.
How do you explain this massive flaw in your "theory"?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Looking at the sun is bad for you...perhaps that explains why you are like you are..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I don't have to look at it to see your error.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 6, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Hmmm?
Maybe you did not see what I said about these  temperatures in post #814
_"Oct 3, ~ 290 w/m^2 at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius
same date, midnight 330 w/m^2 means it warmed up by 8 deg to +3
Then on the next day
Oct 4, 310 w/m^2 it has cooled down from +3 to -- 1 C at high noon
and warmed up again during the night to + 11 C (370w/m^)"_

That`s why this is so odd !
Early autumn in Oklahoma and it`s -5 & -1 C at high noon and warms up at midnight to +11.
I`m pretty sure had they included an actual thermometer trace on that chart along with the IR the peaks would be phase shifted by 180 degrees...and that would have made nonsense of the assertion that has been made with this recorder tracing


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I have given you the answer numerous times...the fact that you don't like it just goes to show that you are incapable of learning from your mistakes...here, yet another source explaining energy movement from the surface to the corona..

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand



> “Our observations have permitted us to estimate the amount of energy transported by the magnetic waves, and these estimates reveal that the waves’ energy meets the energy requirement for the unexplained temperature increase in the corona.”





> The MHD waves may not be solely responsible for heating the corona to dazzling temperatures. In 2011, a team comprised of researchers from Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL), NCAR and the University of Oslo claimed they discovered a potential source of hot gas that replenishes the corona: high energy jets of plasma that shoot from inside the photosphere (De Pontieu, B. _et al. _Science 331, 55-58 (2011)).





> In any case, it may be that there are more coronal heating mechanisms than the currently discovered MHD waves or plasma jets. Suffice to say, what was once an insurmountable mystery is now slowly unraveling its secrets.



The laws of physics always win toddster...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm no matter how much you wish it were true..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It doesn't matter why the corona is hotter, what matters is that according to your "theory" photons from the cooler surface CANNOT travel toward the hotter corona.

But they clearly do.

*...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm*

Except when the Sun is involved? DERP!

I'll help you out, you just fill in the blanks.

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.
This is different than photons moving from the cooler atmosphere of the Earth to the warmer surface of the Earth because __________________________________.

I'll await your logical explanation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 6, 2017)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Actually in the winter, that area and in my state of Tenn, we are in a battle zone between crushing northern cold air attacks and massive movements of warm moist air from the Gulf. So there are MANY nights where it's warmer than the previous day. Only takes minor shifts in pressure and jet streams to do that almost instantly.. 

What we HATE is when BOTH occur within a 48 hour period. Because of the large amount of frozen precipt that results.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I have no theory...the laws of physics state that energy won't move SPONTANEOUSLY...do you know what spontaneously means?..it is a key word here...energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...the mechanisms described above constitute work...if you apply work, you can certainly make energy move from cool to warm.....it just won't happen spontaneously.  So once again, the reason is work...like it or not, that is the reason..


----------



## polarbear (Mar 6, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Yeah we get these "maulers" here in Manitoba just when you think it`s safe to plant the tomatoes in the garden. Next thing it`s subzero for another couple of weeks
But your reply motivated me to look for a post I did back in May 2016, just before my wife succumbed to cancer. On the day when I made this video it was over +30 C and the IR gun registered +37 C when pointed at the ground...equates to 526 w/m^2
When I pointed it at the clear sky portion it registered - 18.5 C ==> 238 w/m^2
Almost the same as what they show on that Billings OK thermograph, but what they did not show and I did was that the down dwelling radiation is way out of sync with the ground temperature.
Here is the link to the post with that video:
More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I have no theory...*

_"Photons can see the location and temperature of their targets and aren't emitted if they'll hit warmer matter, even if the targets are millions of light years away"_

This isn't your theory?

*...the laws of physics state that energy won't move SPONTANEOUSLY...do you know what spontaneously means?.*

Does it mean that your original theory is wrong?

*if you apply work, you can certainly make energy move from cool to warm...*

Are you saying that the Sun does work and the Sun can emit photons that are allowed to hit warmer matter?
If that's the case, which photons are not originally caused by work?

I guess that means most photons in the Universe aren't restricted in any way?

That's a relief.


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2017)

That magnetic waves are responsible for the heating of the corona does NOTHING to explain how photons from the dramatically cooler surface are (per YOUR understanding) moving towards the dramatically hotter corona.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 6, 2017)

Crick said:


> A claim that rocks will fall on, say, limestone but will not fall on granite is a much closer analogy to your nonsensical claim regarding radiative heat transfer.
> 
> You aren't an engineer or anyone with any grasp of basic science whatsoever, so you're hardly the person to judge.  And I'm no shrink, but I think your inability to see and amend the 'error of your ways' indicates some severe psychological issues that you really need to have treated.


No, that's incorrect, a rock doesn't go up does it? Why not?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Where is the source of the suns energy? Core or corona?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _"Photons can see the location and temperature of their targets and aren't emitted if they'll hit warmer matter, even if the targets are millions of light years away"_
> 
> This isn't your theory?



Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...We know so little about the fundamental mechanism...scratch that..we know nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy change...we don't know what makes it happen...so we have no idea what is going on there...but there is a reason that we never observe energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...perhaps some day we will know...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does it mean that your original theory is wrong?



First, I have no theory...and my position has always been that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is your lack of reading skills that have left you thinking that my position is otherwise...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you saying that the Sun does work and the Sun can emit photons that are allowed to hit warmer matter?
> If that's the case, which photons are not originally caused by work?




Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I guess that means most photons in the Universe aren't restricted in any way?



The key word in that sentence is guess....which is precisely where science is in its statements regarding energy exchange...it is all guessing...and I can't help but wonder why you wackos want to guess that something is happening that we can't, and never will observe over guessing that something is happening that supports every observation ever made.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2017)

Crick said:


> That magnetic waves are responsible for the heating of the corona does NOTHING to explain how photons from the dramatically cooler surface are (per YOUR understanding) moving towards the dramatically hotter corona.



What do you suppose those magnetic waves are moving to the corona?...and if photons exist, and have no charge, how do you suppose a magnetic wave manages to have any effect on them?


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2017)

HA HA HA HA HA haaa.... you seem to believe the sun is made entirely of photons.  

Don't you ever think?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> We know so little about the fundamental mechanism...scratch that..we know nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy change...we don't know what makes it happen...so we have no idea what is going on there...but there is a reason that we never observe energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...perhaps some day we will know...


That is so funny. 

Actually *we *know a tremendous amount about energy exchange. *We *do know what makes it happen. *We *have a fundamental idea. 

Your "_some day we will know_" already happened 100 years ago.

What you are saying is that *YOU* know nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy change...*YOU *don't know what makes it happen...so *YOU *have no idea what is going on there.. But again, *WE* do know the science and *YOU *don't.

.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 7, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> I think a large part of the problem is that the AGW folks refer to this part of the LWIR exchange as a "Forcing Function". Putting it into the same class as solar forcing or albedo changes.



Why would that be a problem?  I mean, we've seen scientific illiterates not understanding (or professing not to understand) the concept of back radiation, or denying its existence altogether.  That's too bad, but not really a problem.  Moreover, putting it in the "same class" means it is part of the forcing that changes the earth's energy content; it doesn't suggest that SW and LW radiations are in all aspects the same.  Changing cloud cover or deforestation are also part of the forcing, and the differences are even bigger.  So, I genuinely don't see the problem.  What is it, exactly?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _"Photons can see the location and temperature of their targets and aren't emitted if they'll hit warmer matter, even if the targets are millions of light years away"_
> ...



*Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm*

No, that was your explanation for the directions photons moved and why.

*First, I have no theory*

Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.

*Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?* 

For at least the 4th time, the corona and the reason for its high temperature don't matter.
What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.
*
The key word in that sentence is guess*

It's true, we have to guess about your theory, because you can't provide any source that agrees with your claims......how else can we flesh out your silly "theory" without guessing?

Try again?

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2017)

That magnetic waves cause coronal heat is nothing more that the latest wild-eyed guess to explain something observable, yet defies our understanding of physics. It's a plug idea, a space filler.

The photons must come from the corona and not the surface


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


again with misinformation on a response as I'm reading new posts.  you do this frequently.

*What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.*

why don't you ever quote what was actually posted.  SSDD's comment is this:
_"First, I have no theory...and my position has always been that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm_."

big word you missed in your misinformed response.  'spontaneous'  Maybe it's you don't know what the definition of the word is.  don't know, but you  mostly miss using it when responding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> That magnetic waves cause coronal heat is nothing more that the latest wild-eyed guess to explain something observable, yet defies our understanding of physics. It's a plug idea, a space filler.
> 
> The photons must come from the corona and not the surface



Photons come from both.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Explain further what allows these cool photons to move toward warmer matter.

Do photons know if they're spontaneously moving or not?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We know so little about the fundamental mechanism...scratch that..we know nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy change...we don't know what makes it happen...so we have no idea what is going on there...but there is a reason that we never observe energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...perhaps some day we will know...
> ...




What is funny is that you believe that being able to predict a temperature from an amount of energy received or sent equals understanding what causes the movement in the first place....what is funny is that you believe we have any idea of the basic mechanism that drives energy exchange....what is funny is that you believe models are reality....funny and sad...because it indicates that you are living in a dream world and have a real inability to separate reality from fiction..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He can only argue against his own straw men...he is a doofus who never rises above the level of a 5 year old in his conversation...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Photons only moving to cooler matter is your construction, not mine.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> .because it indicates that you are living in a dream world and have a real inability to separate reality from fiction..


Oh, the troll want's more feeding. You are doing the old troll trick of blaming someone for something you are guilty of.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I think a large part of the problem is that the AGW folks refer to this part of the LWIR exchange as a "Forcing Function". Putting it into the same class as solar forcing or albedo changes.
> ...



It's a problem if the folks DOING the systems modeling actually LOOK at all those things as "forcings"..  In a complex system with feedbacks and storage and delays, that measure "energy balance" resulting in a surface temp change, the only primary energy ENTERING the system (in this case) is the solar forcing and some trivial contributions such as plate tectonics, atmospheric friction, and planetary "wobble".  Then you have adjustments to "transfer functions" that change dynamically which affect HOW that primary energy gets, distributed, stored or delayed.

The best "handle" on transfer functions are the "solar constant" (which is NOT constant when searching for such small results) and the effect of the GHGases. Both of these are pretty well (but not completely)  specified by basic chemistry and physics and observation. The OTHER things you mentioned are less well "modeled". Because of serious lack of knowledge about the feedbacks, delays, and storage.

*For instance, the GHGases dont ADD any energy to the overall system other than what they put into storage.* They IMPEDE the NET LOSS of energy to space. And if you look back at the "famous" Trenberth "energy" diagram where he took all of this on the back on an envelope (uncertainties and all) and MIRACULOUSLY discovered the EXACT amount of trivial energy to account for all the warming by the path thru the GHGases   , he left out one of the most IMPORTANT aspects of this transfer function. And that was "ocean storage" of the "excess heat" created by additional "atmospheric insulation".  About 20 years LATER --- he co-authors a paper about "How the Oceans Ate My Global Warming" by making the claim that a full 90% of the EXCESS HEAT created by the heat retardardation to space ended up as storage in the DEEP oceans. Yet at the time he pulled off that miraculous envelope exercise -- he completely left that component OUT of his "balance"..  He simply considered the "back radiation" of the GHGases as a simple "forcing" without accounting for complexity of that particular transfer function that ACTS on changes in that one variable.

In addition, because the GHG effect doesn't ADD any primary energy into the system -- you need to account for the ATMOSPHERIC storage of that energy as well as the ocean and any land storage. Because OBVIOUSLY if the effect of higher GHGases is to RETAIN ENERGY at the surface -- it must be "stored" somewhere right?  Do you know the what the "storage capacity" is of an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is? What is the retention time of that storage.  Etc, Etc..  *Bottom line is --- it's not  a forcing in the traditional "systems theory" terminology -- is it? *

It's a technical observation. Not ready for public education. But it shows how juvenile and sloppy it was to allow the public to THINK for nearly 20 years --- that CO2/CH4 emissions was the MASTER TUNING KNOB for this complex system..  It isn't..

Since you said you have an engineering background -- I didn't hold back. Hope you understand my skepticism about some of the whackier "pronouncements" that have come from the AGW circus..


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why exactly?  it seems SSDD had given you the information you requested awhile back.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, I've already poked holes in his "theory". Thanks!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


or not


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > That magnetic waves cause coronal heat is nothing more that the latest wild-eyed guess to explain something observable, yet defies our understanding of physics. It's a plug idea, a space filler.
> ...



How do you know?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why is it the surface is cooler if it is the source?


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 7, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> It's a problem if the folks DOING the systems modeling actually LOOK at all those things as "forcings".. In a complex system with feedbacks and storage and delays, that measure "energy balance" resulting in a surface temp change, the only primary energy ENTERING the system (in this case) is the solar forcing and some trivial contributions such as plate tectonics, atmospheric friction, and planetary "wobble". Then you have adjustments to "transfer functions" that change dynamically which affect HOW that primary energy gets, distributed, stored or delayed.
> 
> The best "handle" on transfer functions are the "solar constant" (which is NOT constant when searching for such small results) and the effect of the GHGases. Both of these are pretty well (but not completely) specified by basic chemistry and physics and observation. The OTHER things you mentioned are less well "modeled". Because of serious lack of knowledge about the feedbacks, delays, and storage.
> 
> ...



Okay, I've read that thing thrice now, and still don't really understand your problem.

If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system).  So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system.  I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.

Moreover, since you're perennially bashing poor Trenberth:  The earth's heat content (let's leave out minor factors such as heating by the earth's molten core, etc.) is determined by solar irradiation minus the sum of all radiation to space.  That alone gives you the changes in energy content.  Where any excess heat ends up being stored affects the internal dynamics, but not the overall heat content.  That's why Trenberth could leave out ocean storage and still come up with a pretty accurate figure.  Moreover, the cleverly dubbed "How the Oceans Ate My Global Warming" forgets that the oceans are pretty much part of the globe, and thus a part of "Global Warming", very much so.  So, when oceans are storing heat away in deeper regions, and land surface temperatures don't budge much, "global warming" still hasn't stopped.  So, the much celebrated "Hiatus" or "Pause" was just bogus nonsense based on the difficulty to find the excess heat, and the ubiquitous reliance on cherry-picking beginning and end dates subsequent to the 1998 El Niño..

So, yes, heat retention by GHGs is somewhat different from solar irradiation.  Unless you come up with another, better term for that former aspect of forcing (which I am convinced it is), I cannot see anything in this whole exercise other than nitpicking over mere words.

"But it shows how juvenile and sloppy it was to allow the public to THINK for nearly 20 years --- that CO2/CH4 emissions was the MASTER TUNING KNOB for this complex system.. It isn't.."​
All I read points to CO2 as the main driver of warming at the time, methane playing a comparatively minor role (for the time being).  Whether that translates to "MASTER TUNING KNOB" I patently don't know.  I also don't know whether in a complex system such as the earth's climate there is a MASTER TUNING KNOB, or whether it was actually sloppy to allow the public think there is one.  Global warming is real, CO2 is its main driver, reducing carbon emissions should be our main environmental policy aim, and it does not make one whit of a difference to me whether we call it a "MASTER TUNING KNOB" or humankind's self-destructive addiction to fossil fuels or whatever.

As to this:

"Do you know the what the "storage capacity" is of an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is?"​
Of course, CO2 molecules hit by IR radiation transfer energy by way of collisions to nearby N2 or O2 molecules, so the storage capacity of "an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere" is of no import.  Rather, raising the question appears to indicate a misunderstanding on your part.

I don't think I've ever spoken about my background, as I don't think that our contributions should be judged according to any such claimed, unverified background.  As to being wary of wacky pronouncements, yep, there's something to that.  You won't be surprised to learn that I am locating the predominant source of such pronouncements in the other corner, eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*why is it the surface is cooler*

Why does it matter?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 7, 2017)

Trying to tell a warmer what the Boltzmann equation does say and what it does not say is like trying to educate an outback bushman that the tribe`s witch doctor does not have supernatural powers.
The only thing this equation: σT1^4 - σT2^4 states is the amount of work (as in energy) can be transfered from a mass A at T1 to another mass B at T2.
If T1>T2 then energy is transfered from A to B, but never the other way around.
The warmers insist it is reversible enabling B to transfer energy to A because there are photons coming from A that B absorbs.
There are, nobody says there are not.
But that does not TRANSFER ENERGY from B to A, because in order to do that B has to increase the ENERGY of A, which means *work *was performed on the mass A with ENERGY being consumed that came from B. If that were possible then A should now be able to perform more work than it could before that backward process happened.
Warmers are unable to realize how absurd their interpretation of the Boltzmann equation is, reject any proof of the contrary and if all fails they invoke a third body C that finally explains why A can perform more work because B was there.
All the while there is proof that only A to B transfer can happen and not B to A. It`s everywhere you look and can observe a thermodynamic process that performs work.
Expanding the liquid in a bulb thermometer requires work, as does the expansion of a gas.
If you put some hot liquid A in a thermos and screw the top on the hot liquid will heat the colder air  B that makes up the head space in that thermos.
You can observe that by connecting a manometer tube to the thermos and watch the pressure going up or you can connect a volumetric device and watch the volume increase while leaving the pressure at ambient.
Either way A at any time transfered energy to B and at no time was there an energy transfer from B to A. Else it should have been possible to observe a drop in pressure or volume.
The A ----> B energy transfer will continue until B is at the same final temperature f as A
Now you got the situation, σTf - σTf, where the energy transfer is null
After that both will start cooling down to the ambient temperature  a ,because we can`t make a perfect thermos bottle.
The air in the thermos head space is now at the same volume and/or pressure it was when we started the process and now no more work or energy transfer between A and B  is performed in either direction.
Warmers will refuse to accept that all Watts/m^2 = σT1 - σT^4 states is that cooling rate is slower. They claim that proves that A at T1 is getting energy from B at T2.
A Stirling engine performs less work per time, i.e. is loosing power when the cooling cycle is impeded even though you supply heat energy at the same rate as before.




According to the warmers that should not be happening because slowing the cooling rate means you added more heat energy.
According to the warmers, since photons are an energy quantum photons also have a mass.
After all E=mc^2 so it`s child`s play for warmers to find out the mass of a photon by solving for m, m=E/c^2 using the energy in photons to determine their mass.
Which gives us a clue how a Hollywood startrek  photon torpedo works.
It`s a photon mass fusion reactor and the energy is the mass defect divided by c^2 after the fusion reaction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Trying to tell a warmer what the Boltzmann equation does say and what it does not say is like trying to educate an outback bushman that the tribe`s witch doctor does not have supernatural powers.
> The only thing this equation: σT1^4 - σT2^4 states is the amount of work (as in energy) can be transfered from a mass A at T1 to another mass B at T2.
> If T1>T2 then energy is transfered from A to B, but never the other way around.
> The warmers insist it is reversible enabling B to transfer energy to A because there are photons coming from A that B absorbs.
> ...



*there are photons coming from B that A absorbs.
There are, nobody says there are not.*

SSDD and JC456 (and probably Billy_Bob) say that there are no photons from the cooler to the warmer.

*But that does not TRANSFER ENERGY from B to A, because in order to do that B has to increase the ENERGY of A,*

Correct, net energy still moves from A to B.

*Warmers are unable to realize how absurd their interpretation of the Boltzmann equation is*

Yeah, warmers are the worst. They want to waste trillions on stupid windmills and damage our economy.
But the only confusion about Stefan-Boltzmann I've seen involves SSDD's claim that two identical objects at the same temperature stop emitting completely. And his claim that a cooler object emits zero toward the warmer.

*Now you got the situation, σTf - σTf, where the energy transfer is null*

If you mean net transfer is 0, we agree. If you think no photons move between the objects, that's SSDD's claim.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why does your question matter then?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It shows SSDD's error.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


or not


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Maybe you can help him by explaining why photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer matter....except where the Sun is involved?

Or not.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well then explain why the corona is hotter than the surface? dude, I can play this game all year with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That is a very interesting question. We may never know.
Which has nothing to do with the claim that photons can NEVER travel from cooler matter to warmer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system). So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system. I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.



If you use the insulation analogy, insulation itself -- adds no energy to the system. It all derives from your HVAC. It's not a NEW forcing, --- it's in storage..



Olde Europe said:


> Moreover, since you're perennially bashing poor Trenberth: The earth's heat content (let's leave out minor factors such as heating by the earth's molten core, etc.) is determined by solar irradiation minus the sum of all radiation to space. That alone gives you the changes in energy content. Where any excess heat ends up being stored affects the internal dynamics, but not the overall heat content. That's why Trenberth could leave out ocean storage and still come up with a pretty accurate figure.



No.. It's not just the "in" versus the "out".. That's the trivial approach that Trenberth did. So let's back up.. He called it an "energy balance", but it wasn't and energy balance. It was a POWER balance. What's the big diff you say??

   ENERGY has a time component. It's the power flow over a period of time. If you have storage mechanisms and delays and feedbacks -- you cannot account for them in units that don't include proper time constants for dissipation and thermal redistribution.  So in his "diagram", he's got a certain amount of solar forcing balanced by the "insulation" that keeps it in or lets it out. But in reality, the MAJORITY of that energy (as Trenberth acknowledged 20 years later) didn't "exchange" at all. It was saved in the oceans and smaller fraction saved in the atmos. NONE of that "deep ocean storage" is available to warm the surface UNTIL you get an El Nino or other "heat venting" from that source. For the MOST part -- it resides in Davy Jones Locker and NOT at the surface or in the atmos.

NOWHERE in his famous "balance" did this MASSIVE amount of energy show up as a debit on the solar side or even a debit from the amount returned to the sky.. But YET -- this "leading AGW scientist" ended up finding EXACTLY the measly 3.5 W/m2 of "imbalance" (out of 500 or 1000 W/m2 of input power daily)  he was looking for to show the AGW "effect".. Is that not fucking amazing????



Olde Europe said:


> So, when oceans are storing heat away in deeper regions, and land surface temperatures don't budge much, "global warming" still hasn't stopped. So, the much celebrated "Hiatus" or "Pause" was just bogus nonsense based on the difficulty to find the excess heat, and the ubiquitous reliance on cherry-picking beginning and end dates subsequent to the 1998 El Niño..



I don't spite you for believing in that Fairy Tale, because it was effective propaganda. But the REALITY is that the deep ocean charts from the BTK study (where Trenberth is the "T" in BTK) show that oceans were ABSORBING this energy AT THE SAME RATE OR LESS since the 1960s. Thus without going to secondary analysis involving delays and time constants --- you CAN NOT account for a 15 year pause with just that information. Add to that the fact that LWIR cannot penetrate much more than a mmeter of the ocean surface while direct solar radiation CAN -- It's not likely that ONLY the back radiation from GHGases is the primary source of that constant amount going into the oceans at the same RATE for 40 or 50 years.



Olde Europe said:


> So, yes, heat retention by GHGs is somewhat different from solar irradiation. Unless you come up with another, better term for that former aspect of forcing (which I am convinced it is), I cannot see anything in this whole exercise other than nitpicking over mere words.



I'm merely pointing out that by declaring "back radiation" from the Atmos as a FORCING, (or deforestation or any of the other things that you mentioned)  you can make MAJOR MISTAKES in accounting for the energy balance to temperature equilibriums. The GH effect is a STORAGE mechanism, NOT a forcing. And when you draw up the block diagram and start MODELING it -- it better be represented as a storage with various time dependencies and functional relations.



Olde Europe said:


> Of course, CO2 molecules hit by IR radiation transfer energy by way of collisions to nearby N2 or O2 molecules, so the storage capacity of "an additional 120ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere" is of no import. Rather, raising the question appears to indicate a misunderstanding on your part.



Those "collisions" might cause some change in the energy of either component. But that mechanical agitation is not PART of "heat retention" or storage capacity of the atmos. Those mechanical effects will end up with no CHANGE to the energy balance. To STORE heat, any atmos component must have a "thermal capacity" that you can find in ANY basic Chemistry handbook.  To interact with LONG WAVE IR -- they must also have emission/absorbance lines at the CORRECT frequencies. *That limits the components that can STORE the Earth's LWIR heat budget to those molecules that have the right vibrational mechanics in their structure. And that limits the storage function to the GHGases.* *Because the Earth only EMITS it's heat in those frequency bands.* True statement. If the atmos has "heat retention capability" and it does -- and time constants that determine the RETENTION time of that heat -- and it does -- then ONLY those gases not transparent to LWIR are involved. Basic GH theory..



Olde Europe said:


> I don't think I've ever spoken about my background, as I don't think that our contributions should be judged according to any such claimed, unverified background. As to being wary of wacky pronouncements, yep, there's something to that. You won't be surprised to learn that I am locating the predominant source of such pronouncements in the other corner, eh?



So I apologize for thinking I saw that in our discussion. As usual, I spend MORE time focused on the discussion and LESS time focused on the personality. As to rest of your "brushback" -- you haven't located anything yet -- we're just having a discussion.  When it escalates to an ARGUMENT -- we can get snippy with EACH OTHER. I have been snippy about A LOT of the misrepresentations of science that have happened in the interest of propagandizing the public -- but the more important bit for YOU to realize -- is that I've not been snippy with you at all ---- YET ...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



At this point his argument has become.....because...don't expect more.  He doesn't like the explanation he was given...and in a couple of posts, he will have forgotten all about the whole spontaneous movement and be right back to his childish argument again claiming whatever it is about my position he claims...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well sure there is, if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*if there are photons moving between each location than something is wrong with your physics*

Photons are clearly moving from the cooler surface to the hotter corona and from the hotter corona to the cooler surface. What's wrong with the physics of that?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


how do you know they are?  you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?  so how do you know that there are actual photons? Again, it goes against your physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*He doesn't like the explanation he was given..*

Are you going to claim that fusion at the core releases energy which is absorbed and re-emitted countless times before photons reach the Sun's surface and finally escape, and this somehow...magically...allows these photons at the surface to travel toward hotter matter?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system).  So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system.  I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.



Problem:  If I add insulation to my house, I decrease the emissivity of my house....If I add CO2 to the atmosphere, I increase the emissivity of the atmosphere....increasing the emissivity, by definition means that the temperature drops...unless you are claiming some magic by which you can add this magical substance to a system and increase its emissivity and cause it to get warmer at the same time.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > It's a problem if the folks DOING the systems modeling actually LOOK at all those things as "forcings".. In a complex system with feedbacks and storage and delays, that measure "energy balance" resulting in a surface temp change, the only primary energy ENTERING the system (in this case) is the solar forcing and some trivial contributions such as plate tectonics, atmospheric friction, and planetary "wobble". Then you have adjustments to "transfer functions" that change dynamically which affect HOW that primary energy gets, distributed, stored or delayed.
> ...


*If you add insulation to your house, and the heater (the sun) keeps running at the same rate, the new equilibrium will show there's more heat in the house (system). So, in that sense, GHGs (insulation) "add" energy to the system. I believe we agree on that, even if the process of heat retention is different from heat creation in, say, a stove.*

How do you figure the house get's hotter?  If you add insulation, then the sun can't penetrate as much and the house will retain the same heat if not cooler.  hly fk, what are you smoking?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*how do you know they are?*









We see them.

*you just said you can't explain why the corona is hotter than the surface?*

That's right! And you can't explain why cooler surface photons travel toward the hotter corona.
*
so how do you know that there are actual photons?*

We have pictures. (see above)

*Again, it goes against your physics*

Photons flying around in all directions don't go against my physics. Do they go against yours?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.  light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it.  photons would be the last thing to bank on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.*

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the pictures shows light wavelengths.  you have no idea how they are where there at.  you said so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*the pictures shows light wavelenths.*

The picture has photons all over it.

*you have no idea how they are where there at.*

They're there.

*you said so.*

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well you're not looking at the surface, you're looking at the corona, so you have no idea what is happening. physics lessons can't help you here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The top picture shows the surface.......


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep and that mother looks hot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Not only that, it's violating the 2nd Law....DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


how you figure?  Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases, It's why you see explosions off the surface, right?


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 7, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> NOWHERE in his famous "balance" did this MASSIVE amount of energy show up as a debit on the solar side or even a debit from the amount returned to the sky.. But YET -- this "leading AGW scientist" ended up finding EXACTLY the measly 3.5 W/m2 of "imbalance" (out of 500 or 1000 W/m2 of input power daily) he was looking for to show the AGW "effect".. Is that not fucking amazing????



Flux coming in versus flux going out, over time, gives you the accumulated heat.  There really isn't more to that.  Since Trenberth concerned himself with the earth's radiative balance, energy stored away in the deeper oceans wasn't supposed to show up.  In the end, however, it did show up.  Consider this: if the earth had no oceans to speak of, and their enormous capacity as a buffer, the earth's surface would have warmed much faster, and upward LWIR radiation would have increased accordingly.  So, the heat not present to warm the surface did show up, in lower radiation.



flacaltenn said:


> Thus without going to secondary analysis involving delays and time constants --- you CAN NOT account for a 15 year pause with just that information. Add to that the fact that LWIR cannot penetrate much more than a mmeter of the ocean surface while direct solar radiation CAN -- It's not likely that ONLY the back radiation from GHGases is the primary source of that constant amount going into the oceans at the same RATE for 40 or 50 years.



Given the enormous storage capacity of the oceans, even minor changes in the rate cause quite considerable changes in the land surface temperature; El Niño demonstrates that every few years.  Moreover, there was no pause (except for cherry-picking beginning and end dates), as demonstrated by every recent decade, on average, being warmer than the previous one, and no matter what temperatures you look at.  So, the accounting that is really necessary is on the side that cherry-picks data.  Moreover, the assertion that IR cannot penetrate all that deep into the ocean, insinuating there cannot be a LWIR warming of the oceans, fails to account for conduction and convection.  That is, at best, scurrilous.  Of course, compared to a system in balance, and solar input basically unchanged, the change in back radiation is all the reason for warming oceans.



flacaltenn said:


> The GH effect is a STORAGE mechanism, NOT a forcing.



That's an interesting name.  I am not quite convinced the term is apt, as in my understanding it would suggest it's just the GHGs "storing" energy.  That isn't the case (just as energy isn't in relevant amounts "stored" in the insulation of a house).



flacaltenn said:


> Those "collisions" might cause some change in the energy of either component.



Also not convinced here.  These collisions transferring the energy in the form of LWIR radiation caught by GHGs to other, non-GHG molecules account for the atmosphere in the troposphere as a whole heating up, not resulting just in incredibly hot CO2 molecules.



flacaltenn said:


> I have been snippy about A LOT of the misrepresentations of science that have happened in the interest of propagandizing the public -- but the more important bit for YOU to realize -- is that I've not been snippy with you at all ---- YET ...



Heavens...  I've not tried to be snippy, and "the other side" wasn't meant to point at you but rather the bunch of climate change and back radiation deniers - just in case.

Thanks, anyway, for the non-snippy debate so far.  That was quite the experience on these boards.  The only thing that pisses me off somewhat is the allegation that the "AGW circus" is "propagandizing the public".  How would you call what Koch and Exxon are doing?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Flux coming in versus flux going out, over time, gives you the accumulated heat. There really isn't more to that. Since Trenberth concerned himself with the earth's radiative balance, energy stored away in the deeper oceans wasn't supposed to show up. In the end, however, it did show up. Consider this: if the earth had no oceans to speak of, and their enormous capacity as a buffer, the earth's surface would have warmed much faster, and upward LWIR radiation would have increased accordingly. So, the heat not present to warm the surface did show up, in lower radiation.



Not consistent enough to discuss. Either it COMES OUT of the incoming solar forcing or it don't.  You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"... Trenberth tells you one thing and then he changes his mind when his mission is in jeopardy..

If it comes IN and ends up in the deep oceans --- it's gotta show in that "balance" diagram -- doesn't it?
Because SOME DAY -- it's gonna reappear at the surface and become part of the exchange. Same deal with any short time or long time storage at the surface or the atmos.



Olde Europe said:


> Given the enormous storage capacity of the oceans, even minor changes in the rate cause quite considerable changes in the land surface temperature; El Niño demonstrates that every few years. Moreover, there was no pause (except for cherry-picking beginning and end dates), as demonstrated by every recent decade, on average, being warmer than the previous one, and no matter what temperatures you look at. So, the accounting that is really necessary is on the side that cherry-picks data. Moreover, the assertion that IR cannot penetrate all that deep into the ocean, insinuating there cannot be a LWIR warming of the oceans, fails to account for conduction and convection. That is, at best, scurrilous. Of course, compared to a system in balance, and solar input basically unchanged, the change in back radiation is all the reason for warming oceans.



Not really. The phony assertion that "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" fails because to create a PAUSE --- you would have to be storing heat in the oceans at a HIGHER RATE just previous to and/or during that pause. Nothing like that appears in the data from either BTK or NOAA. And like I said -- that rate did not substantially change. INSTEAD --- BTK included a gadget in their famous graph to relate the RATE of WARMING in the 0 to 2000meter segment of the ocean to the "forcing function" from various GHGas induced powers at the surface. Implying that the entire 50 year record was due to GHG back radiation.

The fact that the sun reached a new SOLAR MAXIMUM in the 80s and stayed flat --- is EXACTLY the stimulus that would cause a "linear ramp" in thermal heat storage. If you raise the rate that you're dripping water into a bucket (for storage) and you then keep that STEADY for 50 years --- you'll get EXACTLY a linear rate of rise in the storage. That's how storage AFFECTS the total heat content of the planet. Mathematically, storage is the INTEGRAL of the input forcing function wrt time.

Not even gonna argue the Pause. It was ALWAYS there in the Satellite record. Even the IPCC addressed this in AR5..  And if you want to use weasel words to say the rate was less than 0.01degc/decade -- knock your bad self out. I don't DEPEND on the pause for ANY of my arguments.




Olde Europe said:


> Also not convinced here. These collisions transferring the energy in the form of LWIR radiation caught by GHGs to other, non-GHG molecules account for the atmosphere in the troposphere as a whole heating up, not resulting just in incredibly hot CO2 molecules.



Sorry man, basic physics. That's all KINETIC energy transfer, not HEAT energy transfer. Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc are NOT INVOLVED in "insulation" or storage.. They merely ASSUME the current resultant temperature.




Olde Europe said:


> That's an interesting name. I am not quite convinced the term is apt, as in my understanding it would suggest it's just the GHGs "storing" energy. That isn't the case (just as energy isn't in relevant amounts "stored" in the insulation of a house).



That's all true -- Pink Panther brand R19 does not store anything. But your HOUSE does. MOST everything in it to some degree. If the atmosphere is getting warmer -- it's NOT likely from the sun. It's because GHG components are there and they have more efficient "thermal capacities" than the other gas that DONT heat from the Earth's LWIR re-radiation...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases,*

Combustion? No.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Thanks, anyway, for the non-snippy debate so far. That was quite the experience on these boards. The only thing that pisses me off somewhat is the allegation that the "AGW circus" is "propagandizing the public". How would you call what Koch and Exxon are doing?



I don't work for Koch Bros or Exxon. And BOTH of them has supported their share of GOOD GW research. For instance, Koch funded the B.E.S.T. temperature audit done at UC Berkeley and DID NOT INTERFERE when it mostly validated the temperature record. That was done at time BEFORE the pause,  when NOAA/NASA and others started to cause a deviation between the satellites and the 10,000 thermometer method. Koch also is the lead donor to NOVA -- which has done MANY science programs investigating GW from a slightly "aggressive" standpoint.

WRT to propaganda.................
The way we ENGAGED on this AGW topic in the OTHER thread -- was on the gross exaggerations of the Hockey Sticks. It's a blatant LIE to claim those studies are PROOF that there is no historical precedent for either the rate of rise or the relatively minor temperature bump we've seen in our lifetimes. 

I've spent about 30 threads unwinding fantasy after fantasy that hit the front pages of the media. Everything thing from oyster dying due to "increased CO2" to birch beetles eating up forests because of 1degC rise in MEAN global temperature. It's ALL been either misrepresented by an science illiterate press or INTENTIONALLY misrepresented by a handful of enviro-nut activists in labcoats who where promoted by the press in the same fashion that Trump got a couple $BILL of free advertising during the campaign. OUTRAGEOUS doom and gloom sells. And these dozen or so activists knew how to give cover for various political agendas that lie underneath this out of control train. 

Want to know what REAL climate scientists believe? Go read any of the Tri-Annuals surveys done by a REAL climate scientist and a statistic guy.  Bray and vonStorch studies. TENS of questions, not just one silly ass question. And you'll be surprised at the answers.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 7, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"...



It wasn't an "energy" budget, it was a radiative flux budget.  Yeah, I know, it was named "energy budget", but all the figures given were radiative fluxes in W/m².



flacaltenn said:


> The phony assertion that "The Oceans Ate My Global Warming" fails because to create a PAUSE --- you would have to be storing heat in the oceans at a HIGHER RATE just previous to and/or during that pause.



Nope, all you need is picking an El Nino year - with exceptionally high surface temperatures - as a start.

Moreover:

Independent of these discussions about data and measurements for earlier years, 2015 turned out to be much warmer than any of the earlier years, already before El Niño conditions started. The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed "hiatus" since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend.[24] In January 2017, a study published in the journal _Science Advances_ cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26]​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-26
Does that look like the result of a steady rate of storage to you?






Yeah, they found the heat that was missing:

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal _Science_ that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.​
So, that seems exactly like the "ramp" you've been describing.



flacaltenn said:


> That's all KINETIC energy transfer, not HEAT energy transfer.



See:

"The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules."​


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You can't create an energy budget by IGNORING 90% of the "excess heat"...
> ...



That ship intake ruse is a different story. Not the BTK "Oceans ate my warming".  In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep. Any way -- after the BTK "excuse" died, ONE scientist at NOAA decided to JUNK the multi $MILL buoy system and recreate the old 19th century "bucket" method of measuring ocean temperature.

Let's get this straight.  The Global Mean Surface Temperature that is the BASIC product for the AGW crowd is supposed to measure ATMOSPHERE -- not water. And there is NOTHING WRONG with those expensive fancy buoys.  IN FACT, the land based systems are supposed to be at a certain HEIGHT above the ground to measure AIR -- not the ground.

This primadonna at NOAA just changed the rules to show more warming..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



As a result --- the satellite record (which also measures "just atmos" ) is now different from anything NOAA produces. And since the NOAA database is the basis for the beginning of any one else's land-based temperatures -- they now ALL are starting to deviate from the satellite record.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 7, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> I don't work for Koch Bros or Exxon.



Is there so much raw nerves around here?  In other words, what prompted that assurance?  I sure did not even think about insinuating that you worked for either.



flacaltenn said:


> For instance, Koch funded the B.E.S.T. temperature audit done at UC Berkeley



Yea, that was 150,000 by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, and it doesn't even present a drop on a hot stone compared to the many millions in AGW denial propaganda funded by the Kochs.

I'll have a look at the Bray and von Storch studies.  Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.


I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2017)

Thin skin?  It's several thousand times thicker than the penetration depth on a bar of steel.  Yet that seems to have no problem soaking up heat.  And let me point out that if the IR energy stops in a few microns while the visible penetrates many meters into the water, it is the IR that is being more quickly absorbed.  The visible light is being TRANSMITTED.


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Global Mean Surface Temperature uses SST, not temperatures at depth.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Is there so much raw nerves around here? In other words, what prompted that assurance? I sure did not even think about insinuating that you worked for either.



Ahhh..  Projection of some type there. My nerves are just fine. 
An *objective* look at the way Climate science has been funded and controlled ought to straighten that all out for you. You might start with the strange and specific wording of the "Mission Statement" for the IPCC. Seems like their bias for climate studies started the moment they were formed. 



Olde Europe said:


> Yea, that was 150,000 by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, and it doesn't even present a drop on a hot stone compared to the many millions in AGW denial propaganda funded by the Kochs.



Yet -- it got the job done for WAY less than anything the government could fund. One of my joys in these YEARS of debate on the subject is to have warmers toss papers at me that SCREECH doom and disaster from GW and turning to the last page where the "funding credits" usually are. I've had my share of belly laughs after doing my same skeptical due diligence and then pointing out that THEIR study should NOT be trusted because it was paid for by Exxon-Mobil or Shell.  Those 2 companies seem to be fond of plowing $MILLs in papers especially slanted to the plight of fauna and flora that are gasping their last because of the 1degC today. I remember one about penguins having a hard time keeping up their numbers because their migrations were poorly timed. And of COURSE, the culprit was GW..  IIRC correctly -- that was a Shell paper. But it was definitely a "big oil" company.

There are some perks.. Stick around. I appreciate the chat. Sometimes you'll get a chuckle out of it also..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.
> ...



That comment was really about the mystery of how you distribute heat from a thin skin at the surface less than a mmeter deep into the zones 700 or 2000 meters below. Not really about how the heat got into the skin layer. But clearly, you need a fair amount of surface mixing to even PRESERVE the heat in that layer. Even NOAA was not buying the "surface mixing" argument from the authors. You'd probably get more more warming at depth from just the 1degC increase in air temp at the surface than from a 1mm layer of slightly hotter water.

And in fact, you're correct. The NET (non-solar) radiative transfer to sky always wins. It's there day and night. Whether it's land or ocean. I'm pretty sure only a higher "sky temperature" can change that math.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



Oh I understand that perfectly. But the buoys did a superb job of that at a controlled depth (IIRC 1 meter) without going back to centuries old ship measurements. And with water intake measurements --* who knows how many centimeters or meters deep that intake sample came from.*  YET -- NOAA's Karl found a loophole in giving those more flaky measurements EQUAL WEIGHT to the buoys. It was ALWAYS about finding another 0.06degC to set new records.* Not about honest or accurate science. 
*
Here's the kicker. The SATELLITES which only measure the air temp in the lower Tropo, agreed brilliantly over the oceans with NOAA's buoys BEFORE this adjustment. They did so with simple consistent corrections. NOW there's divergence.  Go figure.

In my book -- it ought to be all AIR MEASUREMENTS at 1M or more above the surface to be measuring consistently. *In fact, I hear the Trump Admin is ordering that all surface based LAND measurements be taken 1 meter into the rock or soil in order to "cool" the numbers*.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 7, 2017)

Crick said:


> Thin skin?  It's several thousand times thicker than the penetration depth on a bar of steel.  Yet that seems to have no problem soaking up heat.  And let me point out that if the IR energy stops in a few microns while the visible penetrates many meters into the water, it is the IR that is being more quickly absorbed.  The visible light is being TRANSMITTED.



I explained OldRocksies "bar of steel" issue here last night. Has to do with the ability to STORE more heat in a better conductor of heat. Not because EVERY material will act that way.  Copper would burn you twice as much. And sea water would burn you 1/20 as much -- given the SAME "skin temperature"..


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Never heard of solar flares? Hmmmmmmm


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Solar flares......not combustion.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What do you suppose causes a flare? A photon? LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer


Not combustion.......


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I don't work for Koch Bros or Exxon.
> ...



Look at all the studies.  Wikipedia has two articles: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia  and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia.  Bray and Von Storch are hardly the only folks to have made thorough and objective studies of this matter and, to be honest, their results are not immune to question.  For instance, from the latter of the two links I've provided:

_In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change. The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet. Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected._


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Yet -- it [Berkeley Earth] got the job done for WAY less than anything the government could fund.



Could that be because mere data analysis is somewhat cheaper than, say, getting some nifty satellites into orbit and actually collect some data?

Of course, Koch, Exxon et al fund this that and the other thing for image enhancement purposes, so that their funding of lying about climate change and stalling action protecting the climate does have a somewhat diminished impact (or so they might hope), particularly so since they've increasingly re-routed their climate change denial funding through anonymous funds, concealing the origin.  Moreover, Muller was a devoted climate skeptic, and Koch may have hoped Muller's research to destroy the "warmers" around Mann etc., or at least cast doubts on their findings.  It didn't happen, as we all, and the Kochs in particular, found out, since Muller's research confirmed mainstream climate science's findings.  Could that be the reason why Koch donated some pittance initially, but got rather stingy in subsequent years (no Koch contributions except for the first year of BEST)?



flacaltenn said:


> YET -- NOAA's Karl found a loophole in giving those more flaky measurements EQUAL WEIGHT to the buoys. It was ALWAYS about finding another 0.06degC to set new records.* Not about honest or accurate science.
> *
> Here's the kicker. The SATELLITES which only measure the air temp in the lower Tropo, agreed brilliantly over the oceans with NOAA's buoys BEFORE this adjustment. They did so with simple consistent corrections. NOW there's divergence. Go figure.



NOAA's Karl corrected the temperature record for the temporal bias engendered by increasing buoy coverage of the oceans, and that brought surface measurements in line with satellite measurements.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Look at all the studies. Wikipedia has two articles: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia. Bray and Von Storch are hardly the only folks to have made thorough and objective studies of this matter and, to be honest, their results are not immune to question. For instance, from the latter of the two links I've provided:
> 
> _In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change. The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet. Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected._



I've taken a bit of time to look into that von Storch figure, and he appears to be a self-obsessed ankle biter.  While a better structured study by von Storch on the AGW consensus in 2008 should be acknowledged, of particular consequence was a 2004 paper on the hockey stick that turned out to be thoroughly flawed upon inspection.  And years later, in 2007, when he was already made aware of his paper's flaws, he was still bragging, in essence, about having broken the hockey stick, and salvaged climate science from the nefarious efforts by influential climate scientists' "gate keeping", in effect shielding climate science against criticism.  If you're interested, also take a look at the comments, and how von Storch repeatedly gets an earful for his bragging and dishonesty.  Accusing others of dishonesty and breezily dismissing their findings in case they contradict what von Storch claims to have found, seems a pattern with this one.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?
Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them...and that is supposed to prove that a hotter body does absorb energy from the cooler one with the photons of the cooler one?
See that tells me that a typical warmer has no clue whatsoever what is going on and what is required for light (=photons) of a certain wavelength to be absorbed.
To absorb an em wave you need a resonator that can resonate at the right frequency in order to be able to absorb it.
The sun`s corona is an ionized plasma that is lacking the electrons in the orbitals that would absorb the photons you claim were first  absorbed and then re-emitted by the corona.
Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona because the resonator that would get pumped by this lower energy radiation is not encountered by these particular photons.
In spectroscopic analysis this is a very common problem.
Like for example determining the ppm Ca by atomic absorption spectroscopy.
When you aspirate the solution with Ca in it into the atomizer & the air acetylene flame in the optical path most of the light emitted by the hollow cathode radiation source goes right through it without being absorbed...because the Ca was ionized and that is why you will have to add Lithium Chloride to suppress the Calcium  ionization....
You need the electrons in the resonant orbitals to be in the ground state or else you absorb sweet f-ck all from the radiation that is supposed to be absorbed.
I taught that stuff and the people I taught totally got that, no problem.
So what is your problem ?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

[/QUOTE]

I have no freaking idea where that graph came from -- but it doesn't look like the SST satellite record taken DIRECTLY from Dr. Roy Spencer's (director of UAH lab) site for SST...  You need to be careful about stuff that's CALLED satellite record -- but is not.. 






The dip at 2012 is deeper than the dip at 2008.  And the dip at late 2013 doesn't even APPEAR in your chart. But MORE IMPORTANTLY -- there's no obvious trend line from 2009 to 2014 as it shows in your chart. 

I suggest you check the DETAILS of what they are calling Satellite SST data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?*

SSDD, JC456 and Billy_Bob have all claimed that back radiation does not exist because if photons emitted by cooler matter hit warmer matter that would be a violation of the 2nd Law, so photons CANNOT do that.

*Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them*

Nope. I'm saying photons are not restricted in their direction of travel based on the temperature of matter in their path.

*See that tells me that a typical warmer*

I'm an anti-warmer, I'm just sick of the idiocy I've seen from SSDD.

*Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona*

YES! And that shows the error of SSDD's claim. Thanks!


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> The dip at 2012 is deeper than the dip at 2008. And the dip at late 2013 doesn't even APPEAR in your chart. But MORE IMPORTANTLY -- there's no obvious trend line from 2009 to 2014 as it shows in your chart.
> 
> I suggest you check the DETAILS of what they are calling Satellite SST data.



As to DETAILS: What does "60N-60S" in that graph tell you?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The dip at 2012 is deeper than the dip at 2008. And the dip at late 2013 doesn't even APPEAR in your chart. But MORE IMPORTANTLY -- there's no obvious trend line from 2009 to 2014 as it shows in your chart.
> ...



And what am I supposed to guess is included in yours WITHOUT any notes whatsoever?

Think man -- how much "ship intake measurements do they HAVE from the poles"? In fact, last time I checked, there were less than a dozen buoys in the Arctic circle and 1/2 of them weren't functioning correctly..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Did someone tell you all this was easy?? BTW -- NOAA oftens results to satellite data for the poles WHEN it serves their purposes. Because that's the most reliable source of that data. 

I'll find the entire global plot of the satellite SST... It will NOT agree with your graph or the new "devolved" NOAA methodology...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


from your link:
"The short answer is that we don't know exactly."

So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea.  They claim stored magnetic energy that does what?  hmmmm who knows, maybe combustion like an engine firing from that stored energy.  but you don't know.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> And what am I supposed to guess is included in yours WITHOUT any notes whatsoever?



Immediately before the graph I included a link to the carbonbrief.org site where I found the picture. The site also discusses the data and their validity, and comes with a link to Karl's NOAA paper.  Here's the link, again.

In an article in today’s Mail on Sunday, David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors.

What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.​


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And what am I supposed to guess is included in yours WITHOUT any notes whatsoever?
> ...



Of course they get the same results. Because ALL OF THOSE are BUILT on the NOAA data. You think Berkeley Earth has a private secret stash of "ship intake records" ???? Even UK Met uses the NOAA data as a starting point for Global studies.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Of course they get the same results. Because ALL OF THOSE are BUILT on the NOAA data. You think Berkeley Earth has a private secret stash of "ship intake records" ???? Even UK Met uses the NOAA data as a starting point for Global studies.



The Karl study was a re-analysis, adjusting for ship intake vs. buoy measurements.  Others may have analyzed the same data, apparently arriving independently at the same or very similar corrections, yielding very similar results.  That would be surprising had the NOAA somehow fudged it, as you seemed to imply.  Hence, others arriving at the same results refutes your accusation:



flacaltenn said:


> YET -- NOAA's Karl found a loophole in giving those more flaky measurements EQUAL WEIGHT to the buoys. It was ALWAYS about finding another 0.06degC to set new records.* Not about honest or accurate science. *


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Consider only the radiation part of the ocean surface. Heat from back-radiation is simply not distributed from a mm thin skin at the surface to hundreds of meters below. The top mm ocean surface is cooled, not heated, because radiation energy is escaping from that top mm by Stefan-Boltzman radiation. Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


exactly how does your back radiation slow radiation coming from the surface? have you ever explained that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Absolutely..  And arguably a "warmer sky" COULD significantly affect ocean storage. But you still need the mechanism of getting that warming to the deeper ocean. Can we just say it's probably equally likely that the warming is conduction from the surface air as it is radiative energy in that thin skin? Dunno.. That's where I stopped asking questions..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Too many times and to YOU in particular. It's actually simple addition and subtraction. Some radiative energy comes from the sky and goes to ground and EVEN MORE goes up to space. 24 hours a day.. Subtract those 2 to get the NET loss to the sky. The Sky always wins and COOLS the planet. No law of physics is ever harmed in the making of these basic scientific observations..   Nothing gets "slowed down". *It's as simple as tossing marbles back and forth. Whoever has the MOST HEAT and tosses the most marbles loses heat energy. *


Give it up JC -- that was the last time you'll get it from me.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I didn't ask for anything from you, so take your condescending tone up with someone else.  there is no back radiation.  and sir you can't prove it.  sorry, you fail at every attempt.  but please hear me out, I didn't ask you sht.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea*

I know it's not combustion.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


they don't know but you do.  too funny bubba.  too funny.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


BTW, just post up that hot spot in the atmosphere.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.



Of course, back radiation heats any surface that absorbs it, in this case the ocean's "skin".  This warming of the skin is crucial.  The top ocean layer usually has a very steep temperature gradient, and the warming of the top layer reduces the steepness of that gradient.  All else equal, the steeper the gradient, the more energy flows along it, and thus the LWIR radiation reduces the flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.  Or so would be my understanding.

Ah, for a less simplistic explanation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



They know it's not combustion.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.
> ...


The "less simplistic explanation" makes sense to me.  Figure 3 seems to stretch the scale for the top skin for clarity. What I was arguing against is that back radiation does not directly warm anything below the 1 mm skin. (Some people in the past argued that the deeper part of the ocean was able to get warmed directly by back radiation by the roiling of the ocean.) 

I was looking at it more macroscopically, whereas the article is more microscopic. If you ignore the details of the top mm you can think of the effect as being only a cutting of heat loss at the surface.

.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I owe you an apology then. But I still don`t think that SSDD said that photons photons "can`t hit"...whatever it is they are supposed to be "hitting".
Let`s get rid of that word "hitting", because photons don`t do that, they are not particles.
The only thing they have in common with particles that have a mass is a momentum...but that is an angular momentum which gives you the phase vector of the em wave. You can`t express that in a quantity of work it can perform as in (mass* velocity^2)/2 for a mass at a known speed.
Photons do not perform work just because they have a known energy quantum, they have to be absorbed and then transfer the energy to the absorber where the energy has to *reside*.
If the resonant electron orbital which has absorbed that photon falls right back to the ground state re-emitting the same em wave(length) it just absorbed then no *effective* energy has been transfered.
There are lots of things that are transparent to em, especially in the gaseous phase and that em frequency is therefore not absorbed...meaning the em at that particular wavelength dos not *transfer* energy to that material within that band-pass.
A black body is an entirely different story, because it can resonate and absorb at any frequency and does not reflect regardless of the angle of incidence.
But then again the black body equations do not assume a *mass *for the absorber, therefore you can  not specify how many watt seconds per mass was absorbed...which is what you need to do a *meaningful *energy balance &/or budget.
Saying that the water temperature has gone up by 1 deg (if water was the material) tells you absolutely nothing how many cals, btus watt seconds or joules of absorbed energy that represents unless you know the mass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*But I still don`t think that SSDD said that photons photons "can`t hit"...whatever it is they are supposed to be "hitting".*

He not only said that, he claims that they can see across vast distances and far into the future to help them decide where they will travel.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2017)

Same Shit, lost another one.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they get the same results. Because ALL OF THOSE are BUILT on the NOAA data. You think Berkeley Earth has a private secret stash of "ship intake records" ???? Even UK Met uses the NOAA data as a starting point for Global studies.
> ...



That's not true. The guy who DEVELOPED the data integrity and verification standards for that dept at NOAA is public with allegations that those standards were VIOLATED, he was OVERRIDDEN, and the work was basically as a result NOT REPRODUCIBLE.  You need the link? I'm busy. But I never lie on this board..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they get the same results. Because ALL OF THOSE are BUILT on the NOAA data. You think Berkeley Earth has a private secret stash of "ship intake records" ???? Even UK Met uses the NOAA data as a starting point for Global studies.
> ...



Nevermind -- for my new best buddy -- I found a start on that for you.. .

Journal has no plans to retract NOAA study despite data manipulation concerns

Climate scientists versus climate data

*Where do we go from here?

I have wrestled for a long time about what to do about this incident. I finally decided that there needs to be systemic change both in the operation of government data centers and in scientific publishing, and I have decided to become an advocate for such change. First, Congress should re-introduce and pass the OPEN Government Data Act. The Act states that federal datasets must be archived and made available in machine readable form, neither of which was done by K15. The Act was introduced in the last Congress and the Senate passed it unanimously in the lame duck session, but the House did not. This bodes well for re-introduction and passage in the new Congress.
*
It's kind of a miracle to "verify" the Karl 15 study if the data set was never ARCHIVED in machine readable form.  Isn't that right???


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2017)

polarbear said:


> I owe you an apology then. But I still don`t think that SSDD said that photons photons "can`t hit"...whatever it is they are supposed to be "hitting".



It is my position that energy does not move from cooler objects to warmer objects...and that includes so called back radiation which can not be measured at ambient temperature...if one wants to measure "back radiation"  one must use an instrument that is cooler than the radiator...that being the case, one isn't measuring back radiation at all, but simply energy moving from the warmer radiator to the cooler instrument...


----------



## polarbear (Mar 8, 2017)

I would like a whole lot of back radiation right now!




_Mickey Dumont/HERALD LEADER
The historic blizzard that whipped through Manitoba this week set a new record for length - 31 hours - breaking the previous record of 18 hours set in 1975. Portage la Prairie dodged the brunt of the  nasty weather that dumped over 40 cm of snow in Brandon over Monday and Tuesday where winds gusting to near 100 kms were also reported.  Tom Major, above, was clearing snow at the theatre and was one of the many Portagers pedestrians have to thank for help make the ice covered sidewalks a bit safer. A full beard obviously offers a degree of protection while operating a snow blower._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2017)

polarbear said:


> I would like a whole lot of back radiation right now!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*if one wants to measure "back radiation" one must use an instrument that is cooler than the radiator...that being the case, one isn't measuring back radiation at all, but simply energy moving from the warmer radiator to the cooler instrument...
*
See? The atmosphere "knows" when the instrument has been cooled and that it is now "allowed" to radiate downward. But only toward that tiny instrument target.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > I would like a whole lot of back radiation right now!
> ...



Right and rocks know that they must fall down when dropped, and air knows that it must not try to rush into a punctured tire...and water knows that it must run downhill, and chemicals must know what other chemicals they can react to and how they must react, and all particles and matter must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...  it cracks me up that you wackos think that some sort of intelligence is required in order to obey the laws of physics...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



All matter above 0K emits, whether nearby matter is warmer, cooler or the same temperature.
But thanks for all the straw men!


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The "less simplistic explanation" makes sense to me. Figure 3 seems to stretch the scale for the top skin for clarity. What I was arguing against is that back radiation does not directly warm anything below the 1 mm skin. (Some people in the past argued that the deeper part of the ocean was able to get warmed directly by back radiation by the roiling of the ocean.)
> 
> I was looking at it more macroscopically, whereas the article is more microscopic. If you ignore the details of the top mm you can think of the effect as being only a cutting of heat loss at the surface.



Cutting heat loss sounds fine.  On the other hand, following a probably flawed rule-of-thumb calculation, at an average of around 16.5°C, the ocean surface radiates about 400W/m² - and evapotranspiration accounts for another 90W/m².  From the sun it receives around 160W/m² on average.  So, that leaves something in the order of 330W/m² for a radiative balance, and that has to be back radiation.

_________________________________________________



flacaltenn said:


> That's not true. The guy who DEVELOPED the data integrity and verification standards for that dept at NOAA is public with allegations that those standards were VIOLATED, he was OVERRIDDEN, and the work was basically as a result NOT REPRODUCIBLE. You need the link? I'm busy. But I never lie on this board..



Yeah, Bates regrets having come forward by now, seeing himself abused by Lamar Smith, the scientifically illiterate buffoon.  I know, the guy was the one who developed the archive system, and suspected, upon retirement, that his developed standards have not been upheld at the time of publication, much to his very public chagrin.  I understand that these standards are important, so as to ensure that studies can be replicated, and all steps of a data transformation are transparent.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with data manipulation for nefarious ends.

Bates, one of the good guys but obviously irate and with lots of time at his hands after retirement, was apparently not involved at any stage in the K15 paper, went on a witch hunt, throwing around accusations which are demonstrably false.  See here, and here, in addition to the fact-check I posted earlier.  This is simply an office spat that spilled into yet another version of the ubiquitous "climate gate" play that perennially runs with an ever changing cast of misfits and culprits, who, it turns out, haven't done anything wrong other than being human themselves.  But it sure serves to arouse the denial crowd.

Here's probably how you arrived at the "huh, they threw the buoy data out" allegation (from Peter Thorne's text):

*6. 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out [...]' *

v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.​
Really, you want to run with that?

Oh, and thanks for the links.  I know the denialist crowd out there is all aflutter with another occasion for faux outrage, but really, I've had my fill following that sordid affair.

Oh...



flacaltenn said:


> It's kind of a miracle to "verify" the Karl 15 study if the data set was never ARCHIVED in machine readable form. Isn't that right???



... the data is archived and publicly available.  Bates even published a link to the ftp site in his complaint.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> *6. 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out [...]' *
> 
> v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.
> Really, you want to run with that?



Yeah, I actually do..  I read the paper. I have no idea what v4 did, but in the PAPER -- they gave them close to equal weight.

Look, my beef is not against ALL of them. Like I said there's about a dozen who appointed themselves spokesgurus and always had their faces in front of of the press. And they did that with an agenda.  Like James Hansen with his famous "......... then oceans boil" statement which led to a CBS TV segment showing an ocean with a 212degF label over it. Or his "coal trains of death" statements. And when Marcott put his paper out and eclipsed Mann's hockey stick -- there was Mann in front of the cameras interpreting Marcott's work for him. Wanna see another AGW spokeguru at work?  From the US PBS Nova Science series.. Here is "ClimateGate Phil Jones" at work in his "laboratory"..  So that's where all the raw data is huh?  







What you refer to as "an office spat" did not affect the fact that the re-analysis modeling was NOT properly archived or put into digital media and could not redistributed for ANY ONE to validate the results.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah, I actually do.. I read the paper. I have no idea what v4 did, but in the PAPER -- they gave them close to equal weight.



See:

Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures. Of the 11 improvements in ERSST version 4 (13), the continuation of the ship correction had the largest impact on trends for the 2000–2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference with version 3b. [The buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C decade −1 to the difference, and *the additional weight given to the buoys* because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C decade −1 (supplementary materials).]​


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I actually do.. I read the paper. I have no idea what v4 did, but in the PAPER -- they gave them close to equal weight.
> ...



Gee.. How convenient. JUST ENOUGH to find a miniscule trend line in the "pause"..  And the paper was timed for the IPCC big pow wow.  It was an act of desperation -- not science. 

No reason at all to go back to the 200 year old methods other than he got a "re-analysis" that provided a boost. They could have easily argued to correct the buoys -- but they KNOW that wouldn't fly. So instead, now you HAVE to have ANOTHER SKETCHY metric. Keep them cargo ships coming or we'll not know where we're at..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I actually do.. I read the paper. I have no idea what v4 did, but in the PAPER -- they gave them close to equal weight.
> ...



Data for the Karl study was not ever archived or put on digital media. It is an ASSERTION based on a whim. Judith Curry testified at US Congressional hearings to advocate for a Govt - wide regulations for documenting and archiving scientific studies as a result.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Gee.. How convenient. JUST ENOUGH to find a miniscule trend line in the "pause"..



Yep, this is one way how science progresses, more accurate measurements, correcting for old biases, that is to say, nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing to "Gee" about.

Oh, and ...

Major global warming study again questioned, again defended. "*The study has been reproduced independently of Karl et al — that's the ultimate platinum test* of whether a study is to be believed or not," McNutt said. "And this study has passed." Marcia McNutt, who was editor of Science at the time the paper was published and is now president of the National Academy of Sciences.​


----------



## mamooth (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Data for the Karl study was not ever archived or put on digital media.



That data has been online since June 2015, when the paper was published.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/scpub201506/

Flac, the evidence shows you're completely full of shit. That point is not open to debate. You said one thing over and over, and the evidence demonstrates the exact opposite.

At this point, you have a choice. 

You can admit you pooched it hard, castigate those who misinformed you, and try to understand why you were so gullible. That way, you'd retain a bit of credibility

Or, you can scream insults at me, and go right back to kissing up to those people who deliberately lied to you, thus permanently throwing all your credibility in the shitcan.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Data for the Karl study was not ever archived or put on digital media. It is an ASSERTION based on a whim. Judith Curry testified at US Congressional hearings to advocate for a Govt - wide regulations for documenting and archiving scientific studies as a result.



Sigh...  Karl demoted Bates, and Bates got back at him after retirement, creating much office turmoil and even a political fuss with the paranoid retard, Lamar Smith, in a leading role, and once again we see scientists' emails subpoenaed.  Just read.  Oh, and since when does someone testifying before a Congressional hearing decide the validity of science?  I mean, such exercises in collective hysteria and self-important showboating may have an impact on how U.S. citizens live, usually for the worse, but scientific validity isn't determined by that.  That is even while I agree that proper documentation and archiving is important, and standards ought to be followed, but really, this whole Bates controversy is not the hook to lift that story, mainly because Bates isn't a reliable witness.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Data for the Karl study was not ever archived or put on digital media.
> ...



Gee Sheriff, you got me.. I'm gonna drop the tablet and back slowly to the wall. The data is there. But that's the merged and gridded data (and a bunch of reanalysis results). It does not show the where the "tricks" occurred to come up with that HUGE 0.02 degC rate change that "busts" the pause. There is so much horseshit packed into getting that trivial increase, I don't really care about the data. I care about the assumptions and the fudging.

Here's what everyone is arguing about. Take the OLD NOAA data and subtract it from the NEW NOAA data and ---





If you squint REAL HARD at the resultant GMAST -- you can see the 1998 El Nino SHRINK a bit. It all doesn't matter. So instead of a ZERO degree per decade pause (+/- 0.015) you now have a 0.03degC/decade rate over the period from 1999 to 2014. Congrats. Hope you feel good. NO PREVIOUS DATASET agrees with that -- but you got me good..

RSS, UAH, HadleyMet, Argo ???  ALL those sources say Karl is wrong.  BUCKET measurements??? Buoy adjustments?? Random coolings?? to get a change in the 3rd decimal place for public relations impact???   Grow up....


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2017)

Do you really think a third decimal place adjustment would have been visible in Karl or anywhere else?


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 9, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Here's what everyone is arguing about. Take the OLD NOAA data and subtract it from the NEW NOAA data and ---



Really?  Have you done the subtraction?

And, Bob Tisdale, the crank of WUWT fame, as published in that splendid scientific publication, that is, powerlineblog?

That's what we're talking about, an adjustment mainly to correct for the well-known cooling bias as imposed by the increasing number of buoys to measure sea surface temperatures.  The overall impact on the global surface temperature seems minuscule (from K15):





Just so we know the kind of "tricks" the denial-sphere is crowing about.  Because, it took an adjustment showing up "in the 3rd decimal place" for the so-called "hiatus" to go bust.  That is, the hiatus that never was, and the spike at 1998 seems unchanged, too.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really care about the data.
> ...



Really, Mamooth?  Truncating a quote to score a cheap point?

"There is so much horseshit packed into getting that trivial increase, I don't really care about the data."​
You're better than that.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



No she isn't...in fact, that is two steps above the character she usually displays.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what everyone is arguing about. Take the OLD NOAA data and subtract it from the NEW NOAA data and ---
> ...



Don't ever go to NY City and let the city slickers fool you with that 3 cups -- 1 nut trick.  

Like I said above --- I'm beyond this slight of hand to get 0.02degC more "rate of rise" for the "pause".  The data that NOAA made available had already INCORPORATED the slight of hand tweaks to win a "public relations" victory.  Where's the "PAUSE" in that graph?  Dunno..  But it's DEFINITELY HERE -----






These fanatics have screwed with it SOOOO damn much -- you can barely see the massive 1998 El Nino event anymore.  It's garbage anyway. *Because El Ninos USED to be in that NOAA data just a few years ago. *

Tell me olde euro -- You see a 0.2DegC or MORE anomaly in 1998?? I don't.  Just enjoy your bliss. Nothing to see here. Don't even ASK yourself what type of final filtering was applied to that data to remove it. Be oblivious !!! Be Happy !!!  Enjoy the warm weather.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Now tell me again how well the satellite record compares to the NOAA fiction..  I love to hear that fairy tale every day..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> That's what we're talking about, an adjustment mainly to correct for the well-known cooling bias as imposed by the increasing number of buoys to measure sea surface temperatures.



The justification for that is vague to say the least. Karl credits Kennedy et al for 0.15deg fudge. But in the Kennedy paper it was specified as 0.15 +/- 1.7..   That's almost the equivalent of saying we're not sure WHAT it should be. .

You speak math? You'll understand the chuckle I'm having. And that's not the ONLY slight of hand that they pulled. There's 6 others "fudges" embedded in that data including the some what arbitrary "period" corrections that I posted in the Bob Tisdale chart above. It's LOADED with trivial horseshit just to  be able to lie to the press and tell them "there was no pause".  You're a hoot..  Hey -- I got to go put my "Good Warmer Needed" ad back up at Craig's List. BBL.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Now tell me again how well the satellite record compares to the NOAA fiction..  I love to hear that fairy tale every day..



The denier cultists are famous for their anti-science crackpot conspiracy theory insanity.

This one revolves around dementedly imagining that all of the scientists at NOAA and NASA are criminals who just fake all their data.

For sane people, the only real response to this pathological denial of reality is laughter.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Now tell me again how well the satellite record compares to the NOAA fiction..  I love to hear that fairy tale every day..
> ...



In other news..  Can you name me ONE NUMBER that regularly comes out of Wash DC without a lot of cooking, baking and sketchy "definitions" ??  I can't think of ONE lately.  Unemployment numbers, Obama enrollments, the "balance" in that SS Trust Fund?   Why shouldn't a simple temperature record be cooked in the same kitchen?


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2017)

Do you actually believe that to be an argument with merit?


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 9, 2017)

From K15:






Here's the UAH temperature anomaly (lower troposphere data).






Keep in mind that the satellite record below starts at about 1978 and represents a time span considerably shorter than the one above.  I've instructed the graphics generator to calculate and add a trendline for the willfully visually impaired.

So, there are some differences, but quite a few similarities.  Apparently, smoothing plays a role, and I wasn't able to figure out whether the data for the UAH record had any corrections for, say, satellite drift and orbital decay.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> Do you actually believe that to be an argument with merit?



Yes. There's an agenda behind making a well timed press release to "bust the pause". And nothing really get busted besides reputations and credibility. And redefining "indexes" is one thing the govt excels at. Nobody would ever get punished in assisting the current admin to achieve an agenda or in "looking good". Whether they wear a badge or a judicial robe or a labcoat  Are  you kidding? 

* PM me *-- tell me how much "value" is in the Soc Sec Trust Fund for example. It'll be fun. You'll see how it's done.
You're naive if just watch the oft-quoted "unemployment rate"  that the MEDIA uses.

What makes you believe the #1 policy issue (AGW) is worth in terms of being a good Doobie and busting "the Pause"???

I don't give a shit about "the Pause".  None of my convictions hinge on it. IN FACT --- it illustrates the complexity of the system and our inabilities in modeling and prediction. Actually works in my favor whether the rate is 0.01deg/decade or 0.03deg/decade. Whoopyshit.....


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> The denier cultists are famous for their anti-science crackpot conspiracy theory insanity.
> 
> This one revolves around dementedly imagining that all of the scientists at NOAA and NASA are criminals who just fake all their data.
> 
> For sane people, the only real response to this pathological denial of reality is laughter.




The telltale sign, as you rightly noted (and the one they share with run-of-the-mill trolls), is that they make up for the inability to win a single argument by impugning the integrity or intelligence of their opponents, often with a dollop of paranoia and - Believe me! - criminality everywhere.  The other side of that coin is, every crank and tabloid publication, from powerlineblog to the Daily Caller, deserves infinite trust.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> From K15:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah perfectly fine. Now get that data and find the trend line from 1998 to 2014.. That's the pause. Use 1999 if you want. It's will be almost zero on satellite. USED TO BE almost zero a couple years in the IPCC report and most ALL land-based records.  Funny deal is -- You can't even SEE it in the Karl data because it looks like the study data ends in 2010.5.  And because they REMOVED the El Nino and other landmarks. With all that filtering (or the time sparse data that was used) it's crap. I'll stick with the sat records thank you.. 



Olde Europe said:


> Apparently, smoothing plays a role, and I wasn't able to figure out whether the data for the UAH record had any corrections for, say, satellite drift and orbital decay.



The database at UAH is monthly. So somehow it got 'smoothed' in your graph. And it's all perfectly corrected for all of that. Did you get the slope of that trendline? Now run a trendline thru "the Pause".  Tell me what you get.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Now tell me again how well the satellite record compares to the NOAA fiction..  I love to hear that fairy tale every day..





RollingThunder said:


> The denier cultists are famous for their anti-science crackpot conspiracy theory insanity. This one revolves around dementedly imagining that all of the scientists at NOAA and NASA are criminals who just fake all their data.
> 
> For sane people, the only real response to this pathological denial of reality is laughter.





flacaltenn said:


> In other news..  Can you name me ONE NUMBER that regularly comes out of Wash DC without a lot of cooking, baking and sketchy "definitions" ??  I can't think of ONE lately.  Unemployment numbers, Obama enrollments, the "balance" in that SS Trust Fund?   Why shouldn't a simple temperature record be cooked in the same kitchen?





Crick said:


> Do you actually believe that to be an argument with merit?





flacaltenn said:


> Yes. There's an agenda behind making a well timed press release to "bust the pause". And nothing really get busted besides reputations and credibility. And redefining "indexes" is one thing the govt excels at. Nobody would ever get punished in assisting the current admin to achieve an agenda or in "looking good". Whether they wear a badge or a judicial robe or a labcoat  Are  you kidding?
> 
> * PM me *-- tell me how much "value" is in the Soc Sec Trust Fund for example. It'll be fun. You'll see how it's done.
> You're naive if just watch the oft-quoted "unemployment rate"  that the MEDIA uses.
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....

One team of climate scientists reanalyzed ocean temperature records and discovered flaws in the data set that had led to errors in the temperature record. When these errors were corrected, they found that there was very little change in the rate of global warming over the 21st century as compared to the rate over the last few decades of the twentieth century.....or, in other words, the supposed 'pause' in the rate of the upward trend in global warming was not really there. Other teams of scientists have independently come out with similar findings.

Since the non-existent pause was a major part of denier cult mythology denying human caused global warming, they are now reverting to their usual demented tactic for explaining away all of the actual scientific evidence that debunks their cultic dogmas.....just as I mentioned a bit earlier in this thread.....

*"The denier cultists are famous for their anti-science crackpot conspiracy theory insanity. This one revolves around dementedly imagining that all of the scientists at NOAA and NASA are criminals who just fake all their data. For sane people, the only real response to this pathological denial of reality is laughter."*


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Here's a clue to the value of your trendline.  






Note please. That 1.37degC/century???? Right on track to be the UNSCARY, UN-disastrous value of BASIC CO2 warming without the hype of accelerations, net positive feedbacks, or doomsday "triggers"....  With about 40% being natural variation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Now tell me again how well the satellite record compares to the NOAA fiction..  I love to hear that fairy tale every day..
> ...



You like silly when you put YOUR words in my mouth. I've made it clear, it's a couple dozen at most. For one thing, papers may have 3 or 10 names on them. They don't ALL GET TO CHOOSE what's said in the abstracts or the press releases. In FACT -- for the Govt -- the Press releases usually come from NON scientists in the front office. Learn how stuff works TinkerBelle.

All this bores me. And is probably doesn't have much to do with the GH effect.


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2017)




----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Crick said:


>




Why you need to toss so much shit up there? Isn't one or two ENOUGH? Teachable moment. What is the cognitive dissonance in that LA Times graph versus the REALITY of the pause??  How is that graph misleading?


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2017)

The LA Times graphic is identical to Karl et al's save it has the endpoint labeled.  It was in response to your statement that Karl's looked as if it ended at 2010.5.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Here's a clue to the value of your......


....bogus, made-up denier cult bullcrap graph from a discredited propaganda outlet for fossil fuel industry lies.

*XXXX -- Mod Edit -- Editing within the quote boxes is a no no... *


In the real world.....
*




*


*

Link to source image
*
*



Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.
*


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 9, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Tell me olde euro -- You see a 0.2DegC or MORE anomaly in 1998?? I don't.



Yeah, you don't even understand that UAH is measuring "lower atmosphere".  Is that the same as that which buoys are measuring?  But you think UAH and NOAA data should look exactly alike.  Or rather, you get to pick and choose the one you like more, because... somehow the Daily Caller and WUWT omitted to inform you about that.



flacaltenn said:


> Just enjoy your bliss. Nothing to see here. Don't even ASK yourself what type of final filtering was applied to that data to remove it. Be oblivious !!! Be Happy !!! Enjoy the warm weather.



But you sure know how to play with yourself.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me olde euro -- You see a 0.2DegC or MORE anomaly in 1998?? I don't.
> ...



A mere 5 or 8 years ago, they agreed BRILLIANTLY. I've got the web archives to prove it. You would think AIR above the surface would have LESS El Nino heat since the source is the WATER !!! So why doesn't it NOW. It used to be a prominant feature. Why is every fucking NOAA graph I look at DIFFERENT??  Don't believe me -- look at the ones Tinkerbelle just posted and compare to the Karl graphs..

They SHOULD look alike and they DID. Wasn't it you claiming a few pages that the Karl changes matched the satellites?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 9, 2017)

Hey Tink !!! RollingThunder If you don't see the difference between the OFFICIAL UAH chart. 








And the "daily caller" graph ----- 






And a shorter Pause version of that data from WUWT ---- 







Then    Every NOAA chart I've seen in the thread doesn't agree with the others. THERE'S  a problem for ya !!!


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 10, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> You would think AIR above the surface would have LESS El Nino heat since the source is the WATER !!!



Nah, it's just you who would "think" that.  For, when the Pacific, due to a regional hot spot, releases some of the stored heat content toward the atmosphere, it  should be the atmosphere that is unusually hot.  Moreover, you apparently don't understand the charts either.  They are depicting temperature ANOMALY compared to some earlier average, not temperatures, and thus including more slowly warming / cooling oceans results in a less steep trend, and smaller amplitudes, even though the oceans are somewhat warmer than the atmosphere.  But yeah, these graphs depicting lower troposphere or the ocean surface temperature anomalies looked exactly alike some years ago.  Risible.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

Speaking of releasing that stored heat via El Nino...I see that yet another El Nino may be on the horizon and approaching quickly...the ocean ejecting yet another huge bundle of heat.  That is a problem because whether you warmers like it or not, it is the sun that warms the ocean and at present, the sun is very quiet.  Great gouts of heat escaping the ocean that aren't going to be replaced due to a quiet sun...tell me warmer...what do you think that portends?  Does it worry you?  Would you rather live in a warm world or die in a cold one?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2017)

Accidental post...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2017)

Accidental post...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Tink !!!


Hey Fecalhead !!!




flacaltenn said:


> If you don't see the difference between the OFFICIAL UAH chart.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Idiotic nonsense!

WUWT and 'daily caller' are denier cult propaganda outlets so anything you get from them is almost certainly biased, twisted and at least somewhat fraudulent.

Rational, sane people would naturally rather trust the information from the world scientific community, including NOAA and NASA.....

In the real world.....
*



*

*
Link to source image
*
*




Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.*


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 11, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.



Just for the fun of it, with a polynomial trend line that fits nicely:


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 11, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Just for the fun of it, with a polynomial trend line that fits nicely:


Did you compute the trend line yourself on a spread sheet? If so it would be fun to also compute an exponential trend line. All you have to do is take the logs of the data as input to a linear regression. You can then get the coefficients and plot the exponential fit with the data.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Did you compute the trend line yourself on a spread sheet? If so it would be fun to also compute an exponential trend line. All you have to do is take the logs of the data as input to a linear regression. You can then get the coefficients and plot the exponential fit with the data.



An exponential trend line?   Naw, you're not really thinking that would be a good fit for what is, and awaits us, don't you?  We'd all be cooked by 2020, or so.  I felt slightly shady with that polynomial fit, and I think we are having more than enough problems on our hands if the future follows a linear path towards a hotter earth during the next years.  Moreover, negative numbers as input to a log?  That results in imaginary numbers, which I find slightly unpleasant, and they probably would not work that well in a linear regression.


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Hi IanC
> ...



This is my reply to 'adding temperatures together'.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _"Photons can see the location and temperature of their targets and aren't emitted if they'll hit warmer matter, even if the targets are millions of light years away"_
> ...



*Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm*

No, that was your explanation for the directions photons moved and why.

*First, I have no theory*

Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.

*Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?* 

For at least the 4th time, the corona and the reason for its high temperature don't matter.
What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.
*
The key word in that sentence is guess*

It's true, we have to guess about your theory, because you can't provide any source that agrees with your claims......how else can we flesh out your silly "theory" without guessing?

Try again?

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.

(Love these old threads)


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Hahahaha, yes indeedy.  Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hahahaha, yes indeedy.  Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.



What a hypocrite....how many times have I asked you explicitly whether or not you have any actual measurements of discrete energy frequencies made with instruments at ambient temperature of energy moving from cool to warm?  Do you answer the question honestly?...of course you don't...you go into mind experiments and models. 

I don't have to have an explanation for a mechanism that is observed 100% of the time it is looked at..I only need to know that it is never wrong.  You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously even though the phenomenon has never been observed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha, yes indeedy.  Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.
> ...



*I don't have to have an explanation for a mechanism that is observed 100% of the time it is looked at.
*
That reminds me, did you ever provide at least a couple of examples of observations of matter at equilibrium ceasing all radiating?

*You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously 
*
Of course, because photons don't measure the temperature of their targets.
Did you ever explain how you think they do?
Or how the cooler surface of the Sun decides that it's allowed to radiate toward the hotter corona?

Or you could admit that no scientist agrees with your twisted misinterpretation........
What else explains your lack of observed examples?


----------



## IanC (Dec 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha, yes indeedy.  Earlier on you did yeoman's work trying to get Polarbear to acknowledge SSDD'S bizarre theory of photon emission as well. He dodged the questions just as adeptly as SSDD dodges making an explanation. Strawmen and topic changes allllll the way down.
> ...



Now I am confused. How did my words get attributed to Todd? And why does the quote arrow go back to a post that he made before I wrote those words?

Todd, feel free to report this to USMB. I couldn't be bothered, it is just another example of how SSDD fucks up quotes of mine. Although it is hard to imagine how this was just a harmless mistake.



I will answer SSDD'S accusations. I, and others here, have presented data taken by instruments at ambient temperature. I have also provided photographs. I even produced an industry report describing the precision and accuracy of one of the instruments, which described in detail how the instrument worked.

I have given evidence that most instruments that are cooled do so because they want to clean up the signal from stray radiation or to allow quicker response times.

Every object above absolute zero emits radiation according to its temperature and emmisivity, all the time. The CHANGE in temperature of an object results from the net flow of energy,  as most objects are receiving energy from their surroundings as well as giving up energy.

You have been shown many examples of this process being described in textbooks, etc. Instead of believing these descriptions, you have invented your own implausible theory that objects throttle down or cease their radiation output. By unknown mechanism, and unknown information transfer. 

You imbue mystical meanings into words and equations that the authors never intended. 

Your theory gives the right answer to a few macroscopic questions but gives wrong answers to microscopic ones.

My theory gives the right answer to both macroscopic and microscopic questions. And doesn't need knowledge of everything in the universe, or secret mechanisms to decide what is allowed or not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, I've noticed his stupidity extends to screwing up the quote function.
As long as he doesn't misattribute his or one of his fellow idiots comments as mine, I ignore it.


----------



## IanC (Dec 6, 2017)

A C&P from Todd responding to SSDD-



> .
> *You, on the other hand believe that energy moves from cool to warm spontaneously *
> 
> Of course, because photons don't measure the temperature of their targets.
> Did you ever explain how you think they do?



I will, for simplicity's sake, go along with SSDD'S claim that photons can test the suitability of the receiving particle before the virtual photon becomes real. Although I actually only believe this happens to photons passing electric and magnetic forces, not simple radiative photons.

Can the photon discern temperature? No, it cannot. Temperature is average kinetic speed of a large number of particles, some faster and some slower. Any individual particle may be fast or slow. 

There is no temperature label on the emitter, photon, or receiver. Only internal conditions inside the emitter or receiver that allow it to produce or absorb a nondescript photon that could have come from an object with a very wide range of temperatures.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That reminds me, did you ever provide at least a couple of examples of observations of matter at equilibrium ceasing all radiating?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

IanC said:


> I will answer SSDD'S accusations. I, and others here, have presented data taken by instruments at ambient temperature. I have also provided photographs. I even produced an industry report describing the precision and accuracy of one of the instruments, which described in detail how the instrument worked.



As I have said, the only measurements you have provided made with an instrument at ambient temperature are those where the instrument is doing nothing more than measuring the temperature change in an internal thermopile...you have no idea where the energy is coming from or which direction it is traveling.

All you have done is proved that you are so blinded by your belief that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.



IanC said:


> I have given evidence that most instruments that are cooled do so because they want to clean up the signal from stray radiation or to allow quicker response times.



No ian, they are cooled so that energy will move from the atmosphere to the cooler instrument so that a signal can be measured.  



IanC said:


> Every object above absolute zero emits radiation according to its temperature and emmisivity, all the time. The CHANGE in temperature of an object results from the net flow of energy,  as most objects are receiving energy from their surroundings as well as giving up energy.



No ian, that only applies if the object is a black body all alone in a vacuum...add other matter and that claim no longer holds true.  And there is no net flow of energy...all energy movements are one way gross energy movements...but do feel free to show an example made with an instrument at ambient temperature.



IanC said:


> You have been shown many examples of this process being described in textbooks, etc. Instead of believing these descriptions, you have invented your own implausible theory that objects throttle down or cease their radiation output. By unknown mechanism, and unknown information transfer.



All models and mind experiments...all the way down.



IanC said:


> My theory gives the right answer to both macroscopic and microscopic questions. And doesn't need knowledge of everything in the universe, or secret mechanisms to decide what is allowed or not.



All your theory does is provide a story to tell till such time as we learn a whole lot more about energy movement, its basic mechanisms, and nature.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2017)

IanC said:


> Can the photon discern temperature? No, it cannot. Temperature is average kinetic speed of a large number of particles, some faster and some slower. Any individual particle may be fast or slow.
> 
> There is no temperature label on the emitter, photon, or receiver. Only internal conditions inside the emitter or receiver that allow it to produce or absorb a nondescript photon that could have come from an object with a very wide range of temperatures.



For honesty's sake you should add a disclaimer to all such statements that the claims being made are based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Can the photon discern temperature? No, it cannot. Temperature is average kinetic speed of a large number of particles, some faster and some slower. Any individual particle may be fast or slow.
> ...


IanC has no hands on experience, let alone any technical or academic qualifications to make these statements. The same goes for these so called climate "scientists" that stack cold on top of hot and make it even hotter with photons. As if that would work. If it would then it should not matter at all what kind of flame temperature settings an AA is using:





how the can detector measure only the intensity of l*ight that does not get absorbed * and not measure the light emitted by the same atoms in the flame. Both sources of light are present and are of the same wavelength. The light is "chopped" with a rotating half-mirror so that the detector sees alternating light intensities. At one moment, only the light emitted by the flame is read since the light from the source is cut off, while at the next moment, the light from both the flame emission and the transmission of the source's light is measured since the source's light is allowed to pass. The emission signal is subtracted from the total signal and the measured difference is the Absorbance, A, what is displayed on the readout.
Forget about the chopper mirror. Older AA`s were single beam and we had to use the strip chart recorder trace as the baseline...and the same thing happens. If you make the flame hot enough* less and less light is absorbed from the source.*
So if as IanC claims that photons from a colder source add energy to a much hotter one it should not matter how hot you set the atomizer flame. It should still absorb as much light from the source as before.
But it won`t. Matter of fact *all of the light from the source goes right through* the sample path and you get a big fat zero on the Absorbance read-out. It is IanC that needs these "intelligent photons" mocking.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2017)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Why are you changing the topic to methods of technology when you ran away from a discussion of natural heat flows?

I asked you pointed questions about how energy redistributes itself, for two cases. One where there is no further input of energy, and one where the warm object has an outside energy source.

You fled back to your igloo and ignored my repeated prompts for an answer. You are a coward and a blowhard.


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2017)

Hey polarbear, why don't you pull out some more inane examples like the rolled steel coming out of a blast furnace and being cooled by a propane torch? Trivially true as long as you ignore the vast previous energy input, and only true until the steel cools to the temperature of the torch. What point were you trying to make by substituting a large energy input for a small one? Why are you only interested in the seemingly counterintuitive results as the steel moves towards a new equilibrium? Are you also surprised when food cools down in your oven after you reduce the thermostat from 400F to 200F?

And why do you keep attributing the ridiculous strawman to me of adding two temperatures together to get a higher temperature? You never actually quote my words except when you find a grammatical type of error.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _"Photons can see the location and temperature of their targets and aren't emitted if they'll hit warmer matter, even if the targets are millions of light years away"_
> ...



*Of course not...that is just the best explanation that you wack jobs could come up with as a reason that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm*

No, that was your explanation for the directions photons moved and why.

*First, I have no theory*

Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.

*Are you claiming that MHD waves and plasma jets aren't work?* 

For at least the 4th time, the corona and the reason for its high temperature don't matter.
What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.
*
The key word in that sentence is guess*

It's true, we have to guess about your theory, because you can't provide any source that agrees with your claims......how else can we flesh out your silly "theory" without guessing?

Try again?

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.



Are photons, assuming they exist, energy?  The science dictionary says that they are.  The second law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm.  Which part of that are you confused about?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> For at least the 4th time, the corona and the reason for its high temperature don't matter.
> What matters is your claim that the cooler surface CANNOT emit toward warmer matter.



And yet again, I have not claimed that the cooler surface of the sun CANNOT emit toward the warmer corona..I have stated that energy does not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm.  You can move all the energy from cool to warm that you want so long as you apply enough work to get it done.  It is a simple concept..what is it about the word spontaneous that you fail to grasp or don't seem to be able to apply to the discussion?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Your theory is that photons are prevented from moving from the cool atmosphere of Earth, to the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law, which doesn't mention photons, requires photons to know their course and the temperature of matter around them.
> ...



*Are photons, assuming they exist, energy? The science dictionary says that they are. 
*
Yes.

*The second law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm.  
*
Except it doesn't say that. It says heat.

*Which part of that are you confused about?
*
I'm not confused about you confusing heat and energy. I'm very clear about your confusion.
*
And yet again, I have not claimed that the cooler surface of the sun CANNOT emit toward the warmer corona.
*
You just won't explain why, as compared to other cooler matter, this particular matter is allowed to emit toward warmer matter.

*You can move all the energy from cool to warm that you want so long as you apply enough work to get it done. *

Where is the work at the Sun's surface?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Except it doesn't say that. It says heat.



These credible sources, as well as many many others state explicitly that heat is a form of energy and energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.

What Is Thermodynamics?

clip:  
*The First Law* states that the total increase in the energy of a system is equal to the increase in thermal energy plus the work done on the system. This states that heat is a form of energy and is therefore subject to the principle of conservation.

Heat

clip:  
*Heat*
In physics, heat is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms, molecules and other particles which comprise matter; generally defined as energy in motion.


14.1: Heat

Clip:   As noted in Temperature, Kinetic Theory, and the Gas Laws, heat is often confused with temperature. For example, we may say the heat was unbearable, when we actually mean that the temperature was high. Heat is a form of energy, whereas temperature is not. The misconception arises because we are sensitive to the flow of heat, rather than the temperature.

Certificate Physics form 3...page 241

Certificate Physics Form 3

Clip:  Heat is a form of energy

Environmental Physics  

Environmental Physics

Clip:  Heat is a form of energy




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm not confused about you confusing heat and energy. I'm very clear about your confusion.



Clearly you are since a lot of very credible sources say that heat is a form of energy.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You just won't explain why, as compared to other cooler matter, this particular matter is allowed to emit toward warmer matter.



As I have stated before, there is some work being applied that moves the energy from cool to warm..the fact that we don't have a grasp of the exact nature of that work does not mean that it isn't there.  Work being the operative word there...the opposite of spontaneous which you still don't seem to be able to apply to the discussion.

*You can move all the energy from cool to warm that you want so long as you apply enough work to get it done. *



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where is the work at the Sun's surface?



Various hypotheses are out there...that is why they are calling it a mystery...you are the only one who seems to believe that all that energy is moving spontaneously from the cooler surface to the warmer corona...I don't see anyone else suggesting that the second law is wrong...all I see is scientists calling it a mystery and looking for the mechanism that causes it to happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Except it doesn't say that. It says heat.
> ...



*These credible sources, as well as many many others state explicitly that heat is a form of energy and energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.
*




Second Law of Thermodynamics

GSU says no energy from cold to hot refers to net transfer of energy.
Energetic particles can travel from cold to hot.
*
As I have stated before, there is some work being applied that moves the energy from cool to warm
*
Right, somehow the work occurring at the core makes its way to the surface. 
*
the fact that we don't have a grasp of the exact nature of that work does not mean that it isn't there. 
*
You don't have a grasp on the nature of fusion?
Or you don't have a grasp on how that fusion energy "works" its way to the surface? Both?
Or is your confusion in an area not named here?
*
Various hypotheses are out there...that is why they are calling it a mystery..
*
I've never heard a hypothesis that posits work occurring on the surface.
Can you post a couple?
Or does work at the core allow this "mysterious" cool to hotter flow?

*I don't see anyone else suggesting that the second law is wrong...
*
I know, you're the only one with that unique suggestion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Except it doesn't say that. It says heat.
> ...



Thanks for your source.

_Radiation is the emission of electromagnetic (EM) energy, particularly infrared photons that carry heat energy. All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation, the net amount of which determines whether this causes a loss or gain in heat. 

What Is Thermodynamics?
_
That's weird! It says "All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation" Emits *AND* absorbs....
Your theory says it would emit or absorb.....can't do both at the same time, right?

It also says, "the *NET *amount of which determines whether this causes a loss or gain in heat"

Net amount? I wonder what they mean by that?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's weird! It says "All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation" Emits *AND* absorbs....
> Your theory says it would emit or absorb.....can't do both at the same time, right?



All matter does...all matter can absorb energy from warmer objects and all matter emits energy which is absorbed by cooler objects...nothing complicated there and it is born out by every observation and measurement ever made.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> It also says, "the *NET *amount of which determines whether this causes a loss or gain in heat"



Ask them to provide you with an observation and measurement of a net energy flow...ask them if it has ever been observed outside of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical mode.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I've never heard a hypothesis that posits work occurring on the surface.



How stupid are you?  What makes you think that only work occurring at the surface could cause energy to flow from the surface to the corona?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Can you post a couple?



Sure, since you apparently aren't smart enough to look it up on your own.

New clue to solving the mystery of the Sun's hot atmosphere

clip:  
"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense! Solar astronomers think that the key lies in the magnetic field, but there are still arguments about the details," added Dr Brooks.

The team of scientists analysed observations from the Solar Dynamics Observatory at a time of low activity (solar minimum) starting in 2010, and through till 2014 when huge magnetic active regions crossing the solar disk were common.

An unknown mechanism preferentially transports certain elements, such as Iron, into the corona instead of others, giving the corona its own distinctive elemental signature. The team think that the mechanism that separates the elements and supplies material to the corona may also be closely related to the transport of energy, and that understanding it may provide clues to explain the whole coronal heating process.


NASA Might Have Just Solved One of The Sun's Oldest Mysteries

Clip:  
Now, based on observations from the IRIS (Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph) mission, NASA researchers think the corona is partly heated by 'heat bombs' going off, caused by blasts of energy from magnetic fields criss-crossing and realigning in the corona.

This could also answer the question of whether the corona is being heated uniformly all at once, or in separate pockets that quickly spread out across the upper atmosphere - something scientists have been wondering about since the corona's intense heat was discovered.



I read that the sun's surface temperature is about 6,000 degrees Celsius but that the corona--the sun's atmosphere--is much hotter, millions of degrees. How does all that energy get into the corona without heating up the surface?

Clip:  "Basically, one cannot account for the heating of the corona by a radiative flow, so we think the corona is heated by some sort of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) wave flowing out of lower levels of the sun. Images of the sun in the far ultraviolet and in X-rays (acquired most recently by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory spacecraft, the Yohkoh satellite, and the NIXT rockets) show that the heating of the corona is localized in solar active regions, which indicates the important role played by the magnetic field. There are perhaps a dozen specific models that have been proposed to account for the high temperature of the corona.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or does work at the core allow this "mysterious" cool to hotter flow?



You just don't seem to be able to hid your ignorance...that is because you keep talking but never bother to look anything up...according to the Scientific American article, they state quite explicitly that one can't account for the heating of the corona by a radiative flow...sorry guy, you are just wrong and the more research that is done, the more wrong the more eivdent that becomes.  The search is for the mechanism (work) that moves that energy to the corona...no one but you assumes that it is the result of a simple radiative flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I've never heard a hypothesis that posits work occurring on the surface.
> ...



*How stupid are you? What makes you think that only work occurring at the surface could cause energy to flow from the surface to the corona?
*
What makes you think work at the core could cause energy to flow from the surface to the corona?
*
Sure, since you apparently aren't smart enough to look it up on your own.
*
Thanks so much.
_
Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle..........
_
_Clip:  _​_Now, based on observations from the IRIS (Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph) mission, NASA researchers think the corona is partly heated by 'heat bombs' going off,_​​How do these theories about the corona explain the work you feel is happening at the surface?​​I guess you aren't smart enough to answer the questions asked about the surface, you keep answering the ones no one is asking about the corona.​​*according to the Scientific American article, they state quite explicitly that one can't account for the heating of the corona by a radiative flow*​​I've stated quite explicitly, I don't care why or how the corona gets so hot, only why the Sun's surface violates your claim that "cooler matter simply will not emit toward hotter matter because......2nd Law".​​* The search is for the mechanism (work) that moves that energy to the corona...no one but you assumes that it is the result of a simple radiative flow.*​​I have never, not even once, posted any assumption about the corona.​Because I don't care about the corona. Clear yet?​​​​


----------



## IanC (Dec 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I've never heard a hypothesis that posits work occurring on the surface.
> ...




Why the fuck don't you answer Toddsterpatriot's question?

According to you, no radiation is possible from cool to warm ( or in this case hot to unbelievably hot). So according to you, no radiation should be coming off the Sun's surface and only the Corona should be visible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That's weird! It says "All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation" Emits *AND* absorbs....
> ...



*All matter does...all matter can absorb energy from warmer objects and all matter emits energy which is absorbed by cooler objects...
*
At the same time even.

*Ask them to provide you with an observation and measurement of a net energy flow...
*
Your source disagreed with your claim.....you should ask them why.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> Why the fuck don't you answer Toddsterpatriot's question?
> 
> 
> According to you, no radiation is possible from cool to warm ( or in this case hot to unbelievably hot). So according to you, no radiation should be coming off the Sun's surface and only the Corona should be visible.



Whats the matter ian, you have the same reading and comprehension problem as toddster.  I have never...i repeat NEVER said that it is not possible for radiation to move from cool to warm.  Like you, toddster is making up an argument for me and then arguing against that fantasy rather than my actual statements.  I have lost count of the number of times I have pointed out to toddster that what I said is that radiation does not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm...and that you can move as much radiation from cool to warm as you like so long as you are prepared to apply work to get it done.

Tell me, do you have any idea what the word spontaneous means and how it might apply to energy movement?  As I have been pointing out to toddster, the whole corona issue is not one where science thinks the second law of thermodynamics is wrong and that energy freely moves from cool to warm, it is an issue of finding what mechanism...what sort of work is being done to make it happen.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What makes you think work at the core could cause energy to flow from the surface to the corona?



That is the conclusion that the best research is leading to...Especialy the work on MHD waves. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I've stated quite explicitly, I don't care why or how the corona gets so hot, only why the Sun's surface violates your claim that "cooler matter simply will not emit toward hotter matter because......2nd Law".



At this point, you are either a deliberate liar, or you are far more stupid than even I though you were.  Do you really not know what spontaneous means?  Do you really not know how to apply the word to the movement of energy?  If not, just say the word and I will try to draw you a picture.  How many times must I say that energy can not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm?  What's the matter, if you acknowledge that I keep stating that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm you will have to give up and admit that you are wrong?  You think lying about what I have said is a better option?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I have never, not even once, posted any assumption about the corona.
> Because I don't care about the corona. Clear yet?
> 
> Yeah, it is clear that all you are interested in at this point is arguing about a claim that you made up and like to assign to me.  I have never said that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm...I have said that it is not possible for energy to move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm.  There is a difference there.  Air conditioning would not be possible if it were not possible to move energy from cool to warm...but work must be done to make it happen.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [Q
> 
> At the same time even.



Funny...making such a claim when you don't have the first observation, or measurement of it ever happening outside of an unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical model.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your source disagreed with your claim.....you should ask them why.



I know why...they are victims of post modern science and tend to believe in models more than reality.  It isn't a secret...just look at you.  You believe a model when every observation and measurement ever made says that the model is mistaken.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Why the fuck don't you answer Toddsterpatriot's question?
> ...



Work done thousands of miles away, in the Sun's core allows radiation to move from the cooler surface to the warmer corona? Is that your final answer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



*I know why...they are victims of post modern science and tend to believe in models more than reality.* 

Betrayed by your own source. LOL!
Did you ever find your 2 sources that agree matter at equilibrium ceases all radiating?
Or are we supposed to believe your model?


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Whats the matter ian, you have the same reading and comprehension problem as toddster. I have never...i repeat NEVER said that it is not possible for radiation to move from cool to warm. Like you, toddster is making up an argument for me and then arguing against that fantasy rather than my actual statements. I have lost count of the number of times I have pointed out to toddster that what I said is that radiation does not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm...and that you can move as much radiation from cool to warm as you like so long as you are prepared to apply work to get it done




So now you are building a new additional set of epicycles to prop up your ridiculous version of thermodynamics. The 'work' done it!

Hahahaha. Soon you will pick out a definition of work that you can misinterpret in a self serving way.

Why do you 'work' so hard to deny that every object radiates according to its temperature all the time?

By the way, the answer to why Sun's surface radiation reaches us is simple. It is the same reason that some of the Earth's surface radiation escapes directly to space. Most of the Sun's radiation is simply transmitted. The ions that make up the Corona are not blackbodies. And they are very rarified. The vast, vast majority of the Sun's radiation simply does not interact.


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I know why...they are victims of post modern science and tend to believe in models more than reality. It isn't a secret...just look at you. You believe a model when every observation and measurement ever made says that the model is mistaken




It depends on which model you are talking about, of course.

In physics the model for thermodynamics is solid. Any new model would only expand the power to explain, leaving the present model intact. Einstein improved Newtonian physics, he did not prove it wrong for normal terrestrial conditions.

QM and quantum statistics improved classical physics, and produce the same results. But now we have a very good understanding of WHY it happens that way.

Edit- I forgot to ask. Every observation and measurement prove which model wrong? Are the models for general physics wrong because you don't like a climate scientist's model for snowfall in Antarctica?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Whats the matter ian, you have the same reading and comprehension problem as toddster. I have never...i repeat NEVER said that it is not possible for radiation to move from cool to warm. Like you, toddster is making up an argument for me and then arguing against that fantasy rather than my actual statements. I have lost count of the number of times I have pointed out to toddster that what I said is that radiation does not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm...and that you can move as much radiation from cool to warm as you like so long as you are prepared to apply work to get it done
> ...



*So now you are building a new additional set of epicycles to prop up your ridiculous version of thermodynamics.*

All his work to prove that back radiation is impossible. What a joke.


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Yup. Physicists don't typically call it back radiation, they just call it radiation. Every object radiates, the net radiation describes the heat flow. It's all quite simple really, unless you believe only the net flow is actually created, meaning the warmer object produces less radiation than its temperature suggests, and the cooler object doesn't radiate at all.

Perhaps SSDD'S new found toy, 'work', will explain it all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yeah, the only thing better than smart photons is a radiation dimmer switch.

I keep looking for a version of Stefan-Boltzmann that says...

"total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, unless warmer matter is nearby and then energy emitted is zero"

Haven't found one yet. Apparently neither has SSDD.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> Work done thousands of miles away, in the Sun's core allows radiation to move from the cooler surface to the warmer corona? Is that your final answer?



That's the thing with science...right now, that is what they believe.  That may be subject to change as we learn more about the sun.  It is a pretty sure bet, however, that the energy isn't moving spontaneously from the surface to the corona.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> So now you are building a new additional set of epicycles to prop up your ridiculous version of thermodynamics. The 'work' done it!



Do you have a bit of dementia, or some memory loss setting in ian?  How many times have I posted the second law of thermodynamics for you?  No problem though, it explains a lot...here, refresh your failing memory.

_Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is _*not possible*_ for heat__ t__o flow from a colder body to a warmer body w_*ithout any work having been done to accomplish this flow*_. Energy _*will not flow spontaneously *_from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._



IanC said:


> Hahahaha. Soon you will pick out a definition of work that you can misinterpret in a self serving way.



Ha ha yourself.  If you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you would see that I am not interpreting, or misinterpreting anything.  I take the statement at face value.  It is, after all, a pretty explicit statement.  You are the one who is interpreting, altering, attempting to force it to say something that simply is not there.



IanC said:


> Why do you 'work' so hard to deny that every object radiates according to its temperature all the time?



Not me denying ian...The SB law says that a theoretical black body, alone, in the absence of any other matter is the only thing that radiates according to its temperature all the time.  When it is in the presence of other matter, it radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....in a one way gross energy flow fashion.  You are the one who denies the physics, you are the one who denies the explicit mathematical equations, you are the one who denies every observation and measurement ever made in favor of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model which says something different than the physical law and its accompanying mathematical equations.



IanC said:


> By the way, the answer to why Sun's surface radiation reaches us is simple. It is the same reason that some of the Earth's surface radiation escapes directly to space. Most of the Sun's radiation is simply transmitted. The ions that make up the Corona are not blackbodies. And they are very rarified. The vast, vast majority of the Sun's radiation simply does not interact.



So write a paper ian...I am sure science will be fascinated and relieved to know that it isn't a mystery any longer.  It would be nice to know everything...but it is tragic to think you do and to be so positive when you don't have the first piece of actual evidence to back you up.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> It depends on which model you are talking about, of course.



Only the ones that run contrary to observation and measurement...you know, the ones that even require you to complicate a simplified equation in an effort to make it say something that the actual equation doesn't...the fraudulent ones.



IanC said:


> In physics the model for thermodynamics is solid. Any new model would only expand the power to explain, leaving the present model intact. Einstein improved Newtonian physics, he did not prove it wrong for normal terrestrial conditions.



The most correct model states that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.  A correct model would explain the mechanism for that fact.  Any incorrect model makes assumptions that it is happening but we just can't measure it.



IanC said:


> QM and quantum statistics improved classical physics, and produce the same results. But now we have a very good understanding of WHY it happens that way.



I know you can't admit it but quantum statistics has made a mess of physics...And you have no more understanding now that you did before...you just have some interesting stories to tell...and in your case to believe in as if it were religion.



IanC said:


> Edit- I forgot to ask. Every observation and measurement prove which model wrong? Are the models for general physics wrong because you don't like a climate scientist's model for snowfall in Antarctica?



Any model that claims two way net energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Net radiation describes a fantasy.  And again, do try to either refresh your memory or stop deliberately lying.  go back and look at all the postings I have provided of the exact statement I provided above.  My argument has not changed because it is based on that very statement.  You have just become either more stupid or more forgetful, or more dishonest..take your pick.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, the only thing better than smart photons is a radiation dimmer switch.



Set up the SB equation ...make the radiator any size and emissivity you like T1 = 40K and T2 = 30K  what does P equal.

Now change T2 to 38K....what does P equal now?  Less....there is your dimmer switch described in the physical law itself.  Strange that you would deny the physical law.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I keep looking for a version of Stefan-Boltzmann that says...
> 
> "total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, unless warmer matter is nearby and then energy emitted is zero"



Sorry you are to f'ing stupid to read that very statement in the physical law itself.  Set T1 and T2 to the same temperature.  P = 0.  In your strange world, what does zero mean?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What do you believe? 
Can work done thousands of miles away allow energy from the cool surface to be emitted toward the hotter corona?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, the only thing better than smart photons is a radiation dimmer switch.
> ...



Zero means net energy loss is zero.
Any luck finding 2 sources that agree with your feeling that it really means no emissions at all?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Zero means net energy loss is zero.
> Any luck finding 2 sources that agree with your feeling that it really means no emissions at all?



Zero means zero...net means net....they are two different things out here in the real world.....I suppose they might mean the same thing in the phantasy physics world in which you reside.

And good luck to you finding an observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.  Who needs sources when every observation and measurement ever made support your position?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What do you believe?
> Can work done thousands of miles away allow energy from the cool surface to be emitted toward the hotter corona?



Makes more sense than believing that energy is spontaneously flowing from a cool region to a much hotter region...any idea at all makes more sense than believing that one can use an ice cube to heat up anything other than a colder ice cube.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So now you are building a new additional set of epicycles to prop up your ridiculous version of thermodynamics. The 'work' done it!
> ...




There never was a mystery to be explained. Todd was pointing out how the Sun's surface radiation was traveling towards a much hotter object, which totally disagrees with your stated version of the SLoT.

I think it is a poor example so I stayed out of it until now.

 It was directly addressed to you, so you should have answered it. But you ducked it, as per usual.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Zero means net energy loss is zero.
> ...



*Zero means zero...net means net....they are two different things out here in the real world...
*
Absolutely.

_Radiation is the emission of electromagnetic (EM) energy, particularly infrared photons that carry heat energy. All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation, the net amount of which determines whether this causes a loss or gain in heat. 

What Is Thermodynamics?
_
Out here, in the real world, your own source said net.

*I suppose they might mean the same thing in the phantasy physics world in which you reside.
*
Maybe in your fantasy world, you have a couple of sources that say emissions equal zero.
Still waiting for you to provide them.

* Who needs sources......
*
You do. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What do you believe?
> ...



*Makes more sense than believing that energy is spontaneously flowing from a cool region to a much hotter region.
*
Makes mores sense, but DO YOU BELIEVE?

Just say it. "Work done thousands of miles away some how makes its way to the surface, to allow non-spontaneous flow of energy from cool to hot"


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What do you believe?
> ...




SSDD does not believe in the atomic and subatomic world. He thinks it's only a fairytale. Despite the millions of experiments, and the insights drawn from the data produced. 

Photons are created in response to internal conditions present in particles. That is why all objects above absolute zero emit photons in a highly predictable way on average. Single events are not predictable.

All objects cool by expelling energy via photon emission. They are all trying to get to absolute zero. Counter to that purpose, the radiation from one object is absorbed by a different object. Cooling only happens if the object can radiate faster than it absorbs. A universal and endless game of 'hot potato'.

This is the underlying mechanism for the second law of thermodynamics. Warmer objects emit more photons, at a higher energy wavelength, than do cooler objects. The preponderance of net energy flows from warm to cool. But all objects radiate, all the time, absolute zero is unattainable.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2017)

SSDD believes the universe is playing a game of Go Go Stop, with some mystical entity calling the shots. He thinks objects stop radiating at each other if they are the same temperature, and can only radiate an amount equal to the net flow when they are not. He has no clue as to how this information is transferred by the mystical entity, no clue as to how the radiation is forbidden to emit inside the atomic particle, no clue at all.

Occam's Razor would suggest that a simple two way flow of radiation is the correct explanation. Everything radiating all the time, according to it's temperature. No need for mystical entities, no unexplainable mechanisms to forbid emissions.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2017)

The spherical cavity experiment is brilliantly conceived because it constrains outside influence. The cavity is bathed in radiation from a known temperature, and all angles are covered. No extra calculations are necessary. The radiation coming out of the aperture is a near perfect exemplar of the conditions inside, the radiation that is constantly being produced and absorbed by the blackbody.

Of course SSDD thinks there is no radiation present until the aperture is opened. And that only particles that have a direct line-of-sight to the outside are allowed to radiate, and only in that specific direction. All other particles are held in limbo by some mystical entity, by unknown and presumably unknowable mechanisms.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2017)

*"
Thermal radiation* is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of a body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature.
"

This would suggest that the only way to stop radiation is to stop movement. It also brings up the confounding factor that temperature is not uniform speed but an average speed.

There are so many problems with his version of physics, so many discontuities, and he refuses to address any of them.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> There never was a mystery to be explained.



Again, write a paper...because according to science, it still remains a mystery which happens to have a few more plausible explanations now.  You have become incredibly stupid in your arrogance ian..and getting more stupid all the time...making statements that you can not possibly support.



IanC said:


> Todd was pointing out how the Sun's surface radiation was traveling towards a much hotter object, which totally disagrees with your stated version of the SLoT.



And stupider and stupider.  The second law doesn't say that energy can't move from cool to warm..it says that it can not move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm.  Science is beginning to scratch the surface towards finding the mechanism...the mode of work that allows the energy movement to happen.



IanC said:


> I think it is a poor example so I stayed out of it until now.



It isn't even an example...it is just gross stupidity.  Do you think that energy moving from the sun to the corona and causing it to be orders of magnitude hotter than the surface represents any sort of net energy exchange between a cooler object and a warmer object?  It is so far away from the sort of net energy exchange that you believe in and which toddster was apparently trying so desperately to demonstrate that it is completely laughable...and now he has lowered the bar to a new level of stupid by apparently insisting that work happening below the surface of the sun could not be responsible because it is so far away.  

One must wonder why you don't attempt to set him straight on is extremely poor choice of example...but then, anyone who is actually looking doesn't really need to ask...do they?



IanC said:


> It was directly addressed to you, so you should have answered it. But you ducked it, as per usual.



I didn't duck anything.  I answered the same as I always answer.  Energy can move from cool to warm..it just can't happen spontaneously.  You guys have become so engrossed in the fake arguments you make up for me and rallying against them that you seem to be completely unaware that you are no longer arguing against me, but some figment of your imaginations that you believe to be me.  I said that the energy is not moving spontaneously from the surface to the corona....according to the second law of thermodynamics...can you, in any way demonstrate that it is, in fact, moving spontaneously from the surface to the corona?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> *"*
> This would suggest that the only way to stop radiation is to stop movement. It also brings up the confounding factor that temperature is not uniform speed but an average speed.
> 
> There are so many problems with his version of physics, so many discontuities, and he refuses to address any of them.



I have addressed them all...what I don't address is the arguments you fabricate and attribute to me since they are not my arguments.  You, in your faith based stupidity become less interesting all the time.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> The spherical cavity experiment is brilliantly conceived because it constrains outside influence. The cavity is bathed in radiation from a known temperature, and all angles are covered. No extra calculations are necessary. The radiation coming out of the aperture is a near perfect exemplar of the conditions inside, the radiation that is constantly being produced and absorbed by the blackbody.



You really believe that thermal equilibrium can be achieved in any structure that is larger than a couple of atoms?  You really believe that you could achieve true thermal equilibrium across the surface of a sphere?  You believe that the inside of an oven, no matter how well insulated is precisely uniform even when it is empty?...much less when you put an object inside?  How exactly would you test to determine whether it is precisely uniform?

You live on assumptions ian...if the model says so, then you are willing to overlook any number of fatal flaws within the experiment you believe supports your assumptions and belief.  Any temperature gradient...no matter how small would result in an energy transfer.  Where in the actual real universe might you find anything in true thermal equilibrium?..and in turn, where might you actually find, or create conditions under which you might test your UNOBSERVABLE, UNMEASURABLE, UNOBSERVABLE mathematical model?



IanC said:


> Of course SSDD thinks there is no radiation present until the aperture is opened.



And yet again, making up arguments for me and then railing against them.  Do you have any idea how tedious that becomes.  If there is radiation present within the sphere, it is due to the inevitable temperature gradients within the sphere.  Only a top shelf, first order fool would believe that you could create a condition of true thermal equilibrium within any structure larger than a couple of atoms...much less by putting a sphere inside an oven.  You really believe that every atom that comprises the interior surface of that sphere is in precise thermal equilibrium....you really believe that?

If you do, let me tell you about a toy factory located at the precise geographic north pole and a jolly little fat guy who has been running it for the past few hundred years.  Belief in that story would require the same level of faith as belief in your story as both are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Radiation is the emission of electromagnetic (EM) energy, particularly infrared photons that carry heat energy. All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation, the net amount of which determines whether this causes a loss or gain in heat._


_

Got any measurement of net energy exchange?  Of course not.
_


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Out here, in the real world, your own source said net.]/quote]
> 
> And my source doesn't have the first actual measurement of net energy exchange.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I will wait for the evidence to come in...unlike you, I simply can't be satisfied with accepting a model that is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable as reality and running with it.  People who do that are operating on something like religion which has its place in the world, but not as a substitute for science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _Radiation is the emission of electromagnetic (EM) energy, particularly infrared photons that carry heat energy. All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation, the net amount of which determines whether this causes a loss or gain in heat._
> ...



*Got any measurement of net energy exchange? Of course not.
*
Only every measurement ever taken of any matter above 0K.
Any proof that matter at equilibrium ceases radiating? Of course not.

*And my source doesn't have the first actual measurement of net energy exchange.*​
Why do you use sources that agree with me and disagree with you? Weird.
​*The physical law itself says so*​
Why are you using a model with no real world measurements?
​*Has it been overturned...replaced by a physical law that states net energy exchange is real..*​
The law that says all matter above 0K radiates? No, that has not been overturned.
Except in your confused mind.
​* Net is an assumption. *​
An assumption that works so much better than your "smart photon, future predicting photon, no emissions at equilibrium, dimmer switch assumption". And my assumption doesn't violate causality.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I will wait for the evidence to come in..
*
Evidence that work at the core is transmitted to the surface? LOL!

* I simply can't be satisfied with accepting a model that is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable as reality and running with it. 
*
Why not? That's what your "no back radiation, smart photon theory" is.
You're the only one who believes in it.
On the other side you have every physicist in history who knew that matter emits and absorbs, at the same time.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Only every measurement ever taken of any matter above 0K.



Sorry, but you don't...guess you are easily fooled by instrumentation



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Any proof that matter at equilibrium ceases radiating? Of course not.



Where might you find matter of any size greater than a couple of atoms at perfect equilibrium?  Any idea?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you use sources that agree with me and disagree with you? Weird.



All I needed was a source that stated the law...the fact that they are guilty of interpreting it to say something that it doesn't isn't my problem.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why are you using a model with no real world measurements?



Every real world measurement agrees with it..that is why it is called a physical law.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The law that says all matter above 0K radiates? No, that has not been overturned.
> Except in your confused mind.



Stupidity on parade...that isn't what the law says...that is your misinterpretation of the law...the law actually states that matter above 0 K in the presence of other matter radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...perhaps if you could read a mathematical equation, you might stop making false claims.
​


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> Why not? That's what your "no back radiation, smart photon theory" is.
> You're the only one who believes in it.
> On the other side you have every physicist in history who knew that matter emits and absorbs, at the same time.



Sorry, but I am not the only one...more lies on your part....and I have no theory...all I have is the statements of the laws of physics.  Which law states that there is such a thing as back radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Only every measurement ever taken of any matter above 0K.
> ...



*Where might you find matter of any size greater than a couple of atoms at perfect equilibrium? Any idea?
*
So when you said 2 objects at equilibrium cease radiating all together, you were talking about something that never actually occurs.

Your epicycles keep getting bigger and bigger.

*All I needed was a source that stated the law
*
So you posted a source that stated the law and agreed with me.
Do you have any sources that state the law and agree with you?

*Every real world measurement agrees with it..that is why it is called a physical law.
*
Baloney. You've posted no physical law or experimental result or instrument reading that shows energy flow is always one way. Or ever one way.

*Stupidity on parade...that isn't what the law says...that is your misinterpretation of the law...the law actually states that matter above 0 K in the presence of other matter radiates according to its emissivity,
*
Post a couple sources that say matter reduces its radiating based on the temperature of other matter.
It's funny that you never have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*Sorry, but I am not the only one...
*
Great. Post a few that explicitly make any of the same claims you make.
There have been many examples posted of scientists saying objects at equilibrium 
absorb and emit equal amounts of energy, none that say, as you have, that emissions cease.

Here's your chance. Post them now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I will wait for the evidence to come in..
*
Evidence that work at the core is transmitted to the surface? LOL!


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You really believe that thermal equilibrium can be achieved in any structure that is larger than a couple of atoms? You really believe that you could achieve true thermal equilibrium across the surface of a sphere? You believe that the inside of an oven, no matter how well insulated is precisely uniform even when it is empty?...much less when you put an object inside? How exactly would you test to determine whether it is precisely uniform



Of course you can. It is easy to heat an object to a uniform temperature. The oven could be made to produce just about any precision or accuracy that you required. 

Or are you arguing about a molecule by molecule uniformity? Temperature is defined by the average kinetic speed of a large cohort of molecules. Any individual molecule does not have a 'temperature'. Macroscopic qualities do not transfer to the atomic world.


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2017)

It is interesting to ponder where the rules of the macroscopic world break down and the fuzzy world of QM takes over.

At some point in time I read about an estimate putting it at picograms for a one nanosecond period. The numbers don't really matter. Just the idea is amazing.

A picogram of molecules is still an amazingly large number.


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2017)

Here is a comment from SSDD that he carelessly imbedded into Todd's quote-

"The physical law itself says so...have you seen anyone claiming that the physical law is invalid?...Has it been overturned...replaced by a physical law that states net energy exchange is real...has the term zero been replaced with a symbol that stands for net?

Is there even a mathematical symbol for net?.... the truth is that in both math and physics, you must assume net unless you perform a mathematical operation which explicitly expresses net....which isn't present in the SB equations. Net is an assumption. Tell me, where is "assumption's" rightful place in science?"

The first and most important S-B equation is j= aT^4 (a is the constant, not area. emissivity is equal to 1). Everything radiates according to temperature to the fourth power.

The equation SSDD likes to refer to is

P=eaA(T^4-Tc^4), where e is emissivity, a is the constant, and T is the temperature of the warm object and Tc the cool object. P stands for the power being transferred from one object to the other. 

This second equation could just as easily be written P= eA{(j=aT^4)-(jc=aTc^4)}

The radiation from the first object minus the radiation from the second object leaves a net amount of energy available to change the temperature of the second object. 

The reality of doing the calculations is much more complex of course.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2017)

My gosh. I haven't been on this thread since April, and it is still going around in circles. SSDD will never admit he believes in net energy flow because he is a troll. Logic doesn't dissuade trolls. I wonder if he's one of those Russian trolls.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 17, 2017)

Don't feed the energy creature. It thrives on negative emotions. Instead, laugh it off of the Enterprise.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> Of course you can. It is easy to heat an object to a uniform temperature. The oven could be made to produce just about any precision or accuracy that you required.



Sorry ian, but for us humans, putting all the atoms of an object into perfect thermal equilibrium is impossible...we simply can't do it..and therefore, there is always going to be energy moving along those temperature gradients...so not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation, but experimental set ups as well


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> The equation SSDD likes to refer to is
> 
> P=eaA(T^4-Tc^4), where e is emissivity, a is the constant, and T is the temperature of the warm object and Tc the cool object. P stands for the power being transferred from one object to the other.



Yes..I like to refer to the actual equations associated with the physical laws.



IanC said:


> This second equation could just as easily be written P= eA{(j=aT^4)-(jc=aTc^4)}
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> My gosh. I haven't been on this thread since April, and it is still going around in circles. SSDD will never admit he believes in net energy flow because he is a troll. Logic doesn't dissuade trolls. I wonder if he's one of those Russian trolls.



Still waiting for one of you believers to provided an observed, measured example of net energy flow...then we can get the physical laws altered to state net energy flow rather than gross one way energy movement.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You really believe that thermal equilibrium can be achieved in any structure that is larger than a couple of atoms? You really believe that you could achieve true thermal equilibrium across the surface of a sphere? You believe that the inside of an oven, no matter how well insulated is precisely uniform even when it is empty?...much less when you put an object inside? How exactly would you test to determine whether it is precisely uniform
> ...



To which you replied-


SSDD said:


> Sorry ian, but for us humans, putting all the atoms of an object into perfect thermal equilibrium is impossible...we simply can't do it..and therefore, there is always going to be energy moving along those temperature gradients...so not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation, but experimental set ups as well



In the beginning you said temperature was the only deciding factor, so much so that the macroscopic quality of temperature in one object controlled the internal conditions of every molecule in the second object.

Now you are implying that the only internal conditions of molecules affects radiation emission/absorption, and therefore temperature of the objects is only of secondary importance. (I agree with this and have pointed it out to you in a variety of ways on numerous occasions)

So which is it?


Also, you have co-opted the term 'thermal equilibrium' to mean something other than its definition. Explain what you think it means.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> Also, you have co-opted the term 'thermal equilibrium' to mean something other than its definition. Explain what you think it means.



I believe the term means something other than its actual definition to you ian.  Here, from various sources:

Scopeweb | Entropy and the Kitchen Sink

clip:  This irreversible balancing of energy is being played out across stages all over the universe, and since the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, this means that nature is trying to get us into *a state where no energy exchange can happen. Perfect equilibrium*. A state where the potential for work has disappeared completely.


Smart Materials and Technologies in Architecture

Smart Materials and Technologies in Architecture: Michell Addington, Daniel Schodek; pp 95

When the energy state of a given material is equivalent to the energy state of its surrounding environment, then that material is said to be in equilibrium:  no energy can be exchanged.  


Heat conduction and Fourier's law by consecutive local mixing and thermalization.  - PubMed - NCBI

clip:   We explore the conditions under which relaxation to local *equilibrium, which involves no energy exchange*, takes place on time scales shorter than that of the binary collisions which induce local thermalization


http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4926325?crawler=true&journalCode=jcp

clip:  We further show in this paper that the feedback term is essential for maintaining *local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) when there is no energy exchange between the system of interest and its surrounding environment.*


Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0  no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.




No heat exchange. For energy exchange by radiation there is always radiation produced by both objects, leaving a net flow that is considered heat exchange. 

Photons only interact with matter, they do not cancel out during the journey from emitter to absorber.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.
> ...



According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...no such observation or measurement in the real world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


What, weirdo?  the things he said are observed, empircal fact.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 28, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Really?  Got an observation and measurement of two way, net energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature?  Didn't think so.  Clearly you don't have a complete understanding of what observed, empirical fact is.  Like ian, you seem to believe unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model output represents observed fact...maybe you believe observing a model run is like observing reality.  

Or maybe you know something no one else does...by all means, if you have an observed example of two way net energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature, by all means, lets see it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Got an observation and measurement of matter dialing up or dialing down its emissions due to the temperature of its surroundings? Didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 28, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > What, weirdo? the things he said are observed, empircal fact.
> ...



I can't help but notice that you don't, nor have you ever had any observed, measured evidence of two way net energy flow....all measurements are of gross one way energy flow from warm to cool.  If models is all you have...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, I might add, then you, like the rest of the believers have nothing but faith...and someone whom you perceive as being smarter than yourself saying so.

And yes, I do reject much of the modern "understanding" of physics, which really isn't...and to claim that it jibes with experimental results is just ignorant...show me a measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature of two way net energy flow rather than one way gross energy movement from warm to cool.

Maybe you are just a kid and haven't been around long enough to see how often science has to acknowledge that what they though they knew...they didn't...how often they are wrong...or maybe you have been around but just aren't bright enough to have been paying attention..or maybe you lack the confidence to actually say that the emperor is buck assed naked...your problem..not mine.

Post modern science..especially physics is in trouble...when you live by models, you will die by models...and modern "science" has become entirely too dependent on models..accepting the output as truth when in reality, the output is little more than a story that we tell each other about things that are happening that we are decades, perhaps centuries away from understanding..and that is assuming that we will ever understand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


*
you don't, nor have you ever had any observed, measured evidence of two way net energy flow....
*
Pretty sure that there is two way energy flow between the Sun's surface and the Sun's corona......


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 28, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I can't help but notice that you don't, nor have you ever had any observed, measured evidence of two way net energy flow....all measurements are of gross one way energy flow from warm to cool. If models is all you have...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, I might add, then you, like the rest of the believers have nothing but faith...and someone whom you perceive as being smarter than yourself saying so.
> 
> And yes, I do reject much of the modern "understanding" of physics, which really isn't...and to claim that it jibes with experimental results is just ignorant...show me a measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature of two way net energy flow rather than one way gross energy movement from warm to cool.
> 
> ...



You have stated many times you not believe any modern physics of the last 100 years. In particular you don't believe in fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. You don't understand that all of physics are mathematical models conceived to be consistent with experimental knowledge, and if you reject mathematical models, you are essentially rejecting the past and current understanding of physics.


.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 18927215, member: 54364

You have stated many times you not believe any modern physics of the last 100 years. In particular you don't believe in fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. You don't understand that all of physics are mathematical models conceived to be consistent with experimental knowledge, and if you reject mathematical models, you are essentially rejecting the past and current understanding of physics.[/quote]

If there were experimental evidence, then that would mean that there is observation and measurement of two way energy flow...there is none, therefore there is no experimental evidence...you seem to believe that model output is actual experimental data.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> 
> So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.
> 
> ...


Amazing!

Have you published this yet? Have you yet written a formal, open letter to the major scientifoc societies of the planet? Have you started sharing this idea with actual scientists and academics, in order to gain input on it?

Of course you have! Not.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Amazing!
> 
> Have you published this yet? Have you yet written a formal, open letter to the major scientifoc societies of the planet? Have you started sharing this idea with actual scientists and academics, in order to gain input on it?
> 
> Of course you have! Not.



Nothing but a piss poor, impotent logical fallacy?  Is that really all you have?  Step on up hot rod...lets see a single piece of data made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one...

Or here is an even easier one...lets see a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

My bet is that neither will be forthcoming because neither exists...and what will you do?  Run away like you have every other time I asked you for such data?  Come up with another logical fallacy or just use one of the same old ones you tend to toss around as if they represented actual intelligence?  Maybe call some names?  Maybe a combination of all of the above...

What you WON'T do is provide the requested data.


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> [QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 18927215, member: 54364
> 
> You have stated many times you not believe any modern physics of the last 100 years. In particular you don't believe in fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. You don't understand that all of physics are mathematical models conceived to be consistent with experimental knowledge, and if you reject mathematical models, you are essentially rejecting the past and current understanding of physics.



If there were experimental evidence, then that would mean that there is observation and measurement of two way energy flow...there is none, therefore there is no experimental evidence...you seem to believe that model output is actual experimental data.[/QUOTE]


Of course there is observational evidence. Every piece of evidence that you claim supports your version also supports mine. Plus my side has all the entropy solutions that negate your version.

Your only talking point is that the instruments measuring the effects of radiation are only measuring symptoms not the actual radiation. How, exactly, are we supposed to 'see' the very thing we use to see?

You have refused to state where the measurements of our instruments are wrong, or even which direction they push the results.

You are a big fan of the S-B equations but fail to realize that they came from 'faulty' data. At least in your version.

You have a naive understanding of physics and refuse to follow the chain of logic to its conclusion. The SLoT is now derived based on entropy. You simply reject that although it has far superior explanatory power. It answers the questions that you cannot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing!
> ...


It's not a fallacy. I am not engaging you in discussion of the truth of any of the denier bullshit you are spreading. I am ridiculing you for being an obvious charlatan and fraud. You publish no science and explocitly state that the people who actually do are liars and incompetent. You are a fraud.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




SSDD is a confused idiot....but at least he doesn't want to waste trillions on windmills.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

IanC said:


> Of course there is observational evidence. Every piece of evidence that you claim supports your version also supports mine. Plus my side has all the entropy solutions that negate your version.



Sorry ian...every measurement ever made shows nothing more than gross one way energy movment.  But believe what you want ian...your faith is clearly strong.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> If there were experimental evidence, then that would mean that there is observation and measurement of two way energy flow...there is none, therefore there is no experimental evidence...you seem to believe that model output is actual experimental data.



Within the theory of quantum mechanics, photons are emitted from a warm body in all directions. There is no QM mechanism that prevents those photons from hitting a hotter body. You have not given any QM mechanism on how photons are impeded from doing that. That's why people on this board refer to your misunderstanding as "smart photons". Do you care to give your QM mechanism?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is observational evidence. Every piece of evidence that you claim supports your version also supports mine. Plus my side has all the entropy solutions that negate your version.
> ...



*every measurement ever made shows nothing more than gross one way energy movment.
*
cough...the Sun....cough

DERP!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's not a fallacy.



 Of course it is a fallacy.  Guess a know nothing like you shouldn't be expected to recognize logical fallacy when he engages in them.  Appeal to ridicule.  It seems to be one of your "goto fallacies.  It is also called an appeal to mockery or a horse laugh.  You engage in that sort of fallacy when you offer up ridicule or mockery in lieu of evidence in support of your position.  



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am not engaging you in discussion of the truth of any of the denier bullshit you are spreading.



Of course you aren't...logical fallacy could hardly be called either engaging or discussion...clearly you can't engage me in the discussion because no evidence exists that you might use to counter me.  I have asked for data that does not exist and have been asking for decades.  And in typical fashion, you lack the wit to even question why you are unable to get a piece of observed measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and slap me down with it...I mean, if such data existed you wouldn't be able to escape it...and you certainly wouldn't have to engage in fallacy in an attempt to avoid engaging the discussion at all.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am ridiculing you for being an obvious charlatan and fraud.



Funny thing is, I believe that you are stupid enough to believe that.  I believe that you are stupid enough to think that no one notices me asking for a single piece of observed, measured data that supports your positon over mine and you not being able to provide it.  You are the object of ridicule.  I am asking for data and you can't step up to the plate with it so you are fabricating all manner of fantasy as a distraction.  You think people don't notice that?


I guess you never bothered to look up the word charlatan...did you just hear it somewhere and like the sound?  You think using it makes you sound smart?  A charlatan is one who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses.  I am asking for data that supports your position.  You are the one making the claim that such data exists, and yet, you can't produce it...that makes you a charlatan...not me....I guess you never looked up fraud either.  Again, I am asking for data that supports your positon over mine...you claim it exists and yet can't produce it.  I am afraid that the definition of fraud fits your behavior, not mine.   The only claim I am making is that there is no observed, measured data that supports your position over mine...and your failure to provide any such data only supports my position.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You publish no science and explocitly state that the people who actually do are liars and incompetent. You are a fraud.



You believe one must publish in order to recognize pseudoscience?  What a laugh.  Step on up with the data and prove me wrong...or don't and prove me right.


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is observational evidence. Every piece of evidence that you claim supports your version also supports mine. Plus my side has all the entropy solutions that negate your version.
> ...



We have been through this a hundred times. The surface is a near blackbody and therefore radiates according to its temperature, roughly 400w/m^2. Solar input to the surface is roughly 160 Watts per metre squared. There is a deficit of over 200 Watts. I say the missing energy comes from the atmosphere, and you say...nothing. You have no coherent answer.

There is a fairly simple way to answer this question that only slightly fucks up your version of atmospheric physics but I have never seen you take it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If there were experimental evidence, then that would mean that there is observation and measurement of two way energy flow...there is none, therefore there is no experimental evidence...you seem to believe that model output is actual experimental data.
> ...



So you say...according to the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model..  I understand perfectly.  You believe based on what someone told you....and you hate it that others don't join you in your belief..and you hate it that you can't provide the observational evidence that would prove you right...alas, that is the nature of faith...unfortunate that you have it confused with actual science.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2017)

IanC said:


> We have been through this a hundred times. The surface is a near blackbody and therefore radiates according to its temperature, roughly 400w/m^2. Solar input to the surface is roughly 160 Watts per metre squared. There is a deficit of over 200 Watts. I say the missing energy comes from the atmosphere, and you say...nothing. You have no coherent answer.



The surface is a gray body...and on and on and in the end, all you have is your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > We have been through this a hundred times. The surface is a near blackbody and therefore radiates according to its temperature, roughly 400w/m^2. Solar input to the surface is roughly 160 Watts per metre squared. There is a deficit of over 200 Watts. I say the missing energy comes from the atmosphere, and you say...nothing. You have no coherent answer.
> ...



Okay, say the emissivity is 0.9 instead of 1.0. that is roughly 360w instead of 400. Less the solar input of 160 still leaves about 200w of deficit. Explain how the deficit is made up.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You got distracted from the question. It is this:
There is no QM mechanism that prevents photons from one body hitting a hotter body. You have not given any QM mechanism on how photons are impeded from doing that. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


And you are just as silly as he is on that subject. People are putting up the mills with or without subsidization now. The mills produce electricity at a cheaper rate than do fossil fuel plants, far cheaper than nuclear. They require no infrastructure other than the grid. No water required, no pipelines, no railroads to bring in the coal. The produce no pollution, and last just as long as the fossil fuel plants, and are far easier to rebuild. Same for solar. 

Trillions are going to be spent worldwide for electrical energy in the coming decades. It is simply an economic choice between fossil fuels that are far more expensive, and have some noxious externalities, or clean renewables. And the economics say renewables with grid scale storage is going to be the choice.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> You got distracted from the question. It is this:
> There is no QM mechanism that prevents photons from one body hitting a hotter body. You have not given any QM mechanism on how photons are impeded from doing that. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?



So you are saying that you know all of the QM mechanisms, what they are, how they work, and what they work on?  Tell me, is the fundamental mechanism of gravity quantum in nature?  I have always wondered how it works, as have most scientists.  I suppose you should have mentioned that you know all of the QM mechanisms and how they worked to them.  In order to make the claim that there "IS NO MECHANISM" implies that you know all of the mechanisms....right?  Or are you just saying whatever comes to mind in an effort to support your argument?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> 3sat.Mediathek[/URL]
> 
> That is a link to a German Sat 1 tv broadcast...a documentary on the increasingly unstable power grid due to wind and solar.  At the 17 minute mark they are discussing the fact that the grid required an average of 3 interventions daily last year to avert instability....and they cost the consumers about a billion euros last year.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

Whats the matter fort fun?....not up to an actual discussion on the state of the science of climate change...not up to dealing with the hard questions that skeptics are asking?  Don't worry..no one actually expected you to be able to manage that anyway.  Running away was your best strategy since honesty doesn't seem to be an option for you guys.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So you are saying that you know all of the QM mechanisms, what they are, how they work, and what they work on? Tell me, is the fundamental mechanism of gravity quantum in nature? I have always wondered how it works, as have most scientists. I suppose you should have mentioned that you know all of the QM mechanisms and how they worked to them. In order to make the claim that there "IS NO MECHANISM" implies that you know all of the mechanisms....right? Or are you just saying whatever comes to mind in an effort to support your argument?


The QM mechanisms for EM radiation emitted from warm bodies were well known for about 100 years. No advanced mechanisms such as quantum gravity or quantum electrodynamics are needed nor useful in explaining EM thermal radiation. 

You still have not given any QM mechanism on how thermal photons are impeded from striking a hotter body. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Whats the matter fort fun?....not up to an actual discussion on the state of the science of climate change...not up to dealing with the hard questions that skeptics are asking?  Don't worry..no one actually expected you to be able to manage that anyway.  Running away was your best strategy since honesty doesn't seem to be an option for you guys.




Running away is one of your personal favourites.

You have failed to respond at least a hundred times to my simple question. 

How does the surface maintain an average temperature of 15C, which means it is radiating at 400w, when the solar insolation is only 160w? 

This is a basic question. There are no tricks here. I have been waiting for five years to hear your answer.

Will you simply run away again?

I think I will not hear a response from you even if I wait another five years.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The QM mechanisms for EM radiation emitted from warm bodies were well known for about 100 years. No advanced mechanisms such as quantum gravity or quantum electrodynamics are needed nor useful in explaining EM thermal radiation.



No they aren't...and if you believe that they are, then you are even less informed than I would have thought.  Clearly you are not able to differentiate between what is real and known by observation, measurement, and experiment, and what remains little more than a story we tell about what might be.

If you think I am wrong, refer to Niels Bohr and his thoughts on the "quantum world"... "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.

Learn the difference between what is real and known and what is not and remains hypothetical.



Wuwei said:


> You still have not given any QM mechanism on how thermal photons are impeded from striking a hotter body. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?



No will I.  Unlike you, I can differentiate between what we can observe, measure and know and what we can't....and I am able to differentiate between actual descriptions of mechanisms and stories about hypotheticals that are used as place markers till such time as we actually start to develop some real understanding.  The idea that we even begin to grasp the underlying mechanisms of energy transfer is laughable...hell, at this date we don't even have a handle on the underlying mechanism of gravity.  You people who believe that science knows all and sees all are living in a dream world...real scientists will tell you that at this point, we are barely scratching the surface and just beginning to know what we don't know.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> Running away is one of your personal favourites.
> 
> You have failed to respond at least a hundred times to my simple question.
> 
> How does the surface maintain an average temperature of 15C, which means it is radiating at 400w, when the solar insolation is only 160w?



I have told you..the fact that you don't like the answer is not my problem...your first problem is believing that the solar insolation is 160w....second, you seem to disregard that water vapor can absorb and hold energy..unlike CO2 at atmospheric temperatures...CO2 simply absorbs and emits the energy on to cooler pastures...what small bit of energy it actually gets to emit...the vast bulk is transferred to non radiative gasses and is moved via conduction....you believe that radiation is a large enough portion of the energy movement in the lower atmosphere to have an effect...another place where you have it all wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The QM mechanisms for EM radiation emitted from warm bodies were well known for about 100 years. No advanced mechanisms such as quantum gravity or quantum electrodynamics are needed nor useful in explaining EM thermal radiation.
> ...


You are hell-bent on promoting a mechanism of one way thermal energy flow, but you cannot support it with any science. The reason is, as we both said, you don't believe modern science.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> You are hell-bent on promoting a mechanism of one way thermal energy flow, but you cannot support it with any science. The reason is, as we both said, you don't believe modern science.



Yeah..nothing but that wacky 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...Let me know when they change that to state that energy..any amount at all,  can move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are hell-bent on promoting a mechanism of one way thermal energy flow, but you cannot support it with any science. The reason is, as we both said, you don't believe modern science.
> ...


That wacky 2nd law allows two way thermal energy flow since more energy flows from the hot body than it receives from the colder body. That is according to QM, which we both know you don't believe.  Do you care to give your QM mechanism for one way flow?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2017)

I accidentally left my laser pointer near the hot air output from the furnace. Half of it got warmer. I took it out to play with the cat, and it still worked.

Ruh-roh. According to the SSDD theory, it couldn't have still worked. Lasers bounce light back and forth between the two ends, where it gets absorbed, amplified and emitted again on each cycle. According to the SSDD theory, the warmer end couldn't have absorbed photons from the colder end, so there's no way it could have worked.

But it did work, because SSDD's physics is hilariously stupid.


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> your first problem is believing that the solar insolation is 160w



This is a measured quantity. Why do you have a problem with it? What is the figure you would prefer to use? 25% higher? That still leaves a massive deficit. 400 W output cannot be supported by an input of 200 W. Where is the missing energy coming from?

Why won't you tell us where YOU think the extra energy is coming from?


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CO2 simply absorbs and emits the energy on to cooler pastures...what small bit of energy it actually gets to emit...the vast bulk is transferred to non radiative gasses and is moved via conduction....you believe that radiation is a large enough portion of the energy movement in the lower atmosphere to have an effect...another place where you have it all wrong




You're getting closer. The energy absorbed in the lower atmosphere by CO2 warms the air and decreases the surface conduction to the atmosphere. 

If 15 micron radiation was not intercepted by CO2 and added to the total energy of the atmosphere, then it would simply escape to space like the radiation leaving through the Atmospheric Window.

Then the atmosphere would cool, allowing the surface to pass more heat to the atmosphere by conduction, cooling the surface.

It's all rather simple if you keep track of the energy flows.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> That wacky 2nd law allows two way thermal energy flow since more energy flows from the hot body than it receives from the colder body. That is according to QM, which we both know you don't believe.  Do you care to give your QM mechanism for one way flow?



According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool.  Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model.  When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> I accidentally left my laser pointer near the hot air output from the furnace. Half of it got warmer. I took it out to play with the cat, and it still worked.
> 
> Ruh-roh. According to the SSDD theory, it couldn't have still worked. Lasers bounce light back and forth between the two ends, where it gets absorbed, amplified and emitted again on each cycle. According to the SSDD theory, the warmer end couldn't have absorbed photons from the colder end, so there's no way it could have worked.
> 
> But it did work, because SSDD's physics is hilariously stupid.



What is stupid, and sad is your attempt to be funny.  You aren't.  It is tough to make butthurt and bitter appear funny.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > your first problem is believing that the solar insolation is 160w
> ...



Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?

And there is no "extra" energy.  Most of it comes from the sun, some comes from within the earth...but there is no 'extra' energy to be found.  If you can't account for it, then you aren't looking in the right place.  The fact that you don't know where it comes from doesn't mean that it is the result of the magic of CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> This is a measured quantity. Why do you have a problem with it? What is the figure you would prefer to use? 25% higher? That still leaves a massive deficit. 400 W output cannot be supported by an input of 200 W. Where is the missing energy coming from?
> 
> Why won't you tell us where YOU think the extra energy is coming from?





IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 simply absorbs and emits the energy on to cooler pastures...what small bit of energy it actually gets to emit...the vast bulk is transferred to non radiative gasses and is moved via conduction....you believe that radiation is a large enough portion of the energy movement in the lower atmosphere to have an effect...another place where you have it all wrong
> ...



The 15 micron radiation is irrelavent..a very small bit is absorbed by CO2 and then immediately emitted on to cooler areas of the atmosphere...radiation is all but irrelevant in the lower atmosphere.  And pretending that you have the answer and that I am getting close is laughable model boy...you want a model that works...look to N&Z...theirs works everywhere and requires no ad hoc fudge factor...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool. Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model. When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.



Nope. Two-way net flow is consistent with every observation and the 2nd law.
It's not just me you disagree with. It's all scientists for the last 100 years or so.


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That wacky 2nd law allows two way thermal energy flow since more energy flows from the hot body than it receives from the colder body. That is according to QM, which we both know you don't believe.  Do you care to give your QM mechanism for one way flow?
> ...



The SLoT says heat can't flow spontaneously from cold to warm. It doesn't prohibit energy flowing in both directions.


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?



Nowhere. What's your point?

The total surface of the Earth absorbs an amount of solar radiation that averages out to be 160w/m2.  

Is this one of your wacko misunderstandings that says we can't know the average solar input unless every square nanometer is getting the exact same insolation?


----------



## IanC (Dec 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And there is no "extra" energy. Most of it comes from the sun, some comes from within the earth...but there is no 'extra' energy to be found. If you can't account for it, then you aren't looking in the right place. The fact that you don't know where it comes from doesn't mean that it is the result of the magic of CO2.



Of course there is extra energy. The energy stored in the atmosphere is the extra energy.

For the same solar input you can have a large range of surface temperatures, depending on how much energy has been stored. The stored energy is simply energy that was held back from being lost to space.

We see the same principle in real life all the time. An oven or frying pan doesn't cook from the moment you turn on the power, it has to preheat. Once you turn the power off it doesn't immediately stop cooking, not until it loses the same energy that it stored.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> Of course there is extra energy. The energy stored in the atmosphere is the extra energy.



Extra?  From what source other than the sun or the heat that the earth itself produces?  Extra heat would, by definition come from somewhere else....where might that be?  Magically multiplied by CO2?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?
> ...



It is models all the way down with you, isn't it?...even when they are failures, you prefer models over reality.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> The SLoT says heat can't flow spontaneously from cold to warm. It doesn't prohibit energy flowing in both directions.



And the selective memory strikes again....we have already been through all this...heat is a form of energy...do I need to bring all the references from physics texts forward again...heat is energy and energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool. Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model. When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.
> ...



Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why?  Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.  Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm.  Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.
> 
> Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.


I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.
> ...


Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect.  QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2018)

Next your going to tell me that making a photon more energetic doesn't take energy consumption... This is another area of Trenbreth's logical fallacy and magically reproducing energy that he has gotten WRONG!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.



Are you reading impaired or just stupid?  I told you that I am not going to be fabricating a mechanism...just because we don't know the mechanism of a thing does not mean that it doesn't happen.  Whenever you drop a rock, it falls and science has no clear idea of what the fundamental mechanism of gravity is...it's influence can, however be observed, measured, and quantified.  It is not necessary to fully, or even partially understand the fundamental mechanism to acknowledge that gravity is.

I keep insisting that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction because there are no observations or measurements that suggest otherwise....there is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model that says otherwise but that is it.  Energy can only be observed moving spontaneously from cool to warm...and it does not go unnoticed that whenever you are asked for some actual observed, measured evidence to the contrary, it never seems to materialize...why do you suppose that is?  Are you so dishonest that you can't even bring yourself to admit that there are no such measurements?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Next your going to tell me that making a photon more energetic doesn't take energy consumption... This is another area of Trenbreth's logical fallacy and magically reproducing energy that he has gotten WRONG!



They bring a whole new meaning to the word doofus.  They like nothing more than calling other people who don't agree with them idiots and in all this time, I doubt that either one of them ever wondered why the very people who they love to call idiots keep zeroing in on the very questions that they can not answer, and asking for the data that could support their position but which does not exist.  Do they suppose that it is just coincidence that the questions posed to them are the very questions that demonstrate that their beliefs only exist and happen within models?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.
> ...


Right. Generous of you to admit that you have no mechanism. Every measurement is consistent with a net two way thermal energy flow. Period. You disagree with 100 years of scientists. In calling me stupid, you are calling millions of scientists stupid. What does that make you. Eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101
*
I thought covailent bonds repel photons........


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why do you consider math to be a model?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
 Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm.
*
Are you saying energy can move from cool to warm if work is involved?


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The SLoT says heat can't flow spontaneously from cold to warm. It doesn't prohibit energy flowing in both directions.
> ...



All heat is energy but not all energy is heat.

The original SLoT described macroscopic movement of heat (not all forms of energy), and did not have an explanation for why the behavior emerged.

The SLoT is now described in terms of entropy, and the reasons for heat movement are explained.

Both versions give the same answers but only one gives the mechanism behind why it happens.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Right. Generous of you to admit that you have no mechanism. Every measurement is consistent with a net two way thermal energy flow. Period. You disagree with 100 years of scientists. In calling me stupid, you are calling millions of scientists stupid. What does that make you. Eh?



Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.

And yes, scientists can be stupid...look at history...how often have new hypotheses been wrong when everyone thought this is it?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Why would you not consider it to be a model?  It is nothing but the manipulation of ideas...ideas that may or may not pan out in the real world.


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate. 

You can only infer the quantity and quality of radiation by its affect on matter. Asking to 'see' it directly is impossible.


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So you reject math and logic.

By what method do you come to a conclusion yourself? Are you like that falling rock? You just automatically know what's right or wrong?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> All heat is energy but not all energy is heat.



But all heat is energy and energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm.



IanC said:


> The original SLoT described macroscopic movement of heat (not all forms of energy), and did not have an explanation for why the behavior emerged.



the original SloT?  Are you kidding?  There is, and only has been one SloT...There is no other...there is a fantasy version based on fantasy science which remains unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable.  You believe the fantasy over the one supported by al the empirical evidence in the universe..I know already.



IanC said:


> The SLoT is now described in terms of entropy, and the reasons for heat movement are explained.



The SLoT is talked about in such terms by some people..the SLoT however still states that neither energy nor heat can move spontaneously from cool to warm.



IanC said:


> Both versions give the same answers but only one gives the mechanism behind why it happens.



One version is real...one version is fantasy based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.



No..you have given examples of the temperature change of an internal thermopile being measured by instruments at ambient temperature...none of those is even remotely capable of measuring a discrete frequency of radiation...they simply measure temperature change within the instrument.



IanC said:


> You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.



When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...you are assigning it a capability that it does not have...it does what it does very accurately but it does not do what you claim it to be doing.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> So you reject math and logic.



Of course not.  You can use a model to design and predict the performance of a bridge, or an aircraft wing, or most any other thing..the models are based on math...you then build the design in reality and test it...it either passes or fails.  If it fails, then there is something wrong within the model and you correct the model so that what it predicts will happen in reality actually happens.

Those models produce results that are observable, measurable, and testable..in short, you know they work because you can test them.  Not so with the models you believe so fervently in and in fact they routinely make predictions which are never, and can never be observed in reality.


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Photons always travel at the speed of light. A particle travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light (relative to us) interacts with light exactly the same way as any other similar particle.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.
> 
> And yes, scientists can be stupid...look at history...how often have new hypotheses been wrong when everyone thought this is it?


So you are claiming all physical science and all physical scientists are stupid and silly. Well, that certainly is a reflection of the integrity of your abysmal models of physics.


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.
> ...



Hahahaha. Well, I suppose there is no way of getting around your Catch-22.

We can only measure the effects of radiation. We can, and have, produced technology based on our inferred description of something that we will never be able to 'see' directly.

I side with logic. Don't worry, you get to share with the benefits derived from it even if you don't believe it is real.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.
> ...


*
When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...
*
Explain again how we were fooled by radio telescope evidence of cosmic background radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually every measurement is consistent with the one way gross energy movement from warm to cool that the 2nd amendment describes...claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly.
> ...



Of course not...But, at present, physics is in a state of crisis whether you care to admit it or not...precisely because physics has stopped being an empirical science and has become a theoretical science.....theoretical being the operative word there.

Again, refer to Niels Bohr and his thoughts on QM...  "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...it has all been explained to you but apparently even the most basic explanation is so far over your head that you still believe it was measuring IR.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. Well, I suppose there is no way of getting around your Catch-22.



there is no catch 22....there is just what the instrument is actually measuring and what you believe it to be measuring...they are two very different things.  



IanC said:


> We can only measure the effects of radiation. We can, and have, produced technology based on our inferred description of something that we will never be able to 'see' directly.



So you are saying that we are unable to measure discrete wavelengths of radiation?  You are saying that this graph which you have so often posted is a fraud because we can only measure the effect of radiation and not radiation itself?








IanC said:


> I side with logic. Don't worry, you get to share with the benefits derived from it even if you don't believe it is real.



No you don't ...you side with  models over reality and can't differentiate between models and reality..that is hardly logical or rational behavior.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...
*
Photons with less energy than IR are allowed to move from cold to warm?


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So you reject math and logic.
> ...



I judge a model on its ability to accurately portray reality as well.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*"claiming two way net energy movement when it can't be observed or measured and appears only in models is just silly ... scientists can be stupid [when a hypothesis is wrong] ..."*
Au contraire, that is essentially accusing all physical scientists of being silly and stupid. 

*"...physics has stopped being an empirical science..."*
So you think spending many billions on the Large Hadron Collider and other areas of physics is not empirical. That sounds silly and stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Except that they don't portray reality...the whole net energy transfer is just a bullshit story that can't be verified.  When we look, and when we measure, we detect gross, one way energy transfer from warm to cool.  There has never been either an observation, or a measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, and there has never been a measurement of net energy transfer.  So no, you aren't judging their ability to accurately portray reality because no observation or measurement of net has ever been made.  Claiming a net transfer when it can't be observed, or measured has nothing to do with reality...it has to do with what you are willing to believe.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



It wouldn't be the first time...and it isn't "all" physical scientists....there are a goodly number who recognize the crisis in the field of physics at present and recognize the reason why.

*


Wuwei said:



			"...physics has stopped being an empirical science..."
		
Click to expand...

*


Wuwei said:


> So you think spending many billions on the Large Hadron Collider and other areas of physics is not empirical. That sounds silly and stupid.



Well now that would be classified as physical experimentation to test a hypothesis wouldn't it.  It isn't blind belief in a model that can't be observed, measured or tested.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange. 
The LHC is about as empirical as you can get.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Radio waves don't recognize cold and warm...but no one would expect you to know something so basic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
Radio waves don't recognize cold and warm
*
Why are radio waves allowed to violate the 2nd Law but IR waves cannot?
Any other waves that can move from cold to warm? Is there a list?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange.



You just keep talking and revealing just how uninformed you actually are...pretty soon you will be letting us know that you didn't graduate from high school.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/philos/kohut2.pdf

clip: Contemporary physics has difficulty understanding the relation between continuity and discontinuity (discreetness) of matter. The gravitational or electromagnetic fields are described as continua. But on the other hand, they are represented by the discrete quanta of electromagnetic energy – photons and gravitational energy – gravitons. The relations between discrete particles and their continual fields are not clearly explained. This duality is only accepted as a paradox of nature.               

 The clearest example is electromagnetic radiation which is both a wave of the electromagnetic field and a particle (corpuscle) – photon, an elementary quantum of energy. This duality of wave and particle is explained as a manifestation of complementary principle without deeper penetration into this concept.

... For example, the electromagnetic field is transmitted by the quanta of radiation – photons. How could the elementary point particles be a carrier of a continual field


....The basic questions of physics are: What is the basic building block of matter and all its forms of existence like space, time, solid, radiation, vacuum, force fields? What is the essence of gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak interaction? What form of nature is expressed by the basic cosmological constants? Contemporary physics does not know the answer to these
questions and the theory of strings will never find them. This fact is demonstrated by the presence of multitudes of physical theories. Some of them are far from reality and use absurd hypotheses on a par with the science-fiction.


Search the phrase "crisis in physics" and you get something like 17 million hits...this might only come as a surprise to a blind follower who has lost all critical thinking skills.




Wuwei said:


> The LHC is about as empirical as you can get.



And they have not demonstrated two way net energy flow.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Do they? An unproven assumption.

The speed was not what I was showing you.  It was contained energy.  If a particle is cooler and collides with a warmer particle the whole must then readjust to accommodate the cooler mass, resulting in cooling.  Just as a slower car hitting another will slow the faster one and not speed it up.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


At what frequency are they vibrating?

You all seam to miss basic points about matter and how it might affect EME..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange.
> ...


Your quote has confused you.
I repeat: No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange. 
I repeat: The thermodynamics of the 2nd law is consistent with radiation exchange. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
At what frequency are they vibrating?
*
Does that determine whether the covailent bonds can repel them?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your quote has confused you.
> I repeat: No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange.
> I repeat: The thermodynamics of the 2nd law is consistent with radiation exchange.
> 
> .



You really have it bad...blind faith.  The fact is that today..right here in the 21st century, science knows next to nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange...and here you are claiming that they know all about energy exchange and that because the 2nd law says that energy can not spontaneously move from cool to warm, you believe that is consistent with two way radiation exchange.

And repeating a falsehood any number of times will never make it true.  Observation and measurement make it true...or at least feasible...two things you don't have in support of your beliefs.

I am curious...do you believe photons are real or are you able to admit that they are merely theoretical particles...stories we tell in an attempt to fill in blank spaces in our knowledge till such time as we can fill them in with observed, measured, quantified fact?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You really don't know much about EME... Do you...?  Why certain bands will warm matter and others will not... Or why certain bands that do warm water wont warm solids..etc..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*You really don't know much about EME... Do you...?  
*
I'd just like to learn about your claim that covailent bonds can repel photons.
Any links you can share?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You really have it bad...blind faith. The fact is that today..right here in the 21st century, science knows next to nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange...and here you are claiming that they know all about energy exchange and that because the 2nd law says that energy can not spontaneously move from cool to warm, you believe that is consistent with two way radiation exchange.
> 
> And repeating a falsehood any number of times will never make it true. Observation and measurement make it true...or at least feasible...two things you don't have in support of your beliefs.
> 
> I am curious...do you believe photons are real or are you able to admit that they are merely theoretical particles...stories we tell in an attempt to fill in blank spaces in our knowledge till such time as we can fill them in with observed, measured, quantified fact?


Scientists know that thermal photons cannot be diverted from a warmer object just because it's warmer. You have no mechanism or source to say otherwise.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Scientists know that thermal photons cannot be diverted from a warmer object just because it's warmer. You have no mechanism or source to say otherwise.



Scientists don't even know whether or not photons exist...much less what they actually do.  Once more, you prove that you are not able to differentiate between the real world and models.  

And again, only a top shelf, first class idiot would suggest that because one can't describe a fundamental mechanism for a thing, that said thing is not real...refer to gravity.

And the only source I need for my position is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...two way energy flow violates that statement...do let me know when the 2nd law is altered to state that two way net energy flow is OK and that energy from a cool object can move to a warm object so long as the net energy movement is from warm to cool..  Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

learn the difference between what is real and what is not.  That alone will make you so much more intelligent.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Scientists don't even know whether or not photons exist...much less what they actually do. Once more, you prove that you are not able to differentiate between the real world and models.
> 
> And again, only a top shelf, first class idiot would suggest that because one can't describe a fundamental mechanism for a thing, that said thing is not real...refer to gravity.
> 
> ...


As usual your emotions run rampant against the last 100 years of science. 



SSDD said:


> energy from a cool object can move to a warm object so long as the net energy movement is from warm to cool.


That out-of-context fragment is correct. At least you understand what the real science is about.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists know that thermal photons cannot be diverted from a warmer object just because it's warmer. You have no mechanism or source to say otherwise.
> ...



* Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.
*
Since all matter radiates in proportion to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, why do they need to communicate anything?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.
> *
> Since all matter radiates in proportion to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, why do they need to communicate anything?


Excellent point, although he is not capable of understanding that.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists don't even know whether or not photons exist...much less what they actually do. Once more, you prove that you are not able to differentiate between the real world and models.
> ...



Again...failure to differentiate between what is real, and what is the output of a model.  As to what real science is,  I take it that you never bothered to look up a definition before you assigned the title of science to the practice of building unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.  

Science - the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms

Science, real science is about observation, measurement, and experiment.  Can you provide me an observed, measured instance of two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature showing a two way transfer of a discrete wavelength of energy?  Of course you can't.  If you could, then we would not be having this discussion as I would be in agreement that energy flows in two directions regardless of what the second law of thermodynamics says.  Alas, the second law still states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm and there remains no observed, measured instance of two way energy flow.  The claim that energy moves in both directions is nothing more than what a model told you and has no analog in the real world.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.
> ...



Alas, I am afraid that it is once again you who seems incapable of understanding.  All matter does not radiate in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature.  I went to the trouble of asking that question of several top shelf physicists.  The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.....which does indicate that the black body is radiating in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, area, and emissivity.  That equation, however, according to the physicists I questioned (and the emails are posted somewhere..feel free to look for them) only applies to black body radiators in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter.  Since out here in the real universe, there are no black bodies isolated completely from other matter, the equation we use is as follows.....





....that equation describes a radiator in the presence of other matter...the equation states that it radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between the 4th power of its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings.  Set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0....and there is no expression within that equation from which you might derive net....the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings.  Net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and belief in net without any observed, measured evidence to support the belief is faith..no more...no less.

I know that you love to believe that I don't understand this...and that you have all the answers but if that were the case, why do I have to keep correcting you guys on these very basic issues..like the different equations used for a theoretical perfect black body all alone, in the presence of no other matter, and the equation which describes reality...that being a radiator which is not a theoretical perfect black body and which is in the presence of other matter.  That is basic information...if you don't know even that much, why would you think you are so superior?  CLUE:  you know so little that you don't know how much you don't know.

And if you are oh so superior, and have this understanding which you like to believe I lack, why do you suppose it is that I keep asking for precisely the sort of data which would support your belief, but which we both know does not exist...anywhere....why do I have to keep pointing out the difference between what we can observe and measure and what is model output...two very different things.  Do you think it is just coincidence that I keep hammering you with requests for data which you can not provide?  At least I understand the difference between models and reality which puts me a giant step above you.  You are operating from a position of faith in models while I am operating from a position of accepting the statements of the physical laws at face value based on observation, measurement, and quantification.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Again...failure to differentiate between what is real, and what is the output of a model. As to what real science is, I take it that you never bothered to look up a definition before you assigned the title of science to the practice of building unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.
> 
> Science - the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
> 
> Science, real science is about observation, measurement, and experiment. Can you provide me an observed, measured instance of two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature showing a two way transfer of a discrete wavelength of energy? Of course you can't. If you could, then we would not be having this discussion as I would be in agreement that energy flows in two directions regardless of what the second law of thermodynamics says. Alas, the second law still states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm and there remains no observed, measured instance of two way energy flow. The claim that energy moves in both directions is nothing more than what a model told you and has no analog in the real world.



This is from a site you quoted often. All scientists agree with this. It's your problem if you don't agree with your own reference. 
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3

_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to *net transfer of energy*. *Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object* either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Alas, I am afraid that it is once again you who seems incapable of understanding. All matter does not radiate in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. I went to the trouble of asking that question of several top shelf physicists. The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I said, you are not capable of understanding the SB fourth power law. 
Thanks for the verification.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> This is from a site you quoted often. All scientists agree with this. It's your problem if you don't agree with your own reference.
> Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> _It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to *net transfer of energy*. *Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object* either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​



So drop them an email and ask them upon what physical evidence they base that statement...ask them if two way net energy flow has ever been observed and measured....the fact that they believe that doesn't make it true any more than the fact that practically every doctor in the world believed that stress caused stomach ulcers not so long ago...and scientists have believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.  This is just one more instance where belief in models over reality will eventually come back to bite them in the ass.  There is a reason that science is losing much of the credibility that they gained over the years...and reliance on models in lieu of reality is a large part of that reason.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> As I said, you are not capable of understanding the SB fourth power law.
> Thanks for the verification.



all you have done you nitwit is demonstrate that you don't grasp the law...to prove my point, lets hear your explanation as to why, if the first equation covers all radiators all the time, why it would be necessary to derive an equation that takes the presence of other matter into account? Why might that be?  And in the 2nd equation, show me the expression by which you believe you can derive net energy flow.  

The description I gave of the equations above is spot on, verified by several high profile physicists...physicists who, by the way, believe in AGW and believe the models.  Your abject failure to even be able to grasp the meaning of such basic equations brings your ignorance on the topic into high relief.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



* All matter does not radiate in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. 
*
It really does.

*I went to the trouble of asking that question of several top shelf physicists.  
*
So why do you still propagate your faulty understanding?
*
 only applies to black body radiators in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter.  
*
So post some links that agree with your dimmer switch theory of radiating. And, more importantly, some links that agree with your claim that cooler matter ceases radiating and that objects at equilibrium cease radiating.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It really does.



It really doesn't, but apparently this is all so far over your head that you can be forgiven for not understanding.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So why do you still propagate your faulty understanding?



The only faulty understanding is yours but again...being so far over your head and all..don't worry about it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So post some links that agree with your dimmer switch theory of radiating. And, more importantly, some links that agree with your claim that cooler matter ceases radiating and that objects at equilibrium cease radiating.



The physical law itself isn't good enough for you?  Here...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ...set T to a temperature and leave it there...now set Tc to different temperatures...use small numbers, it will be easier for you...watch P change...when Tc changes, the radiator is no longer radiating according to the 4th power of its absolute temperature...it is radiating according to the its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.  If all matter radiated all the time according to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, then no other equation would be necessary...alas, there is another equation for a different senario than a perfect black body radiating in the absence of any other matter...that would be beacause P changes in the presence of other matter.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, that equation is for non blackbodies. That is why it has the extra term (e) in it. The equation for a blackbody leaves it out because the emissivity is unity. Why are you corrupting a perfectly simplified equation for no good reason? /sarc off. LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It really does.
> ...


*
The physical law itself isn't good enough for you?
*
The physical law IS good enough for me.
But you need back up for your "dimmer switch" misinterpretation of the physical law.
And for your "cooler objects stop emitting altogether" misinterpretation as well.

*set T to a temperature and leave it there...now set Tc to different temperatures...use small numbers, it will be easier for you...watch P change...
*
Yup. The net number changes. No need for the warmer body to telepathically detect the temperature of the cooler body, in order to adjust the dimmer switch.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So drop them an email and ask them upon what physical evidence they base that statement...ask them if two way net energy flow has ever been observed and measured....the fact that they believe that doesn't make it true any more than the fact that practically every doctor in the world believed that stress caused stomach ulcers not so long ago...and scientists have believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. This is just one more instance where belief in models over reality will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. There is a reason that science is losing much of the credibility that they gained over the years...and reliance on models in lieu of reality is a large part of that reason.


Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious. It will make his day.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> all you have done you nitwit is demonstrate that you don't grasp the law...to prove my point, lets hear your explanation as to why, if the first equation covers all radiators all the time, why it would be necessary to derive an equation that takes the presence of other matter into account? Why might that be? And in the 2nd equation, show me the expression by which you believe you can derive net energy flow.


 Tod and Ianc have already done that on this thread very clearly such that any child can understand it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2018)

"The answers science gives us don't jive with my superstitions and politics. So, instead of asking scientists who dedicate their lives to this field of science, I am going to ask a bunch of nonscientists on an anonymous message board what they think of a complicated science topic. SURELY I will get the answers I want, then!"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious


EXACTLY.

All of these uneducated slobs are invited to forward their nonsense to these scientists via email. Their university email addresses are publicly available.

Chances of it happening: 0%


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this
> ...



So here is the equation for black bodies not in the presence of any other matter...


IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this
> ...



Set the emissivity to 1 and get over yourself...but if you can't manage that...here...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So drop them an email and ask them upon what physical evidence they base that statement...ask them if two way net energy flow has ever been observed and measured....the fact that they believe that doesn't make it true any more than the fact that practically every doctor in the world believed that stress caused stomach ulcers not so long ago...and scientists have believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. This is just one more instance where belief in models over reality will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. There is a reason that science is losing much of the credibility that they gained over the years...and reliance on models in lieu of reality is a large part of that reason.
> ...



I already have doofus...that is why I can confidently ask for such a measurement with supreme confidence that no such measurement will ever be forthcoming.....two way net energy transfer is the product of a mathematical model...it has never been observed, or measured.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > all you have done you nitwit is demonstrate that you don't grasp the law...to prove my point, lets hear your explanation as to why, if the first equation covers all radiators all the time, why it would be necessary to derive an equation that takes the presence of other matter into account? Why might that be? And in the 2nd equation, show me the expression by which you believe you can derive net energy flow.
> ...



Sorry, but they haven't...but if lying is your go to dodge...then by all means...lie on garth.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "The answers science gives us don't jive with my superstitions and politics. So, instead of asking scientists who dedicate their lives to this field of science, I am going to ask a bunch of nonscientists on an anonymous message board what they think of a complicated science topic. SURELY I will get the answers I want, then!"



Hey hot rod...back with some more logical fallacy in lieu of actually supporting your beliefs...not that I would expect anything else from you...being the pseudo intellectual coward that you are.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you drop him an email. He will think it's hilarious
> ...



Like I said...I already did which is why I can ask idiots like you for a single solitary observation and measurement of two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature with perfect confidence that you can't produce it.  Real scientists are perfectly happy to say what science actually knows and what is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...the scientists I asked certainly believe the models but at least they were willing to acknowledge that spontaneous two way energy movement has not and likely will not ever be observed.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Too bad for you. He honored my request to clarify his site. See this:

Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

He didn't answer you did he. Maybe he doesn't answer wacko requests.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> being the pseudo intellectual coward that you are




Uh....  that would be the guy who is too much of an ignorant pussy to take his arguments to the scientists, and instead spreads his hilarious bullshit on an internet forum.  I.E., you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> .I already did


hahahahahahahaha


No, you didn't.  You have published no science, ever,  and have never made a serious scientific argument regarding any of this material.  You are an uneducated slob who has fooled himself into thinking he has outsmarted people who have dedicated their lives to these fields. And you have to admit, that is quite a feat, as any fool can see that you are an uneducated, denier slob swatting at imaginary flies on an internet forum.  The self-delusion and amazingly over-inflated ego it takes to actually believe the things you believe about yourself are impressive.  But, not "impressive" in a good way.... more like, "That's the nastiest turd I have ever seen!" impressive.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Don't see anything on the page that appears to be in context with your statement...if you are yammering about net energy flow, and someone stating that it is fact, all I have to do is ask you for the observed, measured instance of spontaneous two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature...the silence is always satisfying.  Two way energy flow is the product of a model...it doesn't happen in the real world,


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > being the pseudo intellectual coward that you are
> ...



Wrong again bullwinkle.  I have an ongoing dialog with several physicists and cliamte scientists.  Again, that is why I can confidently ask you for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability with perfect confidence that you won't be able to produce it.  And I can ask you for a single measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement made with an instrument at ambient temperature with absolutely no doubt that you won't be able to produce it.

You see, real scientists aren't afraid to talk about what we don't know....My bet is that the unknown makes real scientist hard..  It is ignorant pussies who can't engage in debate who like to believe that any science is ever settled..and have no doubt over a hypothesis to which not a single piece of real evidence exists that supports it over natural variability.  An as to my position being bullshit...I can't help but notice that neither you, nor any of your magic believing cult members has offered up a single piece of real data that demonstrates that I am wrong.  Alas, the very fact that I can stymie you, and your belief with a single question says all that need be said about the merits of my position over yours.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .I already did
> ...



I never claimed to have published anything...do you spew so much bullshit that you can't even remember what you have said.  I answered you honestly.  As I have said, I have an ongoing dialog via email with several physicists and a couple of cliamte scientists.  They are not afraid to discuss what science does not yet know or understand and being actual scientists have a firm grasp on what is real and demonstrable by observation and measurement, and what is the product of models that happen to be unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable.  The majority of them believe the models but are not afraid to admit that they are just models with no observable analog out here in the real world,



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are an uneducated slob who has fooled himself into thinking he has outsmarted people who have dedicated their lives to these fields.



And yet, I can stymie your position with a single question and note that practically every comment you have made to me is little more than a meander though a logical fallacy wasteland.  Alas, the quality of your discussion suggests very strongly that it is you who is the uneducated slob who has been fooled, and in turn fooled himself.  I am asking straight forward questions, and asking for data that should be readily available in massive quantities if your hypothesis had any merit...and yet, you can't provide the first piece of data that I have asked for.  Upon whose education does that reflect?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And you have to admit, that is quite a feat, as any fool can see that you are an uneducated, denier slob swatting at imaginary flies on an internet forum.



Alas, it is you who is mired in logical fallacy and unable to put forward a single piece of observed, measured data to put me in my place.  That is what people are seeing.  Me asking rational questions, asking for, not mountains of data to prove your point, but just a single piece of observed, measured data that supports your position over mine...and you, unable to deliver even that one single piece of data.  Sadly, you are a fly.  At least folks like ian try to support their beliefs...all you can manage is logical fallacy and impotent name calling.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The self-delusion and amazingly over-inflated ego it takes to actually believe the things you believe about yourself are impressive.



Project much bullwinkle?  If playing the ineffectual bully is the best you have, why are you here?  Is your self image so lacking that such an impotent gesture can bolster it?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Don't see anything on the page that appears to be in context with your statement...if you are yammering about net energy flow, and someone stating that it is fact, all I have to do is ask you for the observed, measured instance of spontaneous two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature...the silence is always satisfying. Two way energy flow is the product of a model...it doesn't happen in the real world,


Ha. A sore loser. Every experiment done is consistent with radiation exchange since you have cited no observed, measured, quantified experiment that shows otherwise.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Don't see anything on the page that appears to be in context with your statement...if you are yammering about net energy flow, and someone stating that it is fact, all I have to do is ask you for the observed, measured instance of spontaneous two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature...the silence is always satisfying. Two way energy flow is the product of a model...it doesn't happen in the real world,
> ...




Tell me...how stupid are you...really?  If you claim a thing that has no effect on the outcome of an experiment is happening..a thing that will not alter the end result whatsoever, do you really believe that just by claiming that the result of experiments are consistent with the claim really support the claim?  The observation and experiment support one way gross energy movement...actual measurement supports one way energy movement...claiming net that can neither be observed, nor measured and has no effect on the amount of energy which actually moves is a meaningless claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Tell me...how stupid are you...really? If you claim a thing that has no effect on the outcome of an experiment is happening..a thing that will not alter the end result whatsoever, do you really believe that just by claiming that the result of experiments are consistent with the claim really support the claim? The observation and experiment support one way gross energy movement...actual measurement supports one way energy movement...claiming net that can neither be observed, nor measured and has no effect on the amount of energy which actually moves is a meaningless claim.


Thermal radiation is well known. You can hypothesize two mechanisms that underlie thermal radiation energy transfer, and are consistent with experiment.
1) Radiation goes both ways with the hotter body radiating more than it receives.
2) Radiation goes one way from the hotter to the colder body.​
The first hypothesis is consistent with the mathematical understanding of black body radiation and how the thermal vibration of atoms in warm materials leads to EM radiation.

The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction. There is no currently known mechanism that would explain how that might happen. So anyone that believes that the second hypothesis is correct must supply an atomic scale mechanism on how that might happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me...how stupid are you...really? If you claim a thing that has no effect on the outcome of an experiment is happening..a thing that will not alter the end result whatsoever, do you really believe that just by claiming that the result of experiments are consistent with the claim really support the claim? The observation and experiment support one way gross energy movement...actual measurement supports one way energy movement...claiming net that can neither be observed, nor measured and has no effect on the amount of energy which actually moves is a meaningless claim.
> ...



*The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction
*
Don't forget seeing into the future.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction
> *
> Don't forget seeing into the future.


Yes. Seeing into the future would work if the future goes out to 13.7 billion years. 

That is the time for cosmic background radiation at 2.7K to hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction
> ...



And the hotter object has to sense the temperature of the cooler, non-radiating object.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> As I have said, I have an ongoing dialog via email with several physicists and a couple of cliamte scientists. They are not afraid to discuss what science does not yet know or understand and being actual scientists have a firm grasp on what is real and demonstrable by observation and measurement, and what is the product of models that happen to be unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. The majority of them believe the models but are not afraid to admit that they are just models with no observable analog out here in the real world



As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work. The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.

I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2018)

Stefan derived this experimentally using the cavity set up. Boltzmann added the mathematical derivation five years later.

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

This fleshes out the sigma constant and describes the necessary adjustments for gray bodies.

Much of the complexity is hidden away in the constant (sigma), as well as in the term A (area), and of course _e_ (emissivity).

The relationship T^4 is fundamental and proven mathematically. Which is a model, but one that SSDD approves of. The actual original data only suggested this relationship, were only correct within measurement error. And they were collected with ambient temperature instruments that are considered crude by today's standards.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Thermal radiation is well known. You can hypothesize two mechanisms that underlie thermal radiation energy transfer, and are consistent with experiment.



The fact of thermal radiation may be well known, but the underlying mechanism is completely unknown.



Wuwei said:


> 1) Radiation goes both ways with the hotter body radiating more than it receives.



So lets see the observation, and measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a radiator to a receiver and back to the radiatior made with an instrument at ambient temperature....that would be evidence supporting your claim...lets see it.  Of course you can't because no such observation or measurement has ever been made.  

And again, claiming that a thing that will not alter the outcome of an experiment in any way is consistent with experimentation is just f'ing stupid...invisible fairies helping dropped objects to the ground is consistent with experiments testing the effects of gravity.  Of course there are no fairies, but the claim is consistent with the experiment just as the claim that there is a net two way energy flow from warm to cool.  Show me the measurements...we can certainly measure energy moving from a warmer body to a cooler body..and we can measure that energy movement in discrete wavelengths...show me the measurements of discrete wavelengths moving from the cooler object back to the warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.



Wuwei said:


> 2) Radiation goes one way from the hotter to the colder body.



What do you know...you finally got one right.  Energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool.​


Wuwei said:


> The first hypothesis is consistent with the mathematical understanding of black body radiation and how the thermal vibration of atoms in warm materials leads to EM radiation.



But is completely inconsistent with all observations and measurements ever made...just as the fairies assisting gravity.  No measurement has ever been made of two way, net energy flow.



Wuwei said:


> The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction. There is no currently known mechanism that would explain how that might happen. So anyone that believes that the second hypothesis is correct must supply an atomic scale mechanism on how that might happen.



*Gravity*, or *gravitation*, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or _gravitate_ toward) one another, including objects ranging from atoms and photons, to planets and stars. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy (including light) cause gravitation and are under the influence of it.  Does that hypothesis need a mechanism in order to be true?  This bullshit argument you have that one must have a mechanism in order for the phenomenon to be real is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard....  

You want a mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool when we don't even begin to grasp the underlying mechanism for energy transfer at all...how much more idiotic can you get?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction
> ...



Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.



Wuwei said:


> That is the time for cosmic background radiation at 2.7K to hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.



Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work.



You know you are in intellectual trouble when you find that you must lie in an effort to defend yourself or make your opponent look bad.  Here is the question I asked:    Do point out any "garble" there?  the question is as straight forward as it can get.  Does this equation describe any radiator radiating anywhere, or does it describe a black body radiating into a vacuum absent any other matter.  What exactly do you find "garbled about that question?

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?






I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.







Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,



IanC said:


> The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.



And just in case the first lie wasn't good enough, may as well toss in another for good measure...right?

The first answer I received to the question was:

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

Meaning that it is in fact, an equation describing a radiator in a vacuum...since you would have to modify the equation if it were not in a vacuum.

The second answer I received was:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

Neither answer was ambiguous in the least...how much more straight forward could they be?  And by the way, the answers were exactly what I expected to hear.  You have a damned nasty habit of lying about your opponent if you feel like it might help your case...it doesn't..it only highlights a fundamental flaw in your character.  You try to put on a show of being open minded and honest, but talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.




IanC said:


> I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha



The only one here who lost credit is you ian..because you lied and claimed that I asked a "garbled" question and then lied again claiming that the answers I received were ambiguous...the question was not garbled and the answers were not ambiguous and there was no need for me to abuse them as they were exactly the answers I expected.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> Stefan derived this experimentally using the cavity set up. Boltzmann added the mathematical derivation five years later.
> 
> Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia
> 
> ...



And yet the law states that when an object is radiating in the presence of matter, that it radiates according to its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power...Set T and Tc to the same temperature and P=0.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> we don't even begin to grasp the underlying mechanism for energy transfer at all.


Actually we have grasped it for about 100 years. Speak for yourself. *YOU* don't even begin to grasp it.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.


A non sequitur.
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.



SSDD said:


> Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.


IR is composed of EM waves. Radio waves are composed of EM waves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.
> ...



He said radio waves don't recognize hot and cold.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He said radio waves don't recognize hot and cold.


Really? Then he actually does believe that the 2.7K CMB was detected by a 4K detector. Finally he is learning some science, not much, but just a little.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > He said radio waves don't recognize hot and cold.
> ...



Well, at first he claimed radio wasn't photons, and that's why it was different than IR.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work.
> ...




Link up to the original thread. Prove my memory to be faulty, although I will gladly admit that it often is.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > we don't even begin to grasp the underlying mechanism for energy transfer at all.
> ...



Oh good...then you won't mind directing me to the paper, or credible web address where the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange is explained in depth...

My bet now is that you have revealed that you don't even understand the term underlying mechanism...and if you bother to provide a location for the requested information it will be something on the order of energy exchange formulas which do not begin to touch on the how and why energy exchanges in the first place.  But by all means, if we grasp those hows and whys and understand thoroughly at the most basic level how and why energy moves about, then I would be most interested in the read.

I enjoy these discussions because they expose how much you believer take on faith..how much you think you know..and how much you believe science knows...which neither you nor they do.  You simply have faith and little else.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.
> ...



Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

And it isn't just your memory that is faulty...When you return to that thread...take a look at some of the utter bullshit you tried to spew in an attempt to defend your position...the fundamental SB equation describes a two dimensional object...imagine, a two dimensional object...a two dimensional perfect black body no less radiating in all directions...where do you come up with that stuff?  Is there anything you won't say in an effort to defend your beliefs?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Oh good...then you won't mind directing me to the paper, or credible web address where the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange is explained in depth...


Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, Fourth Edition
By Robert Siegel
_Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of a body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature._​
This is very elementary. Physics 101. I'm surprised you don't know that oscillating charges emit EM radiation. The excerpt is a Wiki article that references that book. Look up the book.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.
> 
> Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.


We went through this in a different thread before. You ran away. Now you forgot the whole thing. Sad.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


That is the best you can do?
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Oh good...then you won't mind directing me to the paper, or credible web address where the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange is explained in depth...
> ...



Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means.  All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.
> ...



Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Thanks for the link.

Is it possible for you to show all of the initial response, rather than just one sentence fragment, without the context? TIA


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That was the entire response from each of the physicists...I sent out 4 emails and got two responses...I am sure that if you took the time to send out more emails to more physicists you would get the same sort of answers that I got...and if you tease them a bit, you could probably get them to add something in there about net to satisfy you....I am sure that they all believe in net energy transfer even though there is no physical evidence....that wasn't the issue anyway..it was what the equations themselves were stating...that being one describing a radiator radiating to cooler surroundings with no other matter present...and one describing the different amount of energy the radiator emits when it is in the presence of other matter...the difference between T and Tc.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I believe I have stayed out of the CMB discussion for the most part. Here is why.

Temperature can be measured by direct contact or inferred by the quality and quantity of radiation being received by the object. There is a further complication when using the inferred method, is the object radiating blackbody radiation or is it being produced by some other process.

The Sun's Corona is an example of some other process, it is not blackbody radiation. We infer high temperature because of the ultra high energy radiation given off but the quantity is wrong for BBR.

The CMB has even more complications. What is the distance, what was the original wavelengths before the expansion of the universe redshifted it, etc. 

The CMB is given a 'temperature' of 2.7K but it is not a temperature in the common meaning of the word.

Closer to home, polarbear tried to point out that the solar insolation reaching the surface is equivalent to minus 60C, if you put it into the S-B equation. Ridiculous right? Where is the error? Not taking the distance into account, the inverse square law.

This is where SSDD mocked me for saying the S-B equation deals with two dimensional objects (area) imbedded in a three dimensional space. Radiation from a surface spreads out in three dimensions. The radiation being passed from one object to another is attenuated by the inverse square law, only some of the radiation produced by Area1 arrives at Area2.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




So you are saying his entire response was-



> .
> " If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."



I find that somewhat hard to believe. If he was just going to blow you off why would he respond at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



* I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal
*
DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...


Alas, you still don't understand science. Gravity has very little to do with thermal EM radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...


You lost bad. Resonant radio signal is something you made up that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Sheer boredom. That is so funny.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.


You can't argue your way out of the fact that cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here. The CMB didn't transmit "resonant radio frequencies".


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Pull out your big gun. The CMB photons reaching us didn't start off as 2.7K, they came from a source much, much warmer.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...
> ...




Don't take that from him SSDD. 

Go on, tell him how gravity is intrinsically linked to thermal radiation in the atmosphere by enclosing the air towards the surface and storing energy in the field that can be converted to radiation at any time.

You the Man!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Temperature can be measured by direct contact or inferred by the quality and quantity of radiation being received by the object. There is a further complication when using the inferred method, is the object radiating blackbody radiation or is it being produced by some other process.



Go to bing.com and click “Images” and search _*cmb graph cobe*_

You will see that the CMB impressively follows the black body curve. One graph is logarithmic and shows it is BB over 3 orders of magnitude of frequency.



IanC said:


> The CMB has even more complications. What is the distance, what was the original wavelengths before the expansion of the universe redshifted it, etc.
> 
> The distance is not important since there is little absorption through space. It is the fit to a BB curve that is important. Distance won't change it. All frequencies are red-shifted the same so the BB curve is likewise shifted from a very high temperature.
> 
> The CMB is given a 'temperature' of 2.7K but it is not a temperature in the common meaning of the word.



It actually is a temperature in the common meaning of temperature. The following is from the site
Brief History of the Universe

0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe was about T=1013 K.

One month after the Big Bang the processes that convert the radiation field to a blackbody spectrum become slower than the expansion of the Universe, so the spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) preserves information back to this time. Temperature is T=3000 K, time is 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

The red-shift brings it down to 2.7 K.



IanC said:


> Closer to home, polarbear tried to point out that the solar insolation reaching the surface is equivalent to minus 60C, if you put it into the S-B equation. Ridiculous right? Where is the error? Not taking the distance into account, the inverse square law.



I don't know exactly what he was referring to, but I think you are right. Not only do you have to consider distance, but you also have to consider sun size. See below.



IanC said:


> This is where SSDD mocked me for saying the S-B equation deals with two dimensional objects (area) imbedded in a three dimensional space. Radiation from a surface spreads out in three dimensions. The radiation being passed from one object to another is attenuated by the inverse square law, only some of the radiation produced by Area1 arrives at Area2.



The SB equation works well when an object at one temperature is completely surrounded by another object at another uniform temperature. If the background is a smaller object the distance and subtended solid angle must be considered. In a 3-D configuration with several objects at various distances and temperatures the SB equation is very difficult to apply and would have to be done with numerical integration.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Don't take that from him SSDD.
> 
> Go on, tell him how gravity is intrinsically linked to thermal radiation in the atmosphere by enclosing the air towards the surface and storing energy in the field that can be converted to radiation at any time.
> 
> You the Man!


If you want to shift the discussion from the underlying physics of thermal radiation to the complexities of the atmosphere, you are right.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...
> ...



To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> 0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe was about T=1013 K.
> 
> One month after the Big Bang the processes that convert the radiation field to a blackbody spectrum become slower than the expansion of the Universe, so the spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) preserves information back to this time. Temperature is T=3000 K, time is 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
> 
> The red-shift brings it down to 2.7 K.



Hahahaha. I'm playing by SSDD rules here. It doesn't matter if T = 1000 or 3000K. Either one is warmer than the 4K detector. In fact it is warmer than an ambient temperature detector as well, so there is no problem with the SLoT because the photon knows the temperature of both the emitter and receiver 'cause it don't care nuttin' about time or distance. So there!


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Temperature can be measured by direct contact or inferred by the quality and quantity of radiation being received by the object. There is a further complication when using the inferred method, is the object radiating blackbody radiation or is it being produced by some other process.
> ...



Don't forget about the vacuum. The vacuum is very very important!

Hahahaha


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Crayons wouldn't help. The writing would simply melt away being in the presence of your dazzling brilliance. For that matter, we have already been blinded simply by taking a peek at your brilliance. We are but dogs trying to comprehend the incomprehensible godlike wisdom you are trying to impart to us.

Hahahaha


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. I'm playing by SSDD rules here. It doesn't matter if T = 1000 or 3000K. Either one is warmer than the 4K detector. In fact it is warmer than an ambient temperature detector as well, so there is no problem with the SLoT because the photon knows the temperature of both the emitter and receiver 'cause it don't care nuttin' about time or distance. So there!


C'mon don't give him idiotic ideas. He is confused and bitter enough the way it is.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha. I'm playing by SSDD rules here. It doesn't matter if T = 1000 or 3000K. Either one is warmer than the 4K detector. In fact it is warmer than an ambient temperature detector as well, so there is no problem with the SLoT because the photon knows the temperature of both the emitter and receiver 'cause it don't care nuttin' about time or distance. So there!
> ...



Hahahaha. I'm afraid I already have. Bit of a Frankenstein's monster with that photon thing.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Don't forget about the vacuum. The vacuum is very very important!
> 
> Hahahaha


Yes, thank heavens for the vacuum. If it weren't for the vacuum we would have nothing.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. I'm afraid I already have. Bit of a Frankenstein's monster with that photon thing.


All right, dazzling brilliance or a monster? Which one is sarcasm?


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha. I'm afraid I already have. Bit of a Frankenstein's monster with that photon thing.
> ...



Ask Schrodinger's cat.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.


Ah yes, you substitute vitriol for scientific understanding. Always changing the subject to gravity. Can't you find another way to digress. That is getting stale.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Ask Schrodinger's cat.


Sorry. I'm trying to think of a funny retort, but there are too many to decide on.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...
> ...



So you have a bad memory in addition to not being very bright.  Here is a better explanation than I could give you although it is probably way over your head as well..





The Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMB) shows a blackbody spectrum of temperature 2.725 K
peaking at a wave length of about 0.2 cm beyond the far infrared spectrum. CMB is detected by radio-telescopes by resonance like radio antennas resonating with incoming radio waves thus generating a weak electrical signal which can be amplified into detection. 

It would be difficult to detect CMB by thermal IR-imaging since the signal is very weak and thermal detection would require a detector at lower temperature than 2.725 K.

The concept of Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth surface plays a key role in CO2 alarmism. CMB is here presented as an ultimate form of DLR with the argument that a picture of CMB shows that DLR is real. If even the cold dark space is contributing to global warming, then global warming must be real, right?

Let us now scrutinize this argument in the setting of mathematical model of blackbody radiation studied in Computational Blackbody Radiation, in the case of a radio-telescope as CMB-detector. The model takes the form of set oscillators with damping (see here for some more details)

Utt−Uxx−γUttt−h2Uxxt=f
where the subindices indicate differentiation with respect to space x and time t, and 

Utt−Uxx represents the oscillators in a wave model
−γUttt is a dissipative term modeling outgoing radiation
−h2Uxxt is a dissipative modeling internal heating
f is incoming forcing/microwaves, 
where γ represents the constant in Planck's radiation law and h represents a smallest mesh size, connected to dissipative losses as outgoing radiation and internal heating, respectively.

Microwaves are characterized by low frequency and long wave length (compared to visible and 
infrared light) and in this case the dissipative loss of internal heating is small and is not detectable while the resonance can be detected after amplification just like a radio antenna is capable of detecting a weak radio wave by resonance followed by amplification.

Pictures of CMB are thus produced by an IR-camera in the form of a radio-telescope which works by resonance and not radiative heating. A CMB picture can therefore not be used as evidence that the weak glow of CMB acts as in a weak form of radiative heating named DLR or backradiation. This is because the CMB picture is not obtained from detection of radiative heating, but from resonance and amplification. 

We conclude that a CMB picture is not any evidence of DLR, because no DLR is detected.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.
> ...



Sorry guy...it was a radio telescope and detected a resonant radio frequency...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > 0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe was about T=1013 K.
> ...





IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Laugh if you like...most people on the wrong side of an argument laugh harder the more evident it becomes that they are on the wrong side...hel look at rocks...laughing is about all he does any more.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.
> ...



Are you really that stupid?  Never mind...you obviously are.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


The CMB is a *continuum of frequencies*. The *detector is resonantly tuned* to sample various frequencies of that continuum. The samples are compared to a black-body curve. Look at the site I gave ianC. Where do you think the dots on the graph came from?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


More bitter juvenile retorts. Is that all you got? Sad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Scientists using a True-SB, with only one-way transfer from hot to cold, would say No: There is only transfer of heat from the Earth to the cosmic background at 2.75 K.*

Yeah, that's what idiots would say. DERP!

*This is because the CMB picture is not obtained from detection of radiative heating, but from resonance and amplification. 
*
I love it!
None of these waves hit the Earth, because it's too warm, but they somehow, magically, cause a receiver to resonate. 
Hilarious!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



_In physics, *resonance* is a phenomenon in which a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at specific frequencies.

_
Resonance - Wikipedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2018)

_Claes Johnson15 oktober 2011 16:04
What is a radiowave photon? Has anybody observed anything like that?_

Is this where SSDD got the idea that there are no radio photons?
Is SSDD really Claes?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Claes Johnson15 oktober 2011 16:04
> What is a radiowave photon? Has anybody observed anything like that?_
> 
> Is this where SSDD got the idea that there are no radio photons?
> Is SSDD really Claes?


I don't think so. As weird as he is, Claes is the smarter one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _Claes Johnson15 oktober 2011 16:04
> ...



That's a low bar.........


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's a low bar.........


True, but perhaps others that reach an even lower bar are the ones that give a "Winner" rating to crap posts that they don't even understand.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I love it!
> None of these waves hit the Earth, because it's too warm, but they somehow, magically, cause a receiver to resonate.
> Hilarious!



And the whole topic remains so far over your head as to completely escape you....Radio telescope...looking outside the earth system...resonant radio frequency...not actual CMB...you have heard it all before and it was over your head then which is why you are still making the same goofy statements.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The CMB is a *continuum of frequencies*. The *detector is resonantly tuned* to sample various frequencies of that continuum. The samples are compared to a black-body curve. Look at the site I gave ianC. Where do you think the dots on the graph came from?



I don't see a any link you gave ian, but I would ask whether those dots are the result of the original detection of CMB or if they are from later work done with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.7K?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Look back at your own little laugh fest with ian before you accuse me of being bitter....and I have already won this discussion...you still believe that that original RADIO telescope was looking at IR radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.

Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Claes Johnson15 oktober 2011 16:04
> What is a radiowave photon? Has anybody observed anything like that?_
> 
> Is this where SSDD got the idea that there are no radio photons?
> Is SSDD really Claes?



It is well known, and frequently observed that radio waves can cancel each other out....great care must be taken when setting up transmitters and repeaters to assure that this does not happen.  Are you now acknowledging that light waves, which you believe are made of photons can also cancel each other out if they are on the same frequency in direct opposition to ian's insistence that photons can only interact with matter and not other photons?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I don't see a any link you gave ian, but I would ask whether those dots are the result of the original detection of CMB or if they are from later work done with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.7K?


The sample points (dots) were from the COBE satellite which was the latest cooled detector technology. The point is that it proves that the background radiation is thermal since it fits the black body curve amazingly well.

Penzias and Wilson's telescope similarly recorded sampled points that fit the BB curve, only their detector was at a higher temperature (4K) than the COBE detector. With their fewer samples they were still able to find the temperature was roughly 2.7, within experimental error.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Look back at your own little laugh fest with ian before you accuse me of being bitter....and I have already won this discussion...you still believe that that original RADIO telescope was looking at IR radiation.


Every scientist believes that. They even got a Nobel Prize for that discovery.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It is well known, and frequently observed that radio waves can cancel each other out....great care must be taken when setting up transmitters and repeaters to assure that this does not happen. Are you now acknowledging that light waves, which you believe are made of photons can also cancel each other out if they are on the same frequency in direct opposition to ian's insistence that photons can only interact with matter and not other photons?


Please look up coherent or incoherent EM waves.
Radio waves from transmitters are coherent and can cancel when they are out of phase, or amplify when they are in phase. That capability allows antennae to focus EM waves. However, whatever the outcome, the total EM energy must be conserved. 

Incoherent sources such as BB radiation cannot reinforce nor cancel in any measurable way.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.
> 
> Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.



You are saying the resonantly tuned detectors of Penzias and Wilson's telescope detected radio wave oscillations from the CMB. But they weren't detecting the IR radio oscillations from the CMB. That's a contradiction, to put it mildly. 

That is like saying you hear Rush Limbaugh on your car radio, but your car radio isn't actually receiving the broadcast because there is a tuned amplifier in your car radio. Furthermore, I would suggest you tune your radio to NPR.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see a any link you gave ian, but I would ask whether those dots are the result of the original detection of CMB or if they are from later work done with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.7K?
> ...



I never said that it wasn't thermal radiation...the point is that it was originally detected via resonant radio frequency...after that initial detection, most of the research has been done with equipment designed to detect microwaves...which has been cooled to lower than 2.7K...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB.  The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Look back at your own little laugh fest with ian before you accuse me of being bitter....and I have already won this discussion...you still believe that that original RADIO telescope was looking at IR radiation.
> ...



They got a nobel for detecting CMB...they detected it via a resonant radio frequency, not direct measurement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I love it!
> ...



*Radio telescope...looking outside the earth system...resonant radio frequency...not actual CMB
*
Nothing actually hit the receiver?
Tell me more.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is well known, and frequently observed that radio waves can cancel each other out....great care must be taken when setting up transmitters and repeaters to assure that this does not happen. Are you now acknowledging that light waves, which you believe are made of photons can also cancel each other out if they are on the same frequency in direct opposition to ian's insistence that photons can only interact with matter and not other photons?
> ...



It is being learned that BB radiation is perhaps not as incoherent as though and, in fact,  has coherent properties...in fact you can see interference lines in black body radiation yourself with nothing more than two fingers or a couple of playing cards.  

Phys. Rev. 134, A1143 (1964) - Coherence Properties of Blackbody Radiation. I. Correlation Tensors of the Classical Field

Coherence properties of blackbody radiation and application to energy harvesting

Application of Coherence Theory to Modeling of Blackbody Radiation at Close Range

Suffice it to way that your claim that BB radiation can not amplify or cancel in any measurable way is simply not true.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.
> ...



They detected CMB but didn't actually receive CMB...they received a resonant radio frequency that created a buzz across the whole spectrum...by the process of elimination, they discovered that it was a resonant radio frequency of CMB...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Couldn't say...maybe he is a busy man and answered my question as explicitly as possible but didn't have time to be friendly.  I wasn't offended nor did I feel blown off...I received a straight forward answer to my question...I asked a straight forward question and got a straight forward answer..I didn't invite him to a picnic...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> They detected CMB but didn't actually receive CMB...they received a resonant radio frequency that created a buzz across the whole spectrum...by the process of elimination, they discovered that it was a resonant radio frequency of CMB...


That is absolute nonsense and you know it. They didn't "discover" it was resonant. They made sure a high Q detector was tuned to sample the CMB at different frequencies. 

Another contradiction: "_a resonant radio frequency that created a buzz across the whole spectrum_" How could it be *resonant *(tuned to one frequency) if it created a "buzz" across the "*whole spectrum*." Please translate "buzz into more meaningful science language. Your post is a hash of words that have no scientific interpretation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...


If the detector did not receive any CMB how did it detect anything.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I call bullshit. He wouldn't have given a curt nonresponsive  answer if he made the effort to respond at all. At the very least he would have pointed you in a direction to find more info.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...
> ...



Hahahaha, your false logic has no power to defeat SSDD. He knows he's right, and no trick will sway him.

All hail SSDD, the true prophet.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


For God's sake SSDD, you do that all the time. You take some words from my post, Google them and come back with some papers or abstracts, and without understanding what you found, you think you have a cogent retort. 

BB coherence is *self* coherence over very small distances. BB coherence takes advantage of the specific BB spectral properties to create a mathematical models. It does not ever mean that two different BB photons can interact with each other. 

Secondly, interference lines and diffraction are properties of waves interacting with matter. That has nothing to do with photons canceling each other out. 

Ian is right two photons cannot interact with each other at earth ambient temperatures. 

However gamma-gamma interactions were predicted and seen to happen in high energy accelerators. Yes it's irrelevant, but I'm only saying it here so you won't google it and think you have another gotcha.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> I call bullshit. He wouldn't have given a curt nonresponsive answer if he made the effort to respond at all. At the very least he would have pointed you in a direction to find more info.


Hmmm. It would have been far more illuminating if SSDD simply asked his professors if thermal radiation was one way. Too cowardly to hear their answers?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


It's always fun to see what our local charlatan prophet will come up with next. Why aren't his loyal minions giving him a chorus of "Winner" ratings here?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...
> ...



It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...sorry this is so difficult for you but alas, that is the way it is.  No CMB was received by that radio telescope...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The other guy didn't point me in any direction...he just gave a longer answer which amounted to the same thing.  Sorry if you don't like it but that is what I got...he answered my question...It isn't as if it makes any difference...had he referred me to a mountain of texts as high as everest, you would still believe what you believe since it isn't a matter of knowledge to you..it is your faith...what you believe...what you hold dear and you simply won't give it up even if it is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Ian is right two photons cannot interact with each other at earth ambient temperatures.


And yet, at earth temperatures radio waves can cancel each other out...if they are composed of photons...and if photons exist, then clearly they can interact with each other.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...sorry this is so difficult for you but alas, that is the way it is. No CMB was received by that radio telescope...


Ah, IanC is right. The charlatan prophet chants his memorized meaningless mantra.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I call bullshit. He wouldn't have given a curt nonresponsive answer if he made the effort to respond at all. At the very least he would have pointed you in a direction to find more info.
> ...



When I went through school, classical physics was taught...there was no suggestion of two way energy flow suggested in the physics department of the University of Florida in 1978...and to date, the same 2nd law that I was taught still exists...no mention of net energy flow...still not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...still the same..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And yet, at earth temperatures radio waves can cancel each other out...if they are composed of photons...and if photons exist, then clearly they can interact with each other.


Yes. They are coherent.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...sorry this is so difficult for you but alas, that is the way it is. No CMB was received by that radio telescope...
> ...



Pearls to swine...of course it is meaningless to you...I wouldn't expect anything else.  You believe what you believe and refuse to see anything else....to the point that you believe CMB was detected by a radio telescope.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...
*
This resonant frequency caused "cooler waves" to somehow transfer energy to "warmer waves" 
that were allowed to travel to the cooler antenna?

Or did the "cooler waves" bounce off the warmer atmosphere (repelled by "covailent bonds" maybe) and cause ripples that could be detected?

Flesh out this resonant theory a bit more, if you could.........


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Pearls to swine...of course it is meaningless to you...I wouldn't expect anything else. You believe what you believe and refuse to see anything else....to the point that you believe CMB was detected by a radio telescope.


Spoken like a child. "I know you are so what am I"


----------



## TheTechnologist (Jan 5, 2018)

Hey fucker, those are children's graphs that illustrate ideal conditions for "one-layer" of atmosphere and illustrate the basic equations to understand the mechanism.

It hardly has to do anything with an accurate assessment of a multilayered atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...
> *
> This resonant frequency caused "cooler waves" to somehow transfer energy to "warmer waves"
> that were allowed to travel to the cooler antenna?
> ...


Don't confuse him. He is confused enough. 


TheTechnologist said:


> Hey fucker, those are children's graphs that illustrate ideal conditions for "one-layer" of atmosphere and illustrate the basic equations to understand the mechanism.
> 
> It hardly has to do anything with an accurate assessment of a multilayered atmosphere.


He takes those graphs very seriously to try to prove that AGW is a hoax. Sad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *It received a resonant radio frequency..which corresponded to CMB...
> ...



But I really want to know how to detect waves that don't hit the detector.


----------



## Votto (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> 
> So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.
> 
> ...



So what is your point?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2018)

Votto said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...



There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

Votto said:


> So what is your point?


He really doesn't know what his own point is.


----------



## TheTechnologist (Jan 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


How do you come to that CONCLUSION?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But I really want to know how to detect waves that don't hit the detector.


Try asking SSDD again. He might have another amusing theory.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2018)

TheTechnologist said:


> How do you come to that CONCLUSION?


He came to that conclusion by not understanding what the Stefan Boltzmann law is, and he didn't understand the difference between the units,
*watts per square meter*, and 
*watts*.


----------



## TheTechnologist (Jan 5, 2018)

The equations in the first picture aren't even correct:

(239.7 + 239.7)/(5.6x10^8) does *NOT* equal 303K.

And contains no units! LOL

They are clearly abbreviating the diagram for children, probably 5 year olds if this was "Lost in Space".

Of course, most of the re-pube-licker party in today's reality.


----------



## TheTechnologist (Jan 5, 2018)

The first image is obviously a baby-formula version of this hairball of physics:  Convert watt/meter²/K [W/(m²·K)] <—> Btu (th)/hour/foot²/°F • Thermodynamics — Heat • Heat Transfer Coefficient • Compact Calculator

And it is designed to demonstrate the mechanics, not be accurate.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2018)

I agree that those diagrams show the basic mechanism of one component of the Greenhouse Effect.

The main error is not describing HOW the atmosphere gets and stores the needed energy to radiate 300w both upwards and downwards. It comes from the energy held back from space as the system moves towards equilibrium. This borrowed energy is the reason why the surface temperature is increased beyond the solar input.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

TheTechnologist said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...



Pretty straight forward...read the posts.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> TheTechnologist said:
> 
> 
> > How do you come to that CONCLUSION?
> ...



Unlike you, I understand the SB law well enough to know that you can't apply it to the atmosphere and get any sort of rational model out of the application...and the greenhouse effect as described by climate science relies heavily on a bastardized invalid form of the SB law.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

TheTechnologist said:


> The equations in the first picture aren't even correct:
> 
> (239.7 + 239.7)/(5.6x10^8) does *NOT* equal 303K.
> 
> ...



Take that up with cliamte science...not my numbers...not my hypothesis...it is more like a diagram made by 5 year olds than one made for 5 year olds...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

TheTechnologist said:


> The first image is obviously a baby-formula version of this hairball of physics:  Convert watt/meter²/K [W/(m²·K)] <—> Btu (th)/hour/foot²/°F • Thermodynamics — Heat • Heat Transfer Coefficient • Compact Calculator
> 
> And it is designed to demonstrate the mechanics, not be accurate.



It doesn't demonstrate any real world mechanics...the fact is that there is not one piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which supports the claim of a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> I agree that those diagrams show the basic mechanism of one component of the Greenhouse Effect.
> 
> The main error is not describing HOW the atmosphere gets and stores the needed energy to radiate 300w both upwards and downwards. It comes from the energy held back from space as the system moves towards equilibrium. This borrowed energy is the reason why the surface temperature is increased beyond the solar input.



You crack me up ian...you believe that the atmosphere radiates 300 wm2 downward even though it can not be measured without an instrument that is cooled to -80 degrees...how gullible do you have to be?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Unlike you, I understand the SB law well enough to know that you can't apply it to the atmosphere and get any sort of rational model out of the application...and the greenhouse effect as described by climate science relies heavily on a bastardized invalid form of the SB law.


Right you don't understand the SB law. You disagree with all scientists over the last 100 years.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike you, I understand the SB law well enough to know that you can't apply it to the atmosphere and get any sort of rational model out of the application...and the greenhouse effect as described by climate science relies heavily on a bastardized invalid form of the SB law.
> ...



It is pretty clear that you don't understand the SB law at all..and the more you talk, the more apparent that fact becomes.  The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to the emissions of a body (black body or gray body) with a single surface for all wavelength.  Do you believe the atmosphere can be aptly described as a gray body with a single surface for all wavelengths...or do you think that perhaps the earths outgoing long wave radiation originates from multiple emission layers?

You can't rightly even apply the SB law to the earth because there is no single radiating surface for which to apply it.  Further, the SB law, as with the Planck law from which it is derived relates radiation to the temperature of the layer that emits it...not the atmosphere above it.

And in addition to that, climate science claims that the emissivity of the earth is something like 0.995...that is saying that the earth is "almost" a black body.  A black body that the SB law can be applied to has no heat capacity...the earth has considerable heat capacity.  

I could go on, but I doubt that you will even get these basics...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It is pretty clear that you don't understand the SB law at all..and the more you talk, the more apparent that fact becomes. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to the emissions of a body (black body or gray body) with a single surface for all wavelength. Do you believe the atmosphere can be aptly described as a gray body with a single surface for all wavelengths...or do you think that perhaps the earths outgoing long wave radiation originates from multiple emission layers?
> 
> You can't rightly even apply the SB law to the earth because there is no single radiating surface for which to apply it. Further, the SB law, as with the Planck law from which it is derived relates radiation to the temperature of the layer that emits it...not the atmosphere above it.
> 
> ...



The SB law always applies to penetration of radiation into or out of a material. Lambert's coefficient is a measure of that penetration. In water thermal IR penetration is a micron or so. In a gas it is much deeper. Thus thinking the SB law only applies to a single surface is incorrect in theory. But in practice, if the coefficient is small it doesn't really matter.

The earth is "almost" a black body only at thermal temperatures, not in the visible range. It is very capable of receiving and storing heat from the sun.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The SB law always applies to penetration of radiation into or out of a material. Lambert's coefficient is a measure of that penetration. In water thermal IR penetration is a micron or so. In a gas it is much deeper. Thus thinking the SB law only applies to a single surface is incorrect in theory. But in practice, if the coefficient is small it doesn't really matter.
> 
> The earth is "almost" a black body only at thermal temperatures, not in the visible range. It is very capable of receiving and storing heat from the sun.



And there you have it...unassailable evidence that you don't have a clue...  Can you not read a simple equation...the SB law is all about the amount of radiation a body emits...there is no expression within the law from which you might derive absorption.

You have proven beyond any doubt that you are, and have been just talking out of your ass...it was pretty clear when you were trying to claim that IR was detected with a radio telescope but now you have proven it in spades.

Then just to ice the cake, you suggest that because the earth can receive and store heat from the sun it is a good example of a black body...a theoretical perfect black body emits all the energy it absorbs...(NO HEAT CAPACITY)...the more energy a body is able to retain, the further away from a perfect black body it gets...the fact that the earth is capable of retaining a great deal of energy (heat capacity) means that it is not almost a black body..hell it is a piss poor gray body...it has significant heat capacity while a black body has no heat capacity.  

It is little f'ing wonder that you have been bamboozled by the cult of climate science...you don't have a clue...you just soak up trivia and regurgitate it with no idea of what it means.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The SB law always applies to penetration of radiation into or out of a material. Lambert's coefficient is a measure of that penetration. In water thermal IR penetration is a micron or so. In a gas it is much deeper. Thus thinking the SB law only applies to a single surface is incorrect in theory. But in practice, if the coefficient is small it doesn't really matter.
> ...


Right, the SB law is about emission of radiant energy from an object. However an object can also absorb energy. The SB law also covers how much radiant energy a *background *emits when the entire background is at a uniform temperature. The total radiant energy to and from the body is the difference, or net.

As far as the earth, you forgot that emissivity is around 0.95 only for thermal energy at earth ambient temperature, but emissivity is much lower for the shorter wavelengths (or higher frequencies) such as that from the sun. That allows the much hotter sun to warm the earth.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And there you have it...unassailable evidence that you don't have a clue... Can you not read a simple equation...the SB law is all about the amount of radiation a body emits...there is no expression within the law from which you might derive absorption.



Of course it does. Why do you think it has a term for emmisivity in it? And a term for area as well.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Then just to ice the cake, you suggest that because the earth can receive and store heat from the sun it is a good example of a black body...a theoretical perfect black body emits all the energy it absorbs...(NO HEAT CAPACITY)...the more energy a body is able to retain, the further away from a perfect black body it gets...the fact that the earth is capable of retaining a great deal of energy (heat capacity) means that it is not almost a black body..hell it is a piss poor gray body...it has significant heat capacity while a black body has no heat capacity



Do you even know the definitions for Blackbody, Whitebody and Graybody?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Right, the SB law is about emission of radiant energy from an object. However an object can also absorb energy. The SB law also covers how much radiant energy a *background *emits when the entire background is at a uniform temperature. The total radiant energy to and from the body is the difference, or net.



Duck and cover...dodge and weave...double talk till you puke...The SB law is about emission...  And there is no net energy exchange outside of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.  Unless of course you care to show me an example of two way energy exchange...that would be an observation and measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy emitting from a radiator and returning to the radiator from its surroundings..made with an instrument at ambient temperature.



Wuwei said:


> As far as the earth, you forgot that emissivity is around 0.95 only for thermal energy at earth ambient temperature, but emissivity is much lower for the shorter wavelengths (or higher frequencies) such as that from the sun. That allows the much hotter sun to warm the earth.



You can spin till you have enough yarn to knit a rug big enough to cover the floor of the super dome...the fact is that attempting to apply the SB law to the movement of energy from the surface to space is just piss poor shitty science...and belief that it is ok is just gross stupidity.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And there you have it...unassailable evidence that you don't have a clue... Can you not read a simple equation...the SB law is all about the amount of radiation a body emits...there is no expression within the law from which you might derive absorption.
> ...



No ian..you are assuming another law...not reading anything about absorption in the equation...are you sure you have ever had a math class?  Because you read all sorts of stuff into equations that simply is not there.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Then just to ice the cake, you suggest that because the earth can receive and store heat from the sun it is a good example of a black body...a theoretical perfect black body emits all the energy it absorbs...(NO HEAT CAPACITY)...the more energy a body is able to retain, the further away from a perfect black body it gets...the fact that the earth is capable of retaining a great deal of energy (heat capacity) means that it is not almost a black body..hell it is a piss poor gray body...it has significant heat capacity while a black body has no heat capacity
> ...



yes I do, which is why I pointed out that a black body has no heat capacity when wuwei claimed that because the earth has significant heat capacity, it is nearly a perfect black body...you want to try and defend that kind of ignorance...go right ahead.


----------



## xband (Jan 9, 2018)

Central Ohio is eagerly awaiting The Greenhouse Effect and fuck Al Gore and  his Inconvenient Truth.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

xband said:


> Central Ohio is eagerly awaiting The Greenhouse Effect and fuck Al Gore and  his Inconvenient Truth.



algore is an inconvenient idiot....who has made a killing on the AGW scam because believers are idiots as well...he is playing on the fact that you can fool some of the people all of the time.


----------



## xband (Jan 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > Central Ohio is eagerly awaiting The Greenhouse Effect and fuck Al Gore and  his Inconvenient Truth.
> ...



You can fool the people most of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Duck and cover...dodge and weave...double talk till you puke...The SB law is about emission... And there is no net energy exchange outside of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Unless of course you care to show me an example of two way energy exchange...that would be an observation and measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy emitting from a radiator and returning to the radiator from its surroundings..made with an instrument at ambient temperature.



Your overuse of "unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models” is a non sequitur because radiation physics is mathematically derived from observable, measurable, testable, experiments.

Look up the derivation of Stefan Boltzman at Law at
Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

You will find that nowhere do they consider what the background temperature is. So the fourth power temperature law doesn't change for any change in background temperature.



SSDD said:


> You can spin till you have enough yarn to knit a rug big enough to cover the floor of the super dome...the fact is that attempting to apply the SB law to the movement of energy from the surface to space is just piss poor shitty science...and belief that it is ok is just gross stupidity.


The SB law is always used for the movement of thermal energy to anywhere else.
BTW if you wanted to cover the super dome with a rug, it would be best to weave it rather than knit it.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> yes I do, which is why I pointed out that a black body has no heat capacity when wuwei claimed that because the earth has significant heat capacity, it is nearly a perfect black body...you want to try and defend that kind of ignorance...go right ahead.


Where did I claim that? You are confused.
I claimed that the "...emissivity is around 0.95 only for thermal energy at earth ambient temperature, but emissivity is much lower for the shorter wavelengths..."


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your overuse of "unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models” is a non sequitur because radiation physics is mathematically derived from observable, measurable, testable, experiments.



Really?  then show me an observed, measured example of two way energy flow.



Wuwei said:


> You will find that nowhere do they consider what the background temperature is. So the fourth power temperature law doesn't change for any change in background temperature.



Just keep talking...tell us all how much you don't know...What do you think this equation means if it doesn't consider the background temperature?









Wuwei said:


> The SB law is always used for the movement of thermal energy to anywhere else.
> BTW if you wanted to cover the super dome with a rug, it would be best to weave it rather than knit it.



No...the SB law covers black body and gray body radiators with a single radiating surface...nothing else.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

xband said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > xband said:
> ...




You can fool all the people some of the time, and *some of the people all the time,* but you cannot fool all the people all the time.  A. Lincoln.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > yes I do, which is why I pointed out that a black body has no heat capacity when wuwei claimed that because the earth has significant heat capacity, it is nearly a perfect black body...you want to try and defend that kind of ignorance...go right ahead.
> ...





			
				wuwei said:
			
		

> The earth is "almost" a black body only at thermal temperatures, not in the visible range. It is very capable of receiving and storing heat from the sun.



The fact that it is "very" capable of storing heat from the sun means that it has a fairly large heat capacity...a black body has no heat capacity...a radiator that is almost a black body would have very little heat capacity...  and we aren't talking about visible light anyway...the earth has a fairly large heat capacity in the thermal range which means that it isn't even a very good gray body...much less nearly a blackbody.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Really? then show me an observed, measured example of two way energy flow.


I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature. 


SSDD said:


> Just keep talking...tell us all how much you don't know...What do you think this equation means if it doesn't consider the background temperature?


That is not the fundamental form of the SB equation. Again, read the article.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The fact that it is "very" capable of storing heat from the sun means that it has a fairly large heat capacity.


True.


SSDD said:


> ...a black body has no heat capacity...


False: A metal object with a perfect blackbody painted surface has a large heat capacity and can be easily heated with radiation.


SSDD said:


> ...a radiator that is almost a black body would have very little heat capacity...


False for the same reason.


SSDD said:


> .. and we aren't talking about visible light anyway..


Visible light is the primary way that the earth heats up. You brought it up in your first paragraph above.


SSDD said:


> .the earth has a fairly large heat capacity in the thermal range which means that it isn't even a very good gray body....


Do you know what heat capacity is?
*Heat capacity* is a measurable physical quantity equal to the ratio of the heat added to (or removed from) an object to the resulting temperature.

You have to explain why you think heat capacity has anything to do emissivity (gray body).


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.



No...you only demonstrated how much you don't know...and perhaps one of the prime reasons you have been duped so terribly.



Wuwei said:


> That is not the fundamental form of the SB equation. Again, read the article.



It is the only one that matters...the other describes an idealized, probably non existent perfect black body alone in a vacuum with no other matter to emit to...the one I provided is for a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings with other matter.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> False: A metal object with a perfect blackbody painted surface has a large heat capacity and can be easily heated with radiation.



Sorry guy...an ideal black body has no heat capacity.



Wuwei said:


> Visible light is the primary way that the earth heats up. You brought it up in your first paragraph above.



you believe short wave from the sun is visible?  Keep talking....keep digging.



Wuwei said:


> Do you know what heat capacity is?



Yep..and more importantly, I know how it applies to a black body.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.
> ...





SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > False: A metal object with a perfect blackbody painted surface has a large heat capacity and can be easily heated with radiation.
> ...




Everything you said in those two posts is false. Your only argument is equivalent to "it's true because I said so." All science books, journals and scientists for the last 100 years disagree with you completely. I have given you a number of references to the actual science. So sad that such a lack of education exists by people who choose to live in the dark.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

Alas, you are wrong and unfortunately can't be convinced otherwise...to acknowledge that the SB equation is wrongly applied to the atmosphere in the greenhouse hypothesis would question your faith...to bad you don't recognize that faith and science are two different things.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Alas, you are wrong and unfortunately can't be convinced otherwise...to acknowledge that the SB equation is wrongly applied to the atmosphere in the greenhouse hypothesis would question your faith...to bad you don't recognize that faith and science are two different things.


To bad you don't recognize nor understand science.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Alas, you are wrong and unfortunately can't be convinced otherwise...to acknowledge that the SB equation is wrongly applied to the atmosphere in the greenhouse hypothesis would question your faith...to bad you don't recognize that faith and science are two different things.
> ...



I am laughing in your face....


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I am laughing in your face....


I don't think so. I would guess you are looking at your computer screen and most likely not laughing at all.


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2018)

Definitions need to be made here.

Emmisivity describes what happens to radiation when it hits a substance. It can either be (a)bsorbed, (r)eflected, or(t)ransmitted.

A perfect blackbody absorbs it all. a=1, r=0, t=0

A perfect white body reflects it all. a=0, r=1, t=0

A perfect gray body does all three but always in the same ratio. a=n, r=n, t=n

There should be a fourth type. A perfect clear body transmits it all. a=0, r=0, t=1

There are no perfect bodies. The a, r and t are different for different wavelengths. Measured emmisivity is an estimate over a given range made up by adding the results for the individual wavelengths that make up the range.

Let's use CO2 for an example. If the range is the full spectrum of terrestrial IR then it is a poor blackbody because it only absorbs at three wavelengths out of many. But if we restrict the range to only 15 micron IR then it is close to a perfect Blackbody. At 10 microns it is a near perfect clear body because all the radiation is simply transmitted.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Really? then show me an observed, measured example of two way energy flow.
> ...



The fundamental form of the SB equation describes a perfect black body emitting in the complete absence of other matter you idiot.  Tell me, where might that happen?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The fundamental form of the SB equation describes a perfect black body emitting in the complete absence of other matter you idiot. Tell me, where might that happen?


You didn't look at the article I posted. The fourth power equation is derived with absolutely no assumption about background objects or temperature. Look at the article. It is the essence of what Boltzmann himself derived. 

Also look up a derivation of this formula  




You will see that they assume a net two-way flow. Net flow has been known by science for a hundred years.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I just showed you how your misinterpretation does not come out of the theory. Look at the article I posted. If you don't understand calculus read the words. There is no hint that the SB equation has anything to do with the surrounding temperature.
> ...



I have to go with w on this one. Or rather, all the scientists and mathematicians that derived the relationships used to provide the proof.

The fundamental law is _j_ = sigma T^4

This describes the radiation produced by an object at a specified temperature. Regardless of its surroundings. One object, one temperature, one instant of time. It is the simplest and purest form of the S-B equations.

When you add other objects, emmisivity, or the passage of time the complexity explodes.

Every object radiates according to its temperature and emmisivity, all the time. It is the temperature that changes. A radiating object cools by emitting energy. _j = _sigma T^4 is only valid for one instant of time, the next instant will have a lower temperature because of the energy loss of the previous instant.

If another object is nearby, the first object will be absorbing the radiation produced by the second object, and vice versa. Because temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output, the cooling (or warming) of the first object will be affected by the radiation received by the second object.

There is no 'cancelling out' of radiation. Both objects radiate fully at all times according to their temperatures. The temperature of either object will change, depending on the net radiation exchanged.

While you can calculate the individual energy flows coming off each object, it is only the net flow that causes change in the temperatures of the two objects.

ie. If an object at a temperature that radiates 300w is next to an object that radiates 200w, you cannot say that the cooler object is warming the hot one by 200w. At that instant of time, the cool object is receiving a net flow of 100w and the hot object is losing a net flow of 100w. At the next instant of time the hot object will be slightly cooler and the cool object slightly warmer. This exchange of energy will continue until they are both the same temperature, at which time they will STILL be radiating according to their temperatures but because there is no longer a net flow, the temperatures remain the same.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



It's amazing,....follows the 2nd Law, follows SB, doesn't violate causality, doesn't need to predict the future.....
not an epicycle in sight.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2018)

Inspired by SSDD, I have discovered that all science is wrong and the SB equation is actually this:
_j_ = sigma (T^2 - Tc^2)(T^2 + Tc^2)

I have also discovered that Einsteins famous mass - energy equation is wrong and this is right:
E = c(c x m)

I think that SSDD will agree that these factoring modifications of the algebraic form change the physics interpretation completely !


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2018)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. I bet you knew that the first thing I would do is check the plus and minus signs in your factoring.


You should have prefaced your post with "Spoiler Alert". You gave away the secret and now SSDD won't have to spend the next hours working out the arithmetic.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2018)

Mine is gone


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2018)

I'm too late.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I'm too late.



Oh well. I, for one, thank you for sending me down memory lane. Calculus puzzles were a lot of fun to solve, finding the right string to pull that undid the knot. And topology and matrix math where it actually does matter what order you do things in. And remembering the brilliance of geniuses like Euler and Riemann who were the first to recognize patterns that were so difficult to understand even when you knew they were there.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fundamental form of the SB equation describes a perfect black body emitting in the complete absence of other matter you idiot. Tell me, where might that happen?
> ...



Show me the expression within that equation that allows you to derive net...T - Tc describes a gross transaction...deriving net would require an equation that looks quite different from that...which is why climate science engaged in some pretty shitty mathematics in an attempt to make net energy transfer real..an equation from which you can derive net would look  like this...






Of course it is completely terrible mathematics to apply the distributive property to an equation that is already reduced...when I asked him when else he might do that with an equation, he had no answer...maybe you have one...when would you do that and for what reason?

Aside from that, in physics, an equation is like a sentence..it attempts to describe a thing that is happening in reality...changing the equation changes the story it tells...and just as with language, changing the story does not change what happened in reality..it is just telling a lie.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> The fundamental law is _j_ = sigma T^4
> 
> This describes the radiation produced by an object at a specified temperature. Regardless of its surroundings. One object, one temperature, one instant of time. It is the simplest and purest form of the S-B equations.



Sorry ian, but you and wuwei are both wrong...and I provided you with responses from some pretty high octane physicists to prove the point...the first equation is a ideal model and doesn't deal with the "messiness" of reality.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course it is completely terrible mathematics to apply the distributive property to an equation that is already reduced...when I asked him when else he might do that with an equation, he had no answer...maybe you have one...when would you do that and for what reason?



It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is an intermediate step.

Radiation emission and absorption

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

So there is no reason to view that intermediate step as a final step for calculation since the calculation is easer with the reduced form, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




This is a snapshot of the second reference:







SSDD said:


> Aside from that, in physics, an equation is like a sentence..it attempts to describe a thing that is happening in reality...changing the equation changes the story it tells...and just as with language, changing the story does not change what happened in reality..it is just telling a lie.


That is so wrong. Changing an equation using arithmetic theorems has absolutely no effect on changing the "story" or what the equation stands for. In the case of the SB law. It is the intermediate step with the subtraction that tells the real "story."




That equation tells us that a body is emitting and absorbing. The reduced form of the equation with (T^4 -Tc^) is a very obvious arithmetic simplicity for succinctness of calculations and expression of the formula.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Show me the expression within that equation that allows you to derive net...T - Tc describes a gross transaction...deriving net would require an equation that looks quite different



????

Where is the term (T-Tc)? That term is not present in any of the S-B equations that I have seen, certainly not in your favorite one.

Temperature (T) is a real property. T^4 is not a real property, it is an imaginary relationship that allows us to calculate the radiation coming off an object.

Your favourite S-B equation takes two intensive properties, _j1 and j2, _subtracts them to get a net result, and turns the intensive properties into an extensive property by defining the area (A) where they are interacting.

P/A = _j1 - j2, _where _j_ = sigmaT^4, the original and most basic form of the S-B equations. The term for emmisivity is added in for less than perfect blackbodies.


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation
> ...



WUWEI has shown his understanding multiple times in the past, and now has produced numerous references to support his position.

You, on the other hand, have produced no references, and continue to make sophomoric mistakes like using the term (T-Tc) instead of (T^4-Tc^4).


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> 
> So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.
> 
> ...




All of the above charts are a bit simplistic as they address only the basic mechanism and do not give meaning to any of the terms, but basically, greenhouse warming is pretty simple:  does the rate of incoming heat into a system exceed its rate of release?  What are the sources of incoming energy?  The Sun (which varies both intrinsically slightly as well as a function of our distance and angle to it), and to a lesser degree, from the Earth itself, which includes both internal heat as well as activity from man.

What are some of the variables?  The Earth's albedo, or reflectivity---  a snow covered Earth reflects more heat into space. Another factor is the opacity of the sky to wavelengths longer than about 450nm, the beginnings of the IR band.  Various trace gasses such as Methane, CO2 and even water vapor all have some effect on how well the atmosphere reflects infrared energy back to the Earth.

Now the question is how does one quantify all of these factors into an accurate model of the actual Earth to derive meaningful data.  The first problem is our poor understanding of all of the factors first, second, whether we can honestly or accurate quantify them.  I don't see the above charts doing any of that without a great deal more information and explanation.  So does your buddy Crick have the definitive answer either?  I would say NO.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature..


Those who are familiar with the literature like myself know exactly which people and papers the damning climategate emails refer to and are fucking outraged. The most often cited and influential climate science papers were not merely shoddy science as some thought, they were fraudulent. And the emails prove that the data the fraudsters claimed was lost when the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit moved to a new building was actually purposefully destroyed because they feared that the data would have to be released because of the UK's new Freedom of Information law.

If your warmer friend is not outraged by climategate he is full of shit when says he grasps the science and has read the literature.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation
> ...


That's the best you can do? Another insult? Why didn't you comment on the very simple derivation that came from Dartmouth University. Millions of scientists through their texts and journals know that the derivation is the only one that makes any sense. Do you not understand it?


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2018)

Most people only understand simple examples, that is why there are so many of them. 

The atmosphere stores and recycles energy. That is how a solar input of only 165w can support a surface radiating at 400w. 

Something like an amplifying system. (Another simple example!). Most people will say this is akin to a perpetual motion machine and therefore impossible. 

There is more to energy transfer than just keeping the Watts balanced. There is a quality to radiation as well as a quantity. Entropy is involved. Work can be done during the transformation of highly ordered, high energy solar radiation into diffuse low energy IR even though the amounts balance.

Entropy is a difficult concept to grasp, for anyone. The second law of thermodynamics is now laid out in terms of entropy. The concept of the term work, and its definition is also quite vague to most people.

One of the deficiencies of the climate models is to balance the energy budget in Watts but to ignore the entropy change. They consider a watt of IR to be equal to a watt of solar insolation. Passive redistribution of net energy can only be done from a warmer source to a cooler source.


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




SSDD collects talking points and does not care to imbed them into a coherent underlying pattern. He knows 'facts' but does not understand them. He simply ignores anything that does not fit into his worldview.

He also thinks everyone else is doing the same thing. He falsely assumes his position has just as great a chance for being right as anyone else's. 

He doesn't change his position as new information is added. He is stuck in the science defined 150 years ago.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD collects talking points and does not care to imbed them into a coherent underlying pattern. He knows 'facts' but does not understand them. He simply ignores anything that does not fit into his worldview.
> 
> He also thinks everyone else is doing the same thing. He falsely assumes his position has just as great a chance for being right as anyone else's.
> 
> He doesn't change his position as new information is added. He is stuck in the science defined 150 years ago.


Yes. We know that and I think he knows that too. His latest missive did not even attempt a "talking point" related to science. He resorted to his usual menu of trollish sounding insults. I think he is running out of steam. Of course he will deny that and come back with something stale as usual.


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD collects talking points and does not care to imbed them into a coherent underlying pattern. He knows 'facts' but does not understand them. He simply ignores anything that does not fit into his worldview.
> ...



He may abandon this thread but you can be sure that he will pop up in another with the same bald assertions.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Show me the expression within that equation that allows you to derive net...T - Tc describes a gross transaction...deriving net would require an equation that looks quite different
> ...




Didn't realize I have to write out the whole damned equation every time for you...dementia onset maybe?  

here is the deal...if you can provide an actual observed, measured example of energy moving from a radiator to a cooler object, and the same frequencies of energy moving from the cooler object back to, and being absorbed by the radiator, then lets talk..if you can't..then as I have said, all you have is unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...and in that case, WE really have nothing to talk about..I am not really interested in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...what is the point...as I have told you before, if you want to talk about fiction, there are a universe of more interesting topics.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Right...by claiming that a black body has a great deal of heat capacity...by believing, like you, that the difference between the temperature of a radiator and its surroundings has no effect on the amount of radiation it puts out..and on and on...all he has demonstrated is that, like you,  he can't differentiate between models and reality....is that your benchmark for "understanding"...blind belief in the models?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

toobfreak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...



The simplistic models are the basis of the hypothesis and they are wrong...so it follows that if your most basic premise is wrong, everything after will be wrong as well.

Here is a very basic request regarding the greenhouse effect and if you go out and look, you will find that you can't satisfy it...I routinely ask for a single piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption and emission of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...now, if the greenhouse effect theory has any merit at all, you would think that there would be data to support its most basic premise...but alas, there is not.

I have other very basic questions which remain unanswered as well due to a complete lack of data...climate science is all models even though the energy movement through our atmosphere is an observable, measurable, testable phenomenon....why do you suppose that is?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Odd that you perceive a statement of fact as an insult...too bad for you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Most people only understand simple examples, that is why there are so many of them.
> 
> The atmosphere stores and recycles energy. That is how a solar input of only 165w can support a surface radiating at 400w.



Water vapor stores and recycles energy...and that is the only thing in the atmosphere that stores and recycles energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



When I leave a thread it is out of sheer tedium ian...I ask for some measurement and observation to support your belief in the models...you can't deliver..and go into more tedious unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mind models...exactly what do you think that sort of bullshit proves other than that you are well versed in your dogma?...  Our atmosphere, and energy movement through it is an observable, measurable, testable quantity...and yet, you can't provide the first observed, measured, example to support your version of how energy moves through it....and the few examples that you manage to provide aren't examples of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Most people only understand simple examples, that is why there are so many of them.
> ...



Say what???

Are you now disavowing N&Z? What happened to atmospheric pressure being the only factor in surface temperature?

Get your story straight.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Here it is. I knew there was a statement of yours that I wanted to comment on.

Heat capacity is a red herring. Radiation is the least efficient pathway for transporting energy. Conduction and convection can move energy much more quickly.

Radiation is the limiting factor in our discussion. The stored energy in an object can migrate faster to the surface by conduction than the surface can lose energy by radiation. 

Of course there will still be a temperature gradient behind the surface, as there is any time energy is being lost to the environment.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Odd that you perceive a statement of fact as an insult...too bad for you.


Rather than being childishly petulant, how about commenting on why worldwide university texts and scientists disagree with you about the Dartmouth reference I gave.


----------



## X.Onasis (Jan 16, 2018)

A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.

At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.

Can someone describe his point?


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

X.Onasis said:


> A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.
> 
> At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.
> 
> Can someone describe his point?



The main point is that SSDD thinks objects stop radiating if they are near another object that is as warm or warmer.

The other side thinks all objects radiate fully at all times.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

X.Onasis said:


> A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.
> 
> At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.
> 
> Can someone describe his point?


His point is that thermodynamics laws that have been understood by science for over 100 years are wrong. Therefore any current understanding of atmospheric physics is wrong. He substitutes his own interpretations of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which are wrong. In short, he doesn't understand and believe in modern science and doesn't quit arguing against it. The only science he believes in is what you can directly see. Current concepts of photons, radiation heat flow, etc. are out as far as he thinks.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.
> ...



In the usual manner, you completely miss the point...the point was that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but thank's as always for playing...see the front desk for your parting gift.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.
> ...



Still waiting for the first observed, measured example that even begins to support your "interpretation" of the movement of energy...and, alas, will have to  continue to wait forever since no observed, measured example supporting your claims will ever come forth...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian, you are quite the liar...I have said over and over that with the exception of water vapor, the only thing all other gasses provide towards the cliamte on earth is their mass...if you had an actual leg to stand on, you wouldn't have to constantly be making up arguments for me and then railing against your own fiction.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The point being, he claimed that a black body had considerable heat capacity while a theoretical perfect black body has no heat capacity.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is completely terrible mathematics to apply the distributive property to an equation that is already reduced...when I asked him when else he might do that with an equation, he had no answer...maybe you have one...when would you do that and for what reason?
> ...



Typical...of course one wouldn't expect for you to see that your example is nothing more than a prime example of torturing an equation in an attempt to force it to agree with you...laughable...and sad that such chicanery has become acceptable "science".


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still waiting for the first observed, measured example that even begins to support your "interpretation" of the movement of energy...and, alas, will have to continue to wait forever since no observed, measured example supporting your claims will ever come forth...


Still waiting for the first observed, measured example that even begins to support your "interpretation" of the movement of energy as one way. The burden of proof is yours.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Typical...of course one wouldn't expect for you to see that your example is nothing more than a prime example of torturing an equation in an attempt to force it to agree with you...laughable...and sad that such chicanery has become acceptable "science".


Another trollish comment that in effect says that you disagree with all scientists all over the world and not just me.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I shouldn't answer for Wuwei but I need to clarify the original definition of a perfect Blackbody. It was originally given the property of 'infinite thinness'. This of course is not possible, it is just another defined property to get at the essence of the topic without going into the weeds with complications and contradictions that the messiness of reality throws in.

The diagram in the OP did the same. It cropped out many details to strongly make one point. It wasn't supposed to be a complete climate model, it was supposed to illustrate a fundamental relationship. And it did.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I am more than willing to discuss how the mass of the atmosphere affects the surface temperature. I have given my description of what happens in previous threads. I am still waiting for your explanation of how it works. If you would explain yourself then I wouldn't have to infer what you mean by cryptic code words.


----------



## X.Onasis (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > X.Onasis said:
> ...


So you don't understand the greenhouse effect? What's so difficult about it?


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

X.Onasis said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The GHE is more difficult to explain than you would think when arguing with someone like SSDD who demands undeniable proof for every step in the logic chain.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2018)

X.Onasis said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



He feels that there is no such thing as back-radiation, that gas in the atmosphere cannot emit photons or waves toward the warmer surface, because that would violate the 2nd Law.

As the flaws in his "theory" are exposed, his explanations get more and more complex.
It's an interesting pathology, but quickly grows tedious.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for the first observed, measured example that even begins to support your "interpretation" of the movement of energy...and, alas, will have to continue to wait forever since no observed, measured example supporting your claims will ever come forth...
> ...



Considering that every measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement from warm to cool, I don't really know what else you could ask for....there has never been a measurement of energy moving from a cool source to a warmer source....not made with an instrument at ambient temperature anyway...all such measurements have been made with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the radiator which means that you are measuring energy moving from a warmer source to the cooler radiator, not from a cooler source to a warmer source.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Typical...of course one wouldn't expect for you to see that your example is nothing more than a prime example of torturing an equation in an attempt to force it to agree with you...laughable...and sad that such chicanery has become acceptable "science".
> ...



Wouldn't be the first time I have disagreed with scientists all over the world...nor would it be the first time I was right and they were wrong....your quasi religious acceptance of baseless proclamations from the scientific community is just plain sad.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The diagram was bullshit...still is and always will be.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



PV+nRT...look it up sometime.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

X.Onasis said:


> So you don't understand the greenhouse effect? What's so difficult about it?



Nothing is difficult about it...it is fiction...fiction is easy to understand but apparently separating fiction from reality is quite difficult for some people.

But hey...if you believe you can provide a single piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means, step on up to the plate and deliver....or don't...which is what you will be forced to do since there is no such data...anywhere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Once again you lie...I am not asking for undeniable proof...hell, all I am asking for is a single piece of observed, measured data made with an instrument at ambient temperature that even begins to establish a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas (other than water) and warming in the atmosphere...and you can't deliver because no such evidence exists...it is all models not borne out by any sort of actual observation or measurement.


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Go on. Mistranscribing the the gas law is a start but only just. Start describing the energy flows, etc


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Describe the fundamental mechanism of gravity ian...we understand that about as well as we understand the way energy moves through the atmosphere...meaning...we don't...asking for something that we are barely scratching the surface on is just stupid...


----------



## X.Onasis (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't understand the greenhouse effect? What's so difficult about it?
> ...


That's easy. On average, the Earth is warmer than the moon. What's so hard to understand about that?


----------



## X.Onasis (Jan 16, 2018)

You _do _understand that the moon is colder because it has no atmosphere don't you?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Considering that every measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement from warm to cool


Every measurement is consistent with two way flow. Look up your favorite hyperphysics site.


SSDD said:


> there has never been a measurement of energy moving from a cool source to a warmer source


Yes there has. The kinetic energy of cool atoms in a gas will hit a warmer surface.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wouldn't be the first time I have disagreed with scientists all over the world...nor would it be the first time I was right and they were wrong....your quasi religious acceptance of baseless proclamations from the scientific community is just plain sad.


Wow. "I'm right. Physics is wrong," is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

X.Onasis said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > X.Onasis said:
> ...


Are you really that stupid...the atmosphere of uranus absorbs IR and it is the coldest place in the solar system.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that every measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement from warm to cool
> ...



Since net flow doesn't alter the final temperature, of course it is consistent...but that doesn't mean that it is happening...consistent is a weasel word...no measurement of two way energy movement has ever been made...



Wuwei said:


> Yes there has. The kinetic energy of cool atoms in a gas will hit a warmer surface.



Saying that it happens is not a measurement of it happening..you seem to have a problem differentiating between what is real and what you wish.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't be the first time I have disagreed with scientists all over the world...nor would it be the first time I was right and they were wrong....your quasi religious acceptance of baseless proclamations from the scientific community is just plain sad.
> ...



logical fallacy...and again...this is not the first time I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out that I was right and they were wrong...or even the second time...


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes there has. The kinetic energy of cool atoms in a gas will hit a warmer surface.
> ...



Wow!?!

I did not see that one coming. Now he's saying there is a force field forbidding air molecules from hitting the Earth's surface.

Amazing. Is this another case of 'how do rocks know which way to fall?' Hey, wait a minute....

Hahahaha


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Since net flow doesn't alter the final temperature, of course it is consistent...but that doesn't mean that it is happening...consistent is a weasel word...no measurement of two way energy movement has ever been made...


Since it is consistent, and the atomic physics supports it, there is every reason to accept it. There is every reason not to accept one way thermal radiation because you have to come up with a reason why radiation from the cooler object is blocked or impeded in some way. You never gave a mechanism nor model for that. There isn't any.


SSDD said:


> Saying that it happens is not a measurement of it happening..you seem to have a problem differentiating between what is real and what you wish.


PV = nRT..
For a constant volume, what would cause the pressure on a hotter surface to go up when the temperature of an adjacent colder gas goes up a little? The answer is colder atoms hitting the surface.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> logical fallacy...and again...this is not the first time I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out that I was right and they were wrong...or even the second time..


*Logical fallacy:* Since I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out to be right before, then I am always right when I disagree with the scientific community.


----------



## X.Onasis (Jan 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


It's also 20 times the distance from the sun, so it's hardly comparable.

The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wow!?!
> 
> I did not see that one coming. Now he's saying there is a force field forbidding air molecules from hitting the Earth's surface.
> 
> ...


At least he is consistent with his silly belief of "force fields" preventing cold stuff from hitting warm things.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wow!?!
> ...



Don't confuse our resident idiots.

SSDD's idiocy says the colder molecules refuse to emit toward warmer molecules or 
photons from cooler molecules refuse to travel toward warmer molecules.

Billy_Bob's idiocy says something about covailent [sic] bonds repelling photons from cooler sources.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't confuse our resident idiots.
> 
> SSDD's idiocy says the colder molecules refuse to emit toward warmer molecules or
> photons from cooler molecules refuse to travel toward warmer molecules.
> ...



Does Billy Bob have a theory about repulsion of atoms from cooler sources? Maybe trivailent [sic] bonds?


----------



## IanC (Jan 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Don't confuse our resident idiots.
> ...



He told me it was the chemical reaction of evaporation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Your'e kidding. Well...  it doesn't matter. Whatever he thinks would be just as ridiculous.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You really are an idiot, aren't you?  When did I say that atoms can't hit the surface?  I said that energy won't transfer from cool to warm...you believe that because you bounce a cool molecule off a warm surface, that energy transfers to the warm surface?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Since it is consistent, and the atomic physics supports it, there is every reason to accept it. There is every reason not to accept one way thermal radiation because you have to come up with a reason why radiation from the cooler object is blocked or impeded in some way. You never gave a mechanism nor model for that. There isn't any.



Physics doesn't support it...a model supports it...the model says that a thing which would make no difference in the actual measurement is happening so you believe it must be happening and hold up the fact that it would make no difference as evidence that it is happening...laughable.




Wuwei said:


> For a constant volume, what would cause the pressure on a hotter surface to go up when the temperature of an adjacent colder gas goes up a little? The answer is colder atoms hitting the surface.



Pressure causes the gas to heat...it isn't colder atoms transferring energy to the warmer surface..it is warmer atoms transferring energy to a cooler surface...  You are making the bald faced claim that cool atoms are causing a warmer object to get warmer....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > logical fallacy...and again...this is not the first time I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out that I was right and they were wrong...or even the second time..
> ...



When did I ever say that I always disagree with the scientific community?  When did I say that I am always right when I disagree with them..you are engaging in more logical fallacy...you are the one claiming that because the scientific community says it that it must be true...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

X.Onasis said:


> It's also 20 times the distance from the sun, so it's hardly comparable.
> 
> The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?



The ideal gas laws, with adjustments for solar input get pretty damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't even get close here without an ad hoc adjustment factor.....I tend to go with the hypothesis that works wherever it is tried rather than a hypothesis which works nowhere unless you include a fudge factor...

These calculations were provided by Ross MLeod..properties are from the planetary fact sheet from NASA....feel free to point out any errors to NASA...(note: (S)=Surface (1 bar)= equals altitude where pressure equals that at earth sea level

Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune

Pressure  (millibar)  92000 1014 6.9-9 1000 1000 1000 1000
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Density 65000 1217 20 160 190 420 450
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Molecular weight (g/mole) 43.45 28.97 43.34 2.22 2.07 2.64 2.59

Temp(K) 737K 288K 210k 165K 134K 76K 72K 
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)


Solar Irradiance (wm/2) 2613.9 1367.6 589.2 50.50 14.90 3.71 1.51

Black Body Temperature (K)184.2 254.3 210.1 110.0 81.1 58.2 46.6


Venus
PV = nRT
92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Earth
PV = nRT
1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K

Mars
PV = nRT
Because the Martian atmosphere is so slight 2 calculations were used the minimum and maximum measured at the Viking Lander Site to demonstrate something significant.
6.9 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 20 (g/ m3) / 43.34 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 6.9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~182 K; or,
T = 9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~238 K

Jupiter
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K
There can, by definition be no greenhouse effect on jupiter

Saturn
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Saturn

Uranus
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Uranus

Neptune
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Neptune

Particularly note the actual surface temperature of earth and the temperature calculated via the ideal gas laws....very close....doesn't the greenhouse hypothesis claim that an additional 33C is added by the greenhouse effect? Don't you find it interesting that according to the greenhouse hypothesis without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C while the ideal gas laws say that the temperature on earth should be pretty damned close to the actual temperature on earth?...or are you so lacking in critical thinking skills, or have been so thoroughly duped that you find yourself unable to even question those whom you perceive as smarter than yourself?

And as to the physics of the greenhouse effect working fine on other planets, that statement is laughable...the actual temperature on the surface of Venus is about 464C the ideal gas laws, without the addition of incoming solar radiation predict that the temperature on venus should be about 477C...the greenhouse effect model, when applied to venus predicts that without a greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus would be a balmy 68C....the ideal gas laws say 477....the greenhouse effect claims to be 396 degrees on venus.

It is absolutely laughable....What would the greenhouse effect be on planets that have no greenhouse effect due to a lack of greenhouse gasses? The ideal gas laws predict those temperatures just fine...what does the greenhouse effect say?  Let me guess..no answer...

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is profound, but it doesn't care what the composition of the atmosphere is..only its mass,  and thus isn't politically attractive as human activity can not be demonized...


----------



## cnm (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point?


You unbelievable idiot. He agrees those graphics represent the greenhouse effect if conditions of equilibrium exist. You can't even understand the answer to your question.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point?
> ...



Alas it is you who is the unbelievable idiot...the whole point of the conversation, and the terribly flawed science represented in the graphs is that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...look at the calculations of the temperatures above of the temperatures of the various planets above made with nothing more than the ideal gas laws...the temperature provided by no more than the physical law provides a closer estimate than the greenhouse effect calculations.


----------



## cnm (Jan 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are putting science words in sentences and referencing the S-B equation with no context. You will have to show a diagram like the one from the university with arrows and energy flows before you can get your point across.
> 
> Otherwise all I can say is that for you to compare ice cubes with the University example, one of the ice cubes or something else will have to be continually receiving thermal energy from an outside source (such as the sun.). You have to specify the full configuration of your "counterexample" before it makes any sense.
> 
> I still think you should continue this dialog with BillyBob.


I thought 





> At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....


is a classic and I'd love to know where it comes from.


----------



## X.Onasis (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > It's also 20 times the distance from the sun, so it's hardly comparable.
> ...


Your idiotic rambling nonsense didn't begin to answer my question -- The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?


----------



## cnm (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Alas it is you who is the unbelievable idiot..


Yeah, right, like I was the one who asked a question and couldn't understand a perfectly legible answer right off the bat.

Almost as ludicrous as your use of a temperature as an expression of energy.

But, one must admit, nowhere near as hilarious as your refusal to consider the energy from the sun as one of the two radiative inputs to the Earth's surface.

Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

X.Onasis said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > X.Onasis said:
> ...



Geez guy...use your brain..I just gave you the reason for the different temps and then went on to apply my position to every planet in the solar system with a substantial atmosphere...not needing to apply a greenhouse effect...the reason for the temperature difference between here and the moon is the lack of an atmosphere on the moon..but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You really are an idiot, aren't you? When did I say that atoms can't hit the surface? I said that energy won't transfer from cool to warm...you believe that because you bounce a cool molecule off a warm surface, that energy transfers to the warm surface?





SSDD said:


> Pressure causes the gas to heat...it isn't colder atoms transferring energy to the warmer surface..it is warmer atoms transferring energy to a cooler surface... You are making the bald faced claim that cool atoms are causing a warmer object to get warmer....



The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas. 

There is much more going on than "bouncing" a molecule off a warm surface. Look up the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions. Your concept of "bouncing" is an elastic collision which preserves entropy. True elastic collisions very seldom occur in nature. There is a temperature difference in the case we are talking about, and heat flow never preserves entropy. Also look up the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution to see just how fast cool molecules can move. You will be surprised. 

If every molecule "bounced" off with the same input and output speed the cooler gas would not gain energy from the warmer surface, and heat would not flow. "Bouncing" at the atomic level is quite scientifically naive.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Geez guy...use your brain..I just gave you the reason for the different temps and then went on to apply my position to every planet in the solar system with a substantial atmosphere...not needing to apply a greenhouse effect...the reason for the temperature difference between here and the moon is the lack of an atmosphere on the moon..but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere


Note to X.Onasis: SSDD has cross-posted this ideal gas law planetary crap several times. This my reply to a reference he cited:

Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

The author depends on adiabatic systems which are very fleeting in nature and have no long term effect. There was a rampant use of fudge factors in his curve fitting effort which did not carry much significance, and as the author admits, his result is vastly different than what he physically attempted to show. It is disingenuous when SSDD disparages physics models, but nevertheless cherry picks a model which is physically not viable.


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You weren't satisfied with scoffing at quantum mechanics, now you are defying Newtonian physics as well.


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Physics doesn't support it...a model supports it...the model says that a thing which would make no difference in the actual measurement is happening so you believe it must be happening and hold up the fact that it would make no difference as evidence that it is happening...laughable



All Physics is a model. 

The best models not only describe and accurately predict what is happening but also give the reason for it.

Your model gives some right answers but gives no mechanism as to why it happens. My model produces the same right answers as yours, gives other right answers that yours cannot, and gives the mechanism underlying the processes.

Your model is severely incomplete, mine less so.

It is your perogative if you want to stick with antiquated 150 year old physics models that were based on macroscopic observations.

Since that time information on the atomic scale world has exploded, giving reasons for the observations that previously could only be (poorly) measured.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

cnm said:


> But, one must admit, nowhere near as hilarious as your refusal to consider the energy from the sun as one of the two radiative inputs to the Earth's surface.
> 
> Thanks for the laughs.



You wack jobs crack me up making up arguments to rail against...when did I ever refuse to consider the sun as a radiative input?...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.



Nope...energy only moves from warm to cool unless you input some work to make it move in the other direction.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Geez guy...use your brain..I just gave you the reason for the different temps and then went on to apply my position to every planet in the solar system with a substantial atmosphere...not needing to apply a greenhouse effect...the reason for the temperature difference between here and the moon is the lack of an atmosphere on the moon..but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere
> ...



No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.

And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> All Physics is a model.



Sure..and some models depict observable, measurable, quantifiable phenomenon...and some don't...belief in the ones that don't is blind faith...not science.


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Pressure causes the gas to heat...it isn't colder atoms transferring energy to the warmer surface..it is warmer atoms transferring energy to a cooler surface... You are making the bald faced claim that cool atoms are causing a warmer object to get warmer..




Why do you so often use imprecise language?

Pressure doesn't cause the gas to warm up, but _increased pressure_ does.

Adding energy from a cooler object does not 'heat' the warmer object because the warmer object is losing energy faster than it is gaining it. The warmer object is simply cooling less quickly than it would if it wasn't receiving energy from the cooler object.

The two flows are happening at the same time. While you can calculate the size of each flow, you cannot describe the effect without taking both into consideration, the net flow.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.
> ...


Finally you got it right. Yes. Net energy can transfer the other way with work.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.
> 
> And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...


The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make.


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.
> ...



The hidden variable in so many of these discussions is entropy. It is difficult to describe, difficult to understand.

Yesterday CrusaderFrank had a cockamamie air pressure example but it suggested a better one.

Two tires, one at 64 psi the other at 0 psi. If you connect them and open the valve you get two tires at 32 psi.

What happens if you insert a device that turns the air flow into mechanical motion? You still end up with two tires at 32 psi. But you got extra mechanical motion out of the deal.

Entropy has increased, disorder out of order. Entropy can be harnessed, or not. While it is vaguely similar to potential energy, it is not.

Energy enters the terrestrial system as collimated high quality radiation, and leaves as diffuse low energy IR. The Watts balance. What does not balance is the entropy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.
> ...



_Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. _

Net loss? Not one way flow?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Are you just to stupid to read, or are you just congenitally dishonest...Do you have any idea how many times I have qualified the statement that energy does not move from cool to warm with the term spontaneous...or stated that you can only make energy move from cool to warm if you apply work?  

a quick search yields numerous instances...here is one from January of last year....

Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.



Now is there going to be a whole other discussion on what actually constitutes work?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.
> ...



Care to cut and paste the statement in context?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

IanC said:


> Pressure doesn't cause the gas to warm up, but _increased pressure_ does.



Sorry ian, but that statement is not true...as has been pointed out to you before...Gareff's experiments repeatedly showed a temperature gradient in columns of air...if you are talking about air in a bottle that can reach something like equilibrium, then yes, an increase in pressure would be required to raise the temperature...not so in the open atmosphere where the warm air at the bottom of the column is constantly overturning...



IanC said:


> Adding energy from a cooler object does not 'heat' the warmer object because the warmer object is losing energy faster than it is gaining it. The warmer object is simply cooling less quickly than it would if it wasn't receiving energy from the cooler object.



Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.  



IanC said:


> The two flows are happening at the same time. While you can calculate the size of each flow, you cannot describe the effect without taking both into consideration, the net flow.



Again, since there is no net flow...moot.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. I already know what it is.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.
> ...


SSDD, you are slowing down. Is that all you got? You said atoms of a cool gas don't impart any energy to a warmer surface. They just "bounce". Scientists call that elastic collisions. You did not explain why you thought that possible. If they just bounce how does the surface get cooled by the colder gas?

If every molecule "bounced" off with the same input and output speed the cooler gas would not gain energy from the warmer surface, and heat would not flow. "Bouncing" at the atomic level is quite scientifically naive.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I already cited the article and gave the context. You can very easily find it in the article. You are the one who referenced it in the first place. Did you not read the reference you cited !?!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.
> 
> Again, since there is no net flow...moot.


You still haven't cited proof of that. There is none.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Didn't expect you to be able to provide any support for your claim...so long as I keep the bar very low...you never disappoint.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.
> ...



Of course I have...the second law of thermodynamics itself...in addition to every measurement ever made...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You still didn't read the reference you cited. Your own reference denied what you think it said.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Your "theory" of bouncing air molecules fails the laws of physics. If every molecule of a cooler gas hitting a warmer surface "bounced" off with the same input and output speed, the cooler gas would not gain energy from the warmer surface, and heat would not flow. How do you explain that molecules must simply "bounce"?


----------



## IanC (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry ian, but that statement is not true...as has been pointed out to you before...Gareff's experiments repeatedly showed a temperature gradient in columns of air...if you are talking about air in a bottle that can reach something like equilibrium, then yes, an increase in pressure would be required to raise the temperature...not so in the open atmosphere where the warm air at the bottom of the column is constantly overturning..



Another bald statement with no evidence. You brought this up before. Some crackpot suggested a perpetual motion machine for getting free energy out of the atmosphere, 100 years ago. A few years ago someone found out he could measure adiabatic gradients in columns of air if he was really careful in keeping them undisturbed.

Is that what you are referring to? Bump the thread, let's re-examine it.


----------



## IanC (Jan 18, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry ian, but that statement is not true...as has been pointed out to you before...Gareff's experiments repeatedly showed a temperature gradient in columns of air...if you are talking about air in a bottle that can reach something like equilibrium, then yes, an increase in pressure would be required to raise the temperature...not so in the open atmosphere where the warm air at the bottom of the column is constantly overturning..
> ...



I found your two links. So far I read the pdf for the experiment and agree with the results, but I am unsure what conclusions I should be drawing from it.

Loschmidt considered the adiabatic lapse rate a source of unlimited energy, a variation on perpetual motion.

I'll read some of the threads at Tallbloke and get back to you. So far it seems like the effect of the SLoT and the effect of the gravity field are being intertwined in a way that leads to an incongruity, much like the way you consider the gross flow of radiation from a cooler object to have an effect when taken in isolation from the actual net flow.

I would still like a link to our original discussion, if you have it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I note that you still didn't provide any comments in context...you just going to keep making the claim without backing it up with observation?...typical post modern pseudoscience.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I note that you still didn't provide any comments in context...you just going to keep making the claim without backing it up with observation?...typical post modern pseudoscience.


I am not going to spoon-feed you an understanding of the reference you quoted. I gave you the authors conclusion in his own words. The best way for you to see the context is for you to read your own reference.


----------



## cnm (Jan 19, 2018)

IanC said:


> What happens if you insert a device that turns the air flow into mechanical motion? You still end up with two tires at 32 psi. But you got extra mechanical motion out of the deal.


If you're getting work out of it in that case I would have thought you'd end up with the same total mass of air you started with but at a lower temperature and therefore a lower pressure. Otherwise there is such a thing as a free lunch.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

cnm said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > What happens if you insert a device that turns the air flow into mechanical motion? You still end up with two tires at 32 psi. But you got extra mechanical motion out of the deal.
> ...




I like the way you think!

In the real world there are always inefficiencies that muck up the works. 

My point with that example is that entropy increased in both cases. In the first case it was totally wasted, in the second case it was partially harnessed to produce work that could increase order somewhere else. There is less of an entropy increase in the second case.

Sunlight is a highly ordered, high quality form of energy. What leaves the planet is diffuse, low quality IR. The entropy increase can just be wasted, or it can be harnessed to do work to create order somewhere else. Luckily for us there are many pathways that here on Earth that have harnessed this potential. The actual amount of energy entering and leaving is the same. The entropy increase is under no such obligation, as long as it is increasing for the system as a whole it can be used to build up order in specific areas.

Hope that helps, I'm forty years out of my last physics class but I think my general idea is correct.

Climate models consider a watt of IR to be equivalent to a watt of sunshine for their energy budgets. I don't.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I think it is funny that in this case you are arguing against the case made by Boltzmann using the SLoT, in favour of the case made by Loschmidt using gravity effects.

One side says equal temperature all the way up the column, the other side says a gradient. But both sides are assuming no outside influences and an unlimited amount of time to come to equilibrium.

Reality is a different beast. There are outside influences, and the real temperature gradient does not agree with either argument. 

The troposphere has a cooling gradient. The stratosphere remains unchanged for a while and then starts to increase, the higher levels zigzag back and forth. It is impossible to reconcile these findings without taking radiation and magnetic fields into consideration.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I note that you still didn't provide any comments in context...you just going to keep making the claim without backing it up with observation?...typical post modern pseudoscience.
> ...



No one is asking you to spoon feed anything to anyone...You were asked to back up a claim that you made with a statement in context...clearly you can't do it...not surprising in the least.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You can't rightly apply SB to the atmosphere...or air in general.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No one is asking you to spoon feed anything to anyone...You were asked to back up a claim that you made with a statement in context...clearly you can't do it...not surprising in the least.


I made many claims. Which one are you referring to?


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why are you changing the subject to the S-B equations?

Boltzmann was the physicist that mathematically proved Stefan's empirical relationship. But that is not all he did.

Boltzmann had a long standing feud with Loschmidt that has not been totally settled to this day. SLoT vs gravity effects. Obviously neither is sufficient by itself. Somewhat reminiscent of the argument over whether photons are waves or particles.

The S-B equations can be useful for gasses but you have to analyze the effect wavelength by wavelength.


----------



## LOki (Jan 19, 2018)

The global warming effect on climate change is obviously, and demonstrably real.

Every denial that human activity effects the climate is a denial of the reality of human activity and climate.

The effects that climate change might have on humanity and society while not terribly scientific, are all interesting.

I am most interested in the "doomsday" predictions of the average global warming alarmist. You know what I'm referring to: widespread famine and food riots, etc..., leading to the loss of 2/3 of the world's population.

That's why I advocate for the open burning of tires (even new ones) in everyone's back yard.

Good times!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No one is asking you to spoon feed anything to anyone...You were asked to back up a claim that you made with a statement in context...clearly you can't do it...not surprising in the least.
> ...



Laughing in your face...what's next?  You going to pretend that you never made the claim in the first place?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I made many claims. Which one are you referring to?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

IanC said:


> Why are you changing the subject to the S-B equations?



you were the one who brought boatsman in...I have always said that you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere...when when the topic gets around to experimental evidence that gravity induces temperature gradients in columns of air, you want to bring boatsman back into the conversation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

LOki said:


> The global warming effect on climate change is obviously, and demonstrably real.
> 
> Every denial that human activity effects the climate is a denial of the reality of human activity and climate.



Can you provide a single piece of data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  That is the basis of man made climate change..and yet, there is not the first piece of measured data that even begins to establish the relationship between CO2 and warming in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Still laughing in your face...what a liar and coward you are.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still laughing in your face...what a liar and coward you are.


You don't remember which claim you want me to back up?


----------



## LOki (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > The global warming effect on climate change is obviously, and demonstrably real.
> ...


Look. There are reams of well documented  data, "_made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere._" It'll be the first thing that comes up in a google search.

And as long as there's any kind of evidence that even implies climate change could wipe out 2/3 of humanity, there's NOTHING you're going to tell me that will prevent me from burning tires in my back yard to help that along.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still laughing in your face...what a liar and coward you are.
> ...



I remember, and you remember...

" The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make."

Don't worry about it loser...I never expected you to provide his statement in context...you were just shooting off your mouth without a clue...you didn't want to be wrong yet again so you just said the first thing that came into that little mind of yours.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

LOki said:


> Look. There are reams of well documented  data, "_made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere._" It'll be the first thing that comes up in a google search.



Sorry, but there aren't....but if you believe you can provide even one such measurement, then by all means, lets see it.  Don't worry about not being able to find it though if you go look because as I already said...no such data exist.



LOki said:


> And as long as there's any kind of evidence that even implies climate change could wipe out 2/3 of humanity, there's NOTHING you're going to tell me that will prevent me from burning tires in my back yard to help that along.



There isn't even a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...much less actual data that implies that climate change could wipe out 2/3 of humanity.

I applaud your tire burning, but if you believe climate science and their claims are based on any sort of real observed, measured data, you have been woefully misinformed.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> " The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make."
> 
> Don't worry about it loser...I never expected you to provide his statement in context...you were just shooting off your mouth without a clue...you didn't want to be wrong yet again so you just said the first thing that came into that little mind of yours.


I already gave you the context. it was in a different thread. If you had given me the claim that I asked, you wouldn't have had to go through all that bitter vitriol.

I will repeat it here. Author's quotes are bold faced:


Wuwei said:


> However his conclusion is quite limited according to his statement,
> 
> *while qualitatively similar, Equations (10a) *[the author's curve fit]* and (13) *[Poisson formula]* are quantitatively rather different. . . .[they] describe qualitatively very similar responses in **quantitatively vastly different systems**.*
> His results, (equation 10a) *could neither be analytically deduced from known physical laws nor accurately simulated in a small-scale experiment*.
> That is to say it is unreproducable, and unphysical.


----------



## LOki (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Look. There are reams of well documented  data, "_made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere._" It'll be the first thing that comes up in a google search.
> ...


You're just making "inconclusive" the enemy of "worth taking seriously", and "absolute certainty" the enemy of "reasonable likelihood".

The fact that the global climate changes is just indisputable fact--climate change is real, and one measurement of that change is that lately temperatures are rising. Denying that human activity has an effect on global climate demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.

I'm not here to refute or support any contention that any such change is "significant" or "worrisome" or "a bad thing" or "demands immediate action."

If your underlying thrust is that "_there isn't even a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the_" curtailment of natural, human, and/or political rights to achieve some remedy for alleged social "injustices," or appeasement of whatever superstitious contrivance of "the greater good" or obligation to some fatuous "social contract," then we're squarely on the same page. Because, that's all batshit-crazy talk.

What's not bat-shit crazy the assertion that the vast majority of humanity is just garbage that has nothing better to do than fill this planet with more garbage. And since human beings are not an endangered species, I have no problem with humanity experiencing the Malthusian crisis it obviously deserves.

If your retort is just going to be, "Well there's no data that conclusively proves that human activity causes global warming," I'm just going to counter with, "That's because we're just not trying hard enough. THROW MORE TIRES ON THE FIRE!"



​


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2018)

LOki said:


> You're just making "inconclusive" the enemy of "worth taking seriously", and "absolute certainty" the enemy of "reasonable likelihood".
> 
> The fact that the global climate changes is just indisputable fact--climate change is real, and one measurement of that change is that lately temperatures are rising.



Of course the climate changes...it always has, and always will...the change in the climate we have seen, however, is well within the bounds of natural variability...there is no reason to suppose that we have anything to do with it.



LOki said:


> Denying that human activity has an effect on global climate demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.



So now we are picking fly specks out of the pepper?  The climate change debate isn't about the fact that we are biological creatures...it is about our industry.  Even your argument fails however, as there is no actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

The whole man made climate change position rests on  the claim that infrared radiation emitting from the surface of the earth is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses causing warming.  This claim is without substance.  In fact, there are literally millions of hours of experiment and observation that state explicitly that infrared radiation passing through the air does not warm the air. 



LOki said:


> What's not bat-shit crazy the assertion that the vast majority of humanity is just garbage that has nothing better to do than fill this planet with more garbage. And since human beings are not an endangered species, I have no problem with humanity experiencing the Malthusian crisis it obviously deserves.



Pollution is an entirely different subject than climate change...and a problem which we are responsible for, and a problem which we can certainly do something about.  I favor draconian, bankrupting penalties for industrial polluters...I favor prison sentences for polluters so extreme that only a top shelf idiot would ever even attempt illegal dumping.  

The problem is that climate change wackos have managed to conflate pollution with climate change and as a result, nothing is being done about the real problem of pollution because climate change is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

The bottom line is that, again, there are literally millions of hours of observation, and experiment that prove the basic claim made by climate science regarding CO2 and its effect on the global climate are bullshit.​


----------



## LOki (Jan 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > You're just making "inconclusive" the enemy of "worth taking seriously", and "absolute certainty" the enemy of "reasonable likelihood".
> ...


Except the indisputale fact of reality that biological activity is part of the climate equation, and human activity exists as an element of global biological activity.

There is that.

I'm not here to argue about the primacy of human activity affecting global climate, but denying that human activity has ANYTHING to do with climate change demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means. 



SSDD said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Denying that human activity has an effect on global climate demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.
> ...


"Industry" is one of the activities these human (biological) creatures engage in that obviously has an impact on climate.

I'm not one of those people that believe that the behaviors that humans engage in naturally, in accordance with their nature, are somehow not "natural."

Don't fall into that trap.



SSDD said:


> Even your argument fails however, as there is no actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


It is an indisputable, and well established fact of reality that the atmosphere is comprised of gasses, and that IR causes gasses to warm.

Seriously. That's literally high-school science class. Go outside and take the air temperature. Is it above 0 degrees Kelvin? If so, how do you explain that temperature reading if IR did not contribute the kinetic energy (that you measured as temperature) to the atmosphere?



SSDD said:


> The whole man made climate change position rests on  the claim that infrared radiation emitting from the surface of the earth is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses causing warming.  This claim is without substance.


Except that it's not. Unless you're just hanging your hat on the pedantic point that the sun is the ultimate source of the heat (IR radiation) that is necessary for any kind of warming to happen.



SSDD said:


> In fact, there are literally millions of hours of experiment and observation that state explicitly that infrared radiation passing through the air does not warm the air.


Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.

Funny how your "literally millions of hours of experiment and observation" fail to note those obvious facts of reality.

I mean, if what you're saying is not just pure bullshit, then all air temperature readings ever taken under any conditions are all entirely bullshit.



SSDD said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > What's not bat-shit crazy the assertion that the vast majority of humanity is just garbage that has nothing better to do than fill this planet with more garbage. And since human beings are not an endangered species, I have no problem with humanity experiencing the Malthusian crisis it obviously deserves.
> ...


No it's not. Pollution obviously affects climate. Denying this is just a denial of what the term "climate" means.



SSDD said:


> ...and a problem which we are responsible for, and a problem which we can certainly do something about.  I favor draconian, bankrupting penalties for industrial polluters...I favor prison sentences for polluters so extreme that only a top shelf idiot would ever even attempt illegal dumping.


Well, at least you've finally come around to admitting that human activity affects the climate.



SSDD said:


> The problem is that climate change wackos have managed to conflate pollution with climate change and as a result, nothing is being done about the real problem of pollution because climate change is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.


If you're saying that there are more pressing pollution problems than CO2 pollution, then I'm happy to agree.



SSDD said:


> The bottom line is that, again, there are literally millions of hours of observation, and experiment that prove the basic claim made by climate science regarding CO2 and its effect on the global climate are bullshit.


Except the fact that no such observation and experiment that offers such proof actually exists. Otherwise you're spot on.

But I understand your scepticism, and encourage it. I have a strategy that you can implement that would prove once and for all--to both global warming alarmists AND sceptics such as yourself. It's an experiment that you and every global warming alarmists and sceptic can perform together (to assure each other there's no funny business going on).

All you have to do is buy up as many tires as possible, and all the gasoline, petro-diesel, natural gas, and plastic you can find... and set them on fire.

You'll have to get all your people and their oppenents together on this, and you may have to do this every day for a couple of years. But, if you carefully record the temperatures around the globe every day, I think the objective data generated would inform conclusions that both sides of the issue could agree upon.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2018)

LOki said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


*
Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.
*
He'll say that there has never been a measurement with instruments at ambient temperature to back up your claim.


----------



## LOki (Jan 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He'll say that there has never been a measurement with instruments at ambient temperature to back up your claim.


That could only happen if he's entirely ignorant of the existence of thermometers, and practically every temperature measurement ever made with a thermometer.


----------



## cnm (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> My point with that example is that entropy increased in both cases. In the first case it was totally wasted, in the second case it was partially harnessed to produce work that could increase order somewhere else. There is less of an entropy increase in the second case.


I think I disagree. I think you're saying there's a free lunch.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 21, 2018)

There can be no benchmark for what the "global temperature" is until the stratospheric aerosol injection spraying program that has been going on in earnest since 1997. Strontium, barium and aluminum nano particulates have been sprayed on us as if we were bugs. People have got to wake the fuck up and start looking up and realizing that shit like the pics I am posting are not natural by any sense of the imagination....shit is getting real. These spraying programs are fucking up the biosphere and soon there will be no way to grow food. Most of you have no clue about how the grocery stores work now as opposed to thirty years ago....I do. A disruption of the shipping of food to the grocery stores would cause a panic of monumental proportions and very few realize as to how fragile this system is........


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

LOki said:


> Except the indisputale fact of reality that biological activity is part of the climate equation, and human activity exists as an element of global biological activity.



Briefly describe how you believe biological activity is an "indisputable" factor in the global climate equation.




LOki said:


> I'm not here to argue about the primacy of human activity affecting global climate, but denying that human activity has ANYTHING to do with climate change demonstrates a pathological ignorance that biological activity is part of the climate equation, human activity exists as an element of global biological activity, and what the term "climate" means.



Since you thought it important enough to state twice, I suppose I will ask twice...as briefly as you can, describe how you believe biological activity is an indisputable part of the global cliamte equation.  How might biological activity alter the global climate?



LOki said:


> It is an indisputable, and well established fact of reality that the atmosphere is comprised of gasses, and that IR causes gasses to warm.



Yeah..you keep saying indisputable this, and indisputable that but no one...not you, not anyone on this board, nor none of the top shelf physicists I have asked about this seems to be able to provide any actual data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. 

I will agree that it is indisputable that many people, in fact, most people believe that absorption of infrared by a gas leads to warming in the atmosphere..but since there is no actual observed, measured data that establishes that relationship, where does the "indisputable" element of your argument come from?



LOki said:


> Riiiiiiiight. Yet the IR emittred from every radiator in every building on the planet warms the room it's in... and the IR radiating from the surfaces in those rooms eventually warms the actual air in those rooms.
> 
> Funny how your "literally millions of hours of experiment and observation" fail to note those obvious facts of reality.
> 
> I mean, if what you're saying is not just pure bullshit, then all air temperature readings ever taken under any conditions are all entirely bullshit.



You hang a lot on assumption and readily accept things as indisputable when they simply aren't true. 

 I just had an interesting read about the ability of IR to warm the atmosphere  (or air in general)...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.

The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of infrared radiation by various gasses bestowing upon them the ability to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

_“*Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.*”_

His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

_“_*Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays*.”

Then Svante Arrhenius, ignoring those findings hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground using the Stefan-Boltzman law..

To test Arrhenius' hypothesis (keep in mind that it was only a hypothesis) a Swedish physicist named Knut Angstrom (ever hear of him?) set up experiments and published a paper titled "On the Importance of Water Vapor and CO2 in the Absorption of the Atmosphere"

Angstrom's experiment involved filling tubes with the amount of CO2 that would be present in a column of air that reached to the top of the atmosphere.  He then ran infrared radiation through the CO2.    At first, he doubled the amount of CO2 in the tubes, then he cut the amount in half and repeated the test.  He observed virtually zero temperature change between these different amounts of CO2.

Now here is where we come to the millions of hours of observation which bear out Angstrom's findings that infrared radiation does not heat the air.  Enter engineers and physicists involved in the commercial application of radiant heating.

Here are some of the observations and findings that have come out of that industry.

*“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.”   …..*

*“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.”    …*

*“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.” 
*
So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air.  Lets step back to the 19th century just a second and refer to John Tyndal again...regarding his experiments..

*“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”
*
I am not going to make any assumptions on your level of education so for either your benefit, or the benefit of those who read that statement and may not grasp its significance let me explain.  What Tyndall is saying...and which has been proven over the centuries since he said it...is that molecules that are good absorbers of infrared radiation are also good emitters of that same radiation.  In short, when you add a so called greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, you not only increase its ability to absorb infrared radiation, you also increase its ability to emit that radiation. 

In short, adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere.  When you increase the emissivity of an object, you enhance its ability to radiatively cool itself.  The claim that by adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, thereby increasing its emissivity and ability to radiatively cool itself you will cause the atmosphere to warm is ludicrous on its face...and the only reason people believe such nonsense is the abject failure of the educational system.

Imagine...believing that by enhancing an object's ability to cool itself you can cause it tto become warmer.



LOki said:


> No it's not. Pollution obviously affects climate. Denying this is just a denial of what the term "climate" means.



So once again, as briefly as possible, describe how you believe pollution affects the global climate.



LOki said:


> Well, at least you've finally come around to admitting that human activity affects the climate.



No...I have stated that pollution is a serious problem that we can deal with.  I am still waiting for you to describe what effect you believe that pollution has on the global climate.

By the way...CO2 is not pollution.



LOki said:


> Except the fact that no such observation and experiment that offers such proof actually exists. Otherwise you're spot on.



Provided above...so yes, it does exist...infrared radiation warms solid objects...not the air...I suppose you never considered that the thermometer you hold up in the room heated by infrared radiation is a solid object and would certainly be warmed by the infrared radiation coming from the radiator...but the fact that the thermometer was warmed by the radiation does not mean that the air was warmed.  Have you ever wondered why they add fans to infrared heaters?  They blow air across the hot surface of the element to add convective heating to the equation and then move that warmed air around the room.  The fan has no effect whatsoever on the radiative heating.

The fact that IR has no ability to warm the air has been known for at least a hundred years but it is conveniently ignored, as so much other science is ignored for the sake of a political agenda.

And this brings me right back to my statement that not a single piece of data exists that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....of course no such data exists, but volumes of data exists that show pretty conclusively that IR, in fact, has no ability to warm the air.



LOki said:


> You'll have to get all your people and their oppenents together on this, and you may have to do this every day for a couple of years. But, if you carefully record the temperatures around the globe every day, I think the objective data generated would inform conclusions that both sides of the issue could agree upon.



Soot, which would be the only result of burning tires would produce that could alter the climate if enough were burned is not the issue...and not the reason climate science is asking that trillions of dollars worth of production be lost down a black hole.  CO2, the magic gas is the reason behind the politics of climate change...and the reason, if the belief in the magic continues, that your cost of living will skyrocket.  As with all political ideas emanating from the left, the very people who can least afford to be hurt by the monetary consequences of their ideas are the people who are hurt the most.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

LOki said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > He'll say that there has never been a measurement with instruments at ambient temperature to back up your claim.
> ...



Ignorance abounds here...but alas, it isn't coming from me.  You believe that holding up a solid object and having it warmed by infrared radiation somehow proves that the air has been warmed when repeatable experiment, and a hundred years of observation demonstrate that IR does not warm the air.

As I have pointed out repeatedly to folks like toddster,  ian,  wuwei,  and now yourself, it is easy to be fooled by instrumentation...the instruments are just fine, but all to often, the understanding of what they are measuring is terribly flawed.  Holding up a thermometer in front of an object that emits radiation that can only warm solid objects and assuming that because the thermometer was warmed the air was also warmed is a top shelf, prime example of being fooled by instrumentation.  You see a temperature increase and assume that the thermometer is measuring the temperature of the air when in fact, it is measuring infrared radiation which is having no discernible effect on the air.

Before you start declaring things as indisputable, you should perhaps, do a bit of fact checking.  It is indisputable that infrared radiation will warm a thermometer...it is, on the other hand, highly disputable, and provably false that infrared radiation will warm the air.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Except the indisputale fact of reality that biological activity is part of the climate equation, and human activity exists as an element of global biological activity.
> ...


Bravo!

Thanks for the Tyndall quote


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can change form.

15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface and it is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. More goes in at the bottom than leaves at the top, by measurement.

The difference is the amount of energy that must be accounted for. Is it in a different form? Most assuredly. Energy is stored in the atmosphere as potential or kinetic forms. The 15 micron energy that was absorbed from the surface is still there until it takes a pathway out. 

Energy can only leave the planet by radiation. So how does the extra 15 micron energy leave as radiation? 

The atmosphere controls the surface temperature by being in equilibrium with the surface. Adding energy to the atmosphere also adds energy to the surface via this equilibrium. More energy means a higher temperature, which in turn means more surface radiation. Not all surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere, some escapes freely to space. The captured 15 micron surface energy is recycled back to the surface via several energy transformations from potential to kinetic to radiation, where it leaves as freely escaping radiation through the Atmospheric Window.

The energy to warm the surface is the same energy that was not lost to space because it was captured and stored in the atmosphere.

This is a highly simplified explanation. The energy inputs and outputs balance. What allows the recycling of energy to happen? The increase of entropy as high quality sunlight is transformed into low quality IR.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> 15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface and it is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. More goes in at the bottom than leaves at the top, by measurement.



No...more doesn't go in at the bottom than leaves by the top...again...fooled by instrumentation.  As was pointed out, there are literally millions of hours of observation that show demonstrably that IR does not heat the air...can not heat the air..You skip right on past the evidence as if it were not even on the page...you deny vast and overwhelming evidence that this is true in favor of your fiction...good for you.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > 15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface and it is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. More goes in at the bottom than leaves at the top, by measurement.
> ...



Are you arguing the amount of 15 micron radiation emitted by the surface? Or the amount of 15 micron radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere? Both are measured amounts. 

The difference is the amount of energy that we have to account for. It cannot just disappear. Where does it go? Be specific.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian it doesn't matter whether CO2 absorbs the 145 micron radiation or not...if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..the bottom line is that IR radiation can not, does not, and will not warm the air...the evidence is overwhelming no matter what your models say...when that much evidence says that it doesn't happen, the only rational thing to do is discount the model because clearly, it is wrong.

And talking about energy moving through the atmosphere as if we have a handle on how energy moves through the atmosphere is just one more example of you not being able to differentiate between what is real and what is not...What is real is that we are just barely scratching the surface as to how energy moves through the system...the fact that you can't account for it is irrelevant...IR does not heat the air.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
.if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..the bottom line is that IR radiation can not, does not, and will not warm the air..
*
Ummmm....if it's passed on via collision, that warms the air.
Do you even read what you type before you hit post?


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..



If it reemits the photon that photon is either captured by another nearby CO2 molecule,  or possibly it makes its way back to the surface. Either way it cannot escape to space. 

You must account for it somehow. It doesn't just disappear.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> “*Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.*”


Your quote from an 1872 report from the Smithsonian Inst. has a sentence that immediately follows your quote:
*There are, however, certain rays, comparatively few in number, emitted by the copper, to which the carbonic acid is impervious; and could we obtain a source of heat emitting such rays only, we should find carbonic acid more opaque than any other gas to the radiation from that source.*

It is well known that N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, but "carbonic acid" was said to be impervious and more opaque than any other gas to certain rays. (most likely the 15 micron band etc.) 

As IanC says, it just doesn't disappear if it's opaque. You better look up the first law of thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...if it does then it is either immediately emitted or passed on via collision..
> ...



If it is absorbed by another molecule then again it is reemitted...in either case, infrared can not warm the air...as I have said to you over and over, the very idea of adding a substance that increases the emissivity of a thing causing it to warm is one of the stupidest claims ever made by science...IR does not, can not, will not warm the air...mountains of empirical evidence bear this out and yet, because the empirical evidence doesn't jibe with your belief, you disregard it as if it didn't exist.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > “*Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.*”
> ...



All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...but then emits them..Predictably, you failed to grasp the point of the most important statement there even though it was explained...adding absorbers to the air also means adding emitters to the air..adding CO2 to the air increases its emissivity...increasing emissivity makes it more able to cool itself...increasing the emissivity of a thing does not make it warmer.. 

Do you never tire of being wrong?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


SSDD: "All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...*but then emits them*."
Please quote where he says CO2 *then emits them*. He didn't say that. 

You forgot to respond where you think the energy goes when he says that carbonic acid is extremely opaque.


----------



## IanC (Jan 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You keep making nonsensical claims, without explaining them. And then declare some sort of victory.

You infer that increased emmisivity will cause a substance to cool. Could be true or could be false. It depends on the local conditions.

For CO2 near the surface it is false. The surface is warmer and produces more 15 micron radiation than the CO2 can at it's lower temperature. Use your S-B equation for this wavelength. 

At greater height, and a much cooler temperature, the 15 micron radiation can escape to space. The conditions have changed. Now the stored energy in the atmosphere is being transformed into 15 micron radiation and lost to space, causing cooling.

Your blanket statement is incomplete and leads to a contradiction. We are more concerned with the surface/air boundary conditions where your statement is false. You have 'proven' nothing other than your context free binary thinking is often incorrect.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD: "All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...*but then emits them*."
> Please quote where he says CO2 *then emits them*. He didn't say that.



I keep thinking that you have bottomed out on the stupid meter...but you just keep dropping don't you...he said that they emit quite clearly.

*“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them....."*

How much more clear can a statement be?



Wuwei said:


> You forgot to respond where you think the energy goes when he says that carbonic acid is extremely opaque.



No..I didn't forget.. I thought that you might be bright enough to understand the statements...guess I was wrong...by opaque, he means that the molecules absorb in certain bands...but then goes on to describe that if a molecule is an efficient absorber, it is also an efficient emitter....geez guy, this is very basic stuff...

Let me guess....you thought that CO2 absorbed energy and held on to it....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2018)

IanC said:


> You infer that increased emmisivity will cause a substance to cool. Could be true or could be false. It depends on the local conditions.



OK ian...describe a situation where you increase the emissivity of an object and that increased emissivity results in it becoming warmer.

and what we are concerned with ian, is whether or not infrared radiation can warm the air...it can't...and that being an observed, measured fact, renders your belief that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming moot.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD: "All he is saying is that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths...*but then emits them*."
> ...



You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.



CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy.  Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie  magic.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.
> ...


Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?


The sun shines into the ocean.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?
> ...




That's fucking hilarious!  Tell us again about "Settled science" and 97% Consensus


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air?  Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems?  Is that what you are saying bucky?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?
> ...



Exactly the sort of brilliant (not) reply one would expect from you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air?
*
That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
My thermostat agrees.
Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air? Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems? Is that what you are saying bucky?


This is what you don't get, bucky.

The radiant heater in my house glows red hot - the visible range; around 1000 degrees. The amount of 15 micron IR is very small for that heater compared with the visible red and near IR. Simply look at the Boltzmann distribution for 1000 degrees you will see that it gets vanishingly small at around 15 microns. Only a vanishingly small amount of the heaters energy is absorbed by the CO2 in air. The Engineers are correct for red hot heaters. That heat will hit walls and warm the air by conduction or convection.

In discussing climate, the earth average is 15 C. That's where CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation and is opaque as Tyndall found out. Engineers never said anything about earth temperatures.

You are conflating two different areas of heat transfer - emission at red hot temperatures with emission at ambient earth temperatures.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?
> ...



Incomplete. The Sun directly warms the ocean. A warmer atmosphere impairs the ocean's ability to shed energy. 

So is it the Sun which hasn't changed, or the atmosphere which has changed, that 'heats' the ocean?




... obviously it is the high quality energy from the Sun. Low quality IR can't 'do' much of anything, except be a placeholder in an energy budget.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So that's why window manufacturer have double glazed CO2 windows.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So you're saying we're getting higher quality energy from the Sun and that's the heat that trapped in the ocean.

"This new learning amazes me"


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I agree. Frank was only interested in a protracted argument. I decided to only answer his question on the mechanism that makes the transfer possible in a snide remark.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You didn't have an answer. You can stop pretending.

You can't possibly explain how "excess heat" moves from the atmosphere to get trapped in the ocean.

Do you agree that we're getting "higher quality" energy from the Sun.  Did we finally get through to customer service and tell them, "Stop sending us this low quality crap!!"


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I think the word you were looking for is 'baffled'. As in, "Any explanation, no matter how simple, left Frank baffled".


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Of course! 

It is one of his tactics for arguing. He makes a purposely stupid response to imply that the question or answer is also stupid, and not really worthy of any discussion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

Can't answer the question, so double down and look worse by mocking the questioner.

OK.

Good Plan.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can't answer the question, so double down and look worse by mocking the questioner.
> 
> OK.
> 
> Good Plan.


Now he is doing the troll type response of mockery in an attempt to shame the person who doesn't want to bother with him.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.


Why don't you read it yourself? You have a distorted belief in the simplest aspects of thermodynamics, and that makes the whole dialog pointless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.
> ...



You couldn't find an answer at IPCC5 either.  I feel your pain


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They use Argon, not CO2


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Ok. So what?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You couldn't find an answer at IPCC5 either. I feel your pain


I have never read any IPCC document and I don't intend to. I am not a chicken-little warmer. But when people here use trash thermodynamics to try to make a point then I will challenge them. Physics says CO2 and other GHGs do have an effect on climate, but I'm not going to take a stance on how large that effect is, nor whether or when anyone should panic.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
> My thermostat agrees.
> Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?



Of course you are being fooled by your thermometer...being a solid object, the radiant heat in your house warms the thermometer..but it doesn't warm the air...perfect example of being fooled by instrumentation...the thermometer is accurate, you just don't know what the hell it is measuring.

My bet, however is that you don't even have radiant heat...pure radiant heaters are rarely used in homes..you mostly find them over the french fry bin in restaurants...they keep the food warm without heating up the air....if you have a radiant heater in your home, then it probably has a fan which blows air across the hot element in which case, your air is being warmed via conduction....not radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> This is what you don't get, bucky.
> 
> The radiant heater in my house glows red hot - the visible range; around 1000 degrees. The amount of 15 micron IR is very small for that heater compared with the visible red and near IR. Simply look at the Boltzmann distribution for 1000 degrees you will see that it gets vanishingly small at around 15 microns. Only a vanishingly small amount of the heaters energy is absorbed by the CO2 in air. The Engineers are correct for red hot heaters. That heat will hit walls and warm the air by conduction or convection.



Here is what you aren't getting bucky...same as toddster...if you have a radiant heater in your home, it has a fan which blows air across that hot element...conduction is why the air in the room gets warm...not radiation.  You mostly only see true radiant heaters with no fan in restaurant settings...above the fry bin...over the pies etc...they keep the food warm without warming the air...

So you are wrong again...congratuations to you bucky..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You couldn't find an answer at IPCC5 either. I feel your pain
> ...



Challenge them with what?  Your religious fervor?  Certainly not your knowledge of thermodynamics...you have proven over and over that you don't have any...want to tell me again how you have a pure radiant heater in your home with no fan and yours happens to be the only place in the known universe where radiant heat warms the air?


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.



You have asked this question at least a hundred times. 

Do you really expect an answer? Are you really being serious? I don't think so.

Have you ever paid any any attention to an answer? I don't think so.

Wuwei told you how it got there. I told you how it got 'trapped'. Did you thank us for responding to your question? I don't think so.

Have you ever tried to answer your poorly worded question yourself? I don't think so.

Why haven't you quoted the relevant AR5 section. What do you mean by 'trapped'? What do you mean by 'excess heat'? Would it matter if the amount was 10% instead of 90%, or is the general mechanism and direction enough?

This is obviously a burning question in your mind. Have you tried to understand it by relating it to any or many of the topics that have been discussed here?

Or are you just being a dick?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2018)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.
> ...


All you had to say was that you didnt read IPCC 5.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I have read certain parts of the AR5. The parts that I thought would have pertinent information on a question I had. I have also gone back to their referenced papers that they laid out their position from. I am probably most familiar with AR4, but I have read parts of all of them.

What parts have you read? Do you not understand this part that you keep asking about or do you just disagree with it?

Most likely you have not read it, don't understand it, and just like the idea of dismissing it with stupid questions that you don't really want an answer to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
> ...



*...being a solid object, the radiant heat in your house warms the thermometer..but it doesn't warm the air...
*
Ummmm....the thermostat measures the temperature of the air in my house.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Here is what you aren't getting bucky...same as toddster...if you have a radiant heater in your home, it has a fan which blows air across that hot element...conduction is why the air in the room gets warm...not radiation. You mostly only see true radiant heaters with no fan in restaurant settings...above the fry bin...over the pies etc...they keep the food warm without warming the air...
> 
> So you are wrong again...congratuations to you bucky..


1. You are wrong again bucky. My radiant heater has no fan, but it does have a reflector behind the coils. But that is just another distraction of yours. 
2. You have again avoided the entire post that radiant heat from the sun and from the earth are in two different realms. The engineer is only interested in the visible light radiation which is not absorbed by earth gases. We are talking about radiation at earth ambient where GHGs do absorb IR. 
3. Do you understand the difference, bucky?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Challenge them with what? Your religious fervor? Certainly not your knowledge of thermodynamics...you have proven over and over that you don't have any...want to tell me again how you have a pure radiant heater in your home with no fan and yours happens to be the only place in the known universe where radiant heat warms the air?


My gosh you didn't comprehend my post! I already said a heater glowing red does not significantly warm the air. Reread my previous post, #1475, more carefully for the difference between visible and micron radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> 1. You are wrong again bucky. My radiant heater has no fan, but it does have a reflector behind the coils. But that is just another distraction of yours.



Then your radiant heater is not warming the air...sorry guy, but it just isn't and reflecting it doesn't make it warm the air either.



Wuwei said:


> 2. You have again avoided the entire post that radiant heat from the sun and from the earth are in two different realms.



So are you now claiming that global warming is caused by short wave coming in from the sun?  



Wuwei said:


> The engineer is only interested in the visible light radiation which is not absorbed by earth gases. We are talking about radiation at earth ambient where GHGs do absorb IR.
> 3. Do you understand the difference, bucky?



You are a f'ing idiot...do you believe the IR coming from your radiant heater is visible light?  Why would an engineer working specifically on radiant heat systems be interested in visible light?   

IR does not warm the air...experiment proves i and millions of hours of commercial application prove it.  Sorry that reality doesn't jibe with your faith.  Reality rarely does mesh well with faith.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Challenge them with what? Your religious fervor? Certainly not your knowledge of thermodynamics...you have proven over and over that you don't have any...want to tell me again how you have a pure radiant heater in your home with no fan and yours happens to be the only place in the known universe where radiant heat warms the air?
> ...



You get more stupid every time you speak...you think that because you can see the element glow that you are only dealing with visible light?  Is there no limit to how stupid you can be?

We are talking about infrared radiation...IR does not warm the air no matter how badly you mangle the topic, you are not going to get to the point where IR warms the atmosphere...doesn't happen.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Then your radiant heater is not warming the air...sorry guy, but it just isn't and reflecting it doesn't make it warm the air either.



Right. It doesn't warm the air. Just the walls and me.



SSDD said:


> So are you now claiming that global warming is caused by short wave coming in from the sun?



Nope, you are way off base.
Red hot radiators (visible) really warm us when we get out of the shower don't they. They don't warm the air though. Their black body radiation curve doesn't have much 15 micron component compared to the rest of the EM of the radiator.
Radiators like the earth (invisible IR radiation) at an average of 59F don't warm us that much when we get out of the shower, do they. But their 15 micron band does get absorbed by the CO2 in the air doesn't it.



SSDD said:


> You are a f'ing idiot...do you believe the IR coming from your radiant heater is visible light? Why would an engineer working specifically on radiant heat systems be interested in visible light?
> 
> IR does not warm the air...experiment proves i and millions of hours of commercial application prove it. Sorry that reality doesn't jibe with your faith. Reality rarely does mesh well with faith.



You seem to be visibly upset again. That's because you didn't read my post carefully. 

Well, my radiant heater is visible deep red. Isn't yours visible?
The engineer would be alarmed if an installed heater wasn't visible red wouldn't he. It would be broken.

And again as I said more than once, I agree that heaters that are so hot to be visible don't really directly warm the air - too little 15 micron component for CO2 absorption.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You get more stupid every time you speak...you think that because you can see the element glow that you are only dealing with visible light? Is there no limit to how stupid you can be?


You still don't understand what I said. Maybe it's because you are so angry that you see red (pun intended). When did I say hot glowing red was only visible. I didn't. I told you to look at the Maxwell Boltzmann curve. You probably didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have flown off the handle.



SSDD said:


> We are talking about infrared radiation...IR does not warm the air no matter how badly you mangle the topic, you are not going to get to the point where IR warms the atmosphere...doesn't happen.



The shorter wavelengths of a red hot heater does not warm the air significantly.
The longer wavelengths from a room temperature surface are absorbed by CO2 quite significantly. Tyndall saw that in an experiment over a century ago. Where do you think that absorbed energy went?

When  people respond with such anger and start making stuff up, it usually means they are lacking ideas for a response, or they are just trolling.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Right. It doesn't warm the air. Just the walls and me.



And any other solid object in the room.



Wuwei said:


> Red hot radiators (visible) really warm us when we get out of the shower don't they. They don't warm the air though. Their black body radiation curve doesn't have much 15 micron component compared to the rest of the EM of the radiator.
> Radiators like the earth (invisible IR radiation) at an average of 59F don't warm us that much when we get out of the shower, do they. But their 15 micron band does get absorbed by the CO2 in the air doesn't it.['quote]
> 
> It doesn't matter what wavelength of IR it has...IR does not warm the air.
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And any other solid object in the room.


Right.


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

I think SSDD said this, but he screwed up the quote function, again-



> . And you believe that visible light is warming you? You are so far off base that you may never grasp the topic.



Is SSDD saying visible light doesn't warm your skin? Or is he saying that the wavelengths below the visible components of the IR heater are more efficient at warming your skin? 

Who knows. He never explains his claims. When asked for clarification he just ignores the criticisms and changes the subject.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> I think SSDD said this, but he screwed up the quote function, again-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah yes, he screws up in many ways. I think he knows what "red hot" means as far as the radiation spectrum, but was consciously trying to misinterpret what I said so that he could substitute something silly and pretend to chastise me for his mischievous little fabrication. That is a trick that a lot of trolls use.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> I think SSDD said this, but he screwed up the quote function, again-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The topic is IR...and IR does not, can not, and never will warm the air...


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2018)

N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.

Without GHGs the only energy inputs would be from the Sun and conduction from the surface. The only energy output would be thermal diffusion back to the surface.

The atmosphere would store energy in daylight and reduce the temperature increase as the surface 'chases' equilibrium. At night it would give up stored energy and reduce surface cooling as it chases equilibrium in the opposite direction.

The only input is the Sun, the only output is the surface radiation and reflected sunshine.

The solar insolation could support a surface maximum of 340w of radiation if all the input reached the surface and was converted to outgoing IR. It doesn't, almost a third is reflected at some point.

So why does the Earth's surface maintain an average temperature of that radiates at almost 400w?

Do you think GHGs might have anything to do with it? Those who think the greenhouse effect has no ability to warm the Earth and atmosphere need to step up with an explanation for this discrepancy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.



But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.



IanC said:


> So why does the Earth's surface maintain an average temperature of that radiates at almost 400w?



gravito thermal effect...



IanC said:


> Do you think GHGs might have anything to do with it? Those who think the greenhouse effect has no ability to warm the Earth and atmosphere need to step up with an explanation for this discrepancy.



IR can not warm the air so so called ghg's other than water vapor have nothing at all to do with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.
> ...



*But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.
*
You're right, that's one way IR warms the atmosphere.
*
IR can not warm the air so so called ghg's other than water vapor have nothing at all to do with it.
*
You're right, IR absorbed by water vapor also warms the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.
> *
> You're right, that's one way IR warms the atmosphere.



That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere and convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're right, IR absorbed by water vapor also warms the atmosphere.



And the issue isn't water vapor either...the claim is that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming..it isn't.   And water vapor provides warming because it actually retains the energy it absorbs...CO2 absorbs and either immediately emits the energy it absorbed, or loses that energy via collision which again, is conduction, not IR.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.
> ...



A non-GHG atmosphere of O2 and N2 can only store and release energy via conduction at the surface/air boundary. There is no loss to space because it cannot convert stored energy into IR radiation, nor can it absorb surface emitted IR. There is only one pathway in and out.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So why does the Earth's surface maintain an average temperature of that radiates at almost 400w?
> ...



Loschmidt's gravito thermal effect says that there will be a temperature gradient that matches the gravity gradient.

Boltzmann, using the second law of thermodynamics said there should be no gradient.

The mathematics for both positions appear to be correct. The controversy lives on to this day.

That said, the gravito thermal effect has no power to explain why the surface is able to maintain a radiation output that is greater than the solar input.

Perhaps you would like to explain?[/QUOTE]


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think GHGs might have anything to do with it? Those who think the greenhouse effect has no ability to warm the Earth and atmosphere need to step up with an explanation for this discrepancy.
> ...



This is yet another area were you make mutually exclusive claims.

You have no difficulty understanding how GHGs can convert stored energy into radiation, which will cool the atmosphere if it escapes to space.

One the other hand you say that GHGs that absorb radiation and convert it into stored energy do not warm the atmosphere.

Both directions are equally valid.

But both directions are not equal.

The amount of energy put into storage in the lower atmosphere is greater than the amount of energy taken out of storage in the higher atmosphere. The surface is much warmer and produces more radiation than the higher and cooler atmosphere where the energy escapes.

The difference between these two amounts is the energy that must take the surface/air conduction pathway out of the atmosphere.

This recycled energy is an addition input to the surface. The surface is receiving energy from the Sun plus energy from the atmosphere. That is why the surface can maintain a radiating level that is higher that what would be expected with just the Sun's input.

A couple of additional notes to head off arguments about perpetual motion, etc.

At equilibrium the Sun's input is matched by the Earth system output. While the surface may radiate at 400w, not all of it escapes.

The energy required to raise the temperature of the surface and atmosphere is not 'created' energy, it is borrowed energy that did not escape to space as the system moved towards equilibrium. If the Sun stopped shining the Earth would continue to radiate until this borrowed energy was paid back.

While energy inputs and outputs are equal, entropy has increased by transforming high quality solar insolation into low quality IR. This is where the impetus comes from to make the recycling mechanism operate.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.
> ...


It`s futile to debate with somebody who adds the 2 temperatures of 2 masses and comes up with a higher temperature. He says he is not doing it because first he (StB) derives the energy from the temperature which he  adds and  then converts it back to temperature


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*It`s futile to debate with somebody who adds the 2 temperatures of 2 masses and comes up with a higher temperature.
*
I agree, SSDD's ice cube "thought experiment" was ridiculous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.
> ...


*
That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere
*
Molecular collision is convection?

*convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
*
I've never seen anyone claim it was.

*And the issue isn't water vapor either..
*
If water vapor can absorb IR emitted by the surface, thereby warming the atmosphere, it certainly is an issue.

*.the claim is that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming..
*
Does some IR that would otherwise instantly escape into space, instead get absorbed by CO2?
After CO2 absorbs that IR, is the CO2 warmer than before? 
Does some CO2 transfer that added energy to O2 or N2 molecules?
Does such added energy equate to warmer O2 or N2?
*
And water vapor provides warming because it actually retains the energy it absorbs.
*
Does it ever emit IR?

*..CO2 absorbs and either immediately emits the energy it absorbed, or loses that energy via collision which again, is conduction, not IR
*
Warming caused by the conversion of IR absorption into kinetic energy doesn't count as warming?
Even though the collision warmed the target gas?


----------



## sedwin (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I identified where the graphics came from....But here are the links to the pages...You sure are a f'ing whining milquetoast baby, aren't you...Since you claim to be thoroughly versed in the "science" of climate change...I would have thought you could identify simple graphics...and not become a whining baby over the sources..
> 
> Here is a link to the page from the University of Washington...
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you want to discuss and frankly who "warmers" are?  You have identified a mechanism in Natural Science.  Do you have a question or argument to make because that's what's lacking in this post.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere and convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.



The media does a poor job by giving over simplified explanations for the greenhouse effect. This is compounded by climate science not giving laymen easily accessible explanations that are more in-depth.







Is this a realist representation of what happens near the surface or at height in the atmosphere? No. But it does illustrate the concept that CO2 can absorb and can emit. Saying that 15 micron radiation from the surface is absorbed and reemited in a random direction is not specifically true in all cases but the actual effect is very nearly true. Adding the alternate pathways due to molecular collision, etc is far more complicated and most people aren't interested in anything complicated.

Now you are splitting hairs by saying the energy absorbed by CO2 isn't measurable as 'heat' until it has been thermalized by molecular collision. But it IS thermalized by molecular collision! 

That energy can only leave the atmosphere by conduction at the boundary into the surface, by radiation into the surface, or by radiation to space. You can pick any of those choices but you can't say it disappears with no effect.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Poor terminology...in an atmosphere where there are no radiative gasses...greenhouse is a misnomer since there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> Loschmidt's gravito thermal effect says that there will be a temperature gradient that matches the gravity gradient.
> 
> Boltzmann, using the second law of thermodynamics said there should be no gradient.
> 
> The mathematics for both positions appear to be correct. The controversy lives on to this day.



Boatsman was wrong...Graeff has demonstrated temperature gradients in columns of air.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

The water cycle of evaporation, convection and release of latent heat during precipitation is a very efficient way of moving energy away from the surface and into the atmosphere. Once it is into the atmosphere, you are again left with three choices of getting rid of it. Conduction back to the surface, radiation to the surface, or radiation to space. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the liquid and ice phases of water have the ability to produce a bigger variety of radiation than water vapour. Clouds are somewhat like a second surface, although they radiate both up and down


----------



## sedwin (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


When discussing Science I like to side with the actual scientists who are expert in that field.  In this case 95% hold a certain view based upon their expert knowledge of this specific scientific process.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> This is yet another area were you make mutually exclusive claims.
> 
> You have no difficulty understanding how GHGs can convert stored energy into radiation, which will cool the atmosphere if it escapes to space.
> 
> One the other hand you say that GHGs that absorb radiation and convert it into stored energy do not warm the atmosphere.



the only gas known to man that absorbs, and retains energy at the atmospheric temperatures on earth is water vapor.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2018)

sedwin said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I identified where the graphics came from....But here are the links to the pages...You sure are a f'ing whining milquetoast baby, aren't you...Since you claim to be thoroughly versed in the "science" of climate change...I would have thought you could identify simple graphics...and not become a whining baby over the sources..
> ...



I was pointing out that the claimed mechanism for a greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science is flawed...terribly terribly flawed.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Loschmidt's gravito thermal effect says that there will be a temperature gradient that matches the gravity gradient.
> ...




I tend to agree with you there. There is also a lapse rate in most layers of the atmosphere.

I disagree with Loschmidt that there is an infinite supply of energy that could be tapped by harnessing the gradient because you would lose the energy bringing it back down the gravity gradient. I certainly could be wrong though. Entropy is a bitch but it can sometimes be harnessed.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So you would prefer me to use the term 'radiative gases' rather than GHGs?

Hmm....no.

Do you agree that an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gases (hahahaha, just this one time) cannot lose its energy except through conduction at the boundary? If you disagree, how else does it shed energy? Be specific.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This is yet another area were you make mutually exclusive claims.
> ...



It looks like I posted my answer just before you asked the question.


----------



## sedwin (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


How exactly?  CO2 goes into the atmosphere and then comes down to be absorbed by natural "sinks" like forests or the ocean.  Scientists can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and it keeps increasing every year for decades due to the fact that the oceans and what's left of forests are overtaxed.  Too much CO2 not enough "sinks" left to absorb it.  This makes sense.  We have cut down much of our forests killing that natural "sink."  This puts our system in an imbalance.  This coupled with the fact that we dig up oil/coal (ancient carbon locked in the soil from ancient sources) and put this additional carbon from millions of years ago back into our current system.  Yet another source causing an imbalance.

The fact is, more and more, carbon is staying in the atmosphere.  This is a measurable fact regardless of the well established mechanism.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2018)

sedwin said:


> How exactly?  CO2 goes into the atmosphere and then comes down to be absorbed by natural "sinks" like forests or the ocean.  Scientists can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and it keeps increasing every year for decades due to the fact that the oceans and what's left of forests are overtaxed.  Too much CO2 not enough "sinks" left to absorb it.  This makes sense.  We have cut down much of our forests killing that natural "sink."  This puts our system in an imbalance.  This coupled with the fact that we dig up oil/coal (ancient carbon locked in the soil from ancient sources) and put this additional carbon from millions of years ago back into our current system.  Yet another source causing an imbalance.



First, look back in history...at 400ppm,  the atmosphere is literally starved for CO2 relative to history.  Second, ice ages, even the one the earth is presently exiting began with atmospheric CO2 near 1000ppm.  Third, atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm with no run away global warming.

Forth, and most important, there is not a single bit of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  You are assuming that CO2 does something beyond feed plants when there isn't the first piece of evidence that it does.



sedwin said:


> The fact is, more and more, carbon is staying in the atmosphere.  This is a measurable fact regardless of the well established mechanism.



So the earth is exiting an ice age and the atmospheric CO2 levels are beginning to return to their pre ice age levels...what exactly do you find surprising about that?  And what is it about this increase that scares you.  The scientific literature has the climate sensitivity to CO2 steadily trending towards zero where it belongs..what is it about CO2 that scares you so badly?


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> Do you agree that an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gases (hahahaha, just this one time) cannot lose its energy except through conduction at the boundary? If you disagree, how else does it shed energy? Be specific



This is an important point, and I wish you would address it.

N2 and O2 have emissivities approaching zero in the IR bands. That means they can neither absorb not emit IR. How can they shed their energy except through the surface/air boundary by conduction?

N2 and O2 do absorb some solar insolation at visible and UV bands. The low temperature of the atmosphere precludes these molecules from actually producing visible or UV radiation from the available thermal energy, so any absorbed solar is either reemited in a random direction (scattered), or transformed into a different form by molecular collision which warms the air. This solar warming must exit to the surface by conduction. There is no other pathway without GHGs.

Is the surface warmer than it would have been if all the solar insolation reached the surface? No, if you only consider the daytime temps that are lower because of the loss of scattered radiation. Yes, if you only consider the stored energy available to reduce the temperature decrease at night. Overall the average temperature is warmer because the two extremes have been reduced.


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The scientific literature has the climate sensitivity to CO2 steadily trending towards zero where it belongs..what is it about CO2 that scares you so badly?




The climate sensitivity is trending towards a positive value of around 1C/2xCO2.

It is an asymptote approaching a value. Not a linear trend that crosses the y axis and continues to ever increasing negative values.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you agree that an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gases (hahahaha, just this one time) cannot lose its energy except through conduction at the boundary? If you disagree, how else does it shed energy? Be specific
> ...



I hardly think it is proper to say that O2 and N2 absorb "some" energy from the surface.  If the air were still, then you could say "some"  but since the atmosphere is constantly moving, O2 and N2 take up a great deal of energy via conduction...which is then moved on up to the top of the troposphere where it is moved on out of the atmosphere via radiation when the molecules become far enough apart to allow radiation to be the primary method of energy movement.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> The climate sensitivity is trending towards a positive value of around 1C/2xCO2.



No ian...it is not...the value has already dropped below half a degree according to quite a few papers and observation tells us that it is zero or less.


----------



## IanC (Jan 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



????

We were talking about an atmosphere without GHGs. Therefore no shedding of energy via IR emission. Most of the energy going into the non-GHG atmosphere would come from conduction at the surface boundary but all that left would have to go back to the surface.

No convection from the water cycle. Only fluffing up during the day as energy was stored in the gravity field, followed by a contraction at night as the energy was returned to the surface. 

All the radiation loss to space would come from the surface, except for the minor loss from scattering of UV and visible solar insolation in the atmosphere.

Why do you think there would be a troposphere, and how would it radiate without radiative gases?


----------



## IanC (Jan 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The climate sensitivity is trending towards a positive value of around 1C/2xCO2.
> ...








Yes, they are dropping. But they are converging to a limit value. Probably 1.1 or 1.2 for transient, and slightly higher for equilibrium. Don't let the linear lines fool you into thinking that the values will continue to drop indefinitely over time, and cross the x axis into negative territory.

It is interesting that although the climate sensitivities have dropped over the last decade, the amount of warming predicted for 2100 has not. At least in the media. When was the last time you heard a story saying thing are better than we thought?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2018)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> We were talking about an atmosphere without GHGs. Therefore no shedding of energy via IR emission. Most of the energy going into the non-GHG atmosphere would come from conduction at the surface boundary but all that left would have to go back to the surface.



Ian...if you want to know what a planet without greenhouse gasses is like, there are several you can refer to in the solar system...and they have temperatures, remarkably similar to earth at the point in their atmospheres where the pressure is 1 bar...your hypotheses fail again and again when you compare them to actual observation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2018)

IanC said:


> Yes, they are dropping. But they are converging to a limit value. Probably 1.1 or 1.2 for transient, and slightly higher for equilibrium. Don't let the linear lines fool you into thinking that the values will continue to drop indefinitely over time, and cross the x axis into negative territory.



They are trending towards zero or less is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2.  



IanC said:


> It is interesting that although the climate sensitivities have dropped over the last decade, the amount of warming predicted for 2100 has not. At least in the media. When was the last time you heard a story saying thing are better than we thought?



that would be due to politics co-opting science...the climate debate is no longer about science but political power...observation and all the empirical evidence says that there is no man made cliamte change and CO2 does not have any effect whatsoever on the cliamte...and now that the money trough is drying up, perhaps we can get on to zero or less at a more reasonable pace and move on to some actual science...


----------



## IanC (Feb 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> They are trending towards zero or less is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2.



Show some of these estimates that are negative. The only person I have heard that says increased CO2 causes cooling is you. And you wouldn't explain your reasoning.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > They are trending towards zero or less is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2.
> ...




Which part of the addition of radiative gasses to the atmosphere increases its emissivity do you find so hard to understand?  There is your explanation..  

Now ever scientific text I have ever read says that when you increase the emissivity of a thing, that thing cools more efficiently...never once have I read that increasing the emissivity of a thing helps it warm, or causes any sort of warming...and when I asked you what other circumstance might cause a thing to warm when its emissivity is increased you had no answer...apparently only the magical properties of CO2 can result in both increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere and warming the atmosphere..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Well, since good emitters are also good absorbers, derp........





A Good Absorber is a Good  Emitter


----------



## IanC (Feb 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Now ever scientific text I have ever read says that when you increase the emissivity of a thing, that thing cools more efficiently...never once have I read that increasing the emissivity of a thing helps it warm, or causes any sort of warming...



I accused you of selective vision. If a coin flip comes up heads, you point and cheer 'I win!'. If it comes up tails you say 'What coin? I don't see any coin'. 

This is a perfect example. You have no problem accepting the fact that CO2 radiates energy to space at high altitude but you refuse to acknowledge that CO2 absorbs energy near the surface.


The surface is a near blackbody. It absorbs most wavelengths of radiation. But it can only emit wavelengths that can be produced according to its temperature, a wide range of IR.

The atmosphere is not even close to being a blackbody. Its emmisivity is limited to certain bands of radiation. Some wavelengths are strongly absorbed, some wavelengths do not interact. The emmisivity must be calculated on a wavelength by wavelength basis. 

We can choose three representative wavelengths. 15 microns for CO2, 10 microns for direct escape to space, and 7 microns for water vapour. 

At 15 microns all surface radiation is absorbed and only a fraction is lost to space and the rest returns to the surface. At 10 microns all surface radiation escapes directly to space. At 7 microns only a fraction escapes and the rest returns to the surface.

The energy returning to the surface does not 'keep' its wavelength, it is divided up into the same proportions of 15, 10, and 7 microns. Every loop through the system loses all the 10 micron radiation and only a fraction of the 15 and 7 micron radiation. Most of the energy loss is in the 10 micron band.

Do I really need to show the satellite data which show that 10 micron radiation leaves the Earth system at the surface temperature, and that 15 and 7 micron radiation leaves at a higher and cooler temperature?

Only radiation that actually leaves the Earth system can cause cooling. Simply moving energy from one location to another, from one form to another, does not cause cooling. 

SSDD, you say absorption and emission do not cause warming. Okay, whatever. But the important point is that it doesn't cause cooling if the emission doesn't escape to space. You are just hiding the energy in a spot that you don't see or acknowledge.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> This is a perfect example. You have no problem accepting the fact that CO2 radiates energy to space at high altitude but you refuse to acknowledge that CO2 absorbs energy near the surface.



And here you go making up arguments for me again...  When did I ever refuse to acknowledge that CO2 absorbs energy near the surface?  Answer...never.  But once again, absorption and emission do not equal warming.  If you believe they do, then lets see some actual observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link  between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

Your hypothesis is a failure on its face...sad that you can't accept reality over models.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.


You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.
> ...


So you should easily be able to test for changes in temperature given 10ppm changes in CO2, no?

Where's that elusive lab work??


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.
> ...



Both are true..neither equates to infrared radiation warming the air...but if you believe it does, then lab results demonstrating the fact should exist in great quantity...lets see them.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They don't need no steenkin lab work..their faith is strong and apparently that is enough for them.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So you think energy transfered to an air molecule via conduction is not adding energy to the atmosphere as heat? That means you don't understand what heat is.


----------



## IanC (Feb 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And here you go making up arguments for me again... When did I ever refuse to acknowledge that CO2 absorbs energy near the surface? Answer...never. But once again, absorption and emission do not equal warming




Do you acknowledge that the only radiation that causes cooling is radiation that escapes to space?

Moving energy around between the atmosphere and surface, between having it stored as radiation or kinetic/potential does not cause cooling.

Tell me where the surplus radiates from. Tell me what substance, what height and what temperature the radiation comes from that closes the energy budget. I don't need exact numbers, just the basic mechanism.

So far I think I have established that radiative gases absorb more energy than they give off to space. If you disagree then tell me how a cooler substance can give off more radiation than a warmer one.

The energy moved by latent heat and convection from the surface to higher in the atmosphere has the same limitations. Less energy is lost because it is cooler where the condensation takes place, PLUS only part of the radiation is released in the direction of space.

Where and what is this new source of cooling that everyone else besides you has overlooked?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> So you think energy transfered to an air molecule via conduction is not adding energy to the atmosphere as heat? That means you don't understand what heat is.



Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> Do you acknowledge that the only radiation that causes cooling is radiation that escapes to space?



No.,.what sort of idiot would think that.  Radiation leaving the surface certainly results in a cooler surface temperature...but that radiation leaving the surface, does not warm the atmosphere...the energy warms the atmosphere via conduction when it is lost via collision to other molecules.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face..it has failed via observation...it has failed via measurement...it has failed via prediction...how long are you going to drag your intellectual tthrough the sewer trying to defend it?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....
> 
> Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?


If a CO2 molecule excited by IR strikes an air molecule. That is the energy path of conduction of IR energy to air. If you don't understand that you don't understand what heat is.

I see you are frustrated because you lost an argument, and return to ranting. Ranting by you generally means you have run out of valid ideas.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....
> ...



Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about. 

Conduction, by definition is not radiation.  Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...

IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you acknowledge that the only radiation that causes cooling is radiation that escapes to space?
> ...



Every day the Sun adds a certain amount of energy to the Earth and its associated Atmosphere. Every day the Earth and atmosphere lose a certain amount of energy to space via radiation. If those amounts are not balanced then heating or cooling ensues.

You appear to be assuming that any energy transferred to the atmosphere simply finds a way to escape via radiation. It does not.

Any radiation produced by the atmosphere is only a fraction of the energy inputted by radiation from the surface. The surface is warmer than the atmosphere that radiates to space. The surplus is stored in the atmosphere which warms as a result.

Obviously the atmosphere cannot continue to warm indefinitely, so where does this energy go? It goes back to the surface by conduction. 

When solar insolation warms the surface during daylight hours there are three main pathways for this new energy to leave the surface. Radiation, conduction and convection via the water cycle.

Radiation causes cooling but some of the energy warms the atmosphere. Conduction causes no cooling and only warms the atmosphere. Convection warms the atmosphere but some of the energy escapes as radiation and causes cooling.

At night, the surface cools much faster than the atmosphere because it is a Blackbody and the atmosphere is not. The atmosphere gives up some of its stored energy to the surface by conduction because its temperature is dropping more slowly than the surface temperature.

Every day the cycle repeats for a location. The Sun actively heats the surface, which in turn heats the atmosphere. Followed by surface cooling and a return of stored energy from the atmosphere.

If there were no GHGs present, especially water vapour, the atmosphere would only  receive energy by conduction and would store a much smaller amount of energy. The non-GHG atmosphere would not radiate any IR, not cause any cooling.

But the atmosphere does have GHGs, it has stored energy and become warmer. It is a source of energy to the surface over and above just the solar input. It allows the surface to maintain a temperature above what only solar insolation could support.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Conduction is one of three pathways that warm the air. It is also the main pathway for stored energy to return to the surface.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Conduction, by definition is not radiation. Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...
> 
> IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.


More ranting from you I see. Are you trying to hide the fact that you don't understand, or that you are trolling, or both.

What you don't understand is that transfer of energy from IR to CO2 and from CO2 to air via collision is a two step process - an indirect process. You are ignoring one of the steps.

Your reply ignores the fact that CO2 in an excited state can transfer energy to the air by conduction. 

Do you believe that CO2 in an internal excited state cannot transfer energy to an air molecule?


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.
> ...



He only ignores it going from excited CO2 to the air in the lower atmospere.

He is quite happy to acknowledge that the air can excite a CO2 molecule in the higher atmosphere to produce radiation that escapes to space and causes cooling.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> He only ignores it going from excited CO2 to the air in the lower atmospere.
> 
> He is quite happy to acknowledge that the air can excite a CO2 molecule in the higher atmosphere to produce radiation that escapes to space and causes cooling.


Directional bias in isotropic atomic processes seems to be his game. First with photons, and now collisions.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > He only ignores it going from excited CO2 to the air in the lower atmospere.
> ...




Yes. But he may also be confused about how time is involved.

For example, the CO2 in the upper atmosphere COULD get rid of the energy absorbed from the surface IF it was given time to catch up. But both processes are happening at the same time. There is no catching up. 

SSDD sees the absorption at lower height to be equal to emission at higher altitude. He assumes all the energy gets out. That is why he endlessly repeats ''absorption and emission doesn't equal warming'. He just doesn't get that the two amounts are unequal, and that the difference must travel out of the atmosphere by a different pathway or be stored (which causes warming).


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> Yes. But he may also be confused about how time is involved.
> 
> For example, the CO2 in the upper atmosphere COULD get rid of the energy absorbed from the surface IF it was given time to catch up. But both processes are happening at the same time. There is no catching up.
> 
> SSDD sees the absorption at lower height to be equal to emission at higher altitude. He assumes all the energy gets out. That is why he endlessly repeats ''absorption and emission doesn't equal warming'. He just doesn't get that the two amounts are unequal, and that the difference must travel out of the atmosphere by a different pathway or be stored (which causes warming).


Yes, also left unexplained is that the earth is radiating about 400 W/m^2 while it is inputing only about 160 from the sun. If all that 400 escapes, the earth would cool way down until it is also radiating 160.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So now you are claiming back conduction and back convection as well as back radiation?  You are laughable ian...absolutely laughable.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.
> ...



Afraid that it is you who doesn't get it...if the CO2 molecule emits a theoretical photon, then it is radiation we are talking about...if it loses the energy via collision, then it is conduction...

Bottom line...IR can not warm the air...  the air is warmed via conduction.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Unlike radiation, which can and does flow in multiple directions unimpeded, conduction only flows in one direction at a time. That does not mean that it always flows in the same direction. Energy from the atmosphere travels back to the surface every day by conduction.

Likewise, release of latent heat does not always occur at altitude, anytime you see frost forming part of the released energy is going into the surface. Or condensation.

The surface cools faster than the air. As soon as the surface temperature is cooler than the air temperature, conduction reverses direction.

Measured 'surface temperatures' are a misnomer. They are actually air temperatures taken in an enclosure at 1.5 metres. The actual surface is much more volatile, with larger swings in temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> Unlike radiation, which can and does flow in multiple directions unimpeded, conduction only flows in one direction at a time. That does not mean that it always flows in the same direction. Energy from the atmosphere travels back to the surface every day by conduction.



Energy does not move spontaneously, by any means, from cool to warm...sorry ian.  Don't like it...get the 2nd law of thermodynamics changed to say that sometimes, some amount of energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. But he may also be confused about how time is involved.
> ...



The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live.  It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam....and you are ignoring the oceans entirely which hold a vast store of energy..orders of magnitude more than the atmosphere..and we are mostly ignorant of what changes have happened in the deep oceans over the past 150 years, and are just becoming aware of how much energy is being delivered to them via volcanic activity.

Your model is bullshit.   How about you go and find some actual evidence that there is a radiative greenhouse effect.  It should be easy to demonstrate.  Lets see how much heating or cooling result from changing the concentration of CO2 up and down over a body of water...and show the changes in increments of 0.000001.  With all the billions upon billions that have been flushed down the drain on this scam, surely someone bothered to check.  Wonder how far the results are buried to assure that no one ever sees them?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....
> ...



Lab work?


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Energy does not move spontaneously, by any means, from cool to warm...sorry ian. Don't like it...get the 2nd law of thermodynamics changed to say that sometimes, some amount of energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm



Here is yet another example of how you only see one side of the coin.

There are two 'modes' of energy transfer. I think of them as ''passive' or 'active'.

Passive is when both objects are cooling. The objects slow the cooling of the other by reducing the area of exposure to the cold environment. There is a special case where initially the warm object can overwhelm the cooling of the cool object but that initial condition is soon superceded by cooling of both objects on their journey towards absolute zero.

The second mode is active. When there is an outside source of energy being added to an object, that object will warm up until its radiation matches the input from the outside source. The temperature will then stay constant as long as the input continues.

The Earth has an active source of energy but it is both variable, and intermittent for any single location on the Earth.

SSDD only uses the rules for passive cooling, and ignores the rules for active heating. The active heating is what creates the temperature differences and gradients in the first place.


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There is a vast amount of lab work done on atmospheric radiative physics. Much of it done before the current fad of doomsday CAGW.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...if the CO2 molecule emits a theoretical photon, then it is radiation we are talking about...if it loses the energy via collision, then it is conduction...
> 
> Bottom line...IR can not warm the air... the air is warmed via conduction.


Yes, I can agree with that.

You have agreed with these facts:
1. IR can strike and excite CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

Whether you realize it or not, you are describing a two stage process that occurs in the atmosphere, where the end result is that IR striking a CO2 molecule eventually turns into heat via conduction.

In short whether you realize it or not you are agreeing that IR from the earth can result in a warmer atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...



The average 162 W/m^2 is a number that comes from easily measurable data.

What do you think the average input from the sun is if not 162?


----------



## IanC (Feb 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...
> ...



I think the average should only include total solar minus albedo. 340-100=240.

The energy absorbed by the atmosphere is still connected to the surface via conduction.

That still leaves a considerable deficit at the surface to be explained. Even more if you include the 100 being moved into the atmosphere by thermals and the water cycle.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I was using the number from Trenberth's diagram. I won't argue the point. The number depends on cloud cover etc, as you say. I'm sure there are a lot of estimates that differ from Trenberth's.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 8, 2018)

Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused. 
Solar irradiance - Wikipedia
Average annual solar radiation arriving at the *top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2*.[24] The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass through the atmosphere, leaving maximum normal surface irradiance at approximately *1000 W /m2 at sea level *on a clear day. When 1361 W/m2 is arriving above the atmosphere (when the sun is at the zenith in a cloudless sky),* direct sun is about 1050 W/m2, *and global radiation on a horizontal surface at *ground level is about 1120 W/m2.*[25] The latter figure includes radiation scattered or reemitted by atmosphere and surroundings.




The 1360 Watts/m^2 is the* integral *of the Watts\m^2\nanometer of the yellow portion (top of atmosphere)
and of the 1360 Watts/m^2 only 1050 Watts/m^2 make it to the surface.
The 1360  value for m^2  is the steradian and they converted that to a flat surface m^2 equivalent and averaged it for a *horizontal *surface as it would be at zenith.
What matters is that only  77 % makes it through the atmosphere going from the top down to the surface.
All the arguments are what happens at *15 micrometers which would be 15 000 nanometers, *
Instead of 23 % absorption the absorption at that wavelength is 100% *were it not for the CO2.*




*The CO2 cuts both ways ! *The warmers choose to look only at the amount of energy it blocks from radiating up and out and for good reason have no interest how much energy coming from the sun between 14 and 16 micrometers is blocked from heating the surface due to CO2. 
The spectral radiance for 6000 deg K is 0.902 Watts/(sr nm m^2) ..down dwelling and blocked.
And for 300 K  0.0066 Watts/(sr nm m^2) blocked from radiating up.
The amount which is blocked going down dwarfs the portion which is blocked from going up at the spectral band from 14 to 16 micrometers and that`s why the only temperature that increases with CO2 is that in the computer models and not the real world.
Have a nice day!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.
> ...


CO2 does not warm so your conduction theory is wrong.  The energy residency time of CO2 is less than 0.002ns Thus the energy does not reside in the molecule to warm it. It is expelled almost immediately. This is why they were counting on water vapor to warm faster and hold the energy that it can not trap.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



* The energy residency time of CO2 is less than 0.002ns Thus the energy does not reside in the molecule to warm it. It is expelled almost immediately. 
*
Where does it go next?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.
> 
> ....... of the 1360 Watts/m^2 only 1050 Watts/m^2 make it to the surface.
> The 1360 value for m^2 is the steradian and they converted that to a flat surface m^2 equivalent and averaged it for a *horizontal *surface as it would be at zenith.



I don't think we are obviously confused.

The value you give of 1050 W/m^2 is for the zenith, as you say, or at noon at the equator. The whole earth is not seeing noon. The average W/m^2 is given by the total sun's watts hitting the earth divided by the area of the entire earth. 

The dark side is not receiving any radiation, so that is equivalent to dividing the radiation by 2. Secondly, because of Lambert's cosine law, the parts of the earth near the poles or east and west of the zenith receive less radiation than the zenith. If you integrate over the exposed surface to the sun using the cosine law, you drop the average by another factor of 2. 

So a total drop of a factor of 4 from your 1050 is 262 W/m^2. That is more in line with IanC's value.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> There are two 'modes' of energy transfer. I think of them as ''passive' or 'active'.



Doesn't matter...energy can not spontaneously move from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> There is a vast amount of lab work done on atmospheric radiative physics. Much of it done before the current fad of doomsday CAGW.



Really?  So lets see the lab work that demonstrates how much warming or cooling happens in a body of water by changing the concentration of so called greenhouse gasses in the air above it.  Increments of 0.0001 should be fine.  

So how much warming or cooling when the concentrations are changed?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, I can agree with that.



So then you agree that there is no radiative greenhouse effect since IR radiation can not warm the air...and the radiative greenhouse effect is based upon the claim that IR can, in fact warm the air.



Wuwei said:


> You have agreed with these facts:
> 1. IR can strike and excite CO2.



In rare instances the CO2 molecule has time to become excited and radiate that energy...in the vast majority of times, the CO2 loses the energy via collision with some other molecule.



Wuwei said:


> 2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.



I have never said otherwise.



Wuwei said:


> Whether you realize it or not, you are describing a two stage process that occurs in the atmosphere, where the end result is that IR striking a CO2 molecule eventually turns into heat via conduction.]/quote]
> 
> I know that is what you wish..and in your knowledge deprived brain, I believe that you actually believe it...unfortunately, the fact is that conduction and convection rule energy movement through the troposphere...therefore, there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...
> ...



At the top of the atmosphere, the solar input is about 1300 wm2.   You realize that there is a reason that they stick to the average number when numbers closer to the actual energy striking the earth could just as easily be used don't you?  Any guesses as to why?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



trenberths cartoon is a joke.  A bigger joke, in fact, than even manns hockey stick.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.
> ...



And you really believe that energy moves within the system and the dynamics that effect that movement would be the same on a planet that received 161 wm2 across its entire face all the time as the planet that we actually live upon?  You believe the only difference would be the actual amount of energy striking the surface?  You believe that 161 wm2 is enough energy to power the dynamic and chaotic system in which we actually live?  Is that what you actually believe?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I can agree with that.
> ...


[/QUOTE]
Well, it still looks like you agree that IR can warm the air via CO2 absorbing and transferring energy to the air.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The sun input is not 1300 W/m^2 over the entire earth at any single time. You have to do the math to find the average.

Nobody, scientist or otherwise, has ever said that the sun is modeled as _"4 times further away"_  Do you understand the inverse square law? Your model would put the sun's input at 1/16 the zenith value. Nobody thinks that. You aren't doing the math correctly.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And you really believe that energy moves within the system and the dynamics that effect that movement would be the same on a planet that received 161 wm2 across its entire face all the time as the planet that we actually live upon? You believe the only difference would be the actual amount of energy striking the surface? You believe that 161 wm2 is enough energy to power the dynamic and chaotic system in which we actually live? Is that what you actually believe?


No.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There are two 'modes' of energy transfer. I think of them as ''passive' or 'active'.
> ...


*
energy can not spontaneously move from cool to warm. 
*
Energy moves from the Sun's surface toward the hotter corona because of work? Excellent!

Thanks for playing.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.
> Solar irradiance - Wikipedia
> Average annual solar radiation arriving at the *top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2*.[24] The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass through the atmosphere, leaving maximum normal surface irradiance at approximately *1000 W /m2 at sea level *on a clear day. When 1361 W/m2 is arriving above the atmosphere (when the sun is at the zenith in a cloudless sky),* direct sun is about 1050 W/m2, *and global radiation on a horizontal surface at *ground level is about 1120 W/m2.*[25] The latter figure includes radiation scattered or reemitted by atmosphere and surroundings.
> 
> ...




No one ever said that the atmosphere didn't absorb some of the solar insolation.

No one ever denied that some of the solar insolation was in the IR range. But it is such a tiny fraction so it is reasonably ignored as a stand alone factor.

The line-of-sight disk of Earth sweeps up a MAXIMUM of 1361/4 solar insolation. As you have pointed out, angle of incidence and other reflective factors diminish the amount of insolation that is actually absorbed.

The insolation is also unevenly distributed because the Earth is a rotating globe rather than a flat disk constantly aimed at the Sun. This causes further inefficiencies that would reduce the average surface temperature.

So I am a bit confused. Are you arguing that the average solar insolation and albedo estimates result in a number that is too high because it doesn't include other losses?

I think 340 insolation less 100 albedo give us a reasonable starting point for input into the terrestrial system.

Even if the full 240 reached the surface, it couldn't support a 400 radiating surface. That means GHGs must be redirecting at the very minimum of 160 out of the 400 surface output back to the surface. In reality it is much more.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There is a vast amount of lab work done on atmospheric radiative physics. Much of it done before the current fad of doomsday CAGW.
> ...




You yourself pointed out the lab work when you referenced that American Thinker article.

It gave multiple instances of actual measurements compared to modelled predictions. They were amazingly similar. I don't remember any r^2 values being given but they certainly would have been well over 0.9.

Modtran and other similar products are available for you to get a very accurate estimate for the parameters you are calling for. The results have been validated for conditions that have actually occurred. The farther away from known scenarios, the less certainty for the results.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere is 1361 w/m2 for one moment of time in a 24 hour cycle. Half of the time it is receiving nothing, the other half it is receiving a fraction of the input. The average input is 340.

For the terrestrial system to warm or cool, there must be an imbalance of total input minus total output.

Within the terrestrial system you can have a wide variety of energy flows, and a wide range of temperatures along the pathways of energy flow.

If you disrupt one of those flows in a way that changes the balance of the terrestrial system, it will increase or decrease the amount of stored energy until balance is restored.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




In a roundabout fashion you are making a good point.

Any interval spent away from the average temperature means the average temperature will be lower.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Well, it still looks like you agree that IR can warm the air via CO2 absorbing and transferring energy to the air.



You truly are an idiot...energy can warm the air via conduction...IR can not warm the air at all...there is no radiative greenhouse effect.  It is truly unfortunate that you can't grasp the difference between IR and conduction....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> You yourself pointed out the lab work when you referenced that American Thinker article.



The american thinker article pointed out that outgoing LW had not changed since the 1970's even though atmospheric CO2 had increased quite a bit.

tell me ian...are you with wuwei in the belief that IR can warm the air via conduction?  Interesting that you wouldn't correct your sycophant when he makes such an idiotic claim.  Imagine..infrared warming anything via conduction...you buy that?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it still looks like you agree that IR can warm the air via CO2 absorbing and transferring energy to the air.
> ...


You are the one that said that IR can excite CO2 by absorbing IR and transferring the excited state energy to the air via conduction. I'm simply agreeing with you.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You yourself pointed out the lab work when you referenced that American Thinker article.
> ...



Do I really have to re post the graphs? They not only show more radiation leaving through the Atmospheric Window but they show a decrease in the small portion of the CO2 wing that is present on the graph. They also show the amazing accuracy of the theoretically produced results compared to measured data.

And yes, I agree with Wuwei about IR passing along absorbed radiation energy by 'conduction', as long as we are defining conduction to include thermal diffusion by molecular collision.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the difference between energy transfer via radiation and energy transfer via conduction...if the energy is transferring, and moving through the troposphere via conduction, then there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

It is interesting to watch how desperately you guys hang on to your failed beliefs though,


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I was simply saying that I agree with you about how heat is transfered - from IR to CO2 to air. 

If you say that these are failed beliefs, you don't really mean "you guys" failed, you mean that all scientists and science has failed over the last 100 years. That's quite an interesting thought, that you know more than all of science knows.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Another molecule and it has only a 4/10,000,000 of being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.  Which means it has to hit a molecule that has a longer residency time, like water vapor, which actually warms it slightly and rises as it now cools before it is released to space at a much longer wave length that CO2 is helpless to prevent escape.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 10, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Another molecule and it has only a 4/10,000,000 of being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.  
*
You might want to recheck your math.
Any links you can provide explaining your "covailent bond" theory of photon repulsion would be appreciated.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.
> ...


You missed the whole point (*as usual*). Who cares what the "average" is when including the dark side and the polar regions. If you care so much about it in order to correct the models then you should correct the figures for the up going IR watts/m^2 for these regions also. But no...not only do the warmers prefer to conflate it all as an average they also conflate the entire spectral band for the so called average temperature, because it conveniently conceals the fact that the IR outside the 14 to 16 micrometer band does not matter because none of that is specific to ppm CO2. You just don`t like the fact that the CO2 blocks way more down dwelling heat in that window as preventing heat from radiating up. But none of that will matter to the likes of you because none of you will ever concede that the models are wrong. By now even people least interested in math have noticed that *all *the models *always erred* on the *high side*.  And since there is no desire to correct this flaw degrades the whole thing to nothing more than a hoax.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2018)

polarbear said:


> You missed the whole point (*as usual*). Who cares what the "average" is when including the dark side and the polar regions. If you care so much about it in order to correct the models then you should correct the figures for the up going IR watts/m^2 for these regions also. But no...not only do the warmers prefer to conflate it all as an average they also conflate the entire spectral band for the so called average temperature, because it conveniently conceals the fact that the IR outside the 14 to 16 micrometer band does not matter because none of that is specific to ppm CO2. You just don`t like the fact that the CO2 blocks way more down dwelling heat in that window as preventing heat from radiating up. But none of that will matter to the likes of you because none of you will ever concede that the models are wrong. By now even people least interested in math have noticed that *all *the models *always erred* on the *high side*. And since there is no desire to correct this flaw degrades the whole thing to nothing more than a hoax.



You missed the whole point. A model like Trenberth's is not meant to predict anything. It is not meant to model differences between night and day; or differences between equatorial and arctic regions. 

It is an energy budget. That's all. What are the gross energy flows - the sun input, conduction, albedo reflections, back radiation, etc. Some numbers are accurate, but most are educated guesses. 

You should not be aiming your wrath at me. I am not a chicken little warmer and I think the dynamics of the atmosphere are too complex to model with any degree of accuracy for the present, let alone the future. I simply don't like the fantasy science from people like SSDD and his minions. I take no stance about what the future climate holds. If deniers want to deny, they should at least stick to reality. Aim your wrath at someone else.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2018)

And it is a piss poor energy budget...it is upon that cartoon that the models are based...and the primary reason the models have failed so spectacularly...when you base a physical model upon a terribly flawed understanding of physics, failure is the only outcome and the climate models have provided failure in spades.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...when you base a physical model upon a terribly flawed understanding of physics, failure is the only outcome...


That is exactly your problem.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...when you base a physical model upon a terribly flawed understanding of physics, failure is the only outcome...
> ...



Sorry guy...it isn't me making fundamental errors at every turn..You don't seem to grasp the ramifications of conduction being the main energy pathway to the upper atmosphere...conduction being a slower, more cumbersome means of energy transport than radiation is responsible for warming...radiation, on the other hand, moves energy at the speed of light...more radiative gasses like CO2 in the atmosphere results in more energy being transported to the upper atmosphere via radiation...being the more rapid means of energy movement, the result would be a cooler atmosphere...more radiative gasses, more energy moving via radiation as opposed to conduction....cooler...not warmer.

It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...it isn't me making fundamental errors at every turn..You don't seem to grasp the ramifications of conduction being the main energy pathway to the upper atmosphere...conduction being a slower, more cumbersome means of energy transport than radiation is responsible for warming...radiation, on the other hand, moves energy at the speed of light...more radiative gasses like CO2 in the atmosphere results in more energy being transported to the upper atmosphere via radiation...being the more rapid means of energy movement, the result would be a cooler atmosphere...more radiative gasses, more energy moving via radiation as opposed to conduction....cooler...not warmer.
> 
> It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.


I was referring to your inability to understand the basics of radiation physics.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.



Increasing the emmisivity of the atmosphere allows it to radiate energy to space but it also allows it to absorb energy from the surface.

The surface is warmer than the air that radiates to space. Therefore more energy is gained than expelled, resulting in warming.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There are two 'modes' of energy transfer. I think of them as ''passive' or 'active'.
> ...



Half of the terrestrial day sees the surface gaining energy from an outside source. It is not acting 'spontaneously' during that period.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I was referring to your inability to understand the basics of radiation physics.



I understand radiative physics just fine...I don't accept your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...You appear to be saying that because I don't have the same faith in the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable as you...then I just don't understand...  I understand that you believe that people who don't share your faith must be wrong...is that about the size of it?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.
> ...



It absorbs and emits...IR does not warm the air...the only thing in the air that it can warm is water vapor.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Of course it is...what work do you think is being done to make the surface emit IR?  What work is being done to force what smalll amount of energy emitted as IR by so called greenhouse gasses move towards the warmer surface?  You can move energy from cool to warm..but you have to do work to make it happen...what work is being done to make it happen?


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



In what way is the absorption of IR different in water vapour than CO2?

How does water vapour warm but CO2 doesn't. Describe the mechanism.


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I don't think the transfer of energy by radiation is classified as 'work'.

Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.

The temperature difference between the surface and the CO2 molecules a few metres away is small. Therefore the amount of 15 micron radiation will be small. Much smaller than if the radiation was transmitted directly to the muchly colder temperature of space. 

How do you reconcile the large difference in the amount of energy lost from the surface?

The temperature of the surface is a function of both the amount of surface input from the Sun minus the surface output of IR. If you reduce the 15 micron output from the surface, how can it not cause surface to warm to a higher temperature when the Sun is shining on it?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

IanC said:


> Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.



Nothing "bizarre" about it ian...that is what the equation describing the exchange of energy outside a vacuum states.






T^4 being the temperature of the radiator  Tc^4 being the temperature of its surroundings.  Alter the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P (the amount of radiation being emitted) changes.  Bizarre, and just plain incapable of reading an equation is believing that the equation says anything else.

You claim it describes net energy flow but there is no expression there from which to derive net energy flow...you claim net energy flow is real, but can't seem to show any actual evidence of such an energy flow...you believe that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that it can't.  Your beliefs are bizarre ian.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face...why do you continue to defend it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.
> ...



You ever provide any sources that explicitly back up your "one-way flow" theory?
It feels like you've been making that claim for years......and you're still alone. Weird.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....then there is every observation and measurement ever made...but do feel free to provide an observed, measured example of two way energy flow if you like...

we both know no such example will be forthcoming since there are none....but you will go to the corona of the sun which remains a mystery but the work required to move the energy from the surface to the corona is becoming understood....spontaneous is the key word...do try and remember.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....
*
I can read an equation. The equation doesn't say one way flow.
Neither does anything else. Your faith is touching, and apparently singular. Weird.

*then there is every observation and measurement ever made...
*
Of course there have been many examples of 2 way flow provided. Flow of radiation from cooler to warmer.
CMB is one of the most famous. How did that "cool energy" get permission to flow toward our hot atmosphere
in order to hit the radio telescope used by Penzias and Wilson?

*we both know no such example will be forthcoming since there are none
*
Still no back up for your claim, since there is none.

*but you will go to the corona of the sun which remains a mystery 
*
I'm not interested in the "mystery of the corona".
I am interested in the non-spontaneous flow from the cool surface.
Still waiting for your explanation.

*but the work required to move the energy from the surface to the corona is becoming understood
*
By all means, share your understanding.


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.
> ...



You are missing the point. I am going along with your bizarre interpretation and showing the implications.

Because the surface 15 micron radiation is controlled by the temperature of the CO2 that is absorbing it, very little is produced.

What is the difference in temperature between the surface and the temperature of the air where the exchange takes place in the first few metres? A few degrees?

If CO2 wasn't there then the radiation would directly escape to space at almost full power. 

Hey, I'm just trying to play by your rules. And your rules say CO2 makes a huge difference in how much 15 micron energy the surface can produce, and cool with.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....
> *
> I can read an equation. The equation doesn't say one way flow.
> Neither does anything else. Your faith is touching, and apparently singular. Weird.



Of course it does...it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....which expression in that equation do you think describes the output of the surroundings to the radiator relative to the energy being received from the radiator?  

*then there is every observation and measurement ever made...
*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course there have been many examples of 2 way flow provided. Flow of radiation from cooler to warmer.
> CMB is one of the most famous. How did that "cool energy" get permission to flow toward our hot atmosphere
> in order to hit the radio telescope used by Penzias and Wilson?



been through that till it is pointless to go though it further...CMB was first detected via a resonant radio frequency...if you want to detect the actual CMB IR radiation, you must have an instrument cooled to less than 2.75K...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> You are missing the point. I am going along with your bizarre interpretation and showing the implications.



I have no bizarre interpretation...I am simply stating what the equation says...you on the other hand are interpreting it to be describing net energy flow when it clearly is not...and you will go so far as to perform perfectly shitty math by pointlessly applying the distributive property to a reduced equation as if that would change the physical reality that the first equation already described...you are the one who is interpreting and altering equations in an attempt to make your magic real ian..not me.   I am satisfied with what the equation says and feel no need to interpret anything.




IanC said:


> If CO2 wasn't there then the radiation would directly escape to space at almost full power.



It escapes directly to space anyway ian...if it passes through the CO2 molecule without being lost via collision, it goes on to space in essentially the same amount of time...that being, the speed of light...if it is radiated, it is radiated towards a cooler area...not back towards the ground.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....
> ...


*
Of course it does..
*
Says no one but you. As illustrated by your failure to post scientists who agree.
No one says one way flow but you. Weird.

*it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings
*
No one says matter has a dimmer switch. Except you. Weird.

*been through that till it is pointless to go though it further...CMB was first detected via a resonant radio frequency...
*
Of course. The radio receiver detected a signal that didn't hit the receiver.
One of your stranger solo theories. And that's saying a lot.
Anyone else ever mention "resonant radio frequency" when discussing CMB?
*
if you want to detect the actual CMB IR radiation, you must have an instrument cooled to less than 2.75K.
*
Ahhh....the old, "If I can't detect something, it doesn't exist"

Almost as good as "the waves don't travel toward the surface unless an instrument is cooled, then, suddenly, magically, the emitter, as much as light years away, knows the waves can now travel toward the instrument", even though the violations of causality are mind-blowing.


----------



## IanC (Feb 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It escapes directly to space anyway ian...if it passes through the CO2 molecule without being lost via collision, it goes on to space in essentially the same amount of time...that being, the speed of light...if it is radiated, it is radiated towards a cooler area...not back towards the ground.



You say the surface can only emit the amount of radiation commensurate with the temperature of the receiving object.

For radiation that is simply transmitted through the atmosphere without interacting, that is the temperature of space. Full production leaving at the speed of light.

For radiation that is absorbed by CO2 within the first few metres of the surface, the temperature difference is only a few degrees. Very little radiation is produced. That small amount is held in the CO2 molecules for a fraction of a second before it is passed along to the next CO2 molecule, but the higher molecule is cooler so less radiation is produced. This continues on, step after step, until the last CO2 finally emits into space and the energy is lost.

How many steps? The mean free path at STP is about 2 metres, the density goes down as the height increases so let's assume every step doubles. The emission height for CO2 is about 10 kilometres. About 13 doublings. I have seen various estimates for how long a CO2 hold on to the photon before it emits, from a full second to a hundredth of a second. So let's say the step by step journey takes about a second plus the actual time to cover 10km at 300,000km/sec.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> You say the surface can only emit the amount of radiation commensurate with the temperature of the receiving object.



When did I ever say that ian...you build these elaborate and quite ridiculous arguments in response to things I never said...I have said that energy moves from warm to cool....nothing more...nothing less.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.
> ...



LOL

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and  CO2 does not. It is incapable of warming as the energy is immediately released and does not reside long enough to warm it.

Conduction from other warmer molecules, in collision, is how CO2 warms itself.  IE: Why there is no hot spot in the troposphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not.
*
CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique? 
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute. The energy does not reside long enough to create change.

Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR... Here is why certain molecules out of phase can not absorb LWIR. This is from a quantum mechanics class.





This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy and reflect it. Notably a colder object will vibrate less and have fewer dipole moments where energy can be received or released. Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one. CO2 is almost constantly in a DPM (but not constant) and will not vibrate or stretch, which is why it can not hold energy. H2O is almost always in DPM but its torsional vibrations and streaching hold energy much longer than CO2.





Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

I don't expect anyone here to have even a basic grasp of the concepts on a quantum level.


Source


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute. 
*
So why isn't it all dry ice?
*
The energy does not reside long enough to create change.
*
That makes no sense. For however long it "resides" it caused change.

*Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR.
*
No I didn't. Go back and read my post.

And plenty of molecules don't absorb LWIR.

*This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy 
*
The photon is the "wrong magnetic pole" to be absorbed by warmer matter? Link?

*Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one. 
*
Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?
*
Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons"
*
SSDD makes the silly claims, I merely point out their silliness.

* when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..*​
The physical attributes of 10 C matter are causing it to refuse to radiate toward 20 C matter?​


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*"So why isn't it all dry ice?"  *

Because LWIR is not the only thing it comes in contact with..

*"That makes no sense. For however long it "resides" it caused change." *

Your conflating 'change' with energy usage.. In the case of CO2 energy in = energy out  Thus the net change is zero..

*"The photon is the "wrong magnetic pole" to be absorbed by warmer matter?"* 

Its not the pole, its the sate of the molecule, outside of DPM the molecule can not receive or emit the energy.

*"The physical attributes of 10 C matter are causing it to refuse to radiate toward 20 C matter?" * 

I did not say it would not radiate towards, what I did say is the energy contained and frequency with which it radiates is so low as to not have any influence.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
> Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?



Of course it doesn't.....neither do any of the other so called greenhouse gasses except for water vapor...that is why I routinely ask for some actual evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...got any?  Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?



Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself.  Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum.  Here....let me help you.






Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P =  65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P =  92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P =  107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..



Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...they don't seem to grasp that they obey the laws of physics because there is no option....obeying the laws of physics is not an option...the laws of physics don't dictate what objects must do, the laws of physics simply describe what is going to happen every single time because of the nature of the objects themselves.  if their nature were different, then they would behave differently and the laws of physics would predict that behavior as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
Because LWIR is not the only thing it comes in contact with..
*
So much for your claim that it can't "hold onto energy".
*
Your conflating 'change' with energy usage..
*
Nope. 
*
I did not say it would not radiate towards
*
Is this your only area of disagreement with SSDD?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
> ...


*
Of course it doesn't.
*
So dry ice.....of course.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?
> ...



*If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts
*
Dimmer switch!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..
> ...



*Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...
*
SB and the 2nd Law don't require smart objects, your misinterpretation does.......


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?
> ...



Power is the net radiation per the defined area, in that equation. The distributive law makes it simple to calculate the gross radiation coming from each object. Subtracting one from the other gives the net amount.


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming



Absorption and emission do not equal cooling. Is that what you are trying to say? Hahahaha.

According to your logic GHGs can neither warm nor cool the atmosphere. Utter nonsense.

And you still haven't explained how water vapour can absorb and retain radiation energy in a way that CO2 cannot.


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why do you say that? Would you care to explain?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings.  The greater the differential the faster the release..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings.
*
Yup, it's a dimmer switch.

So how does the emitter know the temperature of the surroundings?
You know, so it can adjust the rate.......


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


All matter vibrates according to its temperature.

Its not that hard to figure out..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*All matter vibrates according to its temperature.
*
How does the emitter measure the vibration of the target?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Does dry ice form at atmospheric temperautres and pressures?  How many times have I pointed out that none of the so called greenhouse gasses can hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and pressures?  Now, can you provide any evidence that absorption and emission of IR by a gas results in warming in the atmosphere?  Of course you can't.....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The equation above accurately predicts how much radiation an emitter will put out given the temperature of its surroundings...I accept that number...you must apply some interpretation in order to make it jibe with your beliefs...I accept the number,,,that is not interpretation....you only accept the number with caveats'.  That is interpretation.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Net is an interpretation...net is a caveat'...net is not what the equation says....nor is it supported by observation or measurement.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming
> ...



Of course they can't...with the exception of water vapor...as I have said...IR does not warm the air.  Radiation is a more efficient means of cooling than conduction...radiative gasses increase the emissivity of the atmosphere allowing it to shed energy more efficiently...resulting in cooling.

And I am surprised and disappointed that you don't know how water vapor manages to hold on to energy till such time as it is in the upper atmosphere.  Water vapor absorbs energy when it changes phases.....it holds that energy till such time as it changes phases again...in this case, the upper atmosphere when it changes to ice crystals...at that time it releases exactly as much energy as it took to change it from water to water vapor...that energy then radiates on into space.  How could you not know such a simple thing ian?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Does dry ice form at atmospheric temperautres and pressures?
*
CO2 never holds onto energy.......I read it on USMB.

Are you claiming it can hold enough energy long enough to be a gas at atmospheric temperatures and pressures?

*Now, can you provide any evidence that absorption and emission of IR by a gas results in warming in the atmosphere?
*
If a gas absorbs IR, like you claim, that IR isn't instantly escaping into space.
Anything else I can do to increase your understanding, let me know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The equation above accurately predicts how much radiation an emitter will put
*
Does the equation say what it "puts out" or what it loses?
I've never seen anyone claim matter above 0 K ever stops emitting, except you. Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The equation above accurately predicts how much radiation an emitter will put out given the temperature of its surroundings...I accept that number...you must apply some interpretation in order to make it jibe with your beliefs...I accept the number,,,that is not interpretation....you only accept the number with caveats'. That is interpretation.


No, it's the other way around. Let me remind you again how the SB law acquired it's subtracted form.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

Quantitatively,

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . . . . . (1)

where Rₑ is the rate at which energy is emitted per unit area, ε is called the emissivity (a number between 0 and 1 depending on the material of which the object is made and on the temperature), σ is Stefan's constant (= 5.67 x 10-8 watts/m² K⁴ ) and T₁ is the Kelvin temperature of the body. Equation (1) was first suggested by Josef Stefan and is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The rate of absorption also depends on the nature of the object and on the temperature of its surroundings,

Rₐ =εσT₂⁴, . . . . . (2)

where Rₐ is the rate at which energy is absorbed per unit area and T₂ is the Kelvin temperature of the surroundings. Thus

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) . . . . . (3)


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2018)

Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.



Still waiting for you to find a university teaching one-way only flow of radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.


That is pretty darn silly. A justification for back radiation? The SB law was published in 1879. Stefan wasn't claiming back radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me remind you of how easy it is to find a university teaching the bastardized version of the SB law in an attempt to justify the bullshit claim of back radiation.
> ...



And he misses the point again...

That idiotic alteration of the SB formulary applying the distributive property to an already reduced equation in an attempt to create two way energy flow where none exists was not always taught in physics departments...and still isn't in many.

Here are some physics textbooks in use around the world and an indication of whether they teach the bastardized version of the SB equation in an attempt to make spontaneous two way energy flow real.  I will let you guess which ones are in use for physics taught in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, engineering, etc.,  and which are used to teach the soft science of climate.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung: *No*Radiative Heat 

Transfer by Modest: *No*

Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar: *No
*
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis: *No*

An Introduction to Radiative Transfer by Peraiah: *No*

The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen: *Yes*

Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC: *Yes*

Assessing Climate Change by Rapp: *Yes*

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics by Fleagle-Businger: *Yes*


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There you go, shooting yourself in the foot again. I looked at two books and found that not only did they contradict your sense of the "reality" of thermodynamics, but they supported the view of physics that I have been telling you. I didn't look at the other books, but I will review them if you point out excerpts that support your view of one way energy flow, or discard two way equilibrium flow. It is most amazing that you can't even correctly argue your viewpoint, but end up arguing mine. Excerpts of two books follow:

*Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar: *
Excerpt from Preface:
_Karl Schwarzschild introduced in 1906 the concept of radiative equilibrium in stellar atmospheres._​
Chapter XI Section 75
… the stellar atmosphere is in _radiative equilibrium._.. [their italics, not mine.]​
Equation 8 is the usual T⁴ derivation but there is no mention of the subtracted form of the SB equation that I could find.

*Radiative Heat Transfer, M. Modest*
In the introduction to the book:
_All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or raising their molecular energy levels._​
Look at Figure 1.2 It shows simultaneous absorption and emission between surfaces in an enclosure.

There are four chapters dealing with purely *radiative exchange*...
For example, Chapter 4 is titled *Radiative exchange* between gray, diffuse surfaces

.

Conclusion: I have no idea how you even think anymore.


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.

Of course how could it not?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2018)

IanC said:


> Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.
> 
> Of course how could it not?



The funny thing is that I didn't recently ask for references. Tod did four posts ago.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still waiting for you to find a university teaching one-way only flow of radiation.



I suppose Tod is still waiting.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2018)

And the wait continues for a single observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement....got anything yet?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Equation 8 is the usual T⁴ derivation but there is no mention of the subtracted form of the SB equation that I could find.



And you think that proves what?  That 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is an invalid equation?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2018)

IanC said:


> Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.
> 
> Of course how could it not?



Why do you find that you must lie...even when the lie doesn't result in any personal gain for you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.
> ...



Post any links yet that say, explicitly, radiation only flows one way? No? Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Equation 8 is the usual T⁴ derivation but there is no mention of the subtracted form of the SB equation that I could find.
> ...


You are playing dumb Troll again. Nobody here said that equation is invalid. That is a ridiculous presumption. We have posted time and again the correct derivation involving energy emission and absorption of that equation, and you know it. 

I presume you posted those 10 references to support your (incorrect) view of thermodynamics. They did not even come close to supporting you.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Why do you find that you must lie...even when the lie doesn't result in any personal gain for you?


The pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



What you like to post is the equation describing a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum...what you don't like to post is the equation where the radiator is not a black body and not radiating into a vacuum....when there is a difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings, the output starts to change and you don't like trying to deal with that...because all you have in support is a model while reality says an entirely different thing.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you find that you must lie...even when the lie doesn't result in any personal gain for you?
> ...



I don't lie..I don't need to.  The physical laws support my position..observation, and measurement support my position...which is why my argument never changes...reality supports me...all you have is fantasy...and the claim that because other people believe the fantasy with you, that it must be real..you have faith...I have what is real.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, every time SSDD actually gives a link it works against him.
> ...



I am pointing out that my personal observation is that every time you link up a reference it comes back to bite you in the ass. Typically, you take a single statement out of context that could be misconstrued because of ambiguous wording. Then when I read the whole article it disagrees with one or more of your claims. 

Don't let that stop you though. I have found many of your links to be very informative.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> What you like to post is the equation describing a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum...what you don't like to post is the equation where the radiator is not a black body and not radiating into a vacuum....when there is a difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings, the output starts to change and you don't like trying to deal with that...because all you have in support is a model while reality says an entirely different thing.


Your model does not make scientific sense. What I post is the only thing that scientists have found that makes sense:

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission.

Rₐ =εσT₂⁴, , . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption. 

The net rate is the difference;
Rₙₑₜ = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I don't lie..I don't need to. The physical laws support my position..observation, and measurement support my position...which is why my argument never changes...reality supports me...all you have is fantasy...and the claim that because other people believe the fantasy with you, that it must be real..you have faith...I have what is real.


It's the old tired fantasy argument. The fantasy is all on your part. You are the one who has faith in a non-viable argument that doesn't follow reality.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't lie..I don't need to. The physical laws support my position..observation, and measurement support my position...which is why my argument never changes...reality supports me...all you have is fantasy...and the claim that because other people believe the fantasy with you, that it must be real..you have faith...I have what is real.
> ...



You have admitted yourself that we have only observed, and measured one way energy flow from warm to cool...that is reality....energy only moving spontaneously from a more ordered state to a less ordered state is reality....energy moving in the other direction is the fantasy...not the first piece of observed evidence to support it.....bottom line, you believe...you have faith...because you damned sure don't have evidence.  

Since reality...actual observation and measurement align with my position, it is fantasy on your part to even suggest that I am engaged in fantasy.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You have admitted yourself that we have only observed, and measured one way energy flow from warm to cool...that is reality....energy only moving spontaneously from a more ordered state to a less ordered state is reality....energy moving in the other direction is the fantasy...not the first piece of observed evidence to support it.....bottom line, you believe...you have faith...because you damned sure don't have evidence.
> 
> Since reality...actual observation and measurement align with my position, it is fantasy on your part to even suggest that I am engaged in fantasy.



Don't forget these formula show that two way net flow also satisfies net energy only moving spontaneously from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. Of course net energy moving the other direction is a fantasy. 

Emission: Rₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =εσT₂⁴
The net rate:
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) 

These equations also are consistent with atomic physics. One way energy flow is not consistent.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2018)

Sorry guy...bastardized versions of the SB equations are bullshit and only bullshitters use them...they apply unicorn perspiration and fairy dust which has no effect and can not be measured...all you have is faith...same as all other religious zealots.

Want to break out your big book of dogma?...or maybe show me some relics from the founders of your religion?...maybe a hair from Schrodenger's cat stored reverently in a box made from wood from mann's most influential tree in history?

Of course Schrodenger's cat was just a model and has no actual hair, but the fact that it isn't real really means nothing to you does it?  A model hair is as valid as an actual hair....right?

You wuwei...are a top shelf, first class putz...the very idea of trying to argue non reality against reality with a straight face would only occur to someone like you...and you believe your faith is an actual argument...and worse yet, you believe it is valid because others believe along with you.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 22, 2018)

We see the good old bastardized, fairy dust, unicorn, religious, faith, dogma, non-reality argument again.

However, I see you have a new argument: "top shelf, first class putz."

Yes, yes, we heard many times that's what you think of scientists who have confidence in QM.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 25, 2018)

The CERES data speaks for itself..  CO2 is retaining nothing and the atmosphere is cooling.  In fact, as CO2 increases so does the LWIR escape at TOA.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> The CERES data speaks for itself..  CO2 is retaining nothing and the atmosphere is cooling.  In fact, as CO2 increases so does the LWIR escape at TOA.



At this website that explains WHY CO2 fails to stop the increased outflow:

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Excerpt:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space.  That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference.  It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984.  If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear.  The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.  The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."
=========================\

Go in the link for the revealing charts that help explain why CO2 doesn't work as irrationally advertised.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...bastardized versions of the SB equations are bullshit and only bullshitters use them...they apply unicorn perspiration and fairy dust which has no effect and can not be measured...all you have is faith...same as all other religious zealots.
> 
> Want to break out your big book of dogma?...or maybe show me some relics from the founders of your religion?...maybe a hair from Schrodenger's cat stored reverently in a box made from wood from mann's most influential tree in history?
> 
> ...



They keep using the NET energy flow concept while the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer, no mention of net at all..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...bastardized versions of the SB equations are bullshit and only bullshitters use them...they apply unicorn perspiration and fairy dust which has no effect and can not be measured...all you have is faith...same as all other religious zealots.
> ...



* the 2nd law only says only ONE WAY transfer,
*
Where does the 2nd Law mention radiation?


----------



## IanC (Mar 25, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The CERES data speaks for itself..  CO2 is retaining nothing and the atmosphere is cooling.  In fact, as CO2 increases so does the LWIR escape at TOA.
> ...



John's blog, The Inconvenient Skeptic, is linked in the above comment. It is well worth reading. He is a scientist from a different field that pokes holes in AGW theory by using standard scientific methods, using AGW's own data.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It doesn't, but Radiation is nothing more than moving from a source to elsewhere, with energy in it. The Sun radiates spreading energy into the solar system as example.

Thermodynamics discusses how energy moves from one state to another, such as "heat" moves in the atmosphere from the hotter surface to the cooler air on the way out to space by radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


*
It doesn't, but Radiation is nothing more than moving from a source to elsewhere, with energy in it.
*
Right. The 2nd Law doesn't say radiation can only go one way. So why do you think it only goes one way?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes it does, gave you the obvious example, the sun the SOURCE of radiation energy for the solar system, it does in one direction, away from itself in all direction carrying energy with it.

You are getting into semantics here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*Yes it does, gave you the obvious example, the sun the SOURCE of radiation energy for the solar system, it does in one direction, 
*
Are you claiming no radiation is allowed to travel toward the Sun? What stops it?

*You are getting into semantics here.
*
I'm getting into physics here.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The second law speaks to energy...all energy...Are you saying that radiation is not energy?

And if that is what you are saying, then lets put that bit of idiocy to bed right now...radiation is, in fact, energy...and the second law speaks to all energy and says that spontaneously, it only moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...and that is the only direction it moves.  If you want two way energy flow, that is, energy from a less ordered state to move back to a more ordered state, then you must apply work.

NRC: Radiation Basics

"*Radiation is energy *given off by matter in the form of rays or high-speed particles


Radiation - ANS

"*Radiation is energy* that travels as particles or waves and can be naturally occurring or man-made. It is all around us in various forms ranging from radio waves to x-rays to cosmic radiation."

Radiation Basics | US EPA

"*Radiation is energy*. It can come from unstable atoms that undergo radioactive decay, or it can be produced by machines. Radiation travels from its source in the form of energy waves or energized particles. There are different forms of radiation and they have different properties and effects."


Electromagnetic Spectrum - Introduction

"*Radiation is energy *that travels and spreads out as it goes – the visible light that comes from a lamp in your house and the radio waves that come from a radio station are two types of electromagnetic radiation. The other types of EM radiation that make up the electromagnetic spectrum are microwaves, infrared light, ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays."


Understanding Radiation - National Nuclear Regulator

"*Radiation is energy *in motion in the form of waves or streams of particles. There are many kinds of radiation all around us. Sound and visible light are familiar forms of radiation. Other types include ultraviolet radiation, which produces a suntan, infrared radiation, which is a form of heat energy, and radio and television signals."


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The second law speaks to energy...all energy...Are you saying that radiation is not energy?
> 
> And if that is what you are saying, then lets put that bit of idiocy to bed right now...radiation is, in fact, energy...and the second law speaks to all energy and says that spontaneously, it only moves from a more ordered state to a less ordered state...and that is the only direction it moves. If you want two way energy flow, that is, energy from a less ordered state to move back to a more ordered state, then you must apply work.
> 
> ...


What is the point of your post. Tod said the the 2nd law does not mention radiation. That is true. Everyone that is familiar with the 2nd law knows it refers to all energy, not just radiation.
Your post gives redundant definitions of radiation that every high school kid should know. You are not making any point that refutes anything here. It is just a snarky strawman.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


*
 If you want two way energy flow, that is, energy from a less ordered state to move back to a more ordered state, then you must apply work.
*
Where is the work on the Sun's surface?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You can't be serious?

The Suns Radiation are moving away from itself ONE WAY, there is no going back to a more ordered state. It is running down over time as the composition of the Sun changes over time, eventually swelling into a Red Giant and then down to a white dwarf.

From Universe Today
How Does The Sun Produce Energy?

Excerpt:

The simple answer is that the Sun, like all stars, is able to create energy because it is essentially a massive fusion reaction. Scientists believe that this began when a huge cloud of gas and particles (i.e. a nebula) collapsed under the force of its own gravity – which is known as Nebula Theory. This not only created the big ball of light at the center of our Solar System, it also triggered a process whereby hydrogen, collected in the center, began fusing to create solar energy.



"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 26, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*You can't be serious?
*
I can be. Can you?
*
The Suns Radiation are moving away from itself ONE WAY,
*
Awesome! So what prevents radiation from somewhere else moving toward the Sun?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 26, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Does the Sun have a force-field around it, preventing outside radiation from hitting it?
Or is there some other mechanism to guarantee one way only flow of radiation?

Teach me.


----------



## IanC (Mar 26, 2018)

There are two basic regimes for heat transfer, both covered by the second law.

Active heating by a power source, ie the fusion at the centre of the sun. The sun's surface moves towards an equilibrium temperature that radiates away the same amount of energy that is being created inside the core by converting mass into energy.

The second regime is passive cooling. The warm object is radiating energy in an eternal effort to reach absolute zero. Without a power source everything cools. An object cools faster if it is in a cold environment like space, where it is getting back very little radiation. It cools slower if it is in an environment where it is receiving a significant fraction of its radiation back.

The Earth's surface is always radiating in an attempt to cool. During daylight the cooling is overwhelmed by solar insolation and backradiation from the atmosphere. At night, without an external power source, both the surface and atmosphere cool, but at uneven rates.

The surface has a high emmisivity and cools quicker than the atmosphere which has a low emmisivity. On average, the atmosphere returns energy to the surface every night when the threshold temperature is reached, caused by the uneven cooling rates. The dew point is a symptom of this if there is enough moisture in the air to show the effect. Frost is an even more visible symptom.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Where is the work on the Sun's surface?



Lets chalk up yet one more thing you are wrong about....The mere fact that you even entertained the idea that the corona of the sun was hotter than the surface because of spontaneous movement of energy from the surface to the corona is clear evidence of what a first class idiot you really are.  So what is your next supposed violation of the 2nd law...or will you keep harping on this one till a paper is publishes specifically to you and says "toddster...the corona is not hotter than the surface of the sun due to spontaneous energy movement?"

Discovery of Alfvén waves in the corona of the Sun

"For the very first time, powerful Alfvén waves -- magnetic plasma waves -- have been observed in the sun's corona. The plasma in the observed waves moves at speeds of 20 km/s and the waves themselves propagate at high speeds of 200 to 250 km/s. On Earth, these waves would cover the distance between Leuven, Belgium and New York City in approximately 30 seconds. The discovery of these powerful Alfvén waves is important because they may explain the high temperatures in the sun's corona and the high speeds of solar wind."


Alfvén waves in the solar corona and solar wind  - IOPscience


"Alfvén waves have long been known to be a major component of the turbulence measured in situ in the interplanetary medium. Until recently, however, observations had been limited to the ecliptic plane, where the solar wind structure is complicated by the interaction of fast and slow solar wind streams, the Alfvénic turbulence being essentially limited to high-speed streams in well defined magnetic sectors. The Ulyssesspacecraft has shown how this structure disappears with increasing latitude, leading to a relatively constant high-speed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 stream originating from polar coronal holes. Within this region the radial magnetic field appears to be relatively constant with latitude, and the fluctuations are everywhere dominated by large-amplitude Alfvén waves propagating away from the sun, covering a broad band of wavelengths. Here we discuss the origin and evolution of solar wind Alfvén waves; the possible role played by such fluctuations in the heating of the corona and acceleration of the high-speed wind is explored in the light of both analytical models and numerical simulations.?"


AlfvÃ©n wave dissipation in the solar chromosphere

"Magnetohydrodynamic Alfvén waves1 have been a focus of laboratory plasma physics2 and astrophysics3 for over half a century. Their unique nature makes them ideal energy transporters, and while the solar atmosphere provides preferential conditions for their existence4, direct detection has proved difficult as a result of their evolving and dynamic observational signatures. The viability of Alfvén waves as a heating mechanism relies upon the efficient dissipation and thermalization of the wave energy, with direct evidence remaining elusive until now. Here we provide the first observational evidence of Alfvén waves heating chromospheric plasma in a sunspot umbra through the formation of shock fronts. The magnetic field configuration of the shock environment, alongside the tangential velocity signatures, distinguish them from conventional umbral flashes5. Observed local temperature enhancements of 5% are consistent with the dissipation of mode-converted Alfvén waves driven by upwardly propagating magneto-acoustic oscillations, providing an unprecedented insight into the behaviour of Alfvén waves in the solar atmosphere and beyond."


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Refer to the 2nd law...one way energy movement....not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...the sun can receive energy from sources warmer than itself, but it is not possible, without the application of work, to move energy from a cooler object to the sun.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2018)

IanC said:


> The surface has a high emmisivity and cools quicker than the atmosphere which has a low emmisivity. On average, the atmosphere returns energy to the surface every night when the threshold temperature is reached, caused by the uneven cooling rates. The dew point is a symptom of this if there is enough moisture in the air to show the effect. Frost is an even more visible symptom.



You are homing in on the truth...if you could just drop your belief in magic...the surface has a high emissivity and therefore cools more quickly...adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere which does what to the atmosphere's ability to cool itself?  Think ian...you just said it about the surface...now apply that same thought to the atmosphere...increasing the emissivity does what to its ability to cool itself?  Come on...you can say it...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the work on the Sun's surface?
> ...



*Lets chalk up yet one more thing you are wrong about....The mere fact that you even entertained the idea that the corona of the sun was hotter than the surface because of spontaneous movement of energy from the surface to the corona
*
For at least the 10th time, I don't care how the corona became hotter than the surface. 
Couldn't care less. I don't give the tiniest fuck.

I'm only interested in your silly claim that radiation only flows from hotter to cooler.

*So what is your next supposed violation of the 2nd law..
*
Nope. You're the one claiming that would violate the 2nd Law. 
I don't think it violates anything, because all matter above 0K emits, no matter what the temperature of surrounding matter. No matter what the temperature of matter light years away. 

So, when you stop building those straw men, tell me what the work is on the Sun's surface that allows 
the cooler surface to emit toward the hotter corona.

Or maybe post a couple of links that agree with your silly claim that radiation only flows from hot to cooler?
Because it's strange you're the only one making that claim.

Of course you'll probably just run away. Like you've done for years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


*
it is not possible, without the application of work, to move energy from a cooler object to the sun. 
*
Can IR from my skin hit the Sun?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the work on the Sun's surface?
> ...


Save your blather for someone else. I didn't say what you are quoting me as saying.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Refer to the 2nd law...one way energy movement....not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...the sun can receive energy from sources warmer than itself, but it is not possible, without the application of work, to move energy from a cooler object to the sun.


Of course thermal radiation is unrestricted from going anywhere to anything at any temperature.


----------



## IanC (Mar 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The surface has a high emmisivity and cools quicker than the atmosphere which has a low emmisivity. On average, the atmosphere returns energy to the surface every night when the threshold temperature is reached, caused by the uneven cooling rates. The dew point is a symptom of this if there is enough moisture in the air to show the effect. Frost is an even more visible symptom.
> ...



Hahahaha, perhaps you should try to home in on the truth.

Adding more CO2 does not make a big difference once there is some CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect is almost totally saturated.

All of the CO2 reactive 15 micron radiation produced by the surface is totally absorbed in the first 10 metres of atmosphere. Adding more CO2 simply shortens that distance.

At the top of the atmosphere, CO2 produces 15 micron radiation that can escape to space once the density of CO2 is low enough that it does not simply get reabsorbed. Adding more CO2 does not result in more escaping radiation, in fact it lowers it. The height at which the density of CO2 is low enough to produce escaping radiation is associated with a temperature. Higher is cooler. Lower temperature results in less radiation. Therefore adding CO2 raises the emission height and reduces the amount produced which can escape to space.

Temperature is a function of both energy input and energy output. You raise the temperature by either increasing the input OR decreasing the output.

C


----------



## IanC (Mar 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Work has a specific definition.

Radiation, once created by a particle of matter, travels in a straight line until it interacts with another particle of matter. There is no cancelling out. 

Radiation is created by a bit of matter according to the internal conditions of that particle, not the conditions of the receiving particle.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 27, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



TOA is around -80C?


----------



## IanC (Mar 27, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> TOA is around -80C?



I'm not sure what your point is.

Emission height is a function of density. More molecules of a particular type raises the emission height. Higher is cooler, until you get into the stratosphere. 

An exception often illustrates the rule, as is the case for CO2.

CO2 has a high affinity for 15 micron photons, it latches on to them easily. 14.5 and 15.5 microns can also be absorbed but the CO2 molecule must present in a specific orientation, therefore the emmisivity is lower. As the amount of CO2 increases, the likelihood of specific orientations goes up and the wings around 15 microns gets wider.

What is the apparent exception? At exactly 15 microns the emission height appears to be warmer than the wings. Ordinarily this would mean emission from a lower level. But not in this case. The affinity for 15.00 micron radiation is so strong that it does not escape until well into the stratosphere. At that height in the stratosphere, the lapse rate has reversed and temperature is actually increasing with height. There are two answers to the problem, and the counter intuative one higher up is actually the right one.











The bottom of the CO2 notch is about -60C. 15 micron radiation appears to come from a -50C height, either 9km in the troposphere or 25km in the stratosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> For at least the 10th time, I don't care how the corona became hotter than the surface.
> Couldn't care less. I don't give the tiniest fuck.
> 
> I'm only interested in your silly claim that radiation only flows from hotter to cooler.



And that demonstrates that you are even less intelligent...especially after you have been told over and over that energy does not flow "SPONTANEOUSLY" from warm to cool...you have even been given definitions of spontaneous and the context of the word in relation to energy flow has been explained in detail..and still, you can't seem to apply the word spontaneous to energy movement.  Sorry you can't grasp this simple concept..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Refer to the 2nd law...one way energy movement....not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...the sun can receive energy from sources warmer than itself, but it is not possible, without the application of work, to move energy from a cooler object to the sun.
> ...



Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2018)

IanC said:


> Adding more CO2 does not make a big difference once there is some CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect is almost totally saturated.



I didn't say that it made a big difference mr straw man...but if you increase the emissivity of a thing just a little bit, what does it do to that things ability to radiatively cool itself?  You can bet that it doesn't make the thing warm up just a bit.

You are so caught up in your 15 micron spiel that you can't see the underlying flaw in your thinking...the wavelength is completely irrelevant to the fact that if you increase a thing's emissivity, you increase its ability to radiatively cool itself...increasing the emissivity of a thing NEVER results in it becoming warmer.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2018)

IanC said:


> Radiation, once created by a particle of matter, travels in a straight line until it interacts with another particle of matter. There is no cancelling out.



So you say...except that examples of just the opposite of that abound...ask a radio or microwave engineer about cancelling signals and how carefully the origin of signals, and placement of towers must be considered just because of the nasty habit of waves to cancel each other out.


Or are you going to claim that radio waves and microwaves are not radiation?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?



I actually did request that they alter the wording of the second law, and the author of the Georgia Tech Hyperphysics site did just that. Look at the final paragraph.
_"... Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object..."
_
I already told you that over a year ago in this thread:
_Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist..._


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you should request that they alter wording of the second law to reflect that claim...or are you claiming that thermal radiation is not energy?
> ...




Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie?  The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.

So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > For at least the 10th time, I don't care how the corona became hotter than the surface.
> ...



*you have been told over and over that energy does not flow "SPONTANEOUSLY" from warm to cool..
*

Ummmm...it does flow from warm to cool.

And from cool to warm. And between matter of identical temperatures.

What is the work done on the Sun's surface that allows radiation to flow non-spontaneously from the cooler surface toward the hotter corona?

Despite many, many opportunities, you never answer that question.

You also failed to answer, "Can IR from my skin hit the Sun?"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


*
The idea of NET energy transfer is what trips them up so badly.
*
SSDD says there is no NET transfer.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Neither does the Second Law.


----------



## IanC (Mar 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Adding more CO2 does not make a big difference once there is some CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect is almost totally saturated.
> ...



What a ridiculous statement! 

Increasing emmisivity results in warming anytime there is an energy source available to be absorbed.

Sprinkle some soot or sand on part of a patch of snow and see which area melts faster.

T


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



What does the 2nd Law say about photons?


----------



## IanC (Mar 28, 2018)

That example changes the ability of snow to reflect sunlight. Emmisivity is a combination of absorption/emission, reflectivity, and transmission. CO2 and the other GHGs change the transmittance of radiation through the atmosphere. If the full amount of radiation produced by the surface escaped directly to space then the increased cooling would be quick and dramatic, for both the surface and the atmosphere.

CO2 absorbs more energy at the surface/air boundary than it is able to produce at the much cooler emission height.


----------



## IanC (Mar 28, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



The SLoT was originally drafted to describe the macroscopic movement of heat, with no explanation of why it took place as it did.

Since then it has been reworked in terms of entropy, and the explanation is derived by statistical analysis of microscopic particles of mass and EMR.

While matter can only move in gross amounts because of its physical properties, radiation can only move in net amounts because of its physical properties. Only one bit of matter can occupy one point in space at any one time. Light is not constrained in the same fashion, any number of photons can occupy the same point at the same time without interacting with each other.


----------



## IanC (Mar 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Which version of the SLoT? The 150 year old version which was a crude description, or the more recent entropy version that describes why it happens? They both give the same general answers for macroscopic questions but the entropy version gives answers to many more conditions.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Actually....no..they didn't....so why tell such an obvious lie? The first 3 lines state the 2nd law of thermodynamics..and it still says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work having been done to accomplish the flow...and it still says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> Those are black and white, absolute statements...they are in opposition to the OPINION stated at the bottom of the page...and if you ask them if they can provide you any actual observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...alas, they will have to tell you no.
> 
> So no....the second law still says what it says and it says it in completely unambiguous terms...NOT POSSIBLE....WILL NOT.....no wiggle room in such statements whether you like it or not...but do keep your eye out and be sure to let me know when they actually alter the wording of the 2nd law to reflect net energy movement.


Nope. The author was defining the word "energy" in the SLoT as "net energy". He was simply clarifying science to confused novices so they would understand the meaning of the SLoT as understood by all scientists.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What does the 2nd Law say about photons?


Good question for him. My answer for him is that the 2nd law says nothing about photons. If you look at the physics and various laws of thermal photons in black body radiation and run through any calculations, it turns out that there is never a violation of the 2nd law.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What is the work done on the Sun's surface that allows radiation to flow non-spontaneously from the cooler surface toward the hotter corona?



this is a new low of the bar even for you...Alfven waves are the new hypothesis, and observations are bearing this out...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> What a ridiculous statement!
> 
> Increasing emmisivity results in warming anytime there is an energy source available to be absorbed.[/qiopte]
> 
> No ian..increasing the emissivity of an object always results in it being able to radiatively cool itself more efficiently...warming only occurs if you increase the energy input and alas, CO2 can not multiply energy...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> The SLoT was originally drafted to describe the macroscopic movement of heat, with no explanation of why it took place as it did.
> 
> Since then it has been reworked in terms of entropy, and the explanation is derived by statistical analysis of microscopic particles of mass and EMR.



And yet, the statement has not changed and there still is not the first observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. The author was defining the word "energy" in the SLoT as "net energy". He was simply clarifying science to confused novices so they would understand the meaning of the SLoT as understood by all scientists.



He was giving his opinion...based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.

Again, let me know when they actually alter the 2nd law to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and they have observations and measurements to back up the claim.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What does the 2nd Law say about photons?
> ...



Are photons energy?  If they are then the 2nd law is talking about them as well...the 2nd law doesn't mention the potential energy in a rock held above your head, but it is talking about that energy also..and it doesn't mention the potential energy stored in water held behind a dam, but it is talking about that as well...nor does it mention chemicals and the energy released in various reactions, but it is talking about that as well...the 2nd law speaks to all energy in every form...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Are photons energy? If they are then the 2nd law is talking about them as well...the 2nd law doesn't mention the potential energy in a rock held above your head, but it is talking about that energy also..and it doesn't mention the potential energy stored in water held behind a dam, but it is talking about that as well...nor does it mention chemicals and the energy released in various reactions, but it is talking about that as well...the 2nd law speaks to all energy in every form...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.


Of course what you say is elementary. Nevertheless, you don't need the 2nd law to discover that the science of thermal photons automatically obeys the 2nd law. ...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are photons energy? If they are then the 2nd law is talking about them as well...the 2nd law doesn't mention the potential energy in a rock held above your head, but it is talking about that energy also..and it doesn't mention the potential energy stored in water held behind a dam, but it is talking about that as well...nor does it mention chemicals and the energy released in various reactions, but it is talking about that as well...the 2nd law speaks to all energy in every form...sorry that simple concept is so far over your head.
> ...




Of course it obeys the 2nd law....which is why energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm as the second law states quite clearly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What is the work done on the Sun's surface that allows radiation to flow non-spontaneously from the cooler surface toward the hotter corona?
> ...


*
Alfven waves are the new hypothesis,*
Alfven waves are performing work?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The SLoT was originally drafted to describe the macroscopic movement of heat, with no explanation of why it took place as it did.
> ...



And yet, you still have no sources that say energy only flows one way. Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. The author was defining the word "energy" in the SLoT as "net energy". He was simply clarifying science to confused novices so they would understand the meaning of the SLoT as understood by all scientists.
> ...



*the 2nd law still says that it is not possible for energy to move from cool to warm without an input of work to make it happen.
*
You never answered, are IR photons from my skin allowed to hit the Sun?


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > What a ridiculous statement!
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Whatta dolt you are!

Emmisivity is a two sided coin. Absorption on one side, emission on the other.

Yet you only acknowledge one side of the coin.

CO2 absorbs more energy at the bottom of the atmosphere than it emits at the top. The difference is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different pathway out. The satellite measurements show this.

So far, your only explanation for the missing TOA energy is to invoke a Ponzi scheme where water vapour emits it. But water vapour also absorbs more surface energy than it emits to space, as per the satellite measurements. Then you tried latent heat from liquid water and solid ice precipitated out in clouds but that is also less efficient than surface radiation because half is emitted downward.

There is no explanation for why the surface can sustain an operating temperature of 400w from a solar input of 160w, without invoking a recycled input from the atmosphere.

The sun delivers 340w, 100w is reflected, the atmosphere absorbs 80w and the surface gets the remaining 160w. The surface and atmosphere emit (edit- to space) a total of 240w of IR.

The first law is followed because the input and output are balanced. The second law is followed because higher quality sunlight has been transformed into low quality IR. The impetus for the recycling of energy from surface to atmosphere and back to the surface is piggybacked on the increase of entropy.


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The SLoT was originally drafted to describe the macroscopic movement of heat, with no explanation of why it took place as it did.
> ...



Actually, the statement of the SLoT has been changed. Your version is not the common one, most definitions of the SLoT are described in terms of entropy. Which only makes sense because entropy is the explanation for why energy moves the way it does. Your 150 year old version was simply an observation, not an explanation.


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Any IR photons from your skin that can leave through the Atmospheric Window would hit the Sun if they were traveling in the right direction.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course it obeys the 2nd law....which is why energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm as the second law states quite clearly.


Of course that's true with radiation since all warmer objects emit more energy than they receive.


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The SLoT was originally drafted to describe the macroscopic movement of heat, with no explanation of why it took place as it did.
> ...



Objects radiate according to sigmaT^^4. Regardless of the environment they are imbedded in. Only the rate of cooling (or warming) is affected by the environment. If the environment is replacing the energy being lost then there is no change in temperature, etc.

There are no intermediary steps for radiation. It is created from internal conditions of a particle of matter, and exists until it is absorbed by a different particle of matter. 

You cannot 'see' a photon, you can only infer its presence by its affect on matter.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> Any IR photons from your skin that can leave through the Atmospheric Window would hit the Sun if they were traveling in the right direction.


Hmmm. It seems that photons from a laser can hit the sun because it's not black body radiation and there is work done if you consider the battery. But photons from the skin cannot hit the sun. 
How does the sun know which photons are which. I will have to ask SSDD about this puzzle.


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Any IR photons from your skin that can leave through the Atmospheric Window would hit the Sun if they were traveling in the right direction.
> ...



Yes, SSDD's world is chock full of epicycles that add unnecessary complexities to what is allowed or not. And which lead to absurdities. 

Is a 15 micron photon different if it is produced by a 10,000K arc welder, a 5000K Sun, or a 300K Earth? No. 

But somehow the arc can send radiation to the Sun and Earth, the Sun only to the Earth, and the Earth to neither of the above. When pressed for an explanation he switches topic to gravity or something.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> Whatta dolt you are!
> 
> Emmisivity is a two sided coin. Absorption on one side, emission on the other.



Sorry ian, but the dolt prize goes to you...of course increased emissivity comes with increased absorption...but absorption and emission does not equal warming...you are assuming magic when there is none.



IanC said:


> CO2 absorbs more energy at the bottom of the atmosphere than it emits at the top. The difference is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different pathway out. The satellite measurements show this.



That is easy to explain..and easy to understand if you weren't a dolt.  Most of what CO2 absorbs...the vast majority of what CO2 absorbs gets lost to other molecules via collisions...that energy doesn't get emitted at the top of the atmosphere as 15 micron radiation...it gets emitted in the wavelength of whatever molecule ends up with it in the upper atmosphere...usually water...

You are looking for magic when what you should be looking for is an accounting error.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Even a statement describing entropy does not allow energy to move from a less ordered state to a more ordered state spontaneously.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Not a chance but go on believing that idiotic fantasy if you like....can't make you any more of a dupe than you already are.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Sorry...not true.  You might realize this if you were able to read an equation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Not a chance 
*
IR from my skin can't hit the Sun? Why not?


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Whatta dolt you are!
> ...




The amount of CO2 specific radiation available to be absorbed is a function of the temperature at the surface. The amount of CO2 specific radiation emitted to space is a function of the temperature at the emission height. Because the surface temperature is warmer than the emission height temperature, there is more radiation absorbed than emitted.

The amount of H2O specific radiation available to be absorbed is a function of the temperature at the surface. The amount of H2O specific radiation emitted to space is a function of the temperature at the emission height. Because the surface temperature is warmer than the emission height temperature, there is more radiation absorbed than emitted. (In this context H2O means water vapour. We can move on to latent heat by convection after you acknowledge that GHGs absorb more surface energy than they release to space further up in the atmosphere)

How can water vapour release extra energy from CO2 when it cannot even emit its own absorbed energy? You are playing at a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Entropy (disorder) does not prohibit anything, it just makes them statistically improbable. A liquid water molecule is highly unlikely to achieve sufficient kinetic energy through random collisions to allow it to break through surface tension to become a water vapour molecule. But evaporation exists. How can this happen if no spontaneous increase of energy and order is allowed?


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I can read and comprehend most equations just fine, thank you.

Like the S-B equation that describes the amount of radiation given off an object is given by sigmaT^^4.

Or the other S-B equation that describes the radiation exchange between two objects, both radiating according to sigmaT^^4


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> Or the other S-B equation that describes the radiation exchange between two objects, both radiating according to sigmaT^^4



So clearly you can't read an equation just fine...no surprise there.  But just to prove that you can't, lets have a little reading test.  Here is the equation.






That equation states that the amount of radiation emitted by an object (P) is equal to the emissivity of the object, times the SB constant, times the area of the object, times the temperature of the object to the 4th power minus the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power.

That means that the amount of radiation the object emits is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings.  Now, I have accounted for every expression in the equation and accounted for precisely what they represent in reality.

Now kindly tell me what part of the equation I have wrong, and tell me what you believe it says...and do point out which expression says what.  Show us all just how fine you can't read an equation.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state no matter how much you wish such magic were active in the world.  You are a dupe who believes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over actual observation, measurement and testing.  How goofy is that ian?...disregarding reality in favor of a model?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Or the other S-B equation that describes the radiation exchange between two objects, both radiating according to sigmaT^^4
> ...



For god sake SSDD you know what the equation means yet you keep trolling your same crap. You are being totally dishonest. You know what the science has been for the last 100 years concerning the SB equation. We have shown you articles by physicists from major universities. Yet you still look at equations pretending they mean something you deeply wish they meant. You should know by now that the physics comes first and the arithmetic comes second and what you wish comes last. You are putting almost a biblical sanctity on an arithmetic simplification.

Physics first: Black body radiation is simultaneously emitted and absorbed by all objects.

Emission: Rₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =εσT₂⁴
The net rate of emission:
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Not a chance 
*
IR from my skin can't hit the Sun? Why not?

What are you afraid of?


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



By your interpretation of the SLoT, evaporation cannot happen. No molecule would be allowed to attain the threshold energy level necessary to break free of the liquid.

Temperature is the average kinetic speed  of the cohort of molecules being measured. The individual speeds are distributed in a normal curve skewed to the right because zero is the lower limit. You say no molecule is ever allowed to increase its speed spontaneously. I call bullshit. Random collisions change the speed of individual molecules constantly. This is yet another instance of your bizarre beliefs leading to a nonsense result.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2018)

IanC said:


> For god sake SSDD you know what the equation means yet you keep trolling your same crap. You are being totally dishonest. You know what the science has been for the last 100 years concerning the SB equation. We have shown you articles by physicists from major universities.



Yeah..seen your bullshit equation...it isn't the SB equation...it is an fine example of shitty math applying a meaningless property to an equation in an attempt to fool idiots...congratulations..you have been fooled.

As to who is using the bullshit equation and who uses the actual equation...look first to hyperphyisics....while they did offer the opinion that the equation was talking about net energy flow, they used the actual equation and not the one that exhibits piss poor mathematical skills...

For all your senseless rants, and declarations on the value of models, you still can't produce the first observed, measured evidence of two way energy flow...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement...let me know when you get a measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...and do let me know when they rewrite the 2nd law of thermodynamics to state that energy can in fact flow spontaneously from cool to warm...

Till such time, you are a dupe who believe in models more than reality.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2018)

IanC said:


> By your interpretation of the SLoT, evaporation cannot happen. No molecule would be allowed to attain the threshold energy level necessary to break free of the liquid.



Still waiting mr straw man...what does the equation say?


----------



## IanC (Mar 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > For god sake SSDD you know what the equation means yet you keep trolling your same crap. You are being totally dishonest. You know what the science has been for the last 100 years concerning the SB equation. We have shown you articles by physicists from major universities.
> ...



I never said that. Fix the quote attribution.


----------



## IanC (Mar 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > By your interpretation of the SLoT, evaporation cannot happen. No molecule would be allowed to attain the threshold energy level necessary to break free of the liquid.
> ...



The equation says

Power(net)=Power(object one) minus Power(object two)

For your bizarre interpretation to work there would have to be ''anti-energy" in play. A means of cancelling out radiation between the two objects.

Around the same time as your antique version of the SLoT was formulated, there was an investigation into 'cooling rays', as opposed to 'heating rays'. It was found that coldness could be focused on distant objects.

This, of course was backwards. Cooling Rays were simply an absence of Warming rays. Temperature is always a positive value above absolute zero. Likewise, energy is always a positive value, there is no such thing as negative energy.


----------



## IanC (Mar 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Energy goes where ever it wants to go. Given large enough numbers of interactions, we can state what the overall result will be but that does not control each and every interaction.

People go to the casinos all the time. Most know that they will lose in the long run but there is still a possibility of winning for a short session. What fun would it be if you lost every bet, every time? Your version of the SLoT denies the possibility of variance. We see variance in reality all the time, eg evaporation. Therefore your version is wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 31, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Give the guy a break. The fact that he can even post here, with an IQ as low as his, is a miracle.
You can't expect him to get the quote function correct as well.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yeah..seen your bullshit equation...it isn't the SB equation...it is an fine example of shitty math applying a meaningless property to an equation in an attempt to fool idiots...congratulations..you have been fooled.
> 
> As to who is using the bullshit equation and who uses the actual equation...look first to hyperphyisics....while they did offer the opinion that the equation was talking about net energy flow, they used the actual equation and not the one that exhibits piss poor mathematical skills...
> 
> ...



This is what Max Planck said in 1914 in The Theory of Heat Radiation
The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation ... when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Albert Einstein, 1916 : "Kinetic Theory of Thermal Equilibrium and of the Second Law of Thermodynamics"
... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously..."

Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture "[Equilibrium state] ... atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1860) "at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

You are essentially saying these four Nobel Prize winners are engaging in:
_"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"
_​Your *troll *hubris is astounding for you to think you are wiser than the fame of the four Nobel Prize winners, and every scientist since then.

.


----------



## IanC (Mar 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah..seen your bullshit equation...it isn't the SB equation...it is an fine example of shitty math applying a meaningless property to an equation in an attempt to fool idiots...congratulations..you have been fooled.
> ...



What you posted is true.

Unfortunately it leads to a major confusion in many people. The Earth's surface is a reasonable approximation of a Blackbody, but the atmosphere is not. The exchange of radiation between the two is limited by the lower emmisivity of the air, only wavelengths that are reactive to GHGs are involved. Other wavelengths simply escape to space. This is the main reason why there is a greenhouse effect. The energy retarded from escaping by GHGs backs up and warms the surface until it is producing enough radiation that CAN escape freely and the energy budget is balanced.

With no atmosphere then the surface would warm up and cool down at much faster rates.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 31, 2018)

IanC said:


> What you posted is true.
> 
> Unfortunately it leads to a major confusion in many people. The Earth's surface is a reasonable approximation of a Blackbody, but the atmosphere is not. The exchange of radiation between the two is limited by the lower emmisivity of the air, only wavelengths that are reactive to GHGs are involved. Other wavelengths simply escape to space. This is the main reason why there is a greenhouse effect. The energy retarded from escaping by GHGs backs up and warms the surface until it is producing enough radiation that CAN escape freely and the energy budget is balanced.
> 
> With no atmosphere then the surface would warm up and cool down at much faster rates.



I agree with everything you say.

However, SSDD's problem is that he disagrees with the most basic elementary aspect of radiation. He thinks that two objects at the same temperature (in equilibrium) do not radiate anything toward each other. Zero. 

If he doesn't believe basic radiation science, he will not accept anything you say involving radiation in the much more complex atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> The equation says
> 
> Power(net)=Power(object one) minus Power(object two)



So you can't read an equation...didn't think so...that or you are as dishonest as old rocks...which is it?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I agree with everything you say.
> 
> However, SSDD's problem is that he disagrees with the most basic elementary aspect of radiation. He thinks that two objects at the same temperature (in equilibrium) do not radiate anything toward each other. Zero.



Sorry guy, but I can read the equations and accept them at face value..it is you model guys who attempt to make them say things that they don't...and are constantly interpreting them for fun and profit...


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with everything you say.
> ...



So you still think that four highly respected Nobel Prize winners and all scientists since then can't read the equations? And you think the founders of that science are interpreting the equations for fun and profit 100 years ago? Only a die-hard Troll clinging to a fantasy would ever post that here. You think those scientist of 100 years ago developed the quantum understanding of radiation physics just so they could claim AGW 100 years later? Wow!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Epicycles.
Everyone, including Einstein and Bohr, got it wrong.
SSDD is the only one who gets it.
That's why he can't provide anyone who agrees.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2018)

SSDD invokes some mystical new physical law that prohibits radiation from being produced in specific directions, even though it just doesn't make sense and is fantastically complicated, needing to know the speed, direction and internal conditions of every particle of matter in the universe to work. It also defies the principle of entropy. 

The rest of us just think every object radiates fully in all directions. And that the net exchange of energy is simply adding up the energy and finding the net result for any specific location.

Occam's Razor suggests that we dispense with SSDD's bizarre epicycles, at least until some reason is presented to explain them.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2018)

Two white hot lengths of steel are taken out of the blast furnace and are left to cool. The sides that face each other cool less quickly.

SSDD says it is because they are not allowed to radiate towards each other. Everyone else says it is because they ARE radiating at each other.

If you put a third piece of cool steel between them, then apparently the hot steel is now allowed to radiate. Bizarre, the third piece controls the radiation from the hot ones.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> Two white hot lengths of steel are taken out of the blast furnace and are left to cool. The sides that face each other cool less quickly.
> 
> SSDD says it is because they are not allowed to radiate towards each other. Everyone else says it is because they ARE radiating at each other.
> 
> If you put a third piece of cool steel between them, then apparently the hot steel is now allowed to radiate. Bizarre, the third piece controls the radiation from the hot ones.



*If you put a third piece of cool steel between them, then apparently the hot steel is now allowed to radiate. Bizarre, the third piece controls the radiation from the hot ones. 
*
Even stranger is that the hot steel throttles the amount of radiation it emits, based on the temperature of the cooler steel, without ever knowing the temperature of the cooler steel, because the cooler steel is not allowed to radiate. If it can't radiate, how does the information about its temperature get transmitted?

He's previously said that absorption and emission isn't work, but still refuses to say what work takes 
place on the Sun's surface which would allow "non-spontaneous" emission of radiation from the
cooler surface toward the hotter corona.

Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD invokes some mystical new physical law that prohibits radiation from being produced in specific directions, even though it just doesn't make sense and is fantastically complicated, needing to know the speed, direction and internal conditions of every particle of matter in the universe to work. It also defies the principle of entropy.
> 
> The rest of us just think every object radiates fully in all directions. And that the net exchange of energy is simply adding up the energy and finding the net result for any specific location.
> 
> Occam's Razor suggests that we dispense with SSDD's bizarre epicycles, at least until some reason is presented to explain them.



He is looking at the whole thing backwards. The SLoT does not constrain radiation physics. The fact is that radiation physics follows the requirements of quantum mechanics. It is an important side issue that it does not violate the SLoT. 

However, he is smart enough to follow the plethora of arguments that all objects must radiate independently of its surroundings. He is playing a "flat-earth" type of game. He thinks he is winning the game (but knows he is not winning the science). He changes the rules of science in order to pretend to win. But he simply doesn't care he is lying about the science he pretends because the idea of a flat-earth game is to win at all costs while sacrificing ones own dignity and self respect.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Two white hot lengths of steel are taken out of the blast furnace and are left to cool. The sides that face each other cool less quickly.
> ...


Just to show off more of my ignorance. 
so when you place that cooler piece of steel between the two hot pieces the surrounding temperature cools correct? 
Will the two hot pieces lose heat faster with the cold piece there?
once the three pieces equal out will the two hot pieces continue to lose heat at the same rate as when the cold piece was first placed there? 

conclusion the cold piece of steel accelerates cooling of the two hot pieces until they all three equal out when the rate of of cooling slows back down to the rate before the cold piece arrived.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Two white hot lengths of steel are taken out of the blast furnace and are left to cool. The sides that face each other cool less quickly.
> ...


*He's previously said that absorption and emission isn't work, but still refuses to say what work takes 
place on the Sun's surface which would allow "non-spontaneous" emission of radiation from the
cooler surface toward the hotter corona.*

why is the surface cooler than the corona?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*so when you place that cooler piece of steel between the two hot pieces the surrounding temperature cools correct? 
*
Yes. The two hot pieces lose more energy to the cool piece than they receive back from the cool piece.
Until they reach the same temperature.
*
Will the two hot pieces lose heat faster with the cold piece there?
*
They will cool faster than they did when they radiated at each other.

*once the three pieces equal out will the two hot pieces continue to lose heat at the same rate as when the cold piece was first placed there? 
*
Well, they'll be cooler than when they started, so they'll radiate less.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*why is the surface cooler than the corona? 
*
It's a mystery. Not as big a mystery as why SSDD thinks matter has a dimmer switch.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


will the three  eventually cool down to the surrounding temperature?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why would it be a mystery?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Two white hot lengths of steel are taken out of the blast furnace and are left to cool. The sides that face each other cool less quickly.
> ...


if there is work, isn't there heat?

Why then doesn't the atmosphere get hot rather than cool?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



As long as there is no outside source of energy.......yes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*if there is work, isn't there heat?
*
Where is work?

*Why then doesn't the atmosphere get hot rather than cool?
*
What atmosphere? Where? When?

You really need to be specific with your questions when we're discussing multiple objects/topics.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Still waiting for that observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow?  Got any?  Of course you don't...so you are left with appeals to authority that can't provide any actual evidence either...you hold a position of faith...you believe....that isn't science, that is religion.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD invokes some mystical new physical law that prohibits radiation from being produced in specific directions, even though it just doesn't make sense and is fantastically complicated, needing to know the speed, direction and internal conditions of every particle of matter in the universe to work. It also defies the principle of entropy.
> 
> The rest of us just think every object radiates fully in all directions. And that the net exchange of energy is simply adding up the energy and finding the net result for any specific location.
> 
> Occam's Razor suggests that we dispense with SSDD's bizarre epicycles, at least until some reason is presented to explain them.



Since there are no measurements of two way energy flow...since it can't be observed or measured, Occam suggests that we dispense with the models and go with observable reality.  Not only can you not read a relatively simple equation....you don't get Occam either.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's previously said that absorption and emission isn't work, but still refuses to say what work takes
> place on the Sun's surface which would allow "non-spontaneous" emission of radiation from the
> cooler surface toward the hotter corona.
> 
> Weird.



Of course I have said what sort of work science thinks is happening....sorry you are to damned stupid to read my response.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Will the two hot pieces lose heat faster with the cold piece there?



The two hot pieces always radiate according to their temperatures. The rate of cooling is affected by how much radiation is coming back from their surroundings.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Will the two hot pieces lose heat faster with the cold piece there?
> ...


yep the surrounding temperature.  Agree.  When the cold steel is placed in between the two hot pieces they will radiate at the same rate if they are equal.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Where is work?*

In Chicago

*What atmosphere? Where? When?*

The one high up above you anywhere you are at any time of the day.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


exactly


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > He's previously said that absorption and emission isn't work, but still refuses to say what work takes
> ...



*Of course I have said what sort of work science thinks is happening
*
No. You have never once said what work occurs on the surface of the Sun which allows the surface to radiate toward the hotter corona (and out into the solar system).

You have, many times, posted theories about the mechanism which heats the corona.
I've never asked and don't care why the corona is hotter than the surface.

I just want your explanation why the hotter corona doesn't cause the Sun's surface to cease radiating like all hotter matter causes all cooler matter to stop radiating in your solo epicycle world.

For once, try to answer the question asked. Or admit your error. Your choice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Try to restate your questions so they make sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well maybe when someone uses the quotes feature it would explain it for you.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


again, can't read your own quote eh?  lazy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Feel free to ask questions that make sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I used the word twice in my quote. Can't differentiate? Stupid?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still waiting for that observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow?


We are all waiting for you to cite research or an appeal to authority or anything to show that vibrating atoms near the surface of a material would stop black body radiation because of an external warmer temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I did


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for that observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow?
> ...


Do you have proof that back radiation exists? Nope!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well I asked you the original question and you said it was a mystery I give a shit about your deflection.  And the smart guy you are can’t follow a straight line! Wow and your shit should matter why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Well I asked you the original question and you said it was a mystery
*
It's a mystery why the corona is hotter than the surface.

Any other stupid, nonsensical questions you'd like to ask?
I'll be happy to explain basic physics so you can demonstrate your ignorance again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Do you have any proof that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, constantly?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The fact that spontaneous two way energy flow between warm objects and cold objects can not be measured is pretty convincing.  You got any actual measurements of energy spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects that would contradict every observation and measurement ever made?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Will the two hot pieces lose heat faster with the cold piece there?
> ...



No ian...they radiate according to the difference between their temperatures and the temperatures of their surroundings...unless of course, they are in a theoretical perfect vacuum devoid of other matter.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for that observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow?
> ...



The fact that spontaneously two way energy flow between cool objects and warm objects (despite our ability to measure very small amounts of energy) has never been observed or measured is pretty convincing evidence that it doesn't happen...got any actual observed measured evidence that contradicts every observation and measurement ever made?    Didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The latest hypothesis is Alfven waves...they propagate within the sun at speeds of around 200 kilometers per second and TRANSPORT large amounts of energy from the surface to the corona...science thinks that they provide enough energy to account for the temperature of the corona...what science doesn't, and never has thought is that energy was moving spontaneously from the surface to the hotter corona...only you seem to think that..and it appears that you think that because you are unable to apply the term spontaneous to energy movement in the context of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Heat causes the charges in materials to move. Moving charges near the surface must radiate independently of any outside conditions. This has been observed, tested and measured time and time again for over 100 years. Your one way energy flow with smart photons totally violates those experiments. You have no explanation for your smart photons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*The fact that spontaneous two way energy flow between warm objects and cold objects can not be measured is pretty convincing.  
*
So convincing that you're alone in your claims.
So convincing that your position disagrees with Einstein, Bohr, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*No ian...they radiate according to the difference between their temperatures and the temperatures of their surroundings..*

Matter with a dimmer switch and ESP!
Cool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*The latest hypothesis is Alfven waves...they propagate within the sun at speeds of around 200 kilometers per second and TRANSPORT large amounts of energy from the surface to the corona..
*
Alfven waves cause the surface to emit photons?
Photons that somehow travel from cooler matter to warmer matter?
Sounds like your waves violate the 2nd Law.

*what science doesn't, and never has thought is that energy was moving spontaneously from the surface to the hotter corona...
*
Interesting. How does science explain the photons from the surface?
Because, according to you, photons can't move toward matter warmer than the emitter.
If photons were prevented from leaving the surface, the Sun would appear dark, with the only photons 
we could see produced by the corona. Is that the case?


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Sure, let's go with your hypothetical perfect vacuum.

Now put a Sun in it. The surface must exactly radiate the amount of energy being produced in the core. The first and most basic S-B equation.

Then put another identical Sun in the vacuum, one light year away.

I say they both radiate fully in all directions, all the time. You say the atoms are prohibited from radiating in the ultra small angle that leads to the other Sun. An uncomprehensibly vast number of atoms being controlled somehow to remove a tiny sliver of their possible direction of radiation.

Next, put a drifting cloud of dust between the two Suns. Any potential radiation that would be intercepted by the dust along the line-of-sight between the two Suns is no longer prohibited. The dust is controlling the amount of radiation produced, up to a maximum of the originally prohibited radiation.

Wow! What an extreme amount of complexity involved for what could be simply handled by full radiation all the time without the mysterious prohibitions that only SSDD understands. Hahahaha.

We could also just follow the ultimate end point of the energy being produced by the two Suns. Both methods give the same results. But the increase in entropy is different. And that is the reason why SSDD's version is wrong. It violates the current version of the the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2018)

Let's explore one of the ways entropy is decreased by SSDD's version of the radiation process.

A particle emitting a photon imparts a small amount of momentum with the photon, and the same amount of momentum in the opposite direction for the particle. Similar to a gun recoil.

If two particles exchange a photon back and forth, then both particles end up with two units of momentum away from each other. The radiation pressure is pushing them apart and increasing entropy.

A larger spherical object made up of many particles has equal momentum pressure in all directions. Place a similar object next to it and the two objects will be pushed apart.

SSDD says radiation is prohibited between the objects, which stops the momentum exchange. But the opposite sides are still radiating which causes the objects to be pushed together. An decrease of entropy, which is frowned upon by the SLoT.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Because, according to you, photons can't move toward matter warmer than the emitter.*

I believe he stated without work. I'm just saying.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*It's a mystery why the corona is hotter than the surface.*
I asked you why is it a mystery?  and you didn't answer.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


It radiates per the temperature of its surrounding.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


provide a link to that observed document that shows that.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No. It always radiates in a relationship to its own temperature. The temperature then changes according to the net energy exchange with it's surroundings.

The only way to decrease radiation is to decrease the temperature. Two identical objects do not stop radiating towards each other, but the radiation is balanced on both sides so it doesn't cause a temperature change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



And I stated, "He's previously said that absorption and emission isn't work, but still refuses to say what work takes place on the Sun's surface which would allow "non-spontaneous" emission of radiation from the
cooler surface toward the hotter corona"

Maybe you can help him out? LOL!


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



A stark example that involves work rather than heat is an electric turbine. The electricity moves the rotor, or moving the rotor produces electricity. While this uses virtual photons with an added property of force, the mechanism for creating photons is similar.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We all know that's not going to happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why is a mystery a mystery? Hmmmmm....that's a mystery too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It radiates per the temperature of its surrounding. 
*
Because.....dimmer switch!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


they radiate based on the surrounding temperature.  If the surrounding temperature equals the objects, there is no net change.  so no radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> No. It always radiates in a relationship to its own temperature. The temperature then changes according to the net energy exchange with it's surroundings.



So you keep saying...except the physical evidence doesn't back you up...we can measure very small amounts of energy but don't seem to be able to measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...Occam says that must mean that it just isn't happening.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Virtual theoretical particles...you are a constant source of chuckles ian.....I will hand you that.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And I believe I stated that if there is work, there is heat.  and there is no heat in the atmosphere accept for any convection or conduction.  the CO2 molecules do not get warm.  if they did, you could show us.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I'm sorry, but i don't see how this correlates to work and heat with regard to CO2 absorbing and emitting?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes that's what i asked very good.  sounds as if the science doesn't know.  discussing it here is irrelevant then.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nature, like gravity


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*and there is no heat in the atmosphere accept for any convection or conduction.
*
There is plenty of heat in the atmosphere of the Sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Tell SSDD, he keeps bring up that irrelevancy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nature has no dimmer switch.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


which science doesn't understand so it's irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


does gravity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Science does understand where the Sun's heat comes from.
It is relevant to the discussion of SSDD's confused misinterpretation of physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Gravity doesn't have a dimmer switch.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


how do you know?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Science knows what the emitter is and how it generates heat, they don't know why the corona is hotter than the surface.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No. It always radiates in a relationship to its own temperature. The temperature then changes according to the net energy exchange with it's surroundings.
> ...


 
CCDs detect radiation coming off objects cooler than the device. 

Is this where you claim we are being fooled by instrumentation? Or that using a powered device is not spontaneous?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Science knows what the emitter is and how it generates heat, 
*
Great. Explain it to SSDD so he can better understand his error.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why would I need to do that.  again, the issue is why the corona is hotter than the surface which you have conceded is a mystery.  so I'm not sure how he's errored?


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, I'm sure you don't.

Wuwei stated that the production of radiation can only be stopped by ceasing the movement of atoms in the object. That can only happen at absolute zero Kelvin.

Therefore radiation is being produced. There is a net exchange of zero energy if they are both at the same temperature but the radiation is still being produced.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
why would I need to do that.
*
To help your buddy?

*again, the issue is why the corona is hotter than the surface 
*
Nope. The issue is why cooler matter can't emit toward hotter matter....except...oops.....the Sun.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


until you can show that two objects sitting at equal temperature in a room at that same temperature radiates, you have nothing.  show us that observation.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*To help your buddy?*

he doesn't need anything from me.

*Nope. The issue is why cooler matter can't emit toward hotter matter*

exactly, until you can show it does we're all good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The issue is why cooler matter can't emit toward hotter matter​​*exactly, until you can show it does we're all good.*​​I showed you.​​*

*​​You can even see for yourself, most days.​


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that doesn't show anything other than a picture of the sun.  you said it was a mystery, so you have no idea what that is. BTW looks like there is an explosion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
that doesn't show anything other than a picture of the sun
*
You can see the sun? It's not a dark sphere surrounded by a wispy, visible corona?

*you said it was a mystery
*
No. The Sun is not a mystery.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sure it’s a mystery you said so!! You changing your mind?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I never said the Sun was a mystery. Not even once.

Speaking of the Sun, why can you see photons from its surface?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


How do you know?  And yeah you said it was a mystery


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why can you see photons from its surface?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It’s a mystery, like gravity has a dimmer switch


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, photons from the Sun aren't a mystery.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well then explain what is a mystery that you referred to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?

_why would I need to do that. again, the issue is why the corona is hotter than the surface which you have conceded is a mystery.  so I'm not sure how he's errored? 
_
Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so again, not sure how that doesn't fit your picture.  seems it is a mystery.  you should pull out of the corona and back to the discussion on earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
so again, not sure how that doesn't fit your picture
*
According to SSDD, the surface of the Sun is not allowed to radiate toward the hotter corona because...2nd Law.

If you could see the Sun's surface through the corona, that means it is radiating toward the hotter corona.

He hasn't admitted the error in his theory or explained why the impossible is visible in the sky daily.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'd have to see a post from him, not from you!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?
_
So you keep saying...except the physical evidence doesn't back you up...we can measure very small amounts of energy but don't seem to be able to measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...Occam says that must mean that it just isn't happening. 

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect_


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Thanks that helps, but why do you think that relates to the sun?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why does radiation from the Sun, moving from cool to warm, relate to the Sun?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You said it was a mystery


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I never said radiation moving from the surface to the corona was a mystery.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Neither did he in his post


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I agree, he didn't say the flaw in his theory was a mystery......he just evaded the flaw.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I didn’t say anything about a flaw was mentioned


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I agree, you didn't notice his flaw.
Or you noticed it and didn't mention it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I didn’t notice one because there isn’t any there. It’s that simple. Perhaps you could tell us where the heat source originated on the sun. Seems you believe it is the corona?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> CCDs detect radiation coming off objects cooler than the device.



Been through that already....CCDs can only detect radiation coming off an object if it is cooler than the CCD...I provided you with one of the most respected texts on the topic and they author clearly stated that the flux was positive, that is coming into the device, if the object was  warmer than the CCD array...and if the object was cooler then the energy flux was negative...that is leaving the array and the electronics were determining how much, how quickly, and in what pattern the array was cooling.

You have a way of forgetting everything that doesn't support your belief in magic.  Here, let me refresh your memory..  from he Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

_If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction:  *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive_

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

The cooling sensor doesn't produce an image that is as accurate as a warming sensor which is why, the best IR cameras are cooled to temperatures quite a bit lower than the ambient so the energy flux is almost always positive.  

You are so anxious to be right that you are incapable of actually learning anything...if it doesn't support your belief in magic, it is in one ear and out the other with you...you don't look for physical evidence because you know full well that there is no physical evidence to support your belief...models are all you can believe because magic is possible within a model.



IanC said:


> Is this where you claim we are being fooled by instrumentation? Or that using a powered device is not spontaneous?



No...it is where I point out that once again, like a common rube, you have been fooled by instrumentation simply because you have no idea what the sensor is measuring, or how it works, and never bothered to find out... you simply assume that your magical belief is supported by reality...NEWSFLASH...it is not.


----------



## IanC (Apr 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> I didn’t notice one because there isn’t any there. It’s that simple. Perhaps you could tell us where the heat source originated on the sun. Seems you believe it is the corona?



Three pages of useless banter, and you finally stumble upon the right question to ask.

The sun has its own energy source, a nuclear reactor in its core, turning mass into energy via E=mc^^2

This causes a temperature gradient from core to surface, and the surface radiates the same amount of energy that is being produced. Less neutrinos and magnetic fields, etc.

The surface is a reasonably constant temperature driven by ''spontaneous" thermal transfer. Note that an object with an active power source will come to an equilibrium temperature, while an unpowered object will simply cool until the stored energy disappates. In all cases the object is fully radiating at _j_=sigmaT^^4.

The corona is made up of plasma ions accelerated up to very high speeds by a poorly understood mechanism involving the magnetic field. It is not in thermal equilibrium with the surface, it is not getting it's energy from the surface, it is not a blackbody emitter.

The Sun's surface radiation is simply transmitted through the Corona because it is 1. very rarified, and 2. it is not a black body absorber.


----------



## IanC (Apr 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CCDs detect radiation coming off objects cooler than the device.
> ...



While some detectors do operate on the principle of heating or cooling due to the net radiation exchanged with the object being measured, that is not the case with CCDs. They react to photons hitting them, not unlike the silver ions reacting with light in film. Of course the change is not permanent like in film. The 'buckets' catching photons like raindrops are regularly added up and then emptied for the next batch of photons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
I didn’t notice one because there isn’t any there. 
*
You didn't notice the flaw?
He said cooler matter can't radiate at warmer matter.
His flaw is as large as the Sun in the sky.

* Perhaps you could tell us where the heat source originated on the sun.
*
Fusion occurs at the core.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Does all technology fool you so easily? Are you just a natural dupe?  What is it like to be so easily fooled?    CCD's as found in cameras, or CMOS  both work on the same principle...that is they look at visible light.  When you point them at an ice cube, they aren't looking at IR...or energy coming off the ice cube, they are looking at visible light....then anyone who isn't a big old dupe might ask himself what is the temperature of the light source?  Is the light source cooler than the CCD or CMOS array?  My bet is.....a resounding no.    Old rocks used to put up the same stupid argument when he would point out that he could point his flashlight at a hot piece of metal and still see the light.....the poor idiot never considered the temperature of the filament in his flashlight...

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Does all technology fool you so easily?
*
Radio telescopes at the bottom of our "hot" atmosphere detected "cold" CMB.
No fooling.
*
since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.
*
Matter at 0 C doesn't emit photons. Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong. 
You heard it here first.


----------



## IanC (Apr 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hahahaha. First you get the mechanism wrong for how CCDs work.

I do agree that there is a minimum threshold energy of the wavelengths that will be detected by CCDs that is determined by the type of metal substrate used. I think it is about 10 microns for common varieties.

So, as long as an object is emitting some radiation at 10 microns or lower, it will be detected by the CCD.

What is the Planck curve for an ice cube?






Somewhere in between those two curves. Roughly half of the radiation  is at 10 microns or lower. The CCD will have no problem 'seeing' it.


Of course you believe in some bizarro land version of physics where the ice cube doesn't radiate at all, but I can't help your stupidity.

The graph I provided is actually a very good description of how net radiation transfer of energy works. The pink line is the amount of radiation going toward the warmer object. The blue line is radiation going towards the cooler object. At each and every wavelength the warm object produces more radiation, and the area between the curves describes the excess radiation that is being transferred to the cool object.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. First you get the mechanism wrong for how CCDs work.



It isn't surprising that all instrumentation fools you so easily...you don't have any idea what any of it is measuring.  You just take the reading the instrument is giving you, filter it through your belief in magic, and then just assume it is telling you what you want to hear.


Here...from the Rochester Institute of Technology....

"Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) were invented in the 1970s and originally found application as memory devices. *Their light sensitive properties were quickly exploited for imaging applications and they produced a major revolution in Astronomy. They improved the light gathering power of telescopes by almost two orders of magnitude. *Nowadays an amateur astronomer with a CCD camera and a 15 cm telescope can collect as much light as an astronomer of the 1960s equipped with a photographic plate and a 1m telescope. 

*CCDs work by converting light into a pattern of electronic charge in a silicon chip. *This pattern of charge is converted into a video waveform, digitised and stored as an image file on a computer."


And before you show how profoundly you are fooled by instrumentation and tell me that CCD's can detect infrared light, here...from Larson Electronics:

"Infrared light is no different from visible light. It behaves the same way, only it radiates at a frequency that is undetectable to the human eye. CCD devices, however, can detect this wavelength and thus form images from infrared illumination. In fact, some camera manufacturers have already exploited this natural characteristic of CCD’s and introduced versions of their devices that are touted as low light or night vision capable, yet in reality differ little from their normal offerings only by* having a source of infrared light included with the camera.* True some devices now use CCD’s that are specially designed to increase their sensitivity to light in the infrared spectrum, it still remains though that almost all CCD’s are capable of capturing images in what for all practical purposes amounts to total darkness using infrared."

Here, from the SPIE digital library, in an article describing an experiment that involves an infrared telescope being launched outside the space shuttle..

"However, it is generally recognized that supplemental overview imagery acquired in the visible portion of the spectrum is necessary to assist in accurately interpreting the data generated by the infrared focal plane. For this purpose, the *TRE will be equipped with a Charge Coupled Device (CCD) Visible Light Sensor (VLS)* that will yield the cloud and ground truth data needed to assist in pointing and scene verification."


Here  from Texas A&M..

A CCD, or charged coupled device, is a device used in digital photography that* converts an optical image into electrical signal.* CCD chips can *detect faint amounts of light* and are capable of producing high resolution images needed in scientific research and applications thereof. CCDs are particularly useful in astronomical imagery due to their *great sensitivity to light/
*
Again, take your CCD into a dark room and point it at an ice cube...you will record exactly squat.  If you believe you will get an image of an ice cube in a dark room with a CCD, you are in for a profound disappointment...and why?  Because you have once again been completely bamboozled by instrumentation.  

You know ian, there is literally volumes of information on how instrumentation works and what devices are recording and what they are not.  It is available for anyone to read...so that anyone can avoid being fooled by instrumentation if they so desire.  Do you want the magic to be true so badly that you just don't want to know what the instrumentation you reference is actually recording for fear that it might alter your belief in magic?

*
*


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2018)

Where in that spew of cut&paste is your point?

It didn't even give the lowest threshold energy wavelength to activate detection on a CCD.

An ice cube is a near blackbody which gives off radiation in the infrared range. Part of its range is in the detectable region for CCDs. Therefore a CCD responds to an ice cube. 

Are you just complaining that it would take a shitty picture? I can agree to that. The exposure time between emptying the bins would need to be increased, and the quality in a no visible light environment will typically be poor, but that is an entirely different argument than saying the CCD does not respond at all.

Why do you keep making specious claims? 

This latest bullshit claim is similar to your claim that air cannot absorb IR. Even though IR is emitted into the atmosphere from the surface but only a fraction comes out at the top, you claim no absorption based on the brochure put out by a company selling heating panels. 

IR actually IS poorly absorbed by the atmosphere. But there is a lot of atmosphere to do it.

Just like water is a poor absorber of visible light but it is very dark at 1000 metres below the surface.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.


Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> True some devices now use CCD’s that are specially designed to increase their sensitivity to light in the infrared spectrum, it still remains though that almost all CCD’s are capable of capturing images in what for all practical purposes amounts to total darkness using infrared."



It is hard to believe that SSDD put up this quote as a rebuttal to me for saying a CCD would respond to an ice cube.

My diagram showed that the range of wavelengths emitted in IR is almost identical for two objects differing by 20C. Only the amount of radiation per wavelength changes. 

As long as the temperature of the object is warm enough to emit some radiation in the threshold wavelength of 10 microns or lower, then you will get a response in the CCD.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.
> ...



Did you notice how his nostrils turned blue when he exhaled?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Fooled by instrumentation.

DERP!


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2018)

I made a mistake. The threshold wavelength for standard CCDs is 1.1 microns, not 11 microns. I should have taken more care to get my facts straight. An ice cube would not trigger a response in a standard CCD. I was wrong. Mea culpa.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Did you notice how his nostrils turned blue when he exhaled?


LOL. No. I missed that the first time around. There seemed to be a small spot of blue in the center of each nostril.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


why don't you see blue coming out of her mouth as she eats the ice cream.  you should be able to see her breath if that were truly measuring temperature. her exhaling while laughing should have resulted in a color change.  It didn't.  I see that as a big fail.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."



Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation.  Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

_If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive_

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

Since you clearly don't know what that means let me tell you.  It means that the camera is recording how much heat the sensor is losing to the ice cream...the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative...that is the heat is leaving the sensor and going to the cooler object.  The ice cream isn't radiating cold to a warmer object....the only thing an ice cube can radiate to is something colder than itself.  

As to the 40 second mark where the ice cream is warmed up a bit...the color changes because since the ice cream has warmed up a bit, the sensor is losing a bit less heat to it...the electronics recognize this reduced heat loss and translate that into a warmer color gradation.  It is no wonder that you believe the shit you believe....you don't have any idea what the instrumentation is doing, or what it is measuring...like ian, you look at the data and filter it through your magical beliefs and then talk about it as if you had a clue.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




*you should be able to see her breath if that were truly measuring temperature. 
*
It's not measuring temperature? What is it measuring?
*
 I see that as a big fail.
*
Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail?  LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > True some devices now use CCD’s that are specially designed to increase their sensitivity to light in the infrared spectrum, it still remains though that almost all CCD’s are capable of capturing images in what for all practical purposes amounts to total darkness using infrared."
> ...



In your typical dishonest fashion, you leave out the pertinent information...that being that the camera is equipped with an IR light that is within the range of the CCD to sense...that means, you idiot, that the light the CCD is picking up off the ice cube is from a power source that is warmer than the ice cube.....the ice cube is not emitting into a space that is warmer than itself....the camera is picking up IR that it provided itself.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



To bad you don't have a clue as to what is being measured, or how...You simply filter what you see through your magical belief and convince yourself that you have some idea of what is being measured, or how...or how the image is produced.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."
> ...



_If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *
_
Of course!!!
The camera detects photons moving away from the camera.

It's so obvious now........shesh.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*What is it measuring?*
it isn't measuring anything. if it was, you'd see her breath

*Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail?*

just show us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*it isn't measuring anything.
*
How do you explain the different colors?
*
just show us.
*
See the darker color of the ice cream? That's the show.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


if it was measuring IR, you'd see her breath right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What is it measuring?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


can't answer my question eh?  funny!!! gotcha!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It has to be measuring something. I think it's measuring temperature.
See how it shows a different color for skin than for ice cream?
It's almost as though the photons coming off of each have different energy levels.

Funny!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > True some devices now use CCD’s that are specially designed to increase their sensitivity to light in the infrared spectrum, it still remains though that almost all CCD’s are capable of capturing images in what for all practical purposes amounts to total darkness using infrared."
> ...


so take the ice cube to a dark room and read its IR.  Will it?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> why don't you see blue coming out of her mouth as she eats the ice cream.  you should be able to see her breath if that were truly measuring temperature. her exhaling while laughing should have resulted in a color change.  It didn't.  I see that as a big fail.



They don't have any idea of what is being measured, or how it is being measured.  They believe that because they can see the ice cream on the image, that the ice cream is radiating cold to the camera.  They couldn't possibly be more wrong.  I already provided an explanation to them about how the camera works and how it is able to record images of objects that are colder than the sensor itself.  Here is a brief explanation from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

*If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books
*
What that means is that the sensor array in the camera reacts to energy radiating into the camera from objects that are warmer than the camera, and in addition, it also measures energy the warmer camera sensor array loses to objects cooler than itself.  The text explains what is happening in no uncertain terms but they don't seem to be able to grasp the facts because they don't mesh with their magical beliefs.  *If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive.*  If the object is warmer, then the sensor is recording energy coming into the camera.  * If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object.*  If the object is cooler, the camera is measuring how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the cooler object.  *HEAT GOES FROM THE SENSOR TO THE OBJECT.*...I don't know how what is happening inside the camera could be stated in more simple terms...heat goes from the sensor to the object....how difficult is that to understand?

The high end thermal cameras have internal coolers that keep the sensor very cold...they produce a more accurate image if they are receiving energy from the outside than they do if they are losing energy to cooler objects.  If you cool the sensor enough, then practically everything you point it at will be warmer than the sensor and therefore radiating energy to the cooler sensor.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Of course it won't...if the room is warmer than the ice cube then the ice cube is absorbing energy, not radiating out into warmer surroundings...You couldn't measure energy coming off that ice cube with even the most sensitive instrument because no energy is coming off the ice cube....


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > why don't you see blue coming out of her mouth as she eats the ice cream.  you should be able to see her breath if that were truly measuring temperature. her exhaling while laughing should have resulted in a color change.  It didn't.  I see that as a big fail.
> ...


well they know that it isn't measuring IR because if it were, they'd see the girl's breath.  Her exhale would be colder than the surrounding air.  yet it doesn't capture that at all.  It isn't solid.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


that's all one needs to know to show it isn't reading IR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > why don't you see blue coming out of her mouth as she eats the ice cream.  you should be able to see her breath if that were truly measuring temperature. her exhaling while laughing should have resulted in a color change.  It didn't.  I see that as a big fail.
> ...



* They believe that because they can see the ice cream on the image, that the ice cream is radiating cold to the camera. *

"Radiating cold" isn't a thing.
The IR photons from the ice cream are lower energy than the photons from the skin.
The different energy levels can tell you the temperature of the emitting object.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


so why don't you see her breath?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What is it reading if not IR?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


It's CO2

oh and also water.

exhale on a mirror.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail?  LOL!



As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm...what is being measured is how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the colder object...the image is the result of energy leaving the camera, not coming into it.  Sorry this is all so far over your head.  The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes why you only talk in one liners...if you were to speak more than a single sentence at once, your abject ignorance would flare forth like a spotlight.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What is it reading if not IR?



It is reading the negative energy flux from the sensor to the cold ice cream...it is measuring how much and how fast it is losing energy to the ice cream...not how much energy is coming in from the ice cream...which would be none...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail?  LOL!
> ...



*As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm.
*
On what page of the textbook does it say photons only flow one way?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects.  As SSDD has already mentioned, the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep, so again, why can't you see her breath?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects.
*
Sense? Sense how? Sonar? Radar? ESP?
*
the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.
*
Energy? You mean photons?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Energy? You mean photons?*

measuring loss of energy at the sensor. current


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


then how can one point a thermal meter at the sky and read IR? you just busted your own theory.  funny


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Depends on the meter.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it reads an amperage measurement in the meter.  there will be a change in the amperage through the sensor.  it's electronics.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure it does.  One cooled down so one can see heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*then how can one point a thermal meter at the sky and read IR? 
*
Find a video like the ice cream video and I'll be glad to discuss it.

* you just busted your own theory.
*
My theory? Scientists have known about matter emitting photons long before I was born.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*it reads an amperage measurement in the meter. 
*
Ok.

* there will be a change in the amperage through the sensor. *

What does it sense to trigger the change?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The ice cream camera doesn't look cooled. So what did it read?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*My theory? Scientists have known about matter emitting photons long before I was born.*

Wow that's a long time to be wrong.

*Find a video like the ice cream video and I'll be glad to discuss it.*

I've been waiting on your video of a device that is actually reading IR.  The ice cream didn't. I don't think they make videos of capturing nothing.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


already asked and answered.  got anything else?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail?  LOL!
> ...


he doesn't appear to understand electronics.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Fusion occurs at the core.*

so that is the source fire that radiates to the universe. Why wouldn't it be radiating out toward space?

If I put wood in a fire pit and light it, that is a source of heat and it radiates just like the sun.

So where's his flaw again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Wow that's a long time to be wrong.
*
Scientists are wrong about matter above 0K emitting photons? 

*I've been waiting on your video of a device that is actually reading IR.  The ice cream didn't.
*
What was that camera reading if not IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*so that is the source fire that radiates to the universe. 
*
Yup.

* Why wouldn't it be radiating out toward space?
*
Because SSDD thinks it can't radiate toward the hotter corona.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*already asked and answered. 
*
Yes, you said that  "there will be a change in the amperage through the sensor"

You never did say what the sensor sensed.

* got anything else?
*
Besides your evasion? No.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*What was that camera reading if not IR?*

asked and answered now for the second time.

*Scientists are wrong about matter above 0K emitting photons?*

still waiting on the evidence that occurs. If they are so sure, why can't they provide evidence of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
asked and answered now for the second time.
*
What post did you answer it in?

*still waiting on the evidence that occurs.
*
You've never seen evidence that matter emits photons?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*You never did say what the sensor sensed.*

Do you know what current flow is? .  if you don't, then you won't understand how changes in current flows are sensed in circuits.  The designers put in electronic components that are designed to react to voltage and current changes.  you should read up on how Voltage, Resistance and Current /Amps  work.

the one thing I can assure you of in the video, is that they are not detecting IR because if it were, then you'd see the girl's breath.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


ones previous to this one.

When are you going to answer my question on the girls breath?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Air is a poor emitter.
How does it sense a different temperature between skin and ice cream?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Do you know what current flow is? .
*
I do. Do you know what caused the current to flow?

*the one thing I can assure you of in the video, is that they are not detecting IR 
*
I wonder what they're detecting if not IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Asked and answered.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Air is a poor emitter.*

but it can radiate twice that of the sun from what you all say.  hmmmmmm seems you are confused.

*How does it sense a different temperature between skin and ice cream?*
Asked and answered.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*I do. Do you know what caused the current to flow?*
Batteries. The voltage.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Asked and answered*

What post?  I can play your game.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It flows for no reason? Doesn't something have to trigger the sensor?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*It flows for no reason?* *Doesn't something have to trigger the sensor*?

asked and answered.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The sensor is triggered by IR photons.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:
> 
> _If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive_
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you said *except *for the statements where you think that I have been fooled, you think I clearly don't know what it means, you think I believe shit, have no idea, have magical beliefs, and don't have a clue. I would sincerely say that you are the one who has those attributes.  You are quite caustic in all your replies. It doesn't serve you well.

The article in the handbook and your interpretation refers to *heat *flux, which is quite consistent with two way radiation flow. The flow of *heat *is not a confirmation of your lets-pretend game of one way radiation flow. That is why I agree with most of your post. 

You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

Your idea means that when the ice cream is moved around, various sensors are continually switching from emitting energy to not emitting at all. That is absurd. Either you are a doofus, or a troll or both.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:
> ...


you think the device reads incoming IR.  And it doesn't.  That's what makes you a fool.  The explanation was given and you don't accept the manufacturers explanation, instead you improvise with your words.  the fact the girl's breath is not seen tells you that it isn't reading IR from anything.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Page 307, section 7.8.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?



No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *. *
> 
> What does it sense to trigger the change?



It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *the one thing I can assure you of in the video, is that they are not detecting IR
> *
> I wonder what they're detecting if not IR?



This really is waaaaaayyyy over your head isn't it?  If the object the array is being pointed at is cooler, then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling off...that is..how much and how quickly the array is losing energy to the cooler object..it isn't measuring incoming photons...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.



Only if the object is a perfect black body and in a perfect vacuum that is perfectly devoid of other matter....that is the only time matter radiates in all directions according to its temperature...put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They are easily fooled by instrumentation...they see instrument readings and simply imagine what it must be reading rather than finding out what it is actually reading...hell, ian once claimed that a pyrogeometer was capable of measuring backradiation...imagine, an instrument to measure what does not exist...laughable.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


yep. the function is so simple to see as well.  maybe they don't know electronics and how it works.  all the innovations in components.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



They think the thing is measuring photons...it isn't....all the instrument is measuring is the amount, and rate of temperature change of the individual "pixels" in the array.  It is no more detecting and measuring photons than a pyrogeometer which measures nothing more than temperature changes within an internal thermopile.  The more I talk to these guys, the more apparent it becomes that they are clueless...

These are high tech devices, but the principles they operate on are fairly straight forward...the amount and rate of temperature change a single "pixel" in the array experiences translates into a dot of color in a larger image..there is no "measuring" or "detecting" of photons going on..there is only measurement of temperature changes within the array.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > They're YOUR graphics.  YOU identify them.  No one here wants to play your infantile games.
> ...





*Shell Suppressed the Dangers of Fossil Fuel Emissions for Decades: Report*
*Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams *


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Yes sirreee.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



What dangers would those be?  Can you provide a single piece of observed measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?  Just one?


----------



## Mousterian (Apr 6, 2018)

These fossil-fuel vandals spin the most laughable shit. 
BP claims oil-spills are good for you..
BP: Bight oil spills would benefit local economy
Oil company claims oil spills can have 'positive effects'


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Copy and paste the part that says photons only flow one way. Thanks!!!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Already did....go back and find it yourself....not that you will be able to understand what it says...no doubt you will filter it through your magical belief and it will come out saying whatever you want it to say.  For that matter, why bother looking for the post anyway...just make make up a one liner...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *. *
> ...



*It senses a temperature change 
*
How? 


SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?
> ...



_Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf
_
Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

_106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. *Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.*
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal ﬂux (i.e., ﬂux from the object minus ﬂux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reﬂectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire ﬂux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reﬂected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reﬂected ﬂux is proportional to the sensor’s coefﬁcient of reﬂectivity:
_
It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way
*
tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?
*
Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.
> 
> http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf
> _
> ...



Here’s another interesting passage from page 103:

"3.12.3  Thermal Radiation
It was mentioned earlier that in any object, every atom and every molecule vibrate. The average kinetic energy of vibrating particles is represented by the absolute temperature. According to laws of electrodynamics, a moving electric charge is associated with a variable electric field that produces an alternating magnetic field. In turn, when the magnetic field changes, it results in a changing electric field coupled with it and so on. *Thus, a vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics.*"


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Only if the object is a perfect black body and in a perfect vacuum that is perfectly devoid of other matter....that is the only time matter radiates in all directions according to its temperature...put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.



*put it in the presence of matter and the game changes*.

The game change is that the both substances exchange radiation with each other. Otherwise it is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.





MPS777 said:


> Here’s another interesting passage from page 103:
> *.....Thus, a vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics.*"



You guys are making SSDD shoot himself in the foot again. By now his foot is already riddled with bullet holes.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Only if the object is a perfect black body and in a perfect vacuum that is perfectly devoid of other matter....that is the only time matter radiates in all directions according to its temperature...put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.
> ...



So you say, and yet, you can't show a single observation or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object even though we are able to measure minute energy movements...according to flacalten, we can measure movement as small as a single photon.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.
> ...



Who said that EM fields don't propagate outward....I don't see anything there about them propagating outward in all directions even if their surroundings are warmer than themselves.  Alas, it is your feet that are full of holes due to your gross misunderstandings of not only physics, but of instrumentation.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?
*
He did a cut and paste, but no link.
Maybe his source was a different edition? I think mine was the 3rd edition.
In that edition, his page number and heading weren't there.

If he provides an actual link, I'm sure he'll be wrong again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



* you can't show a single observation or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object 
*
Still waiting for you to explain the Sun-Corona flaw to your theory.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You guys are a laugh...getting your knickers in a twist over yet another passage that doesn't support your belief...When did I ever say that EM fields don't propagate outward?    You are becoming a mamooth clone ian....sure hope your magical beliefs are worth sacrificing anything like actual character that you might have ever possessed.

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...






Here is an observation of photons spontaneously leaving the Sun's surface despite your claim that 
cooler matter can't/won't be emitted toward hotter matter.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.



We are arguing over two explanations that both give the same answer to a general macroscopic question. Mine uses physics that dovetails with all the other laws of physics, yours invokes an unknown and unexplainable mechanism that throttles radiation and prohibits random motion.

You say you are winning but you run away from every question that would lead to an absurdity using your method. In the past you painted yourself into a corner on many occasions, so now you just refuse to answer.

For example, how does evaporation happen if no molecules are allowed to receive more energy than the average? Why don't all the molecules end up with exactly the same kinetic energy? What is the mechanism that stops the prohibited collisions that would cause an uneven distribution of energy? Your version of physics does not match reality therefore it is wrong.

And that example uses matter, a much more intuative property than radiation. Radiation does not interact with other radiation, only with matter. There is no mechanism for cancelling out to result in a single net movement. Once created, radiation continues to exist until it reaches its destination. (Virtual photons carrying force instead of just energy is far beyond the scope of this conversation)

Radiation must be a combination of gross flows in all directions that results in a net exchange. Otherwise, different laws of physics are confounded.

I couldn't be bothered to do the calculations but let's say the net radiation exchange is equal between objects at (0K-200K), (270K-275K) and (350K- 350.5K). Even though the power is equal, the quality of radiation is not. One is delivering far IR, then mid IR, and near IR. The ability to cause specific changes typically has threshold energy values needed. An extra watt of far IR may result in warming but it will not trigger detection via the photoelectric effect. A watt of near IR may trigger the PE effect but it will not power photosynthesis. Entropy is being gained every time high quality radiation is transformed into low quality IR. This increase in entropy can be harnessed in part to perform work, or not. It still results in more disorder. 

SSDD's version of physics is devoid of taking entropy in to account. So are many climate models. Many of the models consider only the balance of energy, that an extra watt of IR is equivalent to an extra watt of solar insolation. They are not.

Until SSDD drops the 150 year old first approximation version of the SLoT, and replaces it with the more recent and powerful explanation derived from entropy, he will be wrong in many of the finer details.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you say, and yet, you can't show a single observation or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object even though we are able to measure minute energy movements...according to flacalten, we can measure movement as small as a single photon.



You have said that constantly in reply to almost every radiation post. It means absolutely nothing in the case of radiation physics. Nothing. Yet that is the false mantra you make while you hide in your house of straw without any real physics argument. We already gave two strong counter examples in the detection of the CMB, and the sun's corona. 

Try to come out of your straw house and present an argument or experiment that shows that black body radiation can't strike a warmer object. It's long overdue. Otherwise you are stuck with your smart photons.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Who said that EM fields don't propagate outward.*
You did... when there is a nearby warmer body. 

*I don't see anything there about them propagating outward in all directions even if their surroundings are warmer than themselves. *

Just tell me why the handbook would bother to mention the temperature of the surroundings when this is a handbook for scientists and engineers? Everybody knows that makes no difference when vibrating particles radiate! Even you should know the reason even though you disagree because you don't believe believe radiation physics. That is such a trollish post.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


That’s not spontaneous. The core is constantly working


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why is the core an issue?
The photons are emitted at the surface.
Where is the work on the surface?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You said spontaneous when there is work. You think the sun is solid?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*You said spontaneous when there is work.
*
Photons are emitted at the surface.
There is no work occurring at the surface.

Do you think absorption and emission of photons is work?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You think the sun is solid!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> We are arguing over two explanations that both give the same answer to a general macroscopic question. Mine uses physics that dovetails with all the other laws of physics, yours invokes an unknown and unexplainable mechanism that throttles radiation and prohibits random motion.



One is supported by the laws of physics, and borne out by every observation and measurement ever made....one involves energy movement from cool objects to warm even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that such spontaneous energy movement is not possible...then there is the fact that this energy movement can not be observed or detected with even the most sensitive equipment...and finally, this energy movement is the product of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model......since you brought him up, which one does Occam say is most likely the correct explanation?  Do try to be honest if you still have it in you.



IanC said:


> You say you are winning but you run away from every question that would lead to an absurdity using your method. In the past you painted yourself into a corner on many occasions, so now you just refuse to answer.



I am not nor have I run away from anything...the physical laws and observation support my position...why would I run away...and as to answers...there is still plenty that we don't know.  I don't pretend to know how as of yet unknowable mechanisms work.  Imagination and magic is your stomping ground....I prefer reality.



IanC said:


> For example, how does evaporation happen if no molecules are allowed to receive more energy than the average? Why don't all the molecules end up with exactly the same kinetic energy? What is the mechanism that stops the prohibited collisions that would cause an uneven distribution of energy? Your version of physics does not match reality therefore it is wrong.



Where do you get the notion that I believe that all molecules must receive exactly the same amount of energy...where did I ever say such a thing...this is just one more instance of you making up arguments and then railing against them...All I have said is that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm..the rest of that jibberish is entirely your invention.

Sorry that you must resort to such obvious dishonesty in an effort to try and make a case for your magical belief...if you can't defend your position without making up arguments for your opponents then railing against your own fiction, what good is that position?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You have said that constantly in reply to almost every radiation post. It means absolutely nothing in the case of radiation physics. Nothing. Yet that is the false mantra you make while you hide in your house of straw without any real physics argument. We already gave two strong counter examples in the detection of the CMB, and the sun's corona.



What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point..  Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.



Wuwei said:


> Try to come out of your straw house and present an argument or experiment that shows that black body radiation can't strike a warmer object. It's long overdue. Otherwise you are stuck with your smart photons.








   Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal?  The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You did... when there is a nearby warmer body.



Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...What does P equal.



Wuwei said:


> Just tell me why the handbook would bother to mention the temperature of the surroundings when this is a handbook for scientists and engineers? Everybody knows that makes no difference when vibrating particles radiate! Even you should know the reason even though you disagree because you don't believe believe radiation physics. That is such a trollish post.



It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object.    How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.


You and that trolling "flat-earth" type crap again. You have absolutely no other argument, and the only one you have believes in smart photons and defies observable, measurable, testable experiments in black body radiation.



SSDD said:


> It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?


Your interpretation is a bunch of crap. The handbook did not say it was one way radiation. The flux is the net energy. Everybody understands that, except those who pretend it's not true because they like playing troll games.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.
> ...


All he asked you for was observed, measured, tested evidence. Why can’t you present it to counter his arguments?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You and that trolling "flat-earth" type crap again. You have absolutely no other argument, and the only one you have believes in smart photons and defies observable, measurable, testable experiments in black body radiation.



Alas, the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one...without actual measurement to support your claims, I am afraid that it is you who is trolling.



Wuwei said:


> Your interpretation is a bunch of crap. The handbook did not say it was one way radiation. The flux is the net energy. Everybody understands that, except those who pretend it's not true because they like playing troll games.



I didn't "interpret" anything... I simply stated what he said.  You on the other hand are interpreting...attepting to write things into the statement that were not there.  And if you look at the definition of flux in the scientific dictionary, you don't see any mention of net anything....you are the one who is interpreting..I am simply repeating what the text said.  You must interpret in all cases because neither the text of that volume nor the statements of the physical laws themselves support your belief...interpretation is all you have...accepting reality certainly doesn't seem to be an option to you.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.


All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them. 


SSDD said:


> Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.


More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't  believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons. 

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to. 

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Because there is no physical evidence to support is position...it is all models...all the way down.  If he had physical evidence, he would have brought it forward long ago.  He has demonstrated pretty clearly that he doesn't know enough about the topic to even know what evidence is...he is fooled by instrumentation at every turn...he believed that bullshit video clip was evidence of the cold ice cream radiating its cold to the warmer camera....he didn't have the fist idea of how the camera worked...and had no idea what caused the image to form...lit is little wonder that he has been duped by the global warming religion...he doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on reality...seems to be a universal trait among them.  All models all the time because they can't point to any sort of observed, measured physical evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Yep. You’ve asked for years on here for it. Still nothing. I follow this. I’ve looked for information as well. Nothing. It’s why I hold my position on the topic! 

I have found no evidence of back radiation. Just theories and graphs from models


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.
> ...



Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?  You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature?  Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > We are arguing over two explanations that both give the same answer to a general macroscopic question. Mine uses physics that dovetails with all the other laws of physics, yours invokes an unknown and unexplainable mechanism that throttles radiation and prohibits random motion.
> ...


_
One is supported by the laws of physics, and borne out by every observation and measurement ever made....
_
And one is epicycles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?  
*
_*Planck's law* describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia
_
That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Where do you get the notion that I believe that all molecules must receive exactly the same amount of energy...where did I ever say such a thing...this is just one more instance of you making up arguments and then railing against them...All I have said is that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm..the rest of that jibberish is entirely your invention




You just said it again!

If no energy is allowed to spontaneously move from cool to warm then no water molecule can attain the threshold energy needed to break free of the liquid. Energy could only move down the ladder and very quickly all the allowable transfers would be made, leaving all the molecules with exactly the average kinetic speed and no further transfers would be possible.

How does evaporation take place in your bizarro world, given the restrictions you claim are universal?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...what's that?  You can't find one...that's what I thought...that is why I asked for it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> You just said it again!
> 
> If no energy is allowed to spontaneously move from cool to warm then no water molecule can attain the threshold energy needed to break free of the liquid. Energy could only move down the ladder and very quickly all the allowable transfers would be made, leaving all the molecules with exactly the average kinetic speed and no further transfers would be possible.



You want to explain why you believe energy from a cooler object can provide the energy necessary to cause evaporation but energy from a warmer object can't?  How might the molecule know, or care whether the energy came from a cooler object or a warmer object....guess we are lucky they don't care since they will be receiving no energy from cooler objects.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...
*
Do you not understand what "_electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium" _means? 

Please post a version that says radiation only flows one way.


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You just said it again!
> ...



Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?

You say no natural spontaneous interaction is possible to boost the energy level of one molecule at the expense of other cooler molecules surrounding it. Therefore no evaporation would be possible. 

Yet evaporation does happen. And it cools the liquid by removing the most energetic molecules, leaving the slower molecules behind which by definition will have a lower temperature.

Explain how evaporation happens under your rules.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course I do...a is a singular term...a black body...I don't see anything there about another object that the BB might be receiving energy from.


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...








Two Planck curves. The lower curve is matched exactly by the upper curve but there is an excess for the warmer curve. The excess is described by the power S-B equation. The radiation for both objects is described by the radiation S-B equation.

You are claiming that only the portion between the curves actually exists, and that all the radiation from the cooler object simply ceases to exist, as well as a similar amount of radiation from the warmer object. You cannot explain where this energy disappears to, or how it is possible to disappear. You ignore the first law of thermodynamics because it doesn't agree with your faulty understanding of the second law.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?



I'm not ducking...I am laughing in your deluded face.....I am asking why evaporation can't be caused by energy moving down hill from a warmer object...are you so blind in your belief that you never even considered that possibility?



IanC said:


> You say no natural spontaneous interaction is possible to boost the energy level of one molecule at the expense of other cooler molecules surrounding it. Therefore no evaporation would be possible. e



You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...why would you think that only energy from a cooler object could make water evaporate?



IanC said:


> Yet evaporation does happen. And it cools the liquid by removing the most energetic molecules, leaving the slower molecules behind which by definition will have a lower temperature.



The operative phrase there is left behind..



IanC said:


> Explain how evaporation happens under your rules.



At its most basic level, evaporation happens when molecules that have absorbed energy from some heat source begin to collide...via collisions some molecules reach an energy level sufficient to escape the liquid form to the vapor form...The heat source is still the reason for evaporation and the energy is still rolling down hill...cooler water molecules aren't warming anything enough to cause evaporation...you have lost any semblance of reason ian.....what the hell has happened to you?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Stil waiting for a two way version of Planck's law...Why not just state that no such thing exists?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I don't see anything there about another object that the BB might be receiving energy from
*
_a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. _

Equilibrium, with what, you might ask?

We've all seen, and mocked, your previous epicycle that said objects at equilibrium cease emissions.

Please post a version that says radiation only flows one way.

Or maybe another source which disproves your claims? LOL!
_

_


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Still don’t see two BB’s. Still says ‘a’


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?
> ...



*You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...
*
A cup of 20 C water in 10 C air at night will see zero evaporation?

I await the latest epicycle.........


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.


Observation and measurement of the CMB, and emission of sun radiation through the hotter corona.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.
> ...


It’s a big fireball. It is an active engine


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


It’s a fireball it’s burning work


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Awesome!

Work at the core allows matter at the surface to emit?
Any limit to this "work at a distance"?


----------



## Flash (Apr 8, 2018)

In theory CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  However, the chemistry of the earth is more more complex than the theoretical models indicate and in reality CO2 has very little effect of temperature.

CO2 has been much higher than it is now and the earth has been cooler.  The CO2 levels have been lower than what it is now and the temperature has been warmer.

The historical temperature records actually shows CO2 levels in the atmosphere to lag temperature changes.  If CO2 was the culprit then it would be the reverse.

It is fake news.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....



That is not my version it is believed by all the fathers of science. Your version has no known science father, that makes you a bastardized version of a troll. 

But seriously folks, anyone who sets T=0 doesn't know that the science of thermodynamics really doesn't want you to do that. Furthermore, there is no rule that the emission has to be greater than the absorption. The net rate can be positive or negative. 



SSDD said:


> The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?



Plank's law is not only a two way version, it is a multi-way version because all objects radiate BB energy everywhere. Neither Plank nor anyone else put any constraints on how the temperature of any other object might affect the radiation. 

You should really already know these things. Are you pretending not to believe them because you would rather "win" at the expense of suffering a loss of any last vestige of dignity you have?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It’s gas yes. It’s what happens on my stove burners. I put a pan on it the pan radiates


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Any limit to this "work at a distance"?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Makes it here


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So no limit?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Of what?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


What, you figure it`s the 10 C air that causes water at 20 C to evaporate???
It evaporates as long as the vapor pressure is > than the partial pressure of H2O vapor in the air above it.
Certainly not because there is energy contributed by the 10 deg C air.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one.
> ...



Same old lost arguments over and over...CMB was not observed with a radio telescope...a resonant radio frequency was observed....sorry that whole concept escapes you so badly...and the latest hypothesis is that Alfven waves are responsible for energy leaving the sun through the corona...in any event, no one is suggesting that it is the result of spontaneous energy movement besides you wack jobs...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That is not my version it is believed by all the fathers of science. Your version has no known science father, that makes you a bastardized version of a troll.



Sorry guy....only true losers attempt to manipulate formulae via bad math in an attempt to make an unphysical thing physical....




Wuwei said:


> Plank's law is not only a two way version, it is a multi-way version because all objects radiate BB energy everywhere. Neither Plank nor anyone else put any constraints on how the temperature of any other object might affect the radiation.



Yet another fundamental error on your part....Planck's law is one way...Planck's law speaks to an object...not objects...sorry, again, you are interpreting, and adding things that simply are not there.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Just when you thought you had heard the stupidest thing possible, they top it by an order of magnitude.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Same old lost arguments over and over...CMB was not observed with a radio telescope.


We went through this all before, and you could only come up with an non-existent meaningless answer. How did Penzias and Wilson know there is a CMB unless the signal went through the much warmer atmosphere to hit their telescope?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> .Planck's law is one way...Planck's law speaks to an object.


Exactly. Furthermore, all objects radiate BB radiation according to Lambert's law. Nothing can change that.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Same old lost arguments over and over...CMB was not observed with a radio telescope.
> ...



As I have already said and explained in much detail...resonant radio frequency.not CMB itself....and still the subject is so far over your head that you remain unable to comprehend the very idea....


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy....only true losers attempt to manipulate formulae via bad math in an attempt to make an unphysical thing physical....


So you are calling all scientists for the last hundred years true losers? and using bad math? My gosh, your hubris is reeking. But it actually isn't hubris, you are just playing a trollish game.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

If they actually believe unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measureable, testable realty.....then yes.  My bet is that they don't actually believe it like you...my bet is that unlike you, they are bright enough to separate what is real from what is a model and realize that it remains hypothetical till such time as reality bears it out...


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> As I have already said and explained in much detail...resonant radio frequency.not CMB itself....and still the subject is so far over your head that you remain unable to comprehend the very idea....


That "far over your head" crap again. Explain how the CMB got traveled through the warm atmosphere. It certainly was not a "resonant radio frequency".


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As I have already said and explained in much detail...resonant radio frequency.not CMB itself....and still the subject is so far over your head that you remain unable to comprehend the very idea....
> ...



Yes....still far over your head...the whole thing has been explained to death...all you need do is go back to the original conversation...I am not going through it again.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If they actually believe unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measureable, testable realty.....then yes. My bet is that they don't actually believe it like you...my bet is that unlike you, they are bright enough to separate what is real from what is a model and realize that it remains hypothetical till such time as reality bears it out...


Please try to think!!! All those scientists said that at equilibrium both emission and absorption of radiation occurs between objects at the same temperature. All of them.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yes....still far over your head...the whole thing has been explained to death...all you need do is go back to the original conversation...I am not going through it again.


Don't be a coward. You can't explain it now, and you couldn't then.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yes....still far over your head...the whole thing has been explained to death...all you need do is go back to the original conversation...I am not going through it again.
> ...



Everything was explained then...whining like an infant isn't going to get me to bring it all forward...you lost then and the thread is easy enough to find...look it up yourself and quit being such a lazy crybaby.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yes....still far over your head...the whole thing has been explained to death...all you need do is go back to the original conversation...I am not going through it again.


Whining infant? lazy crybaby? You are desperate to resort to that trollish crap.

I will explain it for you as we left it. 
The cold CMB at 2.7K passed through the warmer atmosphere and hit a radio telescope resonantly tuned to successive radio frequencies to get a plot that matched black body radiation near 0 degrees K. The resonance occured at ground level; not in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

A resonant radio frequency is not CMB....Grab yourself a tissue and have a good cry over your inability to grasp that concept.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> A resonant radio frequency is not CMB....Grab yourself a tissue and have a good cry over your inability to grasp that concept.


Of course it isn't ! That's what I have been telling you all along ! The CMB is from the distant universe and passes through the warm atmosphere. The resonant detector is on the ground. Your trollish boo hoo post is about the only thing our childish SSDD can muster at this point.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You did... when there is a nearby warmer body.
> ...


>>>”Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...”

Just curious, if you agree with the following statement about thermal radiation:
A vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics.

Do you think the ice cube particles are vibrating?  If so, where does the electromagnetic field generated by the vibrating ice molecules propagate to?

And about the Handbook (your own source) specifically says the flux involves energy from the object to the sensor:



 
[A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux
from itself).]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Of work at a distance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
What, you figure it`s the 10 C air that causes water at 20 C to evaporate???
*
I do?

*Certainly not because there is energy contributed by the 10 deg C air.
*
Do you think air has to contribute energy for evaporation to occur? I don't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*CMB was not observed with a radio telescope...a resonant radio frequency was observed...
*
That gets funnier every time you post it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A resonant radio frequency is not CMB....Grab yourself a tissue and have a good cry over your inability to grasp that concept.
> ...



The resonant radio frequency was detected on the ground...if you want to measure actual CMB you must do it with satellites outside the atmosphere.  I'm just not sure what is so difficult about this that you can't even grasp the concept.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Nice interpretation...since there is no radiation coming in from a cool object, then the flux is zero...The sensor would detect no thermal radiation from a cooler object....

You guys could put this whole topic to bed if you could just provide an actual observation and measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object.  We are certainly capable of detecting very small energy movements...why then, do you suppose there are no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?  Answer:  Because it doesn't happen except within the confines of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...








You should tell the Handbook of Modern Sensors publishers that their figure is wrong.
Tell them radiation can only flow one way. Let us know their response.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Would you accept the data from a sensor that detected thermal radiation from an object cooler than itself, if the sensor was based on technology such as this?:
Near‐Room‐Temperature Mid‐Infrared Quantum Well Photodetector
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201103372

I think you’d reject data from any “powered” sensor devised by man.  I think you’d just choose one active element or another in the sensor and say it voids the ‘spontaneity’ or some such.


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You just said it again!
> ...



I am not talking about where the energy came from. I am talking about the distribution of energy in the water. 

I say there is a range of kinetic speeds that is constantly being swapped back and forth by molecular collision. The average speed is the definition of temperature. A fast moving molecule near the surface will escape the liquid and take its energy with it, leaving the rest with a lower average energy.

You say there are no natural spontaneous interactions that increase the energy of an individual molecule, that it is forbidden by your version of the SLoT. That it never happens, ever. No molecule can speed up, no photon can be emitted at a molecule with more energy than the emitting one. 

And yet collisions happen and radiation is emitted. Evaporation still takes place. 

The second law describes the statistical probability of vast numbers of molecules having an even larger amount of interactions. It does not prohibit anything, it only makes various outcomes probable or inprobable.

The odds of any one H2O molecule having enough speed, in the right direction, close to the surface, is unimaginably small. Yet it happens.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The resonant radio frequency was detected on the ground...if you want to measure actual CMB you must do it with satellites outside the atmosphere. I'm just not sure what is so difficult about this that you can't even grasp the concept.



Right. The actual CMB went through the atmosphere to the resonantly tuned receiver on the ground. The satellite uses the same principle by also receiving the CMB and detecting it using resonantly tuned receivers. Of course, satellites are better, but the CMB can still penetrate to the ground. It can even be picked up on an old analog TV. 

6 Things you may not know about the afterglow of the big bang | Latest Features | physics.org
_"Tune your TV between the stations and about 1% of the static on the screen is from the big bang fireball."_​


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> You say there are no natural spontaneous interactions that increase the energy of an individual molecule, that it is forbidden by your version of the SLoT. That it never happens, ever. No molecule can speed up, no photon can be emitted at a molecule with more energy than the emitting one.



I don't have a version of the 2nd law...I only have the statement of the law which says that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.  I accept that statement at face value without the need to interpret, alter, add to or make any other changes to said statement.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The resonant radio frequency was detected on the ground...if you want to measure actual CMB you must do it with satellites outside the atmosphere. I'm just not sure what is so difficult about this that you can't even grasp the concept.
> ...



No idiot...a resonant radio frequency went through the atmosphere...actual CMB did not...geez but you are a dupe...


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No idiot...a resonant radio frequency went through the atmosphere...actual CMB did not...geez but you are a dupe...


When you use abrasive language with repetitive or little information content, we know you are at a loss on how to reply. 

Now you are lying. Since many satellites use identical techniques as ground systems, you are essentially saying that satellites are receiving "resonant radio frequencies" but not the CMB.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> don't have a version of the 2nd law...I only have the statement of the law which says that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. I accept that statement at face value without the need to interpret, alter, add to or make any other changes to said statement


Face value? No interpretation? That mantra is so silly. You sure have a low bar for rationalizing your purposeful misinterpretations.


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You say there are no natural spontaneous interactions that increase the energy of an individual molecule, that it is forbidden by your version of the SLoT. That it never happens, ever. No molecule can speed up, no photon can be emitted at a molecule with more energy than the emitting one.
> ...


 
Define the term 'object' then. In the past you have claimed your version of the SLoT was valid right down to a single molecule, and right down to a single photon if photons actually existed.

Are you ready yet to acknowledge that individual atomic scale actions do not fall under the purview of the SLoT? That the second law is simply a macroscopic probability built up from atomic scale events that are not governed by the same constraints?

For instance, temperature is the average kinetic speed of the vast cohort of molecules that make up an object. They have a wide range of speeds. But the atoms or molecules that are the same species all react identically no matter what their speed is. There is no such thing as temperature for an isolated molecule. Only when they are confined to a volume of space where they colide with each other in great numbers does temperature become a valid concept.

Radiation is a byproduct of collisions within the object. The amount emitted, j=sigmaT^^4, is a function of internal conditions. The object will cool by expelling radiation until it reaches absolute zero Kelvin, when the molecules stop moving and colliding.

A nearby object does not control the internal conditions of the first object. But the radiation produced and sent to the first object does reduce the energy loss  and temperature drop by inputting new energy.

The two objects are both still radiating as fast as they can. Neither is cooling as fast because they are getting replacement energy from the other.

There is no magical throttle or dimmer switch controlled by the opposite object. It is full radiation all of the time. The rate of cooling is reduced by nearby objects (over zero Kelvin) but that does not stop them from radiating.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Now you are lying. Since many satellites use identical techniques as ground systems, you are essentially saying that satellites are receiving "resonant radio frequencies" but not the CMB.



Is this all really that difficult for you?  Tell me goob..  Satellites are outside the warm atmosphere and are receiving actual CMB...they don't need a resonant radio frequency...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > don't have a version of the 2nd law...I only have the statement of the law which says that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. I accept that statement at face value without the need to interpret, alter, add to or make any other changes to said statement
> ...



Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?

* It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
*
In fact which part of that statement have I not accepted at face value...which part have I interpreted in any manner at all...much less misinterpreted?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> Define the term 'object' then. In the past you have claimed your version of the SLoT was valid right down to a single molecule, and right down to a single photon if photons actually existed.



You are unsure of what an object is?  There exists this thing called a dictionary...it tells you what words mean.  Here is what that miraculous document says about the word object.

anything that is visible or tangible and isrelatively stable in form.



IanC said:


> Are you ready yet to acknowledge that individual atomic scale actions do not fall under the purview of the SLoT? That the second law is simply a macroscopic probability built up from atomic scale events that are not governed by the same constraints?



Do you have any actual evidence that they are somehow exempt from the second law of thermodynamics?  Any observation...any measurement....anything other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model?




IanC said:


> Radiation is a byproduct of collisions within the object. The amount emitted, j=sigmaT^^4, is a function of internal conditions. The object will cool by expelling radiation until it reaches absolute zero Kelvin, when the molecules stop moving and colliding.



You keep saying that even though I brought you statements from some top shelf physicists that state quite clearly that objects only radiate strictly according to their own internal conditions when they are alone in a vacuum...when they are in the presence of other matter, then they radiate according to the difference between their own temperature an the temperature of their surroundings.  That fact isn't going away just because you wish it would.



IanC said:


> There is no magical throttle or dimmer switch controlled by the opposite object. It is full radiation all of the time. The rate of cooling is reduced by nearby objects (over zero Kelvin) but that does not stop them from radiating.



Of course it isn't magic...I am sure that one day, we will learn the actual mechanism for why energy can not move spontaneously from cool objects to warm and it most certainly won't be magic...it will be, as is always the case in science...something that we just didn't know...you know...sufficiently advanced technology looking like magic to the uneducated...  At least I am educated enough so that it doesn't look like magic to me...it just looks like some physical phenomenon that we are not yet capable of understanding.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Define the term 'object' then. In the past you have claimed your version of the SLoT was valid right down to a single molecule, and right down to a single photon if photons actually existed.
> ...


So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy.  And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth.  So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply.  Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun.  The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions.  I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation.  Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space?  It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right?  As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?
*
The part where you imagine it means radiation only flows one way.

So, now that your latest source, Handbook of Modern Sensors (3rd edition), shows that radiation
actually flows in all directions, and that flux actually refers to net flux, do you have any source that agrees with your unique misinterpretation?

Not one? Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Is this all really that difficult for you? Tell me goob.. Satellites are outside the warm atmosphere and are receiving actual CMB...they don't need a resonant radio frequency...


That is not science. That is just bluff. Tell me exactly how you think the rarefied upper atmosphere turns CMB into a "resonant radio frequency"? What does the "resonant radio frequency" look like in the upper rarefied atmosphere? Please feel free to copy and paste links that explain that better.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?
> 
> * It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> *
> In fact which part of that statement have I not accepted at face value...which part have I interpreted in any manner at all...much less misinterpreted?



Tod answered above. To paraphrase Tod, you believe there exist smart photons that can avoid directions where there are warmer objects.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
> Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.


You haven't been around SSDD as much as the others on this board, so you may not realize that he pretends science is different than what it is so he can practice a sort of a "flat-earth" type of dialog. He has been backed into a corner on many of his pretended "beliefs". He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. In one single post he has referred in derogatory terms to those who believe in exchanged radiation in thermal equilibrium as:
_"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"_​That rant would also defame, Albert Einstein, Wilhellm Wein Gustav Kirchhoff, Max Plank, Niels Bohr, who are all Nobel Prize winners. He is also defaming all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

He is full of bluff, bluster, and argumentum ad hominem. Don't expect much science dialog. But it is an interesting game watching him try to squirm out of real science with outlandish pretenses.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The part where you imagine it means radiation only flows one way.



_* Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*_

Which part of that suggests spontaneous two way energy flow to you?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy.  And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
> Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth.  So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply.  Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun.  The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions.  I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation.  Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space?  It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right?  As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.



Might it be that the amount of interpretation going on is, in large part, the problem.

Second Law of Thermodynamics:  
*It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any workhaving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*


I take that statement at face value..I do not interpret it...I do not attempt to add anything to it that is not there...and I do not take away from it anything that is there...face value.  I credit the authors with enough intelligence to have said exactly what they meant to say without needing me, or anyone else to interpret what they said...and if new observations and measurements have been made that make prove the reality of spontaneous two way energy flow, I would suspect that the statement of the second law would be changed to reflect such evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Is this all really that difficult for you? Tell me goob.. Satellites are outside the warm atmosphere and are receiving actual CMB...they don't need a resonant radio frequency...
> ...



CMB isn't "turned into" anything...you don't have the first idea what a resonant frequency is do you...go learn what a resonant frequency is then we can continue...not before.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?
> ...



So you finally admit that I am not interpreting anything.....and that you are interpreting.

I don't think there are smart photons...I think that when we finally reach a stage where we understand why energy can not move spontaneously from cold to warm, it won't be magic...and it won't be smart anything..it will be just one more thing we come to understand about why energy behaves as it is...That you guys believe that there must be some intelligence involved is a failure on your part...what you should grasp is that there is a great deal we have yet to learn and none of it will be due to magic or smart particles.

You are like the uneducated native who believes that anything he doesn't understand must be magic...or the educated stupid who believes that he and science already know all that there is to know.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other.



Quite to the contrary...observation and measured evidence has failed to detect spontaneous two way energy movement...the second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a cool to a warm object...the second law says it, observation and measurement bear this out...it is you who "believes" something other than what the 2nd law, observation, and measurement say...  I am not operating from a position of belief...I am working from a position of observed measured reality.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> CMB isn't "turned into" anything...you don't have the first idea what a resonant frequency is do you...go learn what a resonant frequency is then we can continue...not before.


That's a vacuous answer. In CMB detection the resonant device is in *the amplifier, not the thermal radiation*.  If the CMB is not "turned into anything" then it is still CMB as it travels through the atmosphere before it hits the resonant frequency detector.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?
> ...



The same way it takes a smart bowling ball not to float up into space when its released


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you finally admit that I am not interpreting anything.....and that you are interpreting.
> 
> I don't think there are smart photons...I think that when we finally reach a stage where we understand why energy can not move spontaneously from cold to warm, it won't be magic...and it won't be smart anything..it will be just one more thing we come to understand about why energy behaves as it is...That you guys believe that there must be some intelligence involved is a failure on your part...what you should grasp is that there is a great deal we have yet to learn and none of it will be due to magic or smart particles.
> 
> You are like the uneducated native who believes that anything he doesn't understand must be magic...or the educated stupid who believes that he and science already know all that there is to know.


The phrase "smart photon" is a succinct form for referring to the fact that the laws of physics are violated when you think vibrating atoms cannot radiate in the direction of a warmer body.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Quite to the contrary...observation and measured evidence has failed to detect spontaneous two way energy movement...the second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a cool to a warm object...the second law says it, observation and measurement bear this out...it is you who "believes" something other than what the 2nd law, observation, and measurement say... I am not operating from a position of belief...I am working from a position of observed measured reality.


Your vision of "face value" of one law seems to take precedence over a severe violation of another more overarching law in atomic physics... despite the fact that *net energy* movement is consistent with the "face value" law of the SLoT.

You are not "_working from a position of observed measured reality_" when your type of reality violates solid observed, measured, tested physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The same way it takes a smart bowling ball not to float up into space when its released


Exactly. Both "smart photons" and a floating bowling ball both violate the laws of physics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The same way it takes a smart bowling ball not to float up into space when its released
> ...



You missed the point.  The bowling ball follows the laws of our limited physics in this space-time - it falls to the ground and doing so does not make it smart. 

The photons act the same, they follow the laws of physics and do not go to warmer places.  Following the laws our space time does not make them smart


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The part where you imagine it means radiation only flows one way.
> ...




_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
_
That is awesome!!!!

You must have hundreds, hell thousands of sources that agree with your claim that it means that 
radiation only flows one way. Thousands that agree matter has a dimmer switch. Thousands that 
agree matter at equilibrium ceases all emission of radiation.

So where are they? It's weird that you have no sources that agree with your unique, causality violating misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.

It's funny that whenever you do, finally, post a link to a source, or post a cut and paste of a source 
that you feel backs up your position, it always, without fail, ends up contradicting your claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 10, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Can you help a fella out?

Explain how photons can escape the "cool" surface of the Sun when they're blocked by the hotter corona.
Because some people believe the 2nd Law means they're trapped.

Thanks!


----------



## IanC (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy.  And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
> ...





> Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. Statistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the microscopic origin of the law.



You take a 150 year old definition and misinterpret it to mean more than it says by selective definition of the terms.

Meanwhile you ignore the present definition that describes it in terms of entropy and gives the reason why it happens.

The macroscopic movement of heat was observed and accepted as axiomatic. As discoveries were made in the atomic scale world they also found out why it happens. SSDD apparently rejects their reasoning and says a new and different mechanism will be found in the future.

News flash! They aren't looking for a new explanation because the present one works just fine.

Macroscopic rules are explained by the statistics of large numbers, and are able to cope with the exceptions that crashed the classical physics explanation. Quantum theory was discovered because classical theory broke down in so many places. 

Quantum theory answers every question that classical physics can, PLUS many more classical physics cannot.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I take that statement at face value..I do not interpret it...I do not attempt to add anything to it that is not there...and I do not take away from it anything that is there...face value.


You read laws of physics like a freshman English major would.  "face value" of a law is never used by real scientists in dealing with laws of science. This is just another one of your let's-pretend games that an uneducated amateur would use.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> As discoveries were made in the atomic scale world they also found out why it happens. SSDD apparently rejects their reasoning and says a new and different mechanism will be found in the future.
> 
> News flash! They aren't looking for a new explanation because the present one works just fine.... Quantum theory answers every question that classical physics can, PLUS many more classical physics cannot.


Excellent observation. It has a name – the Bohr Correspondence Principle.

One thing a student learns in a beginning QM course is the Correspondence Principle. This principle means that any new theory should reduce to an older well established theory as a limiting case.

For example quantum mechanics could be used to trace the path of a baseball, but the mass and distance are so large that the equations of QM reduce to Newtons laws as a very good approximation. “Very good approximation” means that the deviation of the Classical result from the QM result is unmeasurably small with any current instrument.

The Correspondence Principle means the new theory subsumes the older theory so that the older theory is a special case of the new theory.

If SSDD wants to focus on a new theory, that new theory will still have to subsume the current theory according to the Correspondence Principle, and so he is left with an empty argument.


----------



## IanC (Apr 10, 2018)

Temperature is an intensive property that is calculated by the average kinetic speed of the molecules that make up the object. A very large number of molecules. There is a wide range of speeds from a minimum of zero to a maximum of perhaps six times the average, distributed in the usual fat tail normal curve.

Radiation is produced by moving electric charges 'against each other'. Fast moving molecule interactions produce higher energy lower wavelength radiation than slow moving ones. That is why a Blackbody radiates a full spectrum up to the maximum that can be produced by the maximum speed of the molecules.

An intensive property does not depend on size. Double the size of the object and it still radiates at j=sigmaT^^4.

Power is an extensive property that gives an actual absolute amount because you have to define the surface area that is radiating. Double the size of the radiating area and you double the power. 

But wait, it is much more complex than that if you are calculating the power exchanged between two actual objects. Because intensity drops by the inverse square law you need make the necessary adjustments for both distance and shape. 

SSDD thinks there is some unknown physical law that Trumps the laws of electrical charges. Plus he thinks that new, bizarre and undiscovered law only affects the specific angles that connect the line-of-sight view between the two objects, and somehow makes allowance for any change of direction that they might take.

The rest of the world just accepts that every object radiates fully in relation to its temperature, and the power exchanged is simply the net amount of radiation absorbed and emitted by both objects.


A simple landmark to illustrate the difference between the intensive radiation _(j),_ and the extensive power (_j_ x area)-

An object at temperature T will radiate at _j. _The power radiated will be _j _times surface area. Chop the object into pieces and the _j _will still be the same but the surface area will increase and so will the power.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > MPS777 said:
> ...



And talk and talk and talk and model and model and model...and still not the first piece of actual observed measured evidence to support your belief.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
> ...


Yeah I’ve been trying to figure out if he genuinely believes his textbook is wrong, or if he’s just putting on a shtick.  For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results? 

One method could involve using photodiodes.  Photodiodes can be crafted to respond to a specific infrared bandwidth.  I think some material could be selected that emits that IR wavelength when it is cooler than the photodiode.  It could be pre-determined what thermal radiation wavelength the material emits as it changes temperature over time.  If a sensor was constructed using one of these custom photodiodes, aimed at the material, and detected the thermal radiation wavelength at the time the mathematical model predicted the material should emit it, this could provide some affirmative evidence.

Lol, I know a professor who’s received grant funding for a number of quirky experiments, I should recommend this one to him.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > MPS777 said:
> ...



*For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results? 
*
He would say we were "fooled by instrumentation".


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > MPS777 said:
> ...


*, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results? *

post one! let's see.  I bet you won't because you can't.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 11, 2018)

jc456 said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


The thing is, it’s really not worth my time.  No scientist who’s anybody believes that thermal radiation from an object can’t hit an object that’s warmer than it.  I’m sure if I trolled through the data on all the quantum well infrared photodetector technology out there, I could find something, but I’m not wasting my time for a couple of nobodies on an insignificant message board.


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Exactly.

It is somewhat ironic that the Stephan Boltzmann equations, including the one and only variant that SSDD believes in, were discovered using an experiment that cannot work by his interpretation of physics, and used crude detectors that he says 'fool' us.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 11, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> One method could involve using photodiodes. Photodiodes can be crafted to respond to a specific infrared bandwidth. I think some material could be selected that emits that IR wavelength when it is cooler than the photodiode. It could be pre-determined what thermal radiation wavelength the material emits as it changes temperature over time. If a sensor was constructed using one of these custom photodiodes, aimed at the material, and detected the thermal radiation wavelength at the time the mathematical model predicted the material should emit it, this could provide some affirmative evidence.
> 
> Lol, I know a professor who’s received grant funding for a number of quirky experiments, I should recommend this one to him.


I don't think he would get any funding because the physics is so clear cut. It's sort of like asking for money to see if gravity is an attractive force.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 11, 2018)

jc456 said:


> *, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results? *
> 
> post one! let's see. I bet you won't because you can't.


Here is an experiment. 

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the heat coming from the most distant part of the universe. The temperature is a very cold 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. 

That source of low temperature heat was detected on the surface of the earth which is a much warmer 300 degrees above absolute zero. 

Yet the energy from that very cold source was able to hit the earth and be observed, measured, and detected. 

That clearly demonstrates a warm object (earth) receiving thermal radiation from a much colder object (the far universe).


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > *, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results? *
> ...



Personally, I don't like that example because the original radiation was much more energetic before it was redshifted down to its present levels.

I also don't like the example of the Sun's Corona. It only shows the symptom of high temperature, it is not caused by blackbody radiation. An LED is not as hot as it's radiation would suggest either.

Likewise the atmosphere is a very poor and fragmented Blackbody. Gravity plays a huge part in constraining the gas, and storing/releasing the energy. That side is seldom discussed.

Every time you narrow the field of investigation down to just one law of physics you run the risk that it is not the most important one.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 11, 2018)

IanC said:


> Personally, I don't like that example because the original radiation was much more energetic before it was redshifted down to its present levels.



Your point is well taken. The COBE satellite measured the CMB with a remarkably precise agreement with BB radiation. The argument was for anti-science people who read physics “at face value”. A scientist does not need any argument about what was measured, (unless they are just playing games). 



IanC said:


> I also don't like the example of the Sun's Corona. It only shows the symptom of high temperature, it is not caused by blackbody radiation. An LED is not as hot as it's radiation would suggest either.



I have not studied the sun's corona, so I have no comment on what it does or does not prove.



IanC said:


> Likewise the atmosphere is a very poor and fragmented Blackbody. Gravity plays a huge part in constraining the gas, and storing/releasing the energy. That side is seldom discussed.
> 
> Every time you narrow the field of investigation down to just one law of physics you run the risk that it is not the most important one.



I agree, that there are many processes going into understanding weather, but I was focusing on one narrow aspect of the physics behind the atmosphere (radiation) for a reason. If someone does not agree with basic radiation physics such as radiation thermodynamics and CO2 capturing energy to heat the atmosphere, and if the person wants to totally substitute a law involving an impossible adiabatic process which has the same physics from the equator to the arctic then all bets are off as far as understanding anything about the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't like that example because the original radiation was much more energetic before it was redshifted down to its present levels.
> ...



Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2018)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



* I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light. 
*
No chance of that happening.
Hillary would be more likely to blame herself for her loss first.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > *, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results? *
> ...


so was the test equipment reading IR or wavelengths?  Look up Horn Antenna and you will get your answer, it reads radio frequencies.

"In 1965 Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories were testing a sensitive horn antenna which was designed for detecting low levels of microwave radiation. They discovered a low level of microwave background "noise", like the low level of electrical noise which might produce "snow" on a television screen"

They detected  radio frequencies that created a buzz across the whole spectrum...by the process of elimination, they discovered that it was a resonant radio frequency of CMB...


*Horn antenna theory*: flare vs gain. The angle of the flare on the *horn antenna* has a marked effect on the gain and beamwidth. ... These *antennas* have small levels of gain because the *antenna* appears like an open ended waveguide, and there is little conditioning of the radiated beam as the *horn antenna* flares out.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 11, 2018)

IanC said:


> Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.
> 
> I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.
> 
> SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.



Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.
> ...



He balances his rage and repetition with a total lack of sources that agree with his claims.


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.
> ...



Years ago I made an acquaintance that turned out to be a conspiracy theorist. The frustrating part was that he was amiable and rational for most topics but entirely refractory to reason on his pet theories. Counter points were just 'proof' that his ideas were being suppressed. SSDD is the same, he is probably an OK guy discussing music or something but when it comes to physics....


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2018)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


You’ve proven no one wrong but yourself


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2018)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...








Here's proof SSDD is wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


It wasn’t measuring IR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
It wasn’t measuring IR
*
What does a thermal sensor measure?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Not IR. Again, negative or positive change in flux


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








*Not IR.
*
LOL! It was a thermal sensor measuring thermal radiation.

What wavelengths? Higher or lower than IR?

And notice, it says net flux. SSDD claimed there is no net, that energy only flows one way.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You are mistaken


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



About what?






Be specific.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2018)

three blind mice said:
			
		

> _wuwei:   "Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere._
> 
> _But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites."_
> 
> ...



I just love it when you three girls huddle up to comfort and reassure each other of how right you are and how wrong I am...to tell each other how well educated you are, and to remind each other that there are other people who actually believe the models as well...

You reinforce each other's beliefs and the logical fallacies you use to prop those beliefs up...then you engage in a tender and supportive group hug and its big sloppy kisses all around.  Its just the sweetest thing.

You want to know what I especially like about those little meetings?  I like the way you completely avoid mentioning that between you, and all of the science you so fervently believe in, you can't manage a single piece of physical evidence, observation, or measurement that supports your belief while every observation and measurement, and the straight forward, uninterpreted statement of the physical law itself supports my position...I just love that...keep up the fight ladies, in the end you might just learn something......or not.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


right here, SSDD explanation for you that matches your highligted text.  

SSDD


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_ what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none..._

Thanks.
That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

SSDD says radiation flows in only one direction.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says there is a radiation exchange.

SSDD has no sources that agree with his misinterpretations, the above passage
was from a source he originally referenced. 

Is that as amusing to you as it is to me?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> three blind mice said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still no sources that back up your claims?

Weird.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.*

It says the same thing that SSDD said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







SSDD says there is no exchange. 
He says that there is no net.

He's wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not at all.  cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

losing energy to the cooler object.

And again, you'd see the breath from the girl if it were reading photons from the cool objects.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.
*
Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
> It's against his religion.



Alas..it isn't religion to me...my position requires no belief in something that can not be observed, measured, or detected in any way.  My position relies on observable, measurable reality without even the smallest bit of faith involved...Your position on the other hand is entirely faith based...it requires that you believe in all manner of unobservable, unmeasurable, and completely undetectable phenomena...it requires that you not only invest a great deal of faith in theoretical particles, but that you believe absolutely in what they can and can not do...Your position is based in and relies entirely on faith since there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out.  to your terminology, net thermal flux right?  two way flow?  just not the way your belief has it.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
> ...



Actually, your position depends on an unknown mechanism that overturns the laws of electrical charge. That only you and your sycophants here believe in.

My position meshes easily with all the other branches of physics. Yours does not. 

Why don't you attempt to explain Stefan's cavity experiment that is the source of the S-B equations? According to you it shouldn't work, and the detectors are just fooling us. Why are you so certain of one, and only one, variant of the equations if they come from a tainted source?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


are you saying the S-B equation is wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
> ...



*Your position on the other hand is entirely faith based
*
My position, radiation moves in any and all directions, in no way restricted by hotter warmer nearby or by 
hotter matter millions of light years away.

Apparently, the Handbook of Modern Sensors agrees with my position.

Do you have a similar source that agrees with your faulty interpretation of the 2nd Law?
Of should we just believe you, because...........?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out. 
*
Again, both emit photons all the time, as long as they're above 0K.
The net flux tells which is warmer.
SSDD claims there is no net flux, just one-way flux.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors disagrees with his claim and agrees with mine.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I disagree, and the explanation has been given.  cold objects do not radiate to warm objects.  there is no evidence.  and the details on how the sensor works has also been given.  so unless you have evidence otherwise, you're stuck in your own belief.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> are you saying the S-B equation is wrong?



Not at all.

The Stefan experiment was amazingly clever. Finding the relationship was amazingly useful.

It says that any object radiates in relationship to its temperature. All the time, no exceptions. j=sigmaT^^4

The power radiated is surface area times the amount radiated. This also happens all the time, no exceptions.

Wuwei gave the mathematical calculations showing that the net power flux for an object is the difference between the amount emitted and the amount absorbed, over the surface area of the object.

This is a subtle but equivalent difference to SSDD's favourite variation of the equation. In this scenario we only have to deal with one object. Although we do need to know the amount of radiation impinging on the object from external sources, we need to know very little else. 

For example, calculating the amount of radiation reaching the object from the Sun at noon, or a heat lamp only one metre away may be equal but their temperatures are not.

How, exactly, does the temperature of the Sun or heat lamp get inside the object and short circuit the radiation produced by moving electrical charges? 

Does the temperature of the Sun change somehow with distance? Or is it just the inverse square law?

Maybe SSDD can flesh out his controversial theory to explain these problems.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > are you saying the S-B equation is wrong?
> ...


This is a subtle but equivalent difference to SSDD's favourite variation of the equation. In this scenario we only have to deal with one object.

Which part  does it mention two objects?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
I disagree, and the explanation has been given. cold objects do not radiate to warm objects.  
*
You should contact the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors.
Tell them their diagram is wrong. Explain your "reasoning".
Please post their response.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Which part does it mention two objects?



Hahahaha. You caught me out again! No matter how often I promise myself that I won't respond to retards, I still slip up.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > are you saying the S-B equation is wrong?
> ...


>>>”Maybe SSDD can flesh out his controversial theory to explain these problems.”

Yeah, he needs to mathematically formalize his view, or else I don’t think it actually achieves what he “wants” it to achieve.  His only formal rule seems to be that a vibrating particle can’t emit its thermal radiation into a warmer particle; and he always pins this to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  However nothing in the 2nd law states that the radiation must be emitted into space.  So unless he defines some of his own formal rules for thermal radiation, then particles on earth and in the atmosphere could just emit their radiation into any other cooler particle on earth or in the atmosphere.  As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Which part does it mention two objects?



With the SB law you only have to deal with one object -- the object simply radiates according to T⁴.

It is Kirchhoff's law that allows you to also deal with absorption. Kirchhoff formally showed that the emissivity for both emission and absorption are identical, so if a background is radiating at the object, you can algebraically factor out the emissivity and sigma from both emission and absorption to get the subtracted form, εσ(T₁⁴–T₂⁴). 

Some people on this board don't understand Kirchhoff's mathematical contribution to the SB model. (Yes, it is a scary dreaded model.)


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 12, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> Yeah, he needs to mathematically formalize his view, or else I don’t think it actually achieves what he “wants” it to achieve. His only formal rule seems to be that a vibrating particle can’t emit its thermal radiation into a warmer particle; and he always pins this to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However nothing in the 2nd law states that the radiation must be emitted into space. So unless he defines some of his own formal rules for thermal radiation, then particles on earth and in the atmosphere could just emit their radiation into any other cooler particle on earth or in the atmosphere. As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.



Yes, in other words he is defying Lambert's cosine law of radiation. Lambert published his law in 1760. This is odd because SSDD usually favors laws that predate quantum mechanics, and this one predates it by 150 years.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> Actually, your position depends on an unknown mechanism that overturns the laws of electrical charge. That only you and your sycophants here believe in.



We deal with unknown mechanisms all the time...gravity being one and the very nature of energy movement being another...no magic there even though the mechanisms remain unknown.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> The Stefan experiment was amazingly clever. Finding the relationship was amazingly useful.
> 
> It says that any object radiates in relationship to its temperature. All the time, no exceptions. j=sigmaT^^4



That equation only applies if you are dealing with a perfect black body that is all alone in a perfect vacuum.  Your insistence that it applies to everything all the time is either ignorance or plain old dishonesty...I lean towards dishonesty since I provided you with emails from some top shelf physicists who said that that equation only applies to black bodies in a vacuum devoid of other matter.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2018)

When using the S-B equations there are two classes of objects. Those without a power source that emit a fraction of their stored energy every unit of time, and will eventually cool to absolute zero when all the energy is gone. The second type does have a power source, and comes to an equilibrium temperature that emits exactly as much radiation as the energy inputted. 

There are two main types of environment that an object can radiate towards. A diffuse thermal bath that sends some radiation towards the object but does not change temperature due to the radiation given off by the object. Or a second object is nearby, both immersed in the thermal environment, and the two objects exchange radiation until they both reach the same temperature.

Of course there is a lot of overlap and these four main types do not even come close to all the possibilities.

So far we have more or less assumed objects and environments are at a single temperature. They are not, temperature gradients are the rule and consistent temperature is very much the exception.

Thermodynamics is incredibly complex. Yes, we have divined many of the simple underlying rules. Translating them to reality is at best a poor approximation.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Stefan experiment was amazingly clever. Finding the relationship was amazingly useful.
> ...



Nope. All the radiation, all the time.

Until you overthrow the laws pertaining to moving electric charges it is full emission. You will also have to break the first law of thermodynamics, and thwart entropy while you're at it.

No one believes in your bizarre version of physics except perhaps for a few other crackpots. It simply doesn't work.


----------



## Mousterian (Apr 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> Thermodynamics is incredibly complex. Yes, we have divined many of the simple underlying rules. Translating them to reality is at best a poor approximation.


You right there, Ian.
All these systems have so many variables, the apocryphal butterfly's flapping can derail even the most astute argument.
But the fact that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate is undeniable.
Check this (11 minutes) and be afraid.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 12, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Thermodynamics is incredibly complex. Yes, we have divined many of the simple underlying rules. Translating them to reality is at best a poor approximation.
> ...



Ha ha that stupid "unprecentened warming" claim again......

Here is what it looks like from 1990:


----------



## Mousterian (Apr 12, 2018)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

Mousterian said:


>



Looks serious.
I guess we should start building 100 new nuke plants, to save the permafrost.


----------



## Mousterian (Apr 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


The lead time on a new nuclear plant is about 20 years.
We've left our run too late, I'm afraid.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> that equation only applies to black bodies in a vacuum



Two Suns in an otherwise empty universe. I say they both radiate fully. You say every particle of their surfaces are somehow prohibited from emitting at each other. Not only that but they must also know the speed at which the Suns are moving relative to each other, because it takes time for radiation to get there.

Add a little dust in between them and the surface particles must know all their positions as well.

Are the opposite sides of the Suns a little hotter to make up for the radiation not allowed to be emitted on the facing surfaces?

Does the dust control the emission of radiation it receives? Does the dust increase entropy by scattering the radiation?

Are your epicycles due to an unknown law of physics really necessary when they interfere with so many of the known laws of physics?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Mousterian said:
> ...



Such moronically long lead times are moronic.
I guess we'll just keep emitting CO2 instead.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2018)

It kinda makes you wonder why the permafrost and clathrates didn't collapse during the Medieval Warm Period. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Holocene Optimum.


----------



## Mousterian (Apr 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> It kinda makes you wonder why the permafrost and clathrates didn't collapse during the Medieval Warm Period. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Holocene Optimum.


Yeah, there's just so much shit happening, even the most erudite scientists are struggling to pull it all together.
But looking at the obvious results of our folly points to some very potent feedback loops we've unleashed.
And increased ocean acidity is already affecting the viability of the foraminifera which are the basis of all oceanic life.
We've really fucked up on the CO2.
High risk of extinction of benthic foraminifera in this century due to ocean acidification

Don't mean to derail the thread, but quibbling about the fundamentals of black-body radiation is ignoring the elephant in the room.
I'll get out of here now, let you carry on the mathematical argy-bargy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It kinda makes you wonder why the permafrost and clathrates didn't collapse during the Medieval Warm Period. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Holocene Optimum.
> ...



*And increased ocean acidity is already affecting the viability of the foraminifera which are the basis of all oceanic life.
*
Sounds serious!

So what CO2 level ends oceanic life?  500 ppm? 600 ppm?
When should we start to worry?


----------



## Mousterian (Apr 12, 2018)

If you bothered to read the link, you would have found:
'Foraminifera were almost absent at sites with pH < 7.9 (>700 μatm _p_CO2).'
Or maybe you did read it, and are confused by such esoteric mathematical language.
Translates as 'absent at CO2 levels of 700ppm.'
This, of course is the point of extinction, and we will feel the effects long before these little buggers disappear altogether.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 13, 2018)

Mousterian said:


>



Yawn.....Zzzzz....


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> But the fact that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate is undeniable.
> Check this (11 minutes) and be afraid.



There is absolutely nothing unprecedented going on in the climate today...if there were, my request for a single piece of observed measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability would not have gone unanswered for damned near 3 decades now...but hey, if you think you have something, by all means, lets see it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2018)

Mousterian said:


>



Are you under the impression that such a thing has never happened before?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > that equation only applies to black bodies in a vacuum
> ...



Again..it all looks like magic to you...or that some sort of intelligence is required...I accept that there is far more that we don't know than that we do know...I don't need fairy tales to fill in the gaps so that I can pretend that we know all and see all.  I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It kinda makes you wonder why the permafrost and clathrates didn't collapse during the Medieval Warm Period. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Holocene Optimum.
> ...



You have clearly drunk deeply of the kook aid...  I predict that you will not be able to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...not one...If you try...which is doubtful, like all who have tried before you, you will merely show that you really don't have any idea what evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis might look like.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> If you bothered to read the link, you would have found:
> 'Foraminifera were almost absent at sites with pH < 7.9 (>700 μatm _p_CO2).'
> Or maybe you did read it, and are confused by such esoteric mathematical language.
> Translates as 'absent at CO2 levels of 700ppm.'
> This, of course is the point of extinction, and we will feel the effects long before these little buggers disappear altogether.



Foraminifera are little changed over the past 500 million years and virtually identical to those that lived during the period before the present ice age began when atmospheric CO2 levels were around 1000ppm...then they survived through the ice age when the oceans would have held far more CO2 due to the fact that cold water holds more CO2 than warm water...a great deal of CO2 has outgassed since the holocene optimum.   Over the past500 million years, rarely has the atmospheric CO2 level been as low as it is at present except during very cold periods when the amount of CO2 held in the oceans would have been far higher than it is at present.

Look for some other reason for the disappearance besides CO2, because they have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt and survive wild swings in CO, and temperature over the past 500 million years.

Or maybe you think CO2 has always been at 350ppm until the onset of the industrial revolution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> If you bothered to read the link, you would have found:
> 'Foraminifera were almost absent at sites with pH < 7.9 (>700 μatm _p_CO2).'
> Or maybe you did read it, and are confused by such esoteric mathematical language.
> Translates as 'absent at CO2 levels of 700ppm.'
> This, of course is the point of extinction, and we will feel the effects long before these little buggers disappear altogether.


*
Translates as 'absent at CO2 levels of 700ppm.'
*
Is that why life all ocean life went extinct when CO2 was 6000 ppm?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
 I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence. 
*
Is that why you haven't posted a single source that agrees with your claims?
You're still waiting for evidence? LOL!

Weird.


----------



## IanC (Apr 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Again..it all looks like magic to you...or that some sort of intelligence is required...I accept that there is far more that we don't know than that we do know...I don't need fairy tales to fill in the gaps so that I can pretend that we know all and see all. I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence



You aren't waiting for answers. You are actively disputing the answers and explanations we already have.

Your entire position is based on a 150 year old version of the SLoT that was lacking the understanding of atomic scale interactions that we have know. Then you misinterpreted the word heat to mean all forms of energy. And topped it off by disavowing the distributive law of mathematics.

Modern quantum based explanations give the same right answers to general questions that classical physics could answer. QM and QS also give the right answers to questions that classical physics got wrong. Indeed it was the wrong answers that sparked the QM world to be discovered.

I agree that there is still more to be found. QM theory may even be supplanted by something new. But the new theory will incorporate most of QM, just like QM incorporated most of classical physics.

QM and QS says you're wrong. When and if they get replaced you will still be wrong.


----------



## IanC (Apr 13, 2018)

Everyone has been to a Science World where you speak into the focal point of a cone and a different person at the opposite focal point can clearly hear you even though they are many metres away.

The same effect works for thermal radiation. Two hundred years ago scientists experimented with this effect and argued over their findings. Some thought that cooling Rays were being sent through the tube from cold objects and warming rays from hot ones. 

There is only one special temperature, absolute zero Kelvin. Every other temperature is relative to that one. Every temperature is warm or cool depending on what you are comparing it to, but they are all warmer than absolute zero.

So it was decided that there is no such thing as a cooling Ray. Only stronger or weaker warming rays. 

All objects above absolute zero strive to emit their energy by radiation in an attempt to reach absolute zero. If they are not receiving energy from their environment they will quickly cool. Deep dark space has very little radiation present, and that is where you would find the fastest cooling rate.

As the environment increases the amount of radiation in it, the cooling rate of the object slows. Not because the object is emitting less radiation but because it is now absorbing some from the environment. This slowing of the cooling rate continues until the radiation being received from the environment matches the loss by emission from the object. When there is more radiation coming in from the environment than the object is emitting then the object will start to warm until its radiation matches the radiation of the environment.

To reiterate, all objects radiate according to their temperature. They will then cool (or warm) until they reach equilibrium with the environment. 

Of course reality usually throws a monkey wrench into the works. A space probe heats up on the sunward side and cools off on the space side. Mehh, whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> Modern quantum based explanations give the same right answers to general questions that classical physics could answer. QM and QS also give the right answers to questions that classical physics got wrong. Indeed it was the wrong answers that sparked the QM world to be discovered.
> 
> I agree that there is still more to be found. QM theory may even be supplanted by something new. But the new theory will incorporate most of QM, just like QM incorporated most of classical physics.
> 
> QM and QS says you're wrong. When and if they get replaced you will still be wrong.



Good point. Anyone who doesn't believe the thermodynamics as is now understood will be perpetually wrong from one new theory to the next ad infinitum, because the new theories will always subsume the old ones as a special case. What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Modern quantum based explanations give the same right answers to general questions that classical physics could answer. QM and QS also give the right answers to questions that classical physics got wrong. Indeed it was the wrong answers that sparked the QM world to be discovered.
> ...


and yet still no  single piece of observed measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis.  All of that and still nothing.  hmmmmmmmm why not?


----------



## IanC (Apr 13, 2018)

The Earth has warmed in the last hundred years.

The concentration of CO2 has risen in the last hundred years.

The properties of absorption and emission for CO2 are known by examination.

Thermal radiation physics of the atmosphere are reasonable well known from models which are confirmed by actual measurements. The effect of CO2 is real, and is a warming influence.

The effect of water vapour is well understood but the other parts of the water cycle are not. 

The presence of CO2 and water vapour are a huge warming factor compared to none in the atmosphere. The incremental increase in warming for those two gases is also obvious. The entire water cycle of liquid, solid, gas, evaporation, convection, condensation, and precipitation is not clear or modeled with certainty. The guesstimated feedbacks from the water cycle are uncertain and do not appear to match the models.

The AGW theory has some areas that are solid and some that are not. The warming influence from increased CO2 is mild and probably beneficial. Only the triple feedback from the water cycle can lead to tipping points and runaway warming. Lucky for us the actual measurements show this is not happening.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Modern quantum based explanations give the same right answers to general questions that classical physics could answer. QM and QS also give the right answers to questions that classical physics got wrong. Indeed it was the wrong answers that sparked the QM world to be discovered.
> ...


*
What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind. 
*
And to be so alone in his beliefs.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 13, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.
> *
> And to be so alone in his beliefs.


He isn't alone. jc456 idolizes him and even parrots his words. I'm sure SSDD respects jc a lot too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *What is weird is to be wrong and also be 150 years behind.
> ...



JC is clueless. Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy 
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 13, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JC is clueless. Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
> and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing.


I agree, but maybe I was being a little sarcastic, or maybe I was trying to say that SSDD can take solace in having one true friend, even though JC puts his foot in is mouth sometimes, he does mean well in his idolization.


----------



## IanC (Apr 13, 2018)

jc is beyond clueless.

If he was put on trial to defend his words he would be found not guilty on the grounds of diminished capacity. He lacks the intelligence to form intent.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc is beyond clueless.
> 
> If he was put on trial to defend his words he would be found not guilty on the grounds of diminished capacity. He lacks the intelligence to form intent.


What I'm trying to say is that they were made for each other -- dumb and dumber.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again..it all looks like magic to you...or that some sort of intelligence is required...I accept that there is far more that we don't know than that we do know...I don't need fairy tales to fill in the gaps so that I can pretend that we know all and see all. I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence
> ...



Answers based on models with no physical evidence?  Stories ian...nothing but stories.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> The same effect works for thermal radiation. Two hundred years ago scientists experimented with this effect and argued over their findings. Some thought that cooling Rays were being sent through the tube from cold objects and warming rays from hot ones.



So in your model world sound behaves the same as light because sound is the same as light?  In your model world is sound made up of theoretical particles...what are they called?...and whatever they are called, are there virtual ones as well?    I haven't seen this theory...that sound and light are one in the same and behave in the same manner...can you provide a link to it?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> The Earth has warmed in the last hundred years.
> 
> The concentration of CO2 has risen in the last hundred years.



We know that CO2 follows warming ian...once again...do you have a single...that is ONE...just one SINGLE piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...Just one?  We both know that you don't...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc is beyond clueless.
> 
> If he was put on trial to defend his words he would be found not guilty on the grounds of diminished capacity. He lacks the intelligence to form intent.




In need of comfort and reassurance so soon after the last group hug?  Its about time for you girls to share that group hug and then its big sloppy wet kisses all around...so sweet.


----------



## IanC (Apr 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The same effect works for thermal radiation. Two hundred years ago scientists experimented with this effect and argued over their findings. Some thought that cooling Rays were being sent through the tube from cold objects and warming rays from hot ones.
> ...



Good grief! How much remedial science history do you need? 

Parabolic telescopes have been around since Newton, horn shaped hearing aids go too far back to know when they came into usage.

The 'aether' was almost universally accepted until Einstein developed relativity, although the Michelson-Morley speed of light experiments should have killed it off sooner.

Now you are mocking a simple physics concept. Yes, light can be moved through a tube via internal reflection. Yes, light can be focused by lenses and mirrors. Yes infrared radiation is light even though you can't see it.

Can you imagine the joy and amazement of the first guy to discover that area just past red in the spectrum produced by a prism was warming up, so there must be something there even though it is invisible?


----------



## IanC (Apr 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...once again...do you have a single...that is ONE...just one SINGLE piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...Just one? We both know that you don't..



We have all seen this mantra that you chant repeatedly. I suppose it is how you self sooth yourself when you can't answer questions directed at you.

I have answered your question hundreds of times, in dozens of ways. You refuse to acknowledge or discuss those answers, and simply go back to chanting.

So I will keep my answer short and sweet.

The first law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

More radiation energy goes into the bottom of the atmosphere than comes out at the top. Where did the energy go?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 16, 2018)

Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.

Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.

Of course more thermal energy goes from the surface toward the gas than the gas to the surface, thus preserving the well understood form of the SloT.

If for some idiotic reason the molecules of the cold gas are forbidden from moving toward the warm surface, how will the surface lose thermal energy to the gas?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.
> 
> Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.
> 
> ...



I'm still waiting to find out how the warmer matter knows the temperature of the colder matter, 
so it knows how much to "dial down emissions".


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



SSDD is really being a royal asshole here. He purposefully took your example out of context and purposefully pretended to misunderstand it so he could impress his minions. That is the action of a veritable troll. 

I found that if you use an analogy, metaphor or example you are wasting your time with SSDD because he will ignore everything but the analogy and reply something trollish about the analogy and not the subject at hand.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.
> 
> Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.
> 
> ...



The cold gas molecules heat the warmer solid?

Really?

Maybe in an alternate Universe


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.
> ...



How does a bowling ball "know" which side gravity is pulling?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm still waiting to find out how the warmer matter knows the temperature of the colder matter,
> so it knows how much to "dial down emissions".


Yeah, he answered the radiation question with smart photons. I wonder if he is going to come up with smart molecules.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.
> ...


Reread the third paragraph.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



"Of course more thermal energy goes from the surface toward the gas than the gas to the surface, thus preserving the well understood form of the SloT."

So some of the bowling ball travels away from gravity but most of it manages to head down the lane once released.

OK


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Gravity pulls on all sides of a bowling ball.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


post one


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> jc is beyond clueless.
> 
> If he was put on trial to defend his words he would be found not guilty on the grounds of diminished capacity. He lacks the intelligence to form intent.


and yet you believe in back radiation that has never been proven!! never. I'm still waiting for that observation.  just post it once.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.
> 
> Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.
> 
> ...


*The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface.*

you mean collide?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting to find out how the warmer matter knows the temperature of the colder matter,
> ...


you have the smart photons, you say they will go from cold to warm.  hahhahahahaahahahaha show us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



_cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc is beyond clueless.
> ...


*
and yet you believe in back radiation that has never been proven!! never. 
*
Radiation goes in all directions, all the time.
Why can't it go "back"?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Isn’t what you think as mentioned before! LOL derp


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Prove it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You said, "net flow".

SSDD says no such thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


_
 Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy emitted by all matter above absolute zero temperature (0 Kelvin or -273° Celsius). X-rays, ultraviolet rays, visible light, infrared light, heat, microwaves, and radio and television waves are all examples of electromagnetic energy.
_
3. Electromagnetic Spectrum | The Nature of Geographic Information


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sorry but net flow was explained . Thanks


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Post observed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I agree.
SSDD doesn't. You're welcome.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


He isn’t here. But thanks for making my point


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








Sensor observed it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I'm glad your point was disagreeing with SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sensor saw negative flux flow towards the cold object . Fail


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Except I didn’t but you’re welcome


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








Looks to me like waves are going in both directions.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You’re blind. It isn’t observed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't remember saying net flux?
You seem more forgetful than usual.

Does that worry you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't see arrows going both ways between the target and the sensor? DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well there is a flow out of the device and in that’s net flow, warm in warm out


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It’s a picture. How is that observed? Explain


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Well there is a flow out of the device and in that’s net flow, warm in warm out
*
Net flow means subtracting one flow from the other.
Thanks for admitting it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, the sensor observes the net thermal flux.
They wrote an entire book about the sensors that observe.
Is English your second language?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yeah, neat picture. So what?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


“Definition: *Net flux* represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. *Net flux* = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, *net flux* is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”

I gave my explanation as this relates to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Net flux* = Influx − Efflux

You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Does evidence cause you pain?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



“Definition: *Net flux* represents the amount of substance *moved in or out of the cell.
*
In or out.  Doesn’t say in and out.  Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Haven’t seen any. Where’s that blue breath from the girl? Hahahaha loser no observation no evidence!! Check mate


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Net flux = Influx − Efflux.
*
I agree.
*
Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
*
Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Haven’t seen any. 
*
Of course not. What do the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors know about sensors compared
to SSDD and jc456?

DURR.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...once again...do you have a single...that is ONE...just one SINGLE piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...Just one? We both know that you don't..
> ...



So the answer, once again, is no...you do not have a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...which would explain the literally millions of hours of experiment, testing, and commercial application done by engineers which show us that IR can not warm the air...

And if you can't find the energy, chalk it up to an accounting error...something we are unaware of....not magical absorption and multiplication of energy by a trace gas in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.
> 
> Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.
> 
> ...



The accepted form of the second law is the one that I keep posting for you wack jobs..if a form of the second law which said that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm were accepted, then that is what the 2nd law would say.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All the sensor observed was its own amount and rate of temperature change...which was then converted to an electrical signal which was then translated into an image...the diagram is a fanciful opinion of "something" that might or might not be happening...what IS happening is that the sensor is measuring its internal temperature change....nothing more.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You think that drawing is a measured observation?  You think that statement says anything other than that the sensor is doing anything other than measuring its own temperature change and converting that change to an image?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They wrote an entire book on it and you still don't have any idea what is happening, or how the sensor works...the only thing the sensor "observes" is the amount and rate of its own temperature change...that is what is being observed, measured, and converted into an image.....Where in that book did you get that the sensor is "observing" anything other than its own temperature?

Fooled by instrumentation again...and why?  because you have no idea what the instrumentation is actually measuring...  And there is no actual observation or measurement of the sort of energy movement your line drawing depicts...it is opinion based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.  All that can actually be determined by the sensor array is heat gain, heat loss, or no temperature change.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it rather than simply posting a drawing based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
All the sensor observed was its own amount and rate of temperature change..
*
Based on net exchange of energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*You think that drawing is a measured observation?
*
No.
You think the Handbook Of Modern Sensors posted a picture of energy flowing in both directions, in error?
Please, correct them, post their response.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*They wrote an entire book on it and you still don't have any idea what is happening
*
They wrote an entire book on it and it backs up my claims and refutes your claims. Weird.

Maybe you should go through the rest of the book and copy and paste any part that 
doesn't conflict with your "one way only" flow of energy?

*And there is no actual observation or measurement of the sort of energy movement your line drawing depicts...
*
My line drawing? LOL!
Sorry, that belongs to the experts you cited, The Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition.

*it is opinion based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. 
*
In that case, so is yours.
Unfortunately, for you, you're all alone in your claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it 
*
If you had actual evidence, you think you might have posted it?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm and they don't know how their own product works?  I can't answer for them since I am not them.  I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth basically voiding the fact that the device is measuring cold photons whatever those are, but I'll use your language for ease of discussion.  Yet again, no observation has been achieved.  Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold.  Warm to cold as it is written and observed.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


he has evidence, the fact you don't have any.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm 
*
You guess wrong.

* I can't answer for them since I am not them. 
*
You think they're wrong. Send them an email. 
Explain your reasoning. When they admit their error, post it here.
*
 I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth
*
Send the manufacturer of that camera an email. Ask them why?
Post their response here.
*
Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold.
*
Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"Evidence" that he can't get anyone to agree with. Not even the Handbook he initially cited. Priceless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course, SSDD, all alone in his correctness.
Even the Handbook of Modern Sensors doesn't understand sensors as well as SSDD.
He should publish a book!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure you do, you posted it as observed to me!  Are you withdrawing your post then?  I asked you for observed image and you gave me that drawing.  I knew it wasn't observations of anything, yet you continued to post it three times I believe.  hmmmmmmm yeah I think you thought it was observed, you're far too smart to think it was a drawing of a how it's supposed to work.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.*

yep positive energy in and negative energy flux for the out Ohms law. your magical photons are not coming from the ice cream


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And isn’t observed.  provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.
> ...



That is a vague answer. The science requires that molecules of a cold gas must be able to hit a warm surface. 

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yup. Like I said,  "Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy 
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*And isn’t observed. 
*
Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not what you think that is for sure.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


here from their document, 

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the *object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)*."

yo yo bubba, from their own paper.  you call em and tell them they are wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL magic photons is all you got.

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"The term sensor should be distinguished from transducer. The latter is a converter of any one type of energy into another, whereas the former converts any type of energy into electrical energy. An example of a transducer is a loudspeaker, which converts an electrical signal into a variable magnetic field and, subsequently, into acoustic waves.2 This is nothing to do with perception or sensing. Transducers may be used as actuators in various systems. An actuator may be described as an opposite to a sensor; it converts electrical signal into generally nonelectrical energy. For example, an electric motor is an actuator; it converts electric energy into mechanical action. Another example is a pneumatic actuator that is enabled by an electric signal."


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

And finally:
http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"Finally, photon flux is detected by a photodiode and converted into electric current. In this chapter, we discuss the overall sensor characteristics, regardless of a physical nature or steps that are required to make energy conversions. Here, we consider a sensor as a “black box” where we concern only with relationships between its output electrical signal and input stimulus. Also, we will discuss the key point of sensing: computation of the input stimulus value from a measured sensor’s electric output."

So it looks like this company agrees with SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

or even this paragraph: Just like SSDD stated again.

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"A pilot (excitation) light is generated by a light emitting diode (LED), transmitted via an optical fiber to the object and reflected from its surface. The reflected photon flux enters the receiving optical fiber and propagates toward a photodiode where it produces an electric current representing the distance from the fiber optic end to the object. We see that such a sensor involves transformation of electrical current into photons, propagation of photons through some refractive media, reflection, and conversion back into electric current. Therefore, such a sensing process includes two energy conversion steps and a manipulation of the optical signal as well. There are sever"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Thanks for the link.

_Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy. *Of course, one should not be confused by an obvious fact that transmission of energy can ﬂow both ways *– it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can ﬂow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object. *A special case is when the net energy ﬂow is zero*, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared ﬂux is ﬂowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared ﬂux ﬂows from the sensor to the object). When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the ﬂux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same._

^
Here's the complete paragraph.

The bolded portions disagree with SSDD, and you, I guess.
He claims energy can only flow one way.
He also claims there is never "net energy flow".

Keep trying. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You'll have to show me where I ever made a claim about transducers.


----------



## jillian (Apr 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> 
> So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.  Here it is.
> 
> ...



where is the link to your purported source?

feel free to learn from actual scientists.

warmers? 

there isn't any cure for stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> And finally:
> http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf
> 
> "Finally, photon flux is detected by a photodiode and converted into electric current. In this chapter, we discuss the overall sensor characteristics, regardless of a physical nature or steps that are required to make energy conversions. Here, we consider a sensor as a “black box” where we concern only with relationships between its output electrical signal and input stimulus. Also, we will discuss the key point of sensing: computation of the input stimulus value from a measured sensor’s electric output."
> ...



You'll have to show me his post that is somehow backed up by this passage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> or even this paragraph: Just like SSDD stated again.
> 
> http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf
> 
> "A pilot (excitation) light is generated by a light emitting diode (LED), transmitted via an optical fiber to the object and reflected from its surface. The reflected photon flux enters the receiving optical fiber and propagates toward a photodiode where it produces an electric current representing the distance from the fiber optic end to the object. We see that such a sensor involves transformation of electrical current into photons, propagation of photons through some refractive media, reflection, and conversion back into electric current. Therefore, such a sensing process includes two energy conversion steps and a manipulation of the optical signal as well. There are sever"



*The reflected photon flux enters the receiving optical fiber 
*
You'll have to show me where anyone was discussing reflected photons.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep, it's a good link, you should read better on the two way energy flow as that sentence continues...
_"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can ﬂow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." _ This is exactly what I'm saying and  SSDD, he can chime in here if he's interested..
and then there is this.... I thought all things emit all the time even if at the same temperature, well?

"When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



When they're discussing flux, they're discussing net flow.


From page 129.....

_The Stefan-Boltzmann law speciﬁes the radiant power (ﬂux) that would be emanated from a surface of temperature, T, toward an inﬁnitely cold space (at absolute zero). When thermal radiation is detected by a thermal sensor, the opposite ﬂowing radiation from the sensor toward the object must also be accounted for. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a *net thermal ﬂux*, i.e., ﬂux from the object minus ﬂux from itself toward the object. _

Keep trying!!
_
_


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Funny, but you need to reread it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



OK.

_ A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a _*net thermal ﬂux*_, i.e., ﬂux from the object minus ﬂux from itself toward the object. _


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yes, so?

_"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can ﬂow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." _


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yup. Net to or away.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a _*net thermal ﬂux*_, i.e., ﬂux from the object minus ﬂux from itself toward the object. _

It's not my fault that your source says net.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out.  warm reaching out to cold, input minus output.  No input all output.  I know, just like I said.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The source says all objects with a temperature emit thermal radiation.  That’s the input to the sensor (even if the object is colder than the sensor).  That’s why it talks about net flow, because as long as the object is above absolute zero, there’s always an input.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


quote it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
I don't care what it says
*
Obviously.
*
 it says nothing in all coming out.
*
It says, "ﬂux from the object minus ﬂux from itself toward the object"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and if no flux is received it sends all out as explained with the cold object statement quoted.

"A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (*infrared flux is flowing to the sensor*) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (*infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object*)."

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object cause they're saying it ain't happening.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*and if no flux is received
*
Then your target is at 0K.

*still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object
*
You think cold objects don't radiate? That's funny.

If only your source agreed.......


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Then your target is at 0K*.

That’s not what they said wrong, if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor as I’ve posted twice burp!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > MPS777 said:
> ...


No mention of your statement there


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 17, 2018)

Todd, that is an entertaining discussion with a stupid, slow-witted, dull, obtuse,  foolish, careless, blockheaded, boneheaded, dumbass, dunce, dunderhead, fuckhead, knucklehead, loggerhead, lunkhead, muttonhead, numskull, shithead, simpleton, confused, bewildered, retarded, unintelligent, thick, dumb, simple, slow, dull, dim, dense, sluggish, deficient, crass, gullible, simple-minded, witless, dopey, moronic, obtuse, brainless, cretinous, half-witted, slow, braindead, dumb-ass, doltish, dead from the neck up, thickheaded, woodenheaded, fucked up, bird brain. 

Thank you thesaurus.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
That’s not what they said
*
Why would they have to say objects at 0K don't emit?
Everybody knows that.

*if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor
*
You're making less sense than usual. 
Are you drunk?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Figured I come down to your level I guess! Still waiting for that observation of your magic photons


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You'd have to take a dozen college level science classes to come within Hubble Telescope range of my level.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Naw you got magic photons. Show em off bubba!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



My photons wear a blindfold.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And pull rabbits out of hats


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Science requires?  Really?  Without regard to observable, measurable reality?  That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2018)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...



I gave you the sources...are you to lazy to look them up?  Are you claiming that they are somehow not accurate representations of the energy budget as claimed by climate science?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got any observations, or measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow?  Got anything other than the output of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?  Didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > MPS777 said:
> ...



Got any measurement of thermal radiation flowing spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object?  We have plenty of measurements of thermal radiation flowing spontaneously from warm objects to cool objects...are you claiming that it happens but some magic property of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm prevents it from being measured?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Todd, that is an entertaining discussion with a stupid, slow-witted, dull, obtuse,  foolish, careless, blockheaded, boneheaded, dumbass, dunce, dunderhead, fuckhead, knucklehead, loggerhead, lunkhead, muttonhead, numskull, shithead, simpleton, confused, bewildered, retarded, unintelligent, thick, dumb, simple, slow, dull, dim, dense, sluggish, deficient, crass, gullible, simple-minded, witless, dopey, moronic, obtuse, brainless, cretinous, half-witted, slow, braindead, dumb-ass, doltish, dead from the neck up, thickheaded, woodenheaded, fucked up, bird brain.
> 
> Thank you thesaurus.



Rather than slap him down with actual observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement you call names...must be frustrating to believe something so fervently and want others to believe as well but be completely unable to provide even one observed, measured instance of it actually happening..

Seems that those names should rightly be applied to the one making an argument for a thing happening but being unable to provide any evidence...typically a thinking person only takes up arguments for which he can provide evidence...actual physical observed measured evidence.....got any?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Science requires? Really? Without regard to observable, measurable reality? That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.



Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...must be frustrating to believe something so fervently and want others to believe as well but be completely unable to provide even one observed, measured instance of it actually happening..



Nope. I find it highly amusing.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Science requires? Really? Without regard to observable, measurable reality? That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.
> ...


got any observation of that happening?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Got any measurement of thermal radiation flowing spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object?
*
Got any proof thermal radiation can't flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object?
Besides your unique misinterpretation?

No? Weird.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > MPS777 said:
> ...


I win, you can't provide that observation.  LOL.  magic photons.  still waiting


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Todd, that is an entertaining discussion with a stupid, slow-witted, dull, obtuse,  foolish, careless, blockheaded, boneheaded, dumbass, dunce, dunderhead, fuckhead, knucklehead, loggerhead, lunkhead, muttonhead, numskull, shithead, simpleton, confused, bewildered, retarded, unintelligent, thick, dumb, simple, slow, dull, dim, dense, sluggish, deficient, crass, gullible, simple-minded, witless, dopey, moronic, obtuse, brainless, cretinous, half-witted, slow, braindead, dumb-ass, doltish, dead from the neck up, thickheaded, woodenheaded, fucked up, bird brain.
> ...


*
Rather than slap him down with actual observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement you call names..
*





Here is an illustration of spontaneous two way energy movement....from the 
Handbook of Modern Fucking Sensors.
The source first mention by you.

Why don't you post any similar illustrations from  the Handbook of Modern Sensors
that actually back your claims, instead of refuting your claims.

Come on, it's been years, post some proof of your claims already. DURR!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


still isn't observed.  we're waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I did......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for you to tell them they're wrong.....Whatcha waitin' for?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


great picture of the sun, now post an observed cool moving to warmth spontaneously.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


   I don't need to tell them anything.  just those like you who think they see something that  has never been observed.  hahaahahahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You can't see the cool surface emitting through the hotter corona?
Have you been blind as long as you've been forgetful?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not spontaneously nope.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You said they're wrong, why won't you tell them?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why isn't it spontaneous?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I won't buy any of their products.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's a working system that's why.

Why is the corona hotter than the surface? oh yeah, mystery. LOL


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I have the output of sensors, and the sensors’ output matches the two-way energy exchange model.  Do you have proof that the output of the mathematical model doesn’t match the output of the sensor?  If the theory involved purely one-way energy flow to predict the output of the sensor, then I might be more inclined to believe you, but it doesn’t:
["A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object." (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 4th Edition, sec 3.12.3.1)]
http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf



 

The mathematical model is merely a formal description of what happens in reality, with quantifiable inputs yielding quantifiable results.  Using words and math to explain reality is what science is about.  If you have your own formal description of reality that can do the same but never involves thermal radiation from an object striking a warmer object, you should write it all down, and send it out for peer review.  Until then, nobody of any consequence is going to take you seriously.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*it's a working system that's why.
*
No fusion on the surface....where is the work?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


again you think the sun is solid funny

What is the Sun made of? - The Sun's vital statistics - The Sun as a Star - Sun|trek


"The Sun is a big ball of gas and plasma. Most of the gas is hydrogen or helium, but there are also small amounts of other elements such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron."

a giant fireball.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
again you think the sun is solid funny
*
I don't, not at all.

So now that we agree the Sun is made of mostly hydrogen gas, where is the work taking place on the emitting surface?

Unless you're claiming that work done thousands of miles away for some reason means the cooler surface is allowed to emit toward the hotter corona?

If that's your claim, you'll have to explain the mechanism that transports that "work" to the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


again, it isn't spontaneous as I've stated over and over and you ignore and ignore.  LOL,

When you can tell us why the corona is hotter than the surface, maybe we can do some more chatting about the energy of the sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 18, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
again, it isn't spontaneous as I've stated over and over
*
Another claim with no backup.
Are you SSDD? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Prove me wrong


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Science requires? Really? Without regard to observable, measurable reality? That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.
> ...



You are an idiot...you know that?  We are talking about radiative energy transfer.....cold molecules hitting a warm surface would not constitute radiative energy transfer...that would be conduction...in which energy from the warm object would be transferred to the cooler gas molecules...there is no back conduction either...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...must be frustrating to believe something so fervently and want others to believe as well but be completely unable to provide even one observed, measured instance of it actually happening..
> ...




Not surprising...If you found it anything other then you would look to reality rather than models.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> I have the output of sensors, and the sensors’ output matches the two-way energy exchange model.  Do you have proof that the output of the mathematical model doesn’t match the output of the sensor?  If the theory involved purely one-way energy flow to predict the output of the sensor, then I might be more inclined to believe you, but it doesn’t:



What you have is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation...That sensor array is measuring nothing more than its own temperature change..then converting that change to an electrical charge which is then translated to form an image...it has no idea what is causing the change, nor does it care...all it does is measure how much and how fast its temperature is changing.  

Your claim that you know what it is responding to is once again, nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.  Point the sensor at a cold object and it cools off...that doesn't suggest two way flux...that suggests one way gross energy movement from the sensor to the object.  Point it at a warm object and it warms up...again, that doesn't suggest two way flux, it suggests one way gross energy movement from the object to the sensor.  There is nothing there that would suggest two way energy movement because the sensor is not capable of measuring any such thing...it is only capable of measuring its own temperature change.

The only evidence you have is that you are easily fooled by instrumentation....you believe you know what is happening so you project it onto an instrument which has no ability to determine whether your belief is true or not.



MPS777 said:


> The mathematical model is merely a formal description of what happens in reality, with quantifiable inputs yielding quantifiable results.  Using words and math to explain reality is what science is about.  If you have your own formal description of reality that can do the same but never involves thermal radiation from an object striking a warmer object, you should write it all down, and send it out for peer review.  Until then, nobody of any consequence is going to take you seriously.




The mathematical model is nothing more than fiction till such time as observation and measurement bear it out.  At this point in time, there are no observations or measurements of spontaneously two way energy flow...there are however any number of instances where people are fooled by instrumentation into believing that evidence for what they believe exists...  You just provided a prime example...projecting an ability to observe, and measure two way energy flow onto an instrument that can measure nothing more than the amount of, and rate of its own temperature change.  Don't worry though, you  certainly aren't the only one...ian once claimed that pyrogeometers were measuring back radiation when in fact, the only thing a pyrogeometer can measure is the amount of and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...he had it being able to detect discrete frequencies of radiation coming down from the cooler atmosphere such was his desire to have evidence to support his belief in a mathematical model..

We can of course measure discrete frequencies of radiation coming down from the cool atmosphere, but only if we cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than that of the atmosphere...in which case, we aren't measuring energy moving from a cool atmosphere to a warm object, we are measuring energy moving from the cool atmosphere to a colder instrument...let the instrument warm to ambient temperature and you can no longer measure discrete frequencies coming from an atmosphere that is cooler than the instrument.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Right. The SLoT holds for conduction too.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


do you have evidence to support that question?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Not surprising...If you found it anything other then you would look to reality rather than models.


Your problem is that you are incapable of abstract thinking.

By that I mean definition #2 in freedictionary.com.
the _process_ _of_ _formulating_ _generalized_ _ideas_ _or_ _concepts_ _by_ _extracting_ _common_ _qualities_ _from specific_ _examples_​
Your inability forces you to think only in terms of things you can observe and measure. You have a disdain for mathematical models, which require forming general ideas from specific examples. Mathematical models are the essence that ties together all of physics.

I have also noticed that you are incapable of understanding analogies. For example in post 2143, IanC had an analogy with early experiments with sound and how it lead to a concepts in thermal radiation.

Your response in post 2154 was totally confused into thinking that IanC was conflating sound and light as one thing, even though that analogy was one sentence in seven paragraphs.

You exclaimed over and over about taking science laws at “face value” without understanding that there is a deeper structure, mathematical models, that relates the separate laws of physics. You eschew all of modern science which has abstracted countless phenomena into deeper overarching models. You are very literal in trying to understanding nature, which absolutely requires abstract thinking.

Your inability to accept mathematical models, understand analogies, and go beyond a literal “face value” interpretation of science means you are very incapable of abstract thinking.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > I have the output of sensors, and the sensors’ output matches the two-way energy exchange model.  Do you have proof that the output of the mathematical model doesn’t match the output of the sensor?  If the theory involved purely one-way energy flow to predict the output of the sensor, then I might be more inclined to believe you, but it doesn’t:
> ...



* Point the sensor at a cold object and it cools off...that doesn't suggest two way flux...*

It doesn't disprove two way flux.
*




*
And it's interesting that the Handbook of Modern Sensors says net thermal flux.
And you have no source, no source at all, that agrees with your claim that 
the flux is always and everywhere strictly one way.

No source. Weird.
*
let the instrument warm to ambient temperature and you can no longer measure discrete frequencies coming from an atmosphere that is cooler than the instrument.
*
An instrument on the ground at 20C can't measure the frequencies coming from the cooler atmosphere because of interference from itself, or can't measure frequencies that aren't allowed (smart photons) to travel from cold air toward the warmer ground?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....

Talking about conduction does not prove two way radiative energy movement...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not surprising...If you found it anything other then you would look to reality rather than models.
> ...



Actually, I am great at abstract thinking...my job requires it in abundance and folks who are not good at it probably would not be very successful, or even enjoy the work...but hell, you are wrong about everything else...may as well be mistaken in your assessment of someones thought processes whom you have never met...

And I am fine with mathematical models...In fact I love them...but they are nothing more than a basis for further research...and they mean nothing till reality bears them out....which has not happened in the case of spontaneous two way energy movement...it is still just a fiction...you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between what is real..and what is not.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....
> 
> Talking about conduction does not prove two way radiative energy movement...


It should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about radiation. I am giving a counter example to your misunderstanding of the SLoT, where I illustrate that energy from a cold substance can hit a warmer substance I am giving a well-known example of conduction – how molecular kinetic energy from a cold *gas* can move toward and hit a warmer surface. Of course the kinetic energy flow is *two-way*, and the warm surface always imparts *more energy to the cold gas* than the gas to the surface.

You are avoiding the question. I'm not talking about an egg and frying pan.

*Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?*
*A yes or no answer will suffice.*


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Actually, I am great at abstract thinking...my job requires it in abundance and folks who are not good at it probably would not be very successful, or even enjoy the work...but hell, you are wrong about everything else...may as well be mistaken in your assessment of someones thought processes whom you have never met...
> 
> And I am fine with mathematical models...In fact I love them...but they are nothing more than a basis for further research...and they mean nothing till reality bears them out....which has not happened in the case of spontaneous two way energy movement...it is still just a fiction...you seem to lack the ability to differentiate between what is real..and what is not.



I don't believe you one bit. My subject was physics models. You ridicule them. You are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about radiation. I am giving a counter example to your misunderstanding of the SLoT, where I illustrate that energy from a cold substance can hit a warmer substance I am giving a well-known example of conduction – how molecular kinetic energy from a cold *gas* can move toward and hit a warmer surface. Of course the kinetic energy flow is *two-way*, and the warm surface always imparts *more energy to the cold gas* than the gas to the surface.



Tell me wacko...what, exactly is spontaneous about a cold egg being dropped into a hot frying pan?  Spontaneous is the key word.  And the energy flow is one way from warm to cool...I keep asking for some measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement and you keep not providing it because there are no examples because it simply does not happen.



Wuwei said:


> You are avoiding the question. I'm not talking about an egg and frying pan.
> 
> *Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
> A yes or no answer will suffice.*



And the stupid just never stops with you does it?  Of course molecules from a cold gas can come into contact with a warm surface...it happens every time you open the refrigerator..cold air pours out onto your warm floor...but again, no energy is imparted from that cold gas to the warm floor...the floor loses energy to the gas...the gas gains energy from the floor...  and still you are talking about conduction, not radiation...and with conduction as with radiation, it is a one way gross energy movement from warm to cool...

And just to be clear you f'ing idiot...cold molecules hitting a warm surface is not energy from a cold object moving to a warm object...it is simply one physical entity hitting another object...molecules are not energy...and when a molecule from a cold gas impacts a warm surface, the only energy that gets transferred is energy from the warm surface to the cooler gas.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I am great at abstract thinking...my job requires it in abundance and folks who are not good at it probably would not be very successful, or even enjoy the work...but hell, you are wrong about everything else...may as well be mistaken in your assessment of someones thought processes whom you have never met...
> ...



Excuse me if I don't place much value on the opinion of an idiot.  And I don't ridicule models...I am all for models...the more models the merrier.  What I ridicule is people who accept unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measurable, testable reality....and until such time as physical observation and measurement bear out the predictions of a model is fiction since it can be nothing else...I ridicule people like you because you knowingly accept fiction over reality...or...considering how often you are fooled by instrumentation, maybe you don't knowingly accept fiction over reality...maybe you only do it in abject ignorance.

The very definition of fiction describes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models to a T...fiction: an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argumentor explanation.

Since there is no physical evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement, to think it happens is an act of imagination...the fact that it is claimed but can not be observed means that it is postulated...not that it actually happens.  Again.. you fail to recognize the difference between what is real, and what is not.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> .cold molecules hitting a warm surface is not energy from a cold object moving to a warm object...it is simply one physical entity hitting another object...molecules are not energy.



There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface. However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Excuse me if I don't place much value on the opinion of an idiot. And I don't ridicule models...I am all for models...the more models the merrier. What I ridicule is people who accept unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measurable, testable reality....and until such time as physical observation and measurement bear out the predictions of a model is fiction since it can be nothing else...I ridicule people like you because you knowingly accept fiction over reality...or...considering how often you are fooled by instrumentation, maybe you don't knowingly accept fiction over reality...maybe you only do it in abject ignorance.
> 
> The very definition of fiction describes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models to a T...fiction: an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argumentor explanation.
> 
> Since there is no physical evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement, to think it happens is an act of imagination...the fact that it is claimed but can not be observed means that it is postulated...not that it actually happens. Again.. you fail to recognize the difference between what is real, and what is not.



Quantum mechanics is all mathematical models and you think it is fiction. One way energy flow violates both quantum and classical physics observations and measurements. That is definitely not fiction. You proved my point. You obviously don't understand that because you are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface.



So now you are claiming that there is such a thing as back conduction?  Got any observed measurements of back conduction?



Wuwei said:


> However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.



So what'll it be?  Observed measurements of back conduction or some excuse as to why you can't produce them...or will you jump straight on to name calling and skip any pretense at supporting your claim?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Quantum mechanics is all mathematical models and you think it is fiction. One way energy flow violates both quantum and classical physics observations and measurements. That is definitely not fiction. You proved my point. You obviously don't understand that because you are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.



So what if it violates quantum mechanics...quantum mechanics violates itself and is chock full of contradictions...hell this very topic is a contradiction...claiming that radiation exists as both particles and waves is a glaring contradiction....yet it is accepted at present as real...and why?  Because at present we don't understand enough about radiation or its properties to say whether it is particles or waves.  So we accept a story that lets it be both, and will continue to accept the story till such time as we become advanced enough to know one way or the other.    100 years on, physicists still can't even agree on which interpretation of QM is the correct one.

And if one way energy flow violated observations and measurements, then you could easily produce observations and measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...you can't...and why can't you?  Because there are none...  You are simply talking out of your ass, hoping that someone will believe what you have to say.  

It would seem that you equate imagining fiction to be real abstract thinking...people who occasionally leave their parent's basements to dress up as hobbits and pretend to be in middle earth while in reality are simply adults dressing up wandering in fallow fields must be top shelf abstract thinkers to  you.  If you were an adept abstract thinker, you would first, admit that the reality is that there are no measurements, or observations of spontaneous energy movement either radiation or conduction and move on from there....rather than keep on claiming that such observations and measurements exist even though you can't provide any because they, in fact, do not exist.  Lying is not abstract thinking...lying is just lying.  

And sidestepping off on this tangent of pretending that I can't see the emperors new clothes because I am a poor abstract thinker still leaves the emperor's hairy pimpled ass exposed to all who are in touch with reality.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface.
> ...


Before you use the strawman back conduction, you will have to clearly define what you mean because in the current context, it has no physical meaning. I have already indicated that the end result is that heat goes from the warmer surface to the colder gas, which means that the SloT is not violated.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So what if it violates quantum mechanics.... etc



Quantum mechanics is an ultimate abstraction that mathematically models behavior of atoms in solids and gases, spectra, black body radiation, and many other observations and measurements... very successfully. 

Obviously you will disparage it because you are incapable of abstract thinking. Your diatribe against QM clearly shows your inability to understand any aspect of nature that you personally can't directly see, touch or feel. That is not science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum mechanics is all mathematical models and you think it is fiction. One way energy flow violates both quantum and classical physics observations and measurements. That is definitely not fiction. You proved my point. You obviously don't understand that because you are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.
> ...



*there are no measurements, or observations of spontaneous energy movement either radiation or conduction and move on from there.
*
And no radiation from the Sun's surface.
And dimmer switches!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....
> ...


he answered you here


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So what if it violates quantum mechanics...quantum mechanics violates itself and is chock full of contradictions...hell this very topic is a contradiction...claiming that radiation exists as both particles and waves is a glaring contradiction....yet it is accepted at present as real...and why? Because at present we don't understand enough about radiation or its properties to say whether it is particles or waves. So we accept a story that lets it be both, and will continue to accept the story till such time as we become advanced enough to know one way or the other. 100 years on, physicists still can't even agree on which interpretation of QM is the correct one



You claim to only believe in things with solid evidence through experiment.

Yet you totally discount a hundred years of doing the double slit experiment that shows light has properties of both particles and waves.

That would be enough but it gets worse. Electrons are _matter_ not light, and they show properties of both particles and waves as well in the double slit experiment.

The results of the double slit experiment are not going to change. Reality does not care whether we understand the reasons completely or not at all.

QM may be more refined in a hundred years but the double slit experiment will still give the same crazy results that show the atomic scale world is different from the macroscopic one.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And if one way energy flow violated observations and measurements, then you could easily produce observations and measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...you can't...and why can't you? Because there are none... You are simply talking out of your ass, hoping that someone will believe what you have to say.



The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision. 

You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.

Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.

Radiation is different because the energy is separate from the matter. No physical contact is needed. Yet the same process takes place. Some energy from the gas hits the wall at exactly the same time as some energy is leaving the wall. Energy is going both ways, but the NET energy is always from warm to cool. 

The only way to stop collisions/radiation is to cool the objects to absolute zero. SSDD believes differently and invokes some unknown physical law that only he knows about. 

In kinetic or radiative transfers of energy it is important to remember that these exchanges are happening at the same time. You cannot take just one side or the other, one direction or the other, and say that it is heating the other. It is the NET movement that causes heating or cooling. 

Two objects at the same temperature do not warm or cool each other, whether they are both at 20C or 2000C. But the amount of energy being exchanged at 2000C is huge compared to 20C.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



How many times must I say it?  Are you so stupid that you can't read?  Did I not say that molecules of a cold gas hit an adjacent warm surface every time you open your refrigerator door?  How much more clearly can I say it?  Do you need a crayon drawing.

That is molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface...not energy radiating from a cold anything to a warm anything...you can't make the case for two way  radiative energy flow by pointing out that it is possible to put a cold object into contact with a warm object...the only thing that happens in such a case is that the warm object loses energy to the cold object...no energy moves from the cold object to the warm object.

Could it be that you are trying to make the case that molecules of O2, N2, and CO2 are actually energy and that when those molecules impact a warm surface, it is the same thing as radiative energy movement?  Are you that far off the reservation?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So what if it violates quantum mechanics.... etc
> ...



Really?  Then lets see the observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement.  Being able to produce observed, measured results is the definition of success in science...so lets see it...  Or is a fiction about spontaneous two way energy movement still al you have?

And I disparage anything that is fiction which attempts to present itself as reality for any purpose other than entertainment.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.....is he?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> You claim to only believe in things with solid evidence through experiment.



Until such time as a thing is demonstrated by actual evidence, it is just a story.  What else could it be?



IanC said:


> Yet you totally discount a hundred years of doing the double slit experiment that shows light has properties of both particles and waves.



All you are doing is pointing out the fact that we don't yet understand the nature of light.  I have been saying that all along.  



IanC said:


> That would be enough but it gets worse. Electrons are _matter_ not light, and they show properties of both particles and waves as well in the double slit experiment.



Congratulations...you are pointing out that we don't know nearly as much as you think we do...We are still groping in the dark trying to understand things that are and have been all around us all the time forever...Someday we will understand the reality and won't have to settle on a fiction that attempts to explain the natural world...ancient cultures had all sorts of fictions to explain the natural world around them...our fictions are more sophisticated, and based on far more evidence than the ancient cultures had access to, but they are still fictions...some day, the fictions that we believe will be as quaint as the stories the old cultures told around the campfire.



IanC said:


> The results of the double slit experiment are not going to change. Reality does not care whether we understand the reasons completely or not at all.



You are right on the cusp of actually knowing something there ian...it is right there for the taking..all you have to do is reach out and embrace it...REALIT DOESN'T CARE WHETHER WE UNDERSTAND THE REASONS COMPLETELY OR NOT...  Which is precisely what I have been saying all along...we don't understand...we don't know what the underlying mechanisms are...we have some stories that we tell in an attempt to explain the natural world around us, but they are not the facts because we don't know the facts...they are the best we can do at our level of understanding...STORIES ian...it is just stories and reality doesn't really care whether we understand or not...

Reality is that while we can measure minute energy movements, we  have not, can not, and will not ever measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...Our story says that it can happen, but reality doesn't care what our story is...it goes right on not letting energy move spontaneously from cold to warm whether we understand how or why or not....without regard to what we tell ourselves.

The keys to the kingdom are right there for the taking ian...reach out and grab them and get in touch with reality.....or don't..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

IanC said:


> The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.
> 
> You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.



I don't say that the second law prevents anything...I say that the second law says what is.  We don't have any idea why it is prevented, or how it is prevented...all we know is that when we look, and attempt to measure, we see that it is being prevented.  Energy does not move spontaneously from cold to warm...why?  Someday we may know...or we may never know.  Like you said...reality doesn't care whether we know or not...and it doesn't care whether the story we tell ourselves jibes with observable reality or not...  You prefer the story over observable, measurable reality for some reason that you probably don't even fully understand yourself.  Lets here the story you tell about that...and again, reality doesn't care whether you really understand or not.



IanC said:


> Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.



There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house...but that energy is mechanical energy...the only thermal energy being made in the exchange is energy being transferred from the warm wall to the molecules of the colder ice crystals in contact with the wall.  You can make cold objects contact warm objects all you like but the only thermal energy being exchanged is from the warm to the cold because that is the only direction energy can move.....and again, the key word here is spontaneous....is there anything spontaneous about a cold object being moved into contact with a warm object?

So tell me some more stories ian...but to add the caveat at the end that reality really doesn't care what story you tell about it..reality is going to go right on letting energy spontaneously move from warm to cool.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Did I not say that molecules of a cold gas hit an adjacent warm surface



Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface is an example that energy can and does transfer from a cold to a hot object. That is exactly what was said at the hyperphysics site.

_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object. _​
That  why the SLoT must be more generally expressed as 

Second Law of Thermodynamics
_It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. _​


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> lets see the observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement



The fact that one way energy flow of thermal kinetic energy of molecules or radiation both violate classical and quantum physics is enough to say one way energy flow is a very faulty assumption.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house.



That is totally wrong. There are *trillions *of molecules in a cold gas continually bombarding a warm surface. The average kinetic energy of those molecules follows a Boltzmann distribution and defines *heat*. The kinetic energy of a *single* snowball does not follow the Boltzmann law in any way shape or form. That analogy is totally inappropriate.

Secondly, a "bit of energy" is not the same as pressure. Your ability to understand physics and physics terminology is grievous.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.
> ...




I think what we'll never know is why you CHOOSE to be so stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



He heard he should do what he's good at.............


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface is an example that energy can and does transfer from a cold to a hot object. That is exactly what was said at the hyperphysics site.



Congratulations...the more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you really are clueless.  In the first place, you have demonstrated that you don't recognize the difference between mechanical and thermal energy.  

If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever.  

Now you can force cold air over an object and cause it to warm...and the more air you force over it, the warmer it will become.....reference some supersonic aircraft whose skins warm up at high speeds...or space craft entering the atmosphere warming to very high temperatures while passing through very cold air...of course, that temperature change is due to friction of the cold air passing over the surface of the vehicles...and most importantly, that increase in temperature is not in the least spontaneous is it, as in the case with the hot piece of iron simply placed in the bath of cold air.

Of course you can make energy move from cold to warm, but as the second law states, it doesn't happen spontaneously...you have to apply work to make it happen.  Sorry this is all so difficult for you.  Before you come up with any other failed examples, ask yourself in the energy movement is spontaneous, or if work is being applied...that is, is something being moved?


Most importantly...get a clue.

​


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > lets see the observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement
> ...



Fine example of circular thinking...congratulations again.  Got any evidence...got any observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement...got a measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm?  Didn't think so...and alas, your circular logic doesn't constitute evidence of anything more than your inability to think.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That is totally wrong. There are *trillions *of molecules in a cold gas continually bombarding a warm surface. The average kinetic energy of those molecules follows a Boltzmann distribution and defines *heat*. The kinetic energy of a *single* snowball does not follow the Boltzmann law in any way shape or form. That analogy is totally inappropriate.



Look at the SB equation when one radiator is in the presence of another...P is the amount of energy the radiator is emitting...change the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P changes because it emits based on the difference between its temperature and those of its cooler surroundings...it isn't receiving energy from the cooler surroundings.




Wuwei said:


> Secondly, a "bit of energy" is not the same as pressure. Your ability to understand physics and physics terminology is grievous.



Pressure is mechanical energy and again, exactly what is spontaneous about pressure...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> I think what we'll never know is why you CHOOSE to be so stupid.



Hey skid mark!!!  Why did you run away from the other thread about CO2 trailing temperature...there are a couple of us waiting for you to bring a piece of that evidence that supports AGW over natural variability that you claim exists in such abundance over at the IPCC web site...

What's the matter?  Couldn't actually find any?...or didn't want anyone to see how easily you could be fooled into thinking practically anything is evidence that favors AGW over natural variability?  Can't say that I blame you...but you should learn to stop claiming that it is there since you already know that it isn't...every time you make the claim, someone is going to ask you to cut and paste at bit of it...and you know you can't...doesn't that fall under the definition of insanity...making the same old claim and expecting that this time some one will believe you and accept your claim that it is there?


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2018)

Actually, I place slightly more value on the opinions of degreed scientists, working in the field, who find the evidence presented in AR1 through 5 to be quite compelling, over the opinion of someone who rejects (or utterly fails to understand) the absolute basics of thermodynamics and heat transfer.  Physics seems to be a boogey man to you and you seem to think it should be a boogey man to everyone else.  Sorry, dude, the only folks you're going to sell on that line are those as stupid as you or (heaven forbid) worse.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> Actually, I place slightly more value on the opinions of degreed scientists, working in the field, who find the evidence presented in AR1 through 5 to be quite compelling, over the opinion of someone who rejects (or utterly fails to understand) the absolute basics of thermodynamics and heat transfer.  Physics seems to be a boogey man to you and you seem to think it should be a boogey man to everyone else.  Sorry, dude, the only folks you're going to sell on that line are those as stupid as you or (heaven forbid) worse.



Yet you have repeatedly ignored my comments showing the IPCC prediction/projection failures, which are based ON the AGW conjecture.

Snicker.....................


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....



Exactly. I already quoted that from the hyperphysics site. Why do you choose to ignore that? Just so you can rant? When you get angry like that you just don't think straight.
_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but *the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. *Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object. _​
The rest of your post is non-sequitur.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



When your faulty assumption of one-way energy flow is shown to violate both quantum and classical mechanics. What makes you think it is circular thinking?


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2018)

It might be a result of the Archimedean spiral as he and his Bizarro-World concepts twirl down Les Cabinet


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I place slightly more value on the opinions of degreed scientists, working in the field, who find the evidence presented in AR1 through 5 to be quite compelling, over the opinion of someone who rejects (or utterly fails to understand) the absolute basics of thermodynamics and heat transfer.  Physics seems to be a boogey man to you and you seem to think it should be a boogey man to everyone else.  Sorry, dude, the only folks you're going to sell on that line are those as stupid as you or (heaven forbid) worse.
> ...



I don't believe I know you and I hope I have not given you the impression that I was attempting to involve myself in any of your debates.  I believe I demonstrated, at least once, that the IPCC's predictions were significantly better than you attempted to argue.  

Do you believe those projections to be so bad that you can categorically state the world is not getting signficantly warmer over the last 150 years?  Do you reject the finding that the hottest 17 years of the last 100 have taken place since 2000?  Or are you one of those who concede the world is warming but argue tht it is driven by some hiterto unknown cycle of incredible forcing that is driving temperatures to rise faster than they have in at least 800,000 years?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Look at the SB equation when one radiator is in the presence of another...P is the amount of energy the radiator is emitting...change the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P changes because it emits based on the difference between its temperature and those of its cooler surroundings...it isn't receiving energy from the cooler surroundings.



Exactly what does the SB equation have to do with my statement, "_*trillions *of molecules in a cold gas continually bombarding a warm surface_"

The SB equation refers to *radiation*. My post was dealing with *kinetic energy exchange*. Do you understand the difference? Kinetic energy exchange underlies thermal conduction, not thermal radiation!



SSDD said:


> Pressure is mechanical energy and again, exactly what is spontaneous about pressure...


For god's sake! Pressure is *NOT* mechanical energy!

Pressure is a force per unit area measured by Newtons per square meter.

Mechanical energy is a force over a moved distance measured by Newtons times meters.

*What Is "work" in Physics?*
_*In physics, "work" is when a force applied to an object moves the object in the same direction as the force.* If someone pushes against a wall, no work is done on the wall because it does not move. However, depressing a letter on a computer keyboard requires work._​
It really is quite a poor reflection on you when you continually pick science words and try to use them in sentences that are totally wrong or are complete nonsense.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Your ability to debate is really bad since you make declarative support for the IPCC, yet you say here that you WILL ignore the evidence presented. Yet make clear you have no idea what the controversy is about.

It appears that I will soon have to make a post that is all about IPCC predictive failures to make clear that you are badly mistaken.

Hardly anyone has disputed the obvious warming trend, heck I bring this up many times showing that it has been warming. The warming trend rate is NO higher than the previous warming trends back to 1860's, you as usual hyperbole with lies.

Here is what uber warmist Dr. Jones said in the BBC interview back in 2009:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Excerpt:

"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?"

his reply,

"....So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes

1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

From 2009:






about .025C per decade rate......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface is an example that energy can and does transfer from a cold to a hot object. That is exactly what was said at the hyperphysics site.
> ...



* Of course you can make energy move from cold to warm, but as the second law states, it doesn't happen spontaneously...you have to apply work to make it happen.  
*
I want to know what matter wasn't originally warmed by work?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....
> ...



And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow."  You go right back through the whole process again.  Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc?  Does that pattern escape you?  Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?

Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2018)

Crick said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> For god's sake! Pressure is *NOT* mechanical energy!



While pressure is not a form of energy, it the forces of pressure produce mechanical work.  Are you going to claim that pressure applied to a gas does not decrease its volume....that is [the molecules, by force, have been moved some distance and therefore closer together]  Is that what you are going to claim?  

Like I said...get a clue.  you are not going to get spontaneous two way energy movement from anything no matter how many avenues you try...maybe you should look up the word spontaneous...that seems to be where you are missing the boat.



Wuwei said:


> Mechanical energy is a force over a moved distance measured by Newtons times meters.



And you don't think meters can be converted to other terms?  Is that what you think?

*


Wuwei said:



What Is "work" in Physics?

Click to expand...

*


Wuwei said:


> _*In physics, "work" is when a force applied to an object moves the object in the same direction as the force.* If someone pushes against a wall, no work is done on the wall because it does not move. However, depressing a letter on a computer keyboard requires work._​


_

And you don't think that the downward pressure applied by the column of air that is the atmosphere moves the molecules at the bottom closer together?  You think the molecules are the same distance apart at the top of the atmosphere as they are at the bottom?  You don't think the fact that they have been forced closer together by the pressure applied by the weight of the atmosphere above them have moved them closer together?  Is that what you are claiming?

Like I have said before..get a clue._​


Wuwei said:


> It really is quite a poor reflection on you when you continually pick science words and try to use them in sentences that are totally wrong or are complete nonsense.



Interesting that even this basic bit of mechanical force eludes you.  Imagine how much you don't know, and what a poor reflection it is upon you if you are living under the impression that air molecules at the top of the atmosphere are the same distance apart as molecules at the bottom of the atmosphere...and if you are unaware that pressure actually moved those molecules closer together...and imagine if you thought that the force that moved them closer together and kept them closer together was not work?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your ability to debate is really bad since you make declarative support for the IPCC, yet you say here that you WILL ignore the evidence presented. Yet make clear you have no idea what the controversy is about.



Crick is a believer and all believers are at a disadvantage in a debate.  He makes declarative statements based on his faith and then when asked for actual evidence that supports that faith, he can't deliver...but his faith is so strong that he can't, not make declarations based upon it...then when asked upon what evidence is your faith based, again he can't deliver...and on and on in a vicious circle.  All he can do is state that people whom he perceives as more intelligent than himself say that it is so...when asked for the evidence upon which they make the claim that it is so...he can't deliver and goes right back into the circle again...  His faith is such that it doesn't allow him to wonder how the people he believes in so fervently know if they don't have any actual evidence to support their claims.  



Sunsettommy said:


> It appears that I will soon have to make a post that is all about IPCC predictive failures to make clear that you are badly mistaken.



Wouldn't make any difference if you made 100 posts outlining the failure of the ipcc and climate science in general...wouldn't matter if you include the entire weight of observed measured facts that dispute the claims of the IPCC...he has faith and faith is impervious to fact....and his faith is strong... he is a true believer and as such is unable to see anything that calls his faith into question.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?
> 
> Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...



I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow. In fact I doubt if anyone has actually tested that because the results are already known by, yes, mathematical models which you pretend to eschew. Also why would anyone test something as simple as that when they know it would violate other laws of physics which have been proven time and again over the last one hundred years.

The irony is that you needlessly cling to demanding observed measured evidence on one very simple topic of thermodynamics at the expense of turning around and denying the observed measured evidence of the rest of science that would nullify your opinion.
That is hypocrisy at it's best.

As you well know, net two way flow of thermal radiation and thermal kinetic energy at the molecular level is totally compatible with all of thermodynamics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.

I really don't care if you want to be resolutely obstinate against one hundred years of physics. I'm simply showing the (low) readership of this board how illogical and pathological you are on science, and that your ideas are totally anti-science and simply wrong.

So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > For god's sake! Pressure is *NOT* mechanical energy!
> ...



Your whole post is strawman or non-sequitur, or bluster. When you accuse me of saying or believing things that I have not mentioned, or believe, or are way outside of the topic, it seems that you have no argument left.

I'm talking about the basics of thermodynamics that you pretend not to believe. But you want to bring in simple but unrelated facts about the conversion of meters, gravity in the atmosphere and mechanical force.

You are obviously evading the well-known fact that molecules of a cold gas can strike a warm surface, which shows energy is two way and still follows the SLoT.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....
> ...


_*that statement is referring to net transfer of energy.*_

does it state that or are you filling in the blanks?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?
> ...


until you can show observed measured evidence of a cold object warming a warmer object this..._It is important to note that when it is stated that *energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object,*
_
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence.  since we have never observed any.


----------



## MPS777 (Apr 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.


Yeah, just thinking about how one would apply a strictly one-way thermal radiation flow rule across all conceivable situations, and it quickly devolves into absurdity.  A vibrating particle of matter will emit electromagnetic waves who’s trajectories will depend of the directions the vibrations occur in.  So let’s consider some black body object just sitting in a room, and at thermal equilibrium with the room.  Net heat transfer is zero, but does that mean the black body is not emitting any thermal radiation outwardly at all?  I believe the known physics involved predict that on aggregate, the vibrating particles would have to emit electromagnetic waves outwardly from the entire surface of the object. 

Is SSDD ready to present some hitherto unknown Mystery Law X whereby the heat energy from the surrounding room is able to strike the black body object in just the right way so that it’s particles emit all their radiation inward, while the black body is somehow able realign the vibrations of the surrounding particles in a similar fashion? 

Let’s go further and consider two objects in space: Earth and Pluto.  Earth is warmer than Pluto, so would Mystery Law X allow for Earth’s radiation to strike Pluto’s particles in just such a way as that Pluto’s electromagnetic radiation waves are never emitted at Earth?  If I was to open a container of (very cold) alpha phase solid oxygen on Earth, would Mystery Law X now realign the vibrations of Pluto particles?  Seeing as such a rule would be completely unnecessary, Occam’s razor informs me that it does not exist.

But then if Mystery Law X doesn’t exist, how can we explain the thermal radiation behavior of a single cool object in a warm room?  It would still have vibrating particles, and no Mystery Law X to force all its thermal radiation inward.  Electromagnetic waves emitted from the surface of the cool object would propagate outwardly at the speed of light.  If the room had solid walls, those ‘cool’ radiation waves would basically have to be absorbed by at least the warm walls, especially if the walls were made out of thick, electromagnetic radiation absorbing materials.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
> ...


dude, just post the observed measurements of the spontaneous two way energy flow.  that's all he's asked for.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...







Second Law of Thermodynamics

Weird. We have all sorts of sources that explicitly disagree with SSDD's claims, 
and he still has none that explicitly agree with his claims.

It's almost like he's all alone with his theory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence
*
Maybe you can help your buddy SSDD out?
Any observations that show objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?
I have plenty of sources that say, at equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.
You know, two way flow.
I've never seen any of SSDD's sources that say one way only. Or no way.

Weird, eh?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


and yet you have no observation of it actually happening as net..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
> ...



His theory allows objects to see matter billions of light years away, billions of years in the future, before deciding whether to emit that photon.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


all you got to do is present the observed energy moving cold to hot in any way.  just post it up.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


just post the observed energy.  just once.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You already rejected the instrument readings of cold sky radiating toward warmer ground.
What other observations would you like us to post for you to ignorantly reject?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You never did explain why the cool surface of the Sun can emit at the hot corona........weird.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


i told you it wasn't spontaneous.  you missed that how many times now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*i told you it wasn't spontaneous. 
*
And you keeping failing to explain where the work is occurring on the surface
in order to allow non-spontaneous emitting from the surface.

*you missed that how many times now?
*
Every single time you've failed to show the work. Weird.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


show the work, the entire ball is work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You think fusion occurs everywhere in the Sun? LOL!

That's funny.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I said the sun was pure gas, yep? You ever see those flares that fly off of it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


something on fire is on fire based on work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?

Dude!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the sun is full of energy  radiating from it's core.  yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core. now explain why the corona is hotter than that of the surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core.
*
Excellent!! You got one right.
But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.
Was he wrong?

*yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core.
*
Fire does release energy, but there is no fire at the Sun's core.
Or on the Sun's surface either.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.*

that isn't what he said.  But hey, why post the facts.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


then how does it produce solar flares?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*that isn't what he said.
*
He has said that absorption and emission do not constitute work.
Was he wrong?

*But hey, why post the facts.
*
You should ask SSDD.
He never has posted any facts that back up his one-way or no way emission claims.
Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You think solar flares are fire?
Like oxygen combining with hydrogen?

Do you know the difference between fire and fusion?
Just for fun, why don't you post the difference here?

Thanks!!


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 23, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
> ...


I agree. SSDD has a "not measurable/observable" mantra which he applies to radiation between objects. But ironically he refuses to apply the mantra to anything that shows he is wrong. My opinion is that he knows he is wrong and modern science is right, but he wants to troll people on this board who do understand the science. One indication is that his moniker means, Same Shit, Different Day. (Google it if you haven't seen that defn.) It certainly fits his one dimensional posts. 

However it's hard to tell if "flat-earth" types like him really believe deep down that they are right, or if they are just sacrificing their dignity to be a troll.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow.



Why lie...you have been looking frantically for it for some time now...wanting to slap me down with it...it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen.



Wuwei said:


> Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.



Which "well known" law of physics demands two way energy flow?  More talking out of your ass without the least bit of evidence to support you.  We have been through this before...you add words that aren't there and claim that the statement "means" this or that as if the people who wrote the law weren't intelligent enough to say what they mean... And again, why lie about two way energy flow being measured and observed...we both well know that it hasn't....




Wuwei said:


> So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.



What...going to sulk now?  If I won't see the emperors clothes you are going to take your ball and go home...see ya...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your whole post is strawman or non-sequitur, or bluster. When you accuse me of saying or believing things that I have not mentioned, or believe, or are way outside of the topic, it seems that you have no argument left.



What's the matter...didn't know that pressure is work...didn't know that the pressure generated at the column of air moves the molecules closer together...you were the one who claimed that pressure was not work...when shown that it is, now it is a non sequitur?  You really are a whiny baby aren't you?



Wuwei said:


> You are obviously evading the well-known fact that molecules of a cold gas can strike a warm surface, which shows energy is two way and still follows the SLoT.



Molecules are not energy...and putting a cold molecule in contact with a warm surface does not constitute energy exchange beyond physical force which really has nothing to do with radiative energy transfer...I can push a toy truck around with an ice cube, but that doesn't mean that energy radiates simultaneously in two directions...it means that I can take a cold object...apply work...and use that cold object to move a warm object...

You are grasping at straws here...and it is f'ing pathetic.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Why lie...you have been looking frantically for it for some time now...wanting to slap me down with it...it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen.



I did not lie. I have no idea if a *purposeful* lab experiment was done for two-way net flow of radiation to a colder body. I doubt that has been done because it is too elementary and it is the only thing that makes sense physically to all scientists. The very first CMB discovery already demonstrated that in nature. 



SSDD said:


> Which "well known" law of physics demands two way energy flow? More talking out of your ass without the least bit of evidence to support you. We have been through this before...you add words that aren't there and claim that the statement "means" this or that as if the people who wrote the law weren't intelligent enough to say what they mean... And again, why lie about two way energy flow being measured and observed...we both well know that it hasn't....



I told you several times the law that demands two-way flow: Both classical and quantum physics require that accelerating or vibrating charges must radiate. Furthermore the vibrating charges near the surface of a black body must radiate according to Planck's law and Lambert's Cosine Law which are well known and well tested. There are no restrictions in the laws of vibrating charges that prevent that radiation from doing anything differently if there is a colder body nearby.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> What's the matter...didn't know that pressure is work...didn't know that the pressure generated at the column of air moves the molecules closer together...you were the one who claimed that pressure was not work...when shown that it is, now it is a non sequitur? You really are a whiny baby aren't you?



The physics definition of pressure is force per unit area.
That is NOT work.
You can't change the definition of a physics term.
The creation of higher pressure requires work.
A force moving through a distance is work.
Pressure moving a piston is work.
*Pressure itself* is not work.

Pressure and work are not physics laws. They come from age-old *definitions*.
You can verify all that by looking up the definitions.



SSDD said:


> Molecules are not energy...and putting a cold molecule in contact with a warm surface does not constitute energy exchange beyond physical force which really has nothing to do with radiative energy transfer...I can push a toy truck around with an ice cube, but that doesn't mean that energy radiates simultaneously in two directions...it means that I can take a cold object...apply work...and use that cold object to move a warm object...



My comment does not refer to global movement of an object such as a truck. 
My comment has nothing to do with radiative energy.

It is about the *random* movement of the molecules of air near a *non-moving* warmer surface.

The *random* movement of molecules in a gas occur at any temperature. Those molecules have *kinetic* energy. That kinetic energy can spontaneously strike a warm surface. There is no work because the surface is assumed not to be moving, and the *average *kinetic energy of gas near the surface is zero.

The surface is warm. The gas is colder. The molecules of gas can strike the surface at great kinetic velocities.

That illustrates that thermal energy of a cold substance can move to a warmer substance.

That illustrates that since heat always moves from the warmer surface to the gas, there is a *net energy exchange* where the *net* flow of heat is from the surface to the gas.

This is taught in undergraduate courses of physics.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I did not lie. I have no idea if a *purposeful* lab experiment was done for two-way net flow of radiation to a colder body. I doubt that has been done because it is too elementary and it is the only thing that makes sense physically to all scientists. The very first CMB discovery already demonstrated that in nature.



A lab experiment would not be necessary....we have instrumentation that is sensitive enough to measure minute energy movements....we don't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because it can't happen without applying work to make it happen...

And of course you lie...you have been scouring the internet looking for some actual evidence that spontaneous two way energy movement happens...



Wuwei said:


> I told you several times the law that demands two-way flow: Both classical and quantum physics require that accelerating or vibrating charges must radiate. Furthermore the vibrating charges near the surface of a black body must radiate according to Planck's law and Lambert's Cosine Law which are well known and well tested. There are no restrictions in the laws of vibrating charges that prevent that radiation from doing anything differently if there is a colder body nearby.



And yet another lie.  Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me which part of NOT POSSIBLE FOR HEAT TO FLOW FROM A COLDER BODY TO A WARMER BODY or ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT says that two way flow is demanded?

You made the claim that "well known" laws of physics demand two way energy flow.  That was a lie...or abject ignorance on your part...which one?  We both know that there are no physical laws that demand any such thing...then you reference quantum physics as if it were a law...another blatant lie because even you aren't ignorant enough to think that quantum physics is a physical law.....are you?  

Can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?  I asked you before and you couldn't produce...yet another lie...And if the law is well tested, and demonstrates spontaneous two way energy flow, then there would be some physical evidence to support it and the math would clearly state two way energy flow...lets see it.  The more you grasp the more pathetic you get.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What's the matter...didn't know that pressure is work...didn't know that the pressure generated at the column of air moves the molecules closer together...you were the one who claimed that pressure was not work...when shown that it is, now it is a non sequitur? You really are a whiny baby aren't you?
> ...



Really?  At ground level the pressure due to the force provided by the column of air is 14 psi...The pressure due to the force provided by the column of air at 10,000 feet is 10psi....how is that different from say the pressure change in the combustion cylinder of a gas motor in any way other than the amount of pressure present?  Is there some special provision in the physical law that states that pressure exerted on a column of air by its own weight is somehow different from pressure exerted on air by a piston?

The work energy theorem states that the total work done on a system is equal to the system's change in kinetic energy.  Are you claiming that the kinetic energy of the atmosphere is the same in the upper atmosphere as it is in the lower atmosphere?  That pressure isn't changing the kinetic energy as you descend in the column of air?

If the kinetic energy is increased, then work has been done upon it...if you are claiming that the kinetic energy does not change from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere, then I suppose you are going to have to support that claim with some actual evidence which we both know that you can't produce...



Wuwei said:


> You can't change the definition of a physics term.



I'm not trying to change anything...alas it is you who is trying to change the terms...  again, the work energy theorem states that the total work done on a system is equal to the system's change in kinetic energy....if the amount of kinetic energy changes from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere, then work has been done on the system...it is as simple as that....you are trying to exempt some pressure changes and some forces while allowing others.  That is an attempt to change the definition of a physics term and alas, you are the one who is guilty...not me.
The creation of higher pressure requires work.
A force moving through a distance is work.
Pressure moving a piston is work.
*Pressure itself* is not work.



Wuwei said:


> Pressure and work are not physics laws. They come from age-old *definitions*.



How does it feel to be reduced to such weak mewling argument?  You don't think physical laws apply to work?  You don't think physics defines work. 




Wuwei said:


> My comment does not refer to global movement of an object such as a truck.
> My comment has nothing to do with radiative energy.



Right..now your are trying to argue for back conduction since your attempt at arguing for back radiation failed.

At this point you are just ranting...expressing your frustration at not being able to demonstrate what you believe in any real way in the only way you can..Such is the nature of arguing your faith against observation and measurement.

And by the way...highlighting the word net...bolding the word net....even adding color and size to the word net does not make it true...observation and measurement of net would make it true...got any observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement? Didn't think so.  You are getting wacky as thunder what's his name thinking that if he could just print big enough and bold enough that he could make his beliefs true.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2018)

I've just got a few quick questions for you.  The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they.  So what is it you believe pressure is working ON?  And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving.  Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface?  No?  Then no work.  Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement.  But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.

God, are you STOOOOOOOOOOPid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I did not lie. I have no idea if a *purposeful* lab experiment was done for two-way net flow of radiation to a colder body. I doubt that has been done because it is too elementary and it is the only thing that makes sense physically to all scientists. The very first CMB discovery already demonstrated that in nature.
> ...


*
....we don't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because it can't happen without applying work to make it happen...
*
When it's -10C outside, I heat my home to 21C, courtesy of work done by my local utility company.
That work causes the walls of my home to heat up to 21C. 
The walls of my home can now radiate toward my 37C body because work was done. Right?

_Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 _
_
In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. _

Just like this 1963 article mentioned..........


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2018)

Crick said:


> I've just got a few quick questions for you.  The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they.  So what is it you believe pressure is working ON?  And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving.  Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface?  No?  Then no work.  Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement.  But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.
> 
> God, are you STOOOOOOOOOOPid.



* So what is it you believe pressure is working ON? 
*
Come on Crick.
Haven't you ever tossed an empty soda can out your back door?
When we were kids we had hours of fun, watching the air pressure 
crushing those cans flat.
I still miss my 3rd grade friend, Paul.

We pushed him out of the house, the pressure killed him instantly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Still researching solar flares?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I've just got a few quick questions for you.  The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they.  So what is it you believe pressure is working ON?  And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving.  Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface?  No?  Then no work.  Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement.  But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.
> ...


put him in an air plane 30k in the air with no pressurized cabin and let's see how long he lives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



He's already smushed.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And of course you lie...you have been scouring the internet looking for some actual evidence that spontaneous two way energy movement happens.



Nope. I and others already gave you the evidence many times.



SSDD said:


> And yet another lie. ...
> 
> Tell me which part of NOT POSSIBLE FOR HEAT TO FLOW FROM A COLDER BODY TO A WARMER BODY or ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT says that two way flow is demanded?



You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying. That's just like you. Read the hyperphysics site again to answer your question. I already told you many many times.



SSDD said:


> You made the claim that "well known" laws of physics demand two way energy flow. That was a lie...



You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying about quantum mechanics. I already answered that several times.



SSDD said:


> Can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? I asked you before and you couldn't produce...yet another lie...



Plank's law shows all objects emit. Kirchhoff's law shows the properties of the simultaneous absorption. 
_*Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation*_ _can be stated: For any material at all, radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium at any given temperature...._​


SSDD said:


> the math would clearly state two way energy flow...lets see it.



I stated that many many times. Read the derivation of the SB law again.

You are going in circles, pretending to not remember any previous posts, and calling all scientists for the last 100 years liars. Who should we believe.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Really? At ground level the pressure due to the force provided by the column of air is 14 psi...The pressure due to the force provided by the column of air at 10,000 feet is 10psi... etc etc.



Again your post is full of strawmen and non-sequiturs. Your main thrust is quoting some physics incorrectly, and some correctly, but applying it totally wrong.

Again, look up the definition of pressure. Google “pressure definition physics”. You are confusing the *definition *of pressure with *specific examples* involving pressure.

Also reread Crick's post.


Crick said:


> I've just got a few quick questions for you.  The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they.  So what is it you believe pressure is working ON?  And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving.  Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface?  No?  Then no work.  Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement.  But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.
> 
> God, are you STOOOOOOOOOOPid.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. I and others already gave you the evidence many times.



Yet another lie...since no such evidence exists.



Wuwei said:


> You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying. That's just like you. Read the hyperphysics site again to answer your question. I already told you many many times.



Hyperphysics states the actual law, then adds their opinion...nothing more since there is no actual evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow....so you lied there...then it is a lie to claim that the entire body of scientists for the past 100 years has been on the quantum wagon...it isn't even honest to say that the entire body of scientists today is on the quantum wagon...



Wuwei said:


> You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying about quantum mechanics. I already answered that several times.



Yet another lie...you don't seem to be able to get through a single sentence without lying...you are just a regular bald faced liar aren't you?



Wuwei said:


> Plank's law shows all objects emit. Kirchhoff's law shows the properties of the simultaneous absorption.
> _*Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation*_ _can be stated: For any material at all, radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium at any given temperature...._​


_

Planck's law speaks to a hypothetical black body radiating in a vacuum...show me the two way energy flow in that..._​



Wuwei said:


> I stated that many many times. Read the derivation of the SB law again.



You mean that fake, bastardized version that uses the SB constant twice and doesn't assume, as SB did that T>Tc?  That fake one you bandy about in an effort to convince people of back radiation where none exists?



Wuwei said:


> are going in circles, pretending to not remember any previous posts, and calling all scientists for the last 100 years liars. Who should we believe.



Circles yes...you keep making the same old claims that you can't back up..wishing you had evidence but alas, don't have any.  Logical fallacy and lies are your stock in trade.  Must be frustrating to have such faith and then encounter someone who doesn't have the same faith.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Again your post is full of strawmen and non-sequiturs. Your main thrust is quoting some physics incorrectly, and some correctly, but applying it totally wrong./wuote]
> 
> Really?  Can you point to some dispensation that excludes the fact that the pressure at the bottom of a column of air is greater than the pressure at the top of that column of air...and that the kinetic energy is greater at the bottom of that column of air than it is at the top?  Where in physics does it state that in the case of the atmosphere, no work is being performed even though it meets all the criteria of work?
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Apr 26, 2018)

For starters, I know how to work quotes.

Brownian motion sums to no net motion.  I know "net" is a really, really, really difficult topic for you, but try to persist.  Without motion, there is no work.

The differences of pressure on DIFFERENT air molecules do not produce work.

I think the odds favor that you know almost precisely what lunacy you're arguing here and you're just doing it for the troll.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. I and others already gave you the evidence many times.
> ...


You are bitterly lashing out calling everyone, including scientists, liars and you say scientists are only expressing opinion. You have not covered any insight to any physics concepts in this and the last few posts.

If you can control your anger, we would still like to hear you explain the physics behind why you think thermal photons cannot hit a colder body. All laws of physics such as the SLOT and SB, and others have deeper explanations such as the concept of entropy, statistical mechanics, classical, and quantum mechanics, that underlie those laws. These deeper concepts are able to derive the laws that come from observation. But you cling only to the surface English statements of laws or simple formulae and dismiss deeper principles and models that all scientists understand and rely on.

Please stick to the physics, and try to avoid the rage.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2018)

Crick said:


> For starters, I know how to work quotes.
> 
> Brownian motion sums to no net motion.  I know "net" is a really, really, really difficult topic for you, but try to persist.  Without motion, there is no work.
> 
> ...



Unfortunate that this is all so far beyond you skidmark...Are you making the claim that there is the same amount of kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere as there is at the bottom?  Is that what you are saying....because if you are, then I would like to see some evidence of it...and if you are acknowledging that there is more kinetic energy at the bottom of the atmosphere, then the difference between the kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere and at the bottom of the atmosphere is equal to the work that has been performed on it according to the work energy theorem.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are bitterly lashing out calling everyone, including scientists, liars and you say scientists are only expressing opinion. You have not covered any insight to any physics concepts in this and the last few posts.



I am asking for actual evidence of what you claim is happening...if you can't provide it then you have taken a leap of faith...you are operating from a position of what you believe without any actual evidence to support it...  You are a believer.



Wuwei said:


> If you can control your anger, we would still like to hear you explain the physics behind why you think thermal photons cannot hit a colder body. All laws of physics such as the SLOT and SB, and others have deeper explanations such as the concept of entropy, statistical mechanics, classical, and quantum mechanics, that underlie those laws. These deeper concepts are able to derive the laws that come from observation. But you cling only to the surface English statements of laws or simple formulae and dismiss deeper principles and models that all scientists understand and rely on.
> 
> Please stick to the physics, and try to avoid the rage.



So now are you saying that putting cold gas into contact with a warmer surface is a transfer of thermal photons?  

As to how or why energy does not and can not move from cold to warm...I have no idea...neither does "science"  the mechanisms of energy transfer are a mystery to us...  The fact that I can't say how or why doesn't invalidate my position any more than the fact that we can't say how or why in regards to gravity would invalidate a position that gravity is real.  You keep posting up unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models as if they were reality.  

Tell me, are you able to differentiate between what is real..and what is not...Is the coyote on the buggy bunny road runner hour real?  How about the easter bunny?  The tooth fairy?  H20?  Concrete?  Leprechauns?  Particle board?  Santa Clause?  How did you do? 

Now here is the final exam...is the output of a model which can not be observed, measured, or tested real?  Or is it a story we use to fill-in blanks in our knowledge till such time as we can actually observe, measure, and test what is actually happening?  Think real hard...you can do it.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I am asking for actual evidence of what you claim is happening...if you can't provide it then you have taken a leap of faith...you are operating from a position of what you believe without any actual evidence to support it... You are a believer.



You are totally wrong in the way you even think about science. Science has well established the model for thermodynamics for one hundred years. Your ideas are violating those models. Your ideas violate the physics of the vibration of charged particles in radiating EM energy. Tod has aptly given the name of your folly “smart photons”. When you or anyone radically deviates from the current physics models that person is obligated to tell the rest of the science community the why's and how's of that deviation. If a person on this board cannot do that and still insists he is correct, then that person is a troll.



SSDD said:


> As to how or why energy does not and can not move from cold to warm...I have no idea...neither does "science" the mechanisms of energy transfer are a mystery to us... The fact that I can't say how or why doesn't invalidate my position any more than the fact that we can't say how or why in regards to gravity would invalidate a position that gravity is real. You keep posting up unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models as if they were reality
> 
> ....is the output of a model which can not be observed, measured, or tested real? Or is it a story we use to fill-in blanks in our knowledge till such time as we can actually observe, measure, and test what is actually happening?



As *you* just said *you* have absolutely no idea what *you *are talking about. The mathematical models of science is no mystery to scientists. It is only a mystery to you. You have time and again proved that you have no capability of understanding those mathematical abstractions.

Reality? You sorely lack the ability to understand the abstractions of reality. Where is your evidence that science is wrong?


----------



## Crick (Apr 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > For starters, I know how to work quotes.
> ...




There is more kinetic energy in my car going down the interstate than there is in my wife's car pulling through a crowded parking lot.  The distinction, however, produces no work.

You are SO fucking stupid.


----------



## Crick (Apr 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *the difference between the kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere and at the bottom of the atmosphere is equal to the work that has been performed on it according to the work energy theorem*.



Please tell us what *it* is

I'd also like to see a link to what you believe the "work energy theorem" to be. Or a clear explanation of your beliefs including a formula to calculate work.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are totally wrong in the way you even think about science. Science has well established the model for thermodynamics for one hundred years. Your ideas are violating those models. Your ideas violate the physics of the vibration of charged particles in radiating EM energy. Tod has aptly given the name of your folly “smart photons”. When you or anyone radically deviates from the current physics models that person is obligated to tell the rest of the science community the why's and how's of that deviation. If a person on this board cannot do that and still insists he is correct, then that person is a troll.



So the answer is no..you can't provide even the first piece of real observed, measured evidence in support of your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow....You finally acknowledge that what you have is a model and nothing more...and it just pisses you off that what I see is not beautiful new clothes draped over the emperor but his pimply old ass hanging out.  Old rocks calls it smart photons because it looks like magic to him and the rest of you fall in line believing that in order for energy to obey the laws of physics, said energy must be smart...



Wuwei said:


> As *you* just said *you* have absolutely no idea what *you *are talking about. The mathematical models of science is no mystery to scientists. It is only a mystery to you. You have time and again proved that you have no capability of understanding those mathematical abstractions.



And yet more lies...have you always been such a liar, or are you lying out of the frustration of trying to convert someone to your belief who keeps asking for evidence.  I said that science has little knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of radiative energy exchange...And a model is no mystery to anyone...but let me reiterate...a model is not reality...you can know a model as intimately as you like, but until such time as reality bears it out in the form of observation and measurement, it is just a model...know the model as well as you like...reality remains a mystery.

And on the contrary...I understand mathematical abstractions far better than you.  Even when you call them what they are, you fail to understand what you have said.  I understand them well enough to know that they are not reality...they are stories...they are place holders that do nothing more than fill in the gaps in our knowledge.  You, on the other hand believe they are real....you believe that they are as real as linear measurement of distance.  A gross intellectual failing on your part and the very reason you are so frustrated that you can't make me see them in terms as real as you see them...you fail to grasp that I am the one seeing them as they are...models...fabrications...stand in's for reality...



Wuwei said:


> Reality? You sorely lack the ability to understand the abstractions of reality. Where is your evidence that science is wrong?



I don't think you actually grasp the meaning of reality.  Reality is the state of things as they are...as they are observed...as they are measured as contrasted by the way one may wish them to be.  You wish there were actual measurements and observations of two way energy flow..but alas, there are not...what you wish is not reality...

Where is my evidence that science is wrong?  Again, you fail to grasp the far more important question...where is your evidence that science is right.  Science is, after all supposed to be a systematic study of the physical world through experiment, observation, and measurement.  Now you have a field of study which is defined by observation measurement which holds forth a thing as real to which they have neither observation or measurement?  I am asking for evidence in support of what I am being asked to believe...  Why aren't you?  If you don't answer any other question I have asked, I would like an answer to that one...why do you believe without any actual evidence when science is defined by its ability to produce and provide evidence?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> There is more kinetic energy in my car going down the interstate than there is in my wife's car pulling through a crowded parking lot.  The distinction, however, produces no work.



But the increased kinetic energy that results from either car moving is due to work.  Any increase in kinetic energy within a system is the result of work being done on that system



Crick said:


> You are SO fucking stupid.



Alas skidmark, it is you who is stupid...stupid and shallow.


----------



## Crick (Apr 27, 2018)

The engine of my car does work on my car.  The engine of my wife's car does work on her car.  The difference between them - as the difference between air at the surface and air at altitude, does no fucking work you fool.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *the difference between the kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere and at the bottom of the atmosphere is equal to the work that has been performed on it according to the work energy theorem*.
> ...



It is the molecules that make up the atmosphere...are you really that stupid...never mind...of course you are that stupid.  By the way...still waiting for the actual evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...ready to admit that none exists and that once again you were just talking out of your ass?



Crick said:


> I'd also like to see a link to what you believe the "work energy theorem" to be. Or a clear explanation of your beliefs including a formula to calculate work.



Go find your own link you lazy pile...since you clearly have never heard of the work energy theorem, I will be happy to once again tell you what it states...

The principle of work and kinetic energy (also known as the work-energy theorem) states that the work done by the sum of all forces acting on a particle equals the change in the kinetic energy of the particle. This definition can be extended to rigid bodies by defining the work of the torque and rotational kinetic energy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> The engine of my car does work on my car.  The engine of my wife's car does work on her car.  The difference between them - as the difference between air at the surface and air at altitude, does no fucking work you fool.



So why is the kinetic energy in the atmosphere at ground level greater than the kinetic energy in the atmosphere at high altitudes?  Why is there a temperature gradient in columns of static air if no work is being done to cause the increase in temperature as you go deeper in the column?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I said that science has little knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of radiative energy exchange...And a model is no mystery to anyone...but let me reiterate...a model is not reality...you can know a model as intimately as you like, but until such time as reality bears it out in the form of observation and measurement, it is just a model...know the model as well as you like...reality remains a mystery...I see is not beautiful new clothes draped over the emperor but his pimply old ass hanging out.



I see you are still alone lashing out with anger. I understand your frustration that you can't show any evidence that your smart-photons exist. Science has full knowledge of radiation, but you are unable to understand it. If you want to deny science, you really do need evidence to combat the entire body of physical science that disagrees with you.



SSDD said:


> Reality is the state of things as they are...as they are observed...as they are measured



Reality is something that is quite foreign to you. The only way to understand how nature works is through abstracting experimental observations in order to define consistent mathematical models. You don't understand that. Without the reality of mathematical models in physics, there would not exist many inventions in the past and future that have great importance in technology and everyday devices:

tunnel diodes
Josephson junctions
Global Positioning System
Lasers
High temperature superconductors
Quantum computing
Magnetic resonance imaging


----------



## Crick (Apr 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The engine of my car does work on my car.  The engine of my wife's car does work on her car.  The difference between them - as the difference between air at the surface and air at altitude, does no fucking work you fool.
> ...



Because they are two different groups of molecules at different locations with different conditions.  Why is my car on the highway traveling faster than my wife's in the crowded parking lot?  Because they are two different things at two different places.  Work is something that is done by *A *force to *A* chunk of matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are totally wrong in the way you even think about science. Science has well established the model for thermodynamics for one hundred years. Your ideas are violating those models. Your ideas violate the physics of the vibration of charged particles in radiating EM energy. Tod has aptly given the name of your folly “smart photons”. When you or anyone radically deviates from the current physics models that person is obligated to tell the rest of the science community the why's and how's of that deviation. If a person on this board cannot do that and still insists he is correct, then that person is a troll.
> ...



*So the answer is no..you can't provide even the first piece of real observed, measured evidence in support of your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow...
*
So the answer is no..you've never provided a single source that backs up your claim of one way energy flow...

Ever.

Weird.

Is this you on the piano?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Still, you have not presented any evidence to back up any of your rant!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I said that science has little knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of radiative energy exchange...And a model is no mystery to anyone...but let me reiterate...a model is not reality...you can know a model as intimately as you like, but until such time as reality bears it out in the form of observation and measurement, it is just a model...know the model as well as you like...reality remains a mystery...I see is not beautiful new clothes draped over the emperor but his pimply old ass hanging out.
> ...


He isn’t alone! You lied


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence?  None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I see you are still alone lashing out with anger. I understand your frustration that you can't show any evidence that your smart-photons exist. Science has full knowledge of radiation, but you are unable to understand it. If you want to deny science, you really do need evidence to combat the entire body of physical science that disagrees with you.



More bullshit...but if you would like to prove me wrong, then kindly post a link to at least one published paper which describes the underlying mechanism of radiative energy transfer...and if you provide anything on the topic of vibration, then you will be doing nothing more than demonstrating that the idea of underlying mechanisms completely escapes you.



Wuwei said:


> Reality is something that is quite foreign to you. The only way to understand how nature works is through abstracting experimental observations in order to define consistent mathematical models. You don't understand that. Without the reality of mathematical models in physics, there would not exist many inventions in the past and future that have great importance in technology and everyday devices:



So you believe that reality is not real and models represent the closest thing to reality?  Try as much as you like...you are not going to ever be able to substitute reality for models...no mater how much you gnash your teeth, writhe in agony of frustration, or perform gold medal level mental gymnastics...you are not going to make models real...till such time as observation and measurement bear out the predictions they make, they are just stories....if you believe otherwise then you are well and truly divorced from reality.



Wuwei said:


> tunnel diodes
> Josephson junctions
> Global Positioning System
> Lasers
> ...



All of the above may have started out as models, but observation, experiment, and measurement bore them out...now they are reality.  Two way spontaneous energy transfer remains just a story.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I see you don't understand work if you believe work can only be done on chunks...but then that isn't a surprise at all.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Still, you have not presented any evidence to back up any of your rant!



Nor will he as there is none...it is nothing more than a story we use to fill in gaps in our knowledge.  He is so removed from reality that he can't differentiate between stories and what is real.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*We can show plenty of one way flow. 
*
Awesome!
Show me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...








How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

_All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) *When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy*, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls. 
_

Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I see you are still alone lashing out with anger. I understand your frustration that you can't show any evidence that your smart-photons exist. Science has full knowledge of radiation, but you are unable to understand it. If you want to deny science, you really do need evidence to combat the entire body of physical science that disagrees with you.
> ...



Understanding of the physical universe is not done by your concept of reality. 

Vibrating charges are observed by experiment to emit radiation. No counterexamples were observed. In the same way heat is observed to spontaneously flow to colder objects. No counterexamples were observed. In that regard what is the difference in “reality” of heat flow and radiation from vibration. You accept one but not the other. Your concept of reality is just weird.

The only way humans have to handle reality is through mathematical models that codify and predict physical observations that happen in “reality”. There is no other way. If one ignores models in a quest for a more intrinsic non-mathematical understanding we find that our intuition is not able to grasp the subtle nuances, such as the four dimensions of space-time, the concept of simultaneity, or the superposition aspect of quantum mechanics. We would no longer be able to predict outcomes of many experiments. To dismiss the models in physics is to completely dismiss a full understanding. You can think what ever way you want, but that is not science, and won't explain any sort of definition of “reality”.

Your last paragraph is just your lonely weird opinion.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Great, now show and observation of a cold object emitting


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works.  *Never observed only theorized..
*
This is the kind of crap that kills me. The second law was derived from physical observation. A 400deg plate of steel gets water placed on it, the water in contact absorbs energy, changes states to steam(vapor), rises and cools then renucliates to water again after the energy is released. One way energy flow! the steels mass vs water mass of lower temp dictates the rate of cooling until they are the same temperature.

I can find no observation that proves your theory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







^
Cold atmosphere emitting.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Link to your source, please....

370w/m^2 can happen only with solar downwelinng radiation..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works.
*
Me? That's Caltech. You have any Caltech models that show one way flow only?

*Never observed only theorized..
*
Equilibrium has never been observed?
*
This is the kind of crap that kills me. 
*
Yeah, math and science. We noticed.

* rises and cools then renucliates to water again 
*
Renucliates? Do you imagine your made-up words make you sound less stupid?
If you say "condenses", everyone would understand what you're trying to get across.
You'll still be wrong, but at least you'll be understood.

*One way energy flow! 
*
Why are you bringing conduction into a discussion about radiation?

*I can find no observation that proves your theory.
*
My theory that matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions with no restrictions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

You may have noticed that radiation is measured the entire period, even at night.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Again, your using homoginization and modeling.. NO OBSERVATION.

I understand you guys wanting to explain what is happening inside a mass, but you can at least be truthful about what has empirical evidence and what does not.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


« The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”



> "You can see some more background about absorption and emission in CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Two.
> 
> A quick summary of some basics here – each gas in the atmosphere has properties of absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation – and each gas is different. These are properties which have been thoroughly studied in the lab, and in the atmosphere. When a photon interacts with a gas molecule it will be absorbed only if the amount of energy in the photon is a specific amount – the right *quantum *of energy to change the state of that molecule – to make it vibrate or rotate, or a combination of these.
> 
> ...



You laughed at me when I tried to explain why molecules can or can not absorb photon energy and your own post blows away your "smart photon" jab as real and explainable..


Now back to your claim of back-radiation..  Your graph is of the full spectrum and not just the portions which can affect temperature of the atmosphere.  So the graph itself is deceptive about what it shows but accurate for the location.  The receptor is a cooled receiver below -80deg C.  This means the majority of the energy being radiated back to a warmer earth is having no effect and cant as its thermal temperature (derived by its wave length) can have no effect on a warmer object. THIS IS WHY I INCLUDED THE INFORMATION FROM YOUR LINK ABOVE SHOWING YOU WHY IT CANT.

Its well known that the atmosphere slows energy release. How that happens is still not well understood.  What we do now know is, we still cant model it correctly as model outputs do not mirror empirical observations.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



They get badly stuck on the NET flow gambit while the Second Law only states ONE WAY flow.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*You laughed at me when I tried to explain why molecules can or can not absorb photon energy and your own post blows away your "smart photon" jab as real and explainable..
*
Remind me....was that your "covailent bonds repel cooler photons" explanation?
*
Your graph is of the full spectrum and not just the portions which can affect temperature of the atmosphere. 
*
Full spectrum? It says LWIR. Do you think that means full spectrum?

*The receptor is a cooled receiver below -80deg C.
*
Prove it.
*
This means the majority of the energy being radiated back to a warmer earth is having no effect 
*
Does SSDD know you're disagreeing with him?
*
THIS IS WHY I INCLUDED THE INFORMATION FROM YOUR LINK ABOVE SHOWING YOU WHY IT CANT.
*
You think anything you posted means back radiation isn't absorbed by the surface?

​*Its well known that the atmosphere slows energy release. How that happens is still not well understood.*​
What don't you understand about IR being absorbed by GHGs?
What don't you understand about GHGs re-emitting IR?
What don't you understand about GHGs transferring that energy thru collisions with N2 or O2?​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Second Law doesn't say anything about radiation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


about 99% of the one way flow can be explained by photon rejection due to molecular state and incompatible wavelengths.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I refuse to run in circles around your circular logic fail. You fail to understand the internal molecular dynamics and i'm not going to rehash it for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
I refuse to run in circles around your circular logic fail.
*
Is my fail.....mocking your "covailent bonds repel photons" claim?

* i'm not going to rehash it for you.*​
Aww....come on. It was so funny!​


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Vibrating charges are observed by experiment to emit radiation. No counterexamples were observed.



OK...so how, precisely does a vibration make the transition from vibration to radiation?  What mechanism causes and governs that process...and precisely why does some electromagnetic radiation behave as both wave and particle...what is the mechanism that causes that phenomenon to appear in different circumstances?



Wuwei said:


> Your last paragraph is just your lonely weird opinion.



I enjoy watching the psychology at work in your head...when you can't provide evidence to support your belief...you provide more belief, and then engage in some ad hominem attack as if that would make your belief real.  Textbook.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What was the instrument that data was made with?  Was it a pyrogeometer?  If so, then all it was measuring was the temperature changes of its own internal thermopile....was it a cooled instrument capable of measuring discrete frequencies of radiation?  If so, then all you that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...turn off the cooling and downwelling radiation can no longer be recorded.

Fooled by instrumentation once again...in this case it isn't even instrumentation..you were fooled simply by a graph that doesn't give you any information about how the data was gathered.  It says what you want so you run with it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Ofr course it does...is radiation energy?  The second law speaks to all forms of energy whether it be that stored in a body of water behind a dam, light waves, sound waves, radiation...all of it...if it is energy, then the second law is talking about it...very interesting that you wouldn't know this since it is very basic stuff...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*What was the instrument that data was made with?  
*
Was it a smart photon detector?
*
 If so, then all it was measuring was the temperature changes of its own internal thermopile....
*
Well, when you combine incoming radiation to the detector with outgoing radiation from the detector, you
get the net energy flow.

*If so, then all you that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument..
*
Yup, net energy.
*
turn off the cooling and downwelling radiation can no longer be recorded.
*
And yet, radiation is still hitting the receiver.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


*
Ofr course it does...is radiation energy?
*
Radiation wasn't even discovered when the 2nd Law was written.

Why don't you post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim?

It's weird that we've seen plenty of posts that say radiation flows both ways, at the same time, but none
that say one way. It's almost as if there are no sources that agree with you.

Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> OK...so how, precisely does a vibration make the transition from vibration to radiation? What mechanism causes and governs that process...and precisely why does some electromagnetic radiation behave as both wave and particle...what is the mechanism that causes that phenomenon to appear in different circumstances?


That is a fair enough question. This is the short answer.

Four different experimental laws involving electricity and magnetism were discovered by four different scientists. Maxwell consolidated the four experimental laws into what's now called Maxwell's equations. The equations show that vibrating charges emit waves.

This new prediction lead to many experiments. Hertz was the first to test radio frequency transmission to verify Maxwell's equations. Through many experiments and observations it was later concluded that these waves were also the basis of light, Xrays, infrared, etc.

The *wave nature* of light was well-known for centuries: At high light levels, experiments observed diffraction. The *particle nature* became more apparent about 100 years ago. At very low light levels the light came in “chunks”. Einstein first explained the chunkiness as separate particles and got the Nobel Prize for the “Photoelectric Effect”.

The nature of EM radiation came from experiments that defied intuition and were a puzzle. Some experiments showed the wave nature and other experiments showed the particle nature. Quantum mechanics came about and showed a way mathematics could verify and predict experiments on the dual nature of light and particles. Light traveling through space acts like waves. Light interacting with matter acts like particles.

As you can see, many repeatable, observations, tests, and measurements lead to understanding the nature and behavior of light and matter. All of these behaviors are successfully codified in the Schroedinger equation, and later Quantum Electrodynamics. This cohesive codified understanding is what allows scientists to make deeper statements about observations that are either seen or predicted.

The major example here is that, between objects at any temperatures, radiation exchange is the only thing that makes sense in the total picture of all past experiments. You are arguing from the perspective of observations, tests, and measurements. I am too, along with the whole scientific community.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Was it a smart photon detector?



You think being fooled by instrumentation is funny?  I think it is funny...and sad when you guys get fooled by instrumentation also...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, when you combine incoming radiation to the detector with outgoing radiation from the detector, youget the net energy flow.



You are making assumptions about energy flow that you can't back up...probably because you don't understand the instruments...if the thermopile is cooling, then the only thing you can say with certainty about the energy movement is that it is leaving the thermopile...if it is warming, the only thing you can say with certainty is that there is incoming energy...anything else is a baseless assumption...not worth the time it took to make it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup, net energy.[/qyite]
> 
> No...if it were net, then when the instrument is warmed to ambient temperature it would still record the incoming radiation...it doesn't..that is because there is no net energy exchange...there is only movement from warm to cool as the 2nd law states.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Radiation wasn't even discovered when the 2nd Law was written.



Did some special dispensation for radiation get added to the 2nd law?  I haven't seen it if it has...if radiation is energy then the second law is talking about it...clearly you don't have a clue.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why don't you post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim?



Every measurement of energy flow ever made agrees with my claim...that would be because no measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow has ever been made...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > OK...so how, precisely does a vibration make the transition from vibration to radiation? What mechanism causes and governs that process...and precisely why does some electromagnetic radiation behave as both wave and particle...what is the mechanism that causes that phenomenon to appear in different circumstances?
> ...




Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know?  Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Was it a smart photon detector?
> ...


*
You think being fooled by instrumentation is funny?
*
No. I think your widespread misunderstandings are funny.

*You are making assumptions about energy flow that you can't back up...
*
You think I can't back up two way flow? That's funny, because you've never posted proof that 
radiation can only flow one way. Never. Never ever ever.

*if the thermopile is cooling, then the only thing you can say with certainty about the energy movement is that it is leaving the thermopile...
*
If the thermopile is above 0K, energy is of course leaving. That's what matter does.
It radiates if it is above 0K. Even if warmer matter is nearby. 

*if it is warming, the only thing you can say with certainty is that there is incoming energy.
*
Unless it is surrounded by matter at 0K, of course there is incoming energy.

*No...if it were net, then when the instrument is warmed to ambient temperature it would still record the incoming radiation.
*
The ability to record incoming radiation would, of course, depend on how it could account for radiation from itself.

* there is no net energy exchange...there is only movement from warm to cool as the 2nd law states.
*
If only anyone in the world agreed with you.

Interestingly, the source you posted recently, The Handbook of Modern Sensors, 3rd edition, said 
there is energy exchange.

If only you had an equivalent source that said there wasn't. 

*Magic radiation which hits the receiver but can't be recorded?* 

If the recorder isn't sensitive enough, that means photons aren't hitting it?
Why do photons hit it and then magically stop hitting it?

Clearly you don't grasp what matter above 0K is doing or how its doing it.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?



Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation wasn't even discovered when the 2nd Law was written.
> ...


*
Did some special dispensation for radiation get added to the 2nd law?
*
The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation. You can admit it.
*
if radiation is energy then the second law is talking about it...
*
Great, post the version of the 2nd Law that is talking about radiation and I'll show you your error.

*Every measurement of energy flow ever made agrees with my claim..
*
Awesome. Then it should be easy for you  to post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim.

But you won't. Because you can't. Because it doesn't.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?
> ...



Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows.  Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism.  Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers.    Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not.  Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge.  I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means.   So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1.  Why can energy not be created?

2.  Why can energy not be destroyed?

3.  How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5.  What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6.  How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding.  But your answers should be entertaining.  I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> Did some special dispensation for radiation get added to the 2nd law?
> *
> The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation. You can admit it.



If radiation is energy, then the second law includes radiation... interesting that you would think that radiation would be exempt from the second law....the second law doesn't mention chemical energy, or electrical energy, or mechanical energy either....do you also think they are exempt because they weren't specifically mentioned?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great, post the version of the 2nd Law that is talking about radiation and I'll show you your error.



You never "show" anything...inane one liners are your stock in trade.  You are unable to actually engage in a conversation on a topic.  But it would be interesting to see how you might show that radiation is not energy and therefore not governed by the second law of thermodynamics.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Awesome. Then it should be easy for you  to post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim.



I already have...as I said, every measurement ever made...since there are no instances of spontaneous two way energy flow ever happening, one wouldn't expect for there to be a need to specify one way or two way energy flow...if spontaneous two way energy flow had been measured, then some indication might be necessary.  It hasn't and it isn't.  

The second law states that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction...you guys claim otherwise therefore the onus lies on you to show spontaneous two way energy flow.  Since you can't actually produce any such measurement, it is clear that it has never been measured....and why?  Because it doesn't happen.  Till you can show otherwise, the second law and its statement that energy can only move spontaneously from warm to cool will have to stand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
Science knows that energy flows...
*
Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


*
If radiation is energy, then the second law includes radiation...
*
So you're not going to post your favorite version of the 2nd Law?
You're not going to admit it doesn't mention radiation or photons or waves?

* interesting that you would think that radiation would be exempt from the second law....
*
Interesting that you think I do.

*I already have...as I said, every measurement ever made...since there are no instances of spontaneous two way energy flow ever happening,
*
Is that why you can't post any source that agrees with your one-way flow of radiation? Weird.

*Since you can't actually produce any such measurement, it is clear that it has never been measured
*
Is that why the Handbook of Modern Sensors shows two way flow? Because they're fooled by instrumentation? 

So, to recap, you can't provide anyone who agrees with your claim that radiation only flows one way.
You can't provide anyone who agrees with your claim that radiation ceases when objects reach equilibrium.

You remain alone in your misinterpretation.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


yet you can't show it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Showed it dozens of times.
Why don't you show some sources that say, "radiation only flows one way"?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope, never saw one post.  You must be using invisible print, or, maybe you forget to hit the post reply button.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*nope, never saw one post
*
You think solar flares are fire, so I'm not surprised you don't remember the dozens of posts that 
illustrate 2 way flow of energy.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And, you never posted two way energy flow. I understand you think you did, but we’re now on a third post and nothing


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








^
Just the most recent.

Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.

Years of claiming it doesn't make it so. No one agrees with him. Not even his own links.

Weird.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that isn't evidence, that's a book.  no, no, you said you evidence.  let's see it. you keep confusing theory with observation.  I get it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*that isn't evidence, that's a book. 
*
A book about sensors that was first referenced by SSDD as a source that backed up 
his one way only flow of energy.

*you keep confusing theory with observation. *

And you keep confusing knowledgeable sources that all disagree with SSDD as 
somehow helping his claim.

Weird.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and still nothing showing observed two way energy flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Did you always think solar flares were fire?
Or is that a recent thing for you?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still no observation eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Tons of them.

Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
You'll ignore it, of course.





Now tell me more about your "fire on the Sun" theory.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still no observed two way energy flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



DERP!


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still no observed two way energy flow


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.

Have you really never realized that solar flares have nothing to do with fire? LOL!

You know, you should really argue against the AGW idiocy from a political or economic standpoint.

When you try, and fail, to argue the science, you hurt our side.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude,  all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow.  And I don't have a side.  Sorry.  I have my view based on my observations and experiences.  I challenge any of your scientists to prove two way energy flow.  any of them.  just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*dude, all you have to do is post observed two way energy flow.
*
How many more times?
What format would satisfy?
*
just post someone who has observed it and recorded without having to doctor the instruments to get their readings
*
Instruments were doctored? Prove it.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

jk


Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still no observed two way flow. you sure like to deflect from the conversation don't you?  LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> jk
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How many more times?
What format would satisfy?​


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > jk
> ...


an observation.  measured using instruments not doctored.  Told you that.

post that one with the girl eating ice cream again and explain why her cold breath isn't seen.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


show me CO2 emitting. I've scoured the internet and not one experiment that shows that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
 measured using instruments not doctored.
*
How do I know if an instrument has been "doctored"?
*
post that one with the girl eating ice cream again and explain why her cold breath isn't seen.
*
If I had to guess, that camera doesn't pick up the wavelength needed to see her breath.

Now, if the ice cream is colder than the camera, how can you see it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*show me CO2 emitting.
*
CO2 emitting what?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


whatever you say it is supposed to be emitting.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Now, if the ice cream is colder than the camera, how can you see it?*

the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, I could show you the photons, but they're outside the range of human vision.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why can't you show me the energy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative.*

Yes, the sensor is cooling off.
You think you can see an object based on photons moving away from the camera, with no
photons moving toward the camera?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Again? How many more times? In what format?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep.  I'm still waiting for you to show us how you can prove that.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


one that proves your claim,  how about that?

I put a lit match near an ice cube, the ice begins to melt, the flame does not get any hotter.  why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I'm still waiting for you to show us how you can prove that.*

Prove what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I put a lit match near an ice cube, the ice begins to melt, the flame does not get any hotter. why not? 
*
Why would the flame get hotter?
Was it methane ice?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


photons moving


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well you're the one saying the cold atmosphere makes the warm surface warmer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*well you're the one saying the cold atmosphere makes the warm surface warmer. 
*
Yes, the cold atmosphere is the reason why the surface is warmer compared to no atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that isn't your claim, your claim is that the atmosphere causes the surface to get warmer.






you agree with this or not?

and I ask again, does a heatsink cause a hot component to get hotter or cooler?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
that isn't your claim, your claim is that the atmosphere causes the surface to get warmer. 
*
Yes, the cold atmosphere is the reason why the surface is warmer compared to no atmosphere.

*does a heat sync cause a hot component to get hotter or cooler?
*
Is the heat sync _[sic] _in the middle of a fire on a solar flare?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well the earth is a heatsink to the sun. and the atmosphere to the earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*well the earth is a heatsink to the sun
*
Prove it.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


does heat from the sun transmit to the earth and warm the earth?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Of course it does.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Your proof 

And the atmosphere helps cool the surface. That’s what heatsinks do


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*well the earth is a heatsink to the sun
*
Ummmm.......
*
 That’s what heatsinks do*

The Earth cools the Sun? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It does. Any cool objects near hot objects cools the hot objects.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
It does. 
*
It doesn't.

*Any cool objects near hot objects cools the hot objects. 
*
The Sun is cooler with the Earth there than if the Earth wasn't? Show me.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You act like the earth is the only planet in the solar system? Hahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You act like you're a moron.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I know, you're not acting.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




*well the earth is a heatsink to the sun

*


----------



## GreenBean (May 1, 2018)

Crick said:


> They're YOUR graphics.  YOU identify them.  No one here wants to play your infantile games.


He stated where he took them from - they are NOT "his' Graphics .......


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And you don’t have to cool a nuclear power plant right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Is a nuclear power plant cooler when the moon is overhead? DERP!


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No heat from the plant is emitted to the moon. Instead it is cooled by water internal to itself. Turbines are powered for electricity, not heat


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ^
> Just the most recent.
> 
> Let me know when you find anyone who agrees with SSDD about one-way only flow.
> ...



Again....fooled by instrumentation...that sensor array detects nothing more than its own temperature change...that change is converted to an electrical signal and then translated to an image....if you believe it was detecting two way energy flow, then you clearly don't have any idea what the instrument was recording.

You provide an illustration of a mathematical model and say that it is evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...you are a dupe.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.



Since it has never been detected, or measured, and every time energy movement is observed, or measured, exactly how do you think science "knows" this.  Science has known all manner of things over the years till they learned that they didn't know at all...


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
> You'll ignore it, of course.
> 
> 
> ...



Once again fooled by instrumentation...measured with an instrument that was cooled to -80 degrees...all that is is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.




The only examples you guys have provided are examples of how easily you are fooled by instruments.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many more times?
> What format would satisfy?



How about a single measurement that actually shows spontaneous two way energy flow...thus far, you have presented a sensor array which you claimed to be showing two way energy flow which is only capable of measuring its own temperature changes...and a graph derived from measurements made with an instrument that was cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

One example that shows spontaneous two way energy flow would be sufficient...no more examples of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation are necessary...that is abundantly clear by now.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, the sensor is cooling off.
> You think you can see an object based on photons moving away from the camera, with no
> photons moving toward the camera?



You think you are observing an image that has anything to do with observing photons....you aren't.. you are seeing an image derived from nothing more than the sensor array detecting its own temperature change...that is all it can detect...it doesn't know whether energy is incoming or outgoing..it only knows that its temperature is changing...

All the rest is just a story you tell about it because you don't know, or understand what is being measured or how the image is being derived.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You are playing the troll again – big time. I told you the reasons from basic physics that one way energy flow violates the many repeatable, observations, measurements and experiments tested time and again. And what do you do? The standard troll gambit of changing the subject. Your digression to philosophy of science does not answer any practical questions on radiation exchange.

My only conclusion is that you know you are wrong and you have absolutely no argument. The science of equilibrium energy exchange is right and you are wrong, and that turns you to trolldom as your only recourse.


----------



## Crick (May 2, 2018)

Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ^
> ...



*that sensor array detects nothing more than its own temperature change..
*
Exactly. The change involves net flux. As the drawing shows.

*if you believe it was detecting two way energy flow, then you clearly don't have any idea what the instrument was recording.
*
If you believe the Handbook of Modern Sensors was wrong in showing net thermal flux (flux from the object minus flux from itself) you should notify them of their error.
Be sure to post their response. 

You're still alone in your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.

You're still alone in your misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

You still, after years of being asked, haven't posted a single source that agrees 
with your claim of one-way only flow of radiation. You're all by yourself. ​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another that agrees with me. Disagrees with SSDD.
> ...



*Once again fooled by instrumentation...measured with an instrument that was cooled to -80 degrees...all that is is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument. 
*
And there come your smart photons again. All by yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > All you have to do is ignore the dozens of examples given.
> ...



Still no examples of one-way only flow.

You're very lonely.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 still no two way energy flow observation eh? hmmmmmmm


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.



How about a measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation...say 15 microns made from the surface with an instrument pointed toward open sky...and that instrument being at ambient temperature.....should be no problem since you guys claim that more radiation is coming back from the atmosphere than comes in from the sun.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.
> ...


I'm confident you'll get Crickets.  get it?  LOL


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are playing the troll again – big time. I told you the reasons from basic physics that one way energy flow violates the many repeatable, observations, measurements and experiments tested time and again. And what do you do? The standard troll gambit of changing the subject. Your digression to philosophy of science does not answer any practical questions on radiation exchange.



So asking you very basic questions about the nature of energy, and its movement which you can't answer makes me a troll?  You get more laughable every day.  You claim that science knows all and sees all with regard to energy and how it moves about....those questions were foundational..very basic and the truth is we just can't answer them because we don't know nearly as much as you think we do.  We have lots of stories which you take as truth but which lack any sort of empirical support.

And of course you told me that one way energy flow violates those stories that you believe so fervently...which is what prompted me to continue to ask you for some empirical evidence to support your claims that one way energy movement violated reality...  And I am not changing the subject...the subject is still energy and how it moves about...you claim knowledge that we don't possess...I ask questions which give you the opportunity to demonstrate what we know and you can't answer...

The question of how a vibration translates to radiation is about as basic a question as could be asked and yet...we don't know.  For that matter, the matter of vibrations remains open to discussion as we have never had a good look at a molecule such that we could verify or directly measure their vibration...vibration seems to be a reasonable cause for the observations we make but vibrations by no means is an observed, proven fact.

Like I have said...much...in fact most of what you claim to be knowledge is nothing more than stories we tell about what we observe...and in many cases, stories we tell about what may be happening which we have never observed...such as two way spontaneous energy exchange.  The only thing one way energy exchange violates is your mythology...that being the case, the very second law of thermodynamics violates your mythology..

And you keep claiming that one way energy flow violates observations, measurements and experiments...when I ask which observations, measurements, and experiments you can't seem to produce any.  If there are many, why don't you seem to be able to produce even one?



Wuwei said:


> My only conclusion is that you know you are wrong and you have absolutely no argument. The science of equilibrium energy exchange is right and you are wrong, and that turns you to trolldom as your only recourse.



Of course that would be your conclusion....I have questioned your faith and you would rather call me wrong that face the fact that you can't support your faith with any sort of empirical evidence.  I would expect nothing less from a zealot.  A thinking person might wonder if his faith were misplaced if he couldn't produce any actual evidence to support it but a zealot?....never.  The first instinct of a zealot is to attack those who question his faith....


----------



## Crick (May 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit, why don't YOU detail a situation - just make one up - that would satisfy you that two way transfer has taken place.
> ...



You failed to state what time of day this would be done. And where do you believe that 15 micron radiation would be coming from?  The Sun?  The stratosphere?  The troposphere?  The air directly in front of the instrument? The sensor itself?  How would you know the identity and temperature of the source?

Obviously, taking such a measurement would be akin to taking photographs of wildlife at night with a flashlight aimed down your lens barrel.  You might capture the eyes of a rabbit, but it would hardly be the optimal method to do so. 

Why don't you check out these sites and explain to us why the measurements in this study have changed precisely in pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 11 years.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO<sub>2</sub> from 2000 to 2010
and
First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


What does this statement from the report actually mean from your first link?

"We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. *Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, *such as a weather system moving through the area," says Feldman.

Read more at: First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> You failed to state what time of day this would be done. And where do you believe that 15 micron radiation would be coming from?  The Sun?  The stratosphere?  The troposphere?  The air directly in front of the instrument? The sensor itself?  How would you know the identity and temperature of the source?



I said quite clearly open sky...makes no difference what time of day or night as there will be none to measure.. 15 micron radiation relates to a temperature of about -80 degrees and unless the ground is colder than that, you won't be recording any 15 micron radiation coming from open sky...



Crick said:


> Obviously, taking such a measurement would be akin to taking photographs of wildlife at night with a flashlight aimed down your lens barrel.  You might capture the eyes of a rabbit, but it would hardly be the optimal method to do so.



You wack jobs claim that almost as much radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of back radiation as is absorbed from the sun...shouldn't be any problem whatsoever to measure it...you certainly wouldn't have any problem photographing the sun the lens barrel.



Crick said:


> Why don't you check out these sites and explain to us why the measurements in this study have changed precisely in pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 11 years.



there are no measurements of back radiation made with instruments at ambient temperature..and any measurement made with a cooled instrument is not a measurement of energy moving from the cooler sky to the warmer surface...it would be a measurement of energy moving from the warmer sky to the cooler instrument.

Tell me crick...what do you think the emissivity of CO2 is?


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So asking you very basic questions about the nature of energy, and its movement which you can't answer makes me a troll?



No. Ignoring the physics of how vibrating charges must radiate and changing the subject to something that has absolutely *no practical value* makes you a troll. 



SSDD said:


> you can't support your faith with any sort of empirical evidence


The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.


----------



## MPS777 (May 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.



I’ve found this site to be a good summary of how moving charges create electromagnetic radiation:
Larmor Radiation


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.
> ...


I agree. It's all on one page. The problem is SSDD doesn't believe mathematical models of physics. He likes to play games with "reality".


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> No. Ignoring the physics of how vibrating charges must radiate and changing the subject to something that has absolutely *no practical value* makes you a troll.



Once again...you are telling me what you believe...not how, or why theoretical vibration (since we never saw a molecule vibrate) translates to energy.  Why can't you simply admit that we don't know.  Is it that tough for you to acknowledge how much science doesn't know at this point in history?



SSDD said:


> The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.



What observation did we ever make of a vibrating molecule?  And saying that rocks must fall when dropped because of observations, tests, and measurements does not even begin to explain why rocks must fall when dropped...  You are employing the most basic and flawed type of circular reasoning.  Can you see yourself?  Why not just admit that we don't know?  Would your faith crumble around you if you were to acknowledge that we really don't know how or why energy transfers, how vibrations are translated to energy...and any number of other basic questions regarding energy, its nature, and how it moves around?


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2018)

MPS777 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.
> ...



First point on your page...Maxwell's equations "imply"...they don't prove anything...they are simply a mathematical statement suggesting an explanation for observations....prior to being updated by new knowledge, practically all the stories we told to explain what we observed were supported by something, be it myth or mathematical formula that "implied" what we though was going on...almost invariably, it turned out that the story we told didn't really touch to hard on reality. Such is the nature of stories.


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> MPS777 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Actually it is you who likes to play games with reality...models are not reality...particularly models that aren't borne out by observation and measurement.  Now you keep claiming that spontaneous two way energy flow happens, and as evidence you hold up nothing more than models...do you have any actual observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow?  The answer to that is a simple no...and the evidence is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics still states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > MPS777 said:
> ...




So lonely...........


----------



## Wuwei (May 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No. Ignoring the physics of how vibrating charges must radiate and changing the subject to something that has absolutely *no practical value* makes you a troll.
> ...



You are still digressing and pulling that anti-science troll crap again. We are talking about the practical aspects of observed, measured physics experiments that show that all materials have vibrating atoms that emit EM energy. Those observed, measured physics experiments show that objects exchange thermal radiation simply because any two objects are above absolute zero.

Again, it's not my faith. It's observed, measured physics experiments. Your faith violates observed, measured radiation physics. It doesn't matter why rocks fall, etc in predicting physics outcomes.


----------



## Wuwei (May 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > MPS777 said:
> ...


Mr anti-science again. All physics calculations and predictions come from mathematical models. Radiative heat exchange follows the second law. You said it yourself.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are still digressing and pulling that anti-science troll crap again. We are talking about the practical aspects of observed, measured physics experiments that show that all materials have vibrating atoms that emit EM energy. Those observed, measured physics experiments show that objects exchange thermal radiation simply because any two objects are above absolute zero.



You were the one who claimed that science understood the mechanism of energy transfer very well.  I am simply asking the most basic questions about the mechanism of energy transfer.  Clearly you can't answer because science doesn't know.  Science is pretty good at observing energy movement but oddly enough, doesn't seem to be able to observe spontaneous two way energy exchange.  Ever wonder why?



Wuwei said:


> Again, it's not my faith. It's observed, measured physics experiments. Your faith violates observed, measured radiation physics. It doesn't matter why rocks fall, etc in predicting physics outcomes.



So show me a measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange.  Such a measurement would be groundbreaking..it would be very important..so lets see it.  We both know you won't be presenting any such thing because it has not been observed or measured...ever.  You believe a model is evidence...that is because you are divorced from reality.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Mr anti-science again. All physics calculations and predictions come from mathematical models. Radiative heat exchange follows the second law. You said it yourself.



The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...which is why there has never been an observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange.  You can either present physical evidence, which would move your position out of the realm of faith and belief into the realm of reality...or you can't.  We both know you can't and we both know in which realm that leaves your position.


----------



## Crick (May 10, 2018)

Why does it not bother you that millions of people, most with far better educations than yours, understand that to mean net flow?  Do you really think you are smarter than ALL of them?


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...which is why there has never been an observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange. You can either present physical evidence, which would move your position out of the realm of faith and belief into the realm of reality...or you can't. We both know you can't and we both know in which realm that leaves your position.



In your last post in another thread you said,


SSDD said:


> .net energy flow predicts the same temperature as gross energy flow...net energy flow predictions are the same as unicorn perspiration predictions...they make no difference whatsoever and the bottom line is that all we can observe is one way gross energy movement from a more oredered state to a less ordered state.



So if, as you say, net and gross energy flow both predict the same thing, then why do you have faith in gross energy flow which violates quantum mechanics. To you it seems to be a matter of opinion. To science it's a matter of which violates a fundamental law.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

Crick said:


> Why does it not bother you that millions of people, most with far better educations than yours, understand that to mean net flow?  Do you really think you are smarter than ALL of them?



I understand perfectly what net flow means...I am asking for evidence of it...why are you unable to understand the difference between believing that it happens, and presenting evidence that it does?    

Intelligence is relative...I don't have much confidence in people who believe models are real and lose touch with the fact that they are models and not reality.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...which is why there has never been an observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange. You can either present physical evidence, which would move your position out of the realm of faith and belief into the realm of reality...or you can't. We both know you can't and we both know in which realm that leaves your position.
> ...



I don't have faith in it...the observational and measured evidence say gross one way energy flow...when observation and measurement say one thing, why would you believe a model that says something else is happening but just can't be observed or measured?  And the fundamental law says that one way gross energy movement is what is happening...the law doesn't say spontaneous two way energy movement...your "interpretation", or belief, or whatever adds net...the law itself doesn't say any such thing.


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I don't have faith in it...the observational and measured evidence say gross one way energy flow...when observation and measurement say one thing, why would you believe a model that says something else is happening but just can't be observed or measured? And the fundamental law says that one way gross energy movement is what is happening...the law doesn't say spontaneous two way energy movement...your "interpretation", or belief, or whatever adds net...the law itself doesn't say any such thing.



You said both gross and net flow both predict the same thing. According to you the evidence allows net flow as observational and measured. The fundamental law does not say gross energy flow. Read the hyperphysics site again. The author of a widely read site said *net energy* flow.

Yes, you have faith if you choose the gross nonviable option over what all of science says.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You said both gross and net flow both predict the same thing. According to you the evidence allows net flow as observational and measured. The fundamental law does not say gross energy flow. Read the hyperphysics site again. The author of a widely read site said *net energy* flow.
> 
> Yes, you have faith if you choose the gross nonviable option over what all of science says.



You poor idiot.....faith, by definition is belief in something not provable...all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say energy only flows spontaneously in one direction...belief in anything else, is by definition..faith.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You poor idiot.....faith, by definition is belief in something not provable...all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say energy only flows spontaneously in one direction...belief in anything else, is by definition..faith.


Ad hominem doesn't prove your point. 

Since you say gross and net flow both predict the same thing, all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say heat flow points to net energy exchange being the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible, and would require faith to believe - or in your case lack of understanding.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You poor idiot.....faith, by definition is belief in something not provable...all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say energy only flows spontaneously in one direction...belief in anything else, is by definition..faith.
> ...



You keep saying that...and when I ask for a single piece of observational evidence...actual measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow, you can't step up and provide it...all you can do is go back into your circular reasoning...claiming that the models prove that the models are correct.


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2018)

Same Shit, you, with your smart photons and matter able to read temperatures across the universe, are the one with the requirement for extraordinary evidence.  Find us ONE single authoritative source that says photons will not travel from cold to warm.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You keep saying that...and when I ask for a single piece of observational evidence...actual measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow, you can't step up and provide it...all you can do is go back into your circular reasoning...claiming that the models prove that the models are correct.



It's true and I will say it again: all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say net energy exchange is the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible.

Now, you tell me exactly what actual observed measured evidence do you have that demands that radiation can only flow one way between bodies.


----------



## Crick (May 12, 2018)

And how it "knows" what the temperature of a distant piece of matter might be.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2018)

Crick said:


> And how it "knows" what the temperature of a distant piece of matter might be.



Just like a rock knows which direction is down.  Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It's true and I will say it again: all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say net energy exchange is the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible.



Saying it doesn't mean jack unless you can provide evidence to back it up...otherwise it is just bullshit.  So lets see the measurements of spontaneous two way energy exchange between a cool object and a warm object.  And to say that "nothing" else is physically possible is to express a depth of arrogant ignorance rarely seen....you actually believe that we know everything that is physically possible?  You really believe that?



Wuwei said:


> Now, you tell me exactly what actual observed measured evidence do you have that demands that radiation can only flow one way between bodies.



Like I have said over and over...every measurement ever made is of one way gross energy flow...when we measure energy radiating from warm objects, we don't detect energy moving towards the object from cooler objects...when we point a thermal camera at an object, the sensor is measuring temperature changes based on the difference between its own temperature and that of what it is pointed at...all observations and measurements are of one way gross energy exchange...no measurement has ever been made of spontaneous two way energy exchange between a warm object and a cooler object...  Claiming that those observations are of net energy movement when the only energy exchange that can be measured is between warm and cool is just more claims that the emperors new clothes are beautiful...and only dupes are unaware that models don't provide evidence to prove themselves.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2018)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, you, with your smart photons and matter able to read temperatures across the universe, are the one with the requirement for extraordinary evidence.  Find us ONE single authoritative source that says photons will not travel from cold to warm.



Only every measurement ever made...unless of course you can provide a measured observation of a photon moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...till you can provide that...till it is measured...it is just a story based on a model that is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...you may hate having the fact pointed out to you but your position is one of faith...not actual evidence.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It's true and I will say it again: all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say net energy exchange is the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible.
> ...



I asked what evidence *demands* that radiation can flow only one way. You didn't answer the question. All instrumental measurements are consistent with two way radiation exchange.

Your idea of "evidence" does not *demand* that you are right and all of science is wrong


----------



## Crick (May 12, 2018)

Your faulty interpretation of observations is hardly an authoritative source - besides being a perfect example of circular logic.

I want to hear someone else with a graduate education in one of the hard sciences state that IR photons can only travel from warm to cold; that some unknown force prevents them from traveling from cold to warm and that somehow, all matter is able to know the temperature of all other matter in its view despite distance and is able to throttle its own emissions, taking relative motion and travel time into account.  Those are your claims, are they not?

Got somebody?


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit, you, with your smart photons and matter able to read temperatures across the universe, are the one with the requirement for extraordinary evidence.  Find us ONE single authoritative source that says photons will not travel from cold to warm.
> ...


No, not "every measurement ever made." Todd's reference to the CMB is an example of 2.7 K radiation penetrating the warmer atmosphere to strike a warmer microwave horn and on to a resonantly tuned detector at degrees 4 K.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And how it "knows" what the temperature of a distant piece of matter might be.
> ...



* Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics. 
*
Still no sources that agree with your interpretation of the laws of physics? Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Just like a rock knows which direction is down. .


Yes, we already heard your theory of gravity.



SSDD said:


> Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.



My gosh. He is actually using the juvenile troll gambit _"I know you are so what am I."_


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And how it "knows" what the temperature of a distant piece of matter might be.
> ...



Lets take a piece of matter at, say 100K, that happens to be floating in a gas cloud of 200K.  We'll call this piece of matter, Chunk A.  Per your contention, it cannot radiate in any direction.
Now another chunk of matter approaches.  It is 98K.  We'll call that Chunk B. Your contention says that A will radiate selectively in the direction of B (and you put no range limitations on this but I'll save that for another day). As B shoots past A, the beam of photons you believe A is able to emit in the direction of B will rotate to not only keep it in aim, but TO LEAD IT, since photons travel at a high, but finite velocity. When asked to suggest any mechanism that would allow or enforce such behavior, you tell us the "Second Law" (as if it were the Zeroth Commandment) and that we simply do not (and perhaps can not) know how this works.

Science, on the other hand, states that Chunk A is constantly emitting photons in all directions and of a spectrum appropriate to its temperature (per SB).  Chunk B comes by, also emitting photons in all directions per its temperature.  The net flow between the two results in an excess of photons (and the energy they contain) going from A to B.  The result is the same as your scenario, but no insane voodoo is required.

It is a perfect violation of  Occam's razor to reject a fully understood and mathematically symmetrical explanation for an observed phenomenon (radiative heat transfer) in favor of one which reeks of inexplainable actions and multiple violations of basic physical principles which you attempt to justify with "we don't know".  I can see few causes for your choices here, but the most likely are:

1) You realized that you could use this to argue against the greenhouse effect
2) You are contrarian to the point of insanity
3) You are trolling
4) You are extraordinarily stupid.

And nothing prevents reality from being composed of a blend of these reasons.


----------



## Wuwei (May 13, 2018)

Your chunk A, B example is a great example, but it's too sophisticated for SSDD's distorted view of science. He will simply invoke his usual unobservable, unmeasurable mantra. Or the empty “we don't know what reality is” mantra, or maybe the anti-model mantra although that's what physics actually is.

I agree with your points on his thought process, but I think of them as occurring in an evolution of idiocy.
My take is that first he started out totally anti global warming.
Then he embraced some blog about a misconception of the second law as saying energy is one-way flow to “prove” back-radiation didn't exist. He latched on to that with an obsessive extreme to rationalize his belief.
When confronted by people more experienced in science, he became a contrarian to the point of insanity.
His dialog was met with science insights that made his anti-science look stupid, so he moved to trolling more often.

He has attached his entire ego to his cause, and won't admit defeat under any circumstance. Is he stupid? I think he has “street smarts” like gang members who are adept at survival in tough neighborhoods. Fighting, not logic, is his major attribute. In this case it is his using strawmen, distractions, non-sequiturs, etc. Winning is more important than being correct.

You can see this because in his frustration at not winning, he is now turning to actual (verbal) fighting by using a bevvy of angry insults and taunting so he won't feel he is losing face with his audience of minions – JC, Billy Bob, Frank, etc. Those guys are his equals as far as “street fighting” but, not his equals at inventing novel distortions and misunderstandings of science. It will be interesting to see if this game stagnates, or will continue to unfold.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



_1) You realized that you could use this to argue against the greenhouse effect
2) You are contrarian to the point of insanity
3) You are trolling
4) You are extraordinarily stupid.
_
5) Smart photons
6) Magic emitters
7) Dimmer switches
8) Epicycles


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your chunk A, B example is a great example, but it's too sophisticated for SSDD's distorted view of science. He will simply invoke his usual unobservable, unmeasurable mantra. Or the empty “we don't know what reality is” mantra, or maybe the anti-model mantra although that's what physics actually is.
> 
> I agree with your points on his thought process, but I think of them as occurring in an evolution of idiocy.
> My take is that first he started out totally anti global warming.
> ...



*Then he embraced some blog about a misconception of the second law as saying energy is one-way flow to “prove” back-radiation didn't exist. 
*
Some of SSDD's "arguments" sound like Claes Johnson. IMO

*When confronted by people more experienced in science, he became a contrarian to the point of insanity.* *His dialog was met with science insights that made his anti-science look stupid, so he moved to trolling more often.*​
You're right. As shown by his failure to provide any real source that agrees with his solo viewpoint.​


----------



## Wuwei (May 13, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Some of SSDD's "arguments" sound like Claes Johnson. IMO


I looked up Claes. You are right. SSDD reads his play book. In his blog Claes gives an argument that SSDD has not used yet:
_"back radiation" and "forward radiation" are supposed to be independent physical processes as "two-way flow of infrared photons", and at the same time, dependent coupled processes guaranteeing the the 2nd laws is not violated. 

But independent processes which are dependent, is a contradiction_​
His mistake here is saying that the two radiations must be *dependent* in order not to violate the 2nd law. They are not dependent. Objects that radiate care diddly squat about the 2nd law. Thus the radiation levels of different objects must not be seen as constrained, i.e. dependent.

It just so happens that the math exactly computes the right amount of emission and absorption, and it's the math that says the 2nd law is never violated. Coincidence? Not by a long shot. Kirchhoff showed the details of the physics that prohibit 2nd law violations of independent radiating objects. That lead to validity of the subtracted form of the SB equation. Stefan's original paper did not immediately promote the subtracted form because Kirchhoff's work came later.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> No, not "every measurement ever made." Todd's reference to the CMB is an example of 2.7 K radiation penetrating the warmer atmosphere to strike a warmer microwave horn and on to a resonantly tuned detector at degrees 4 K.



Yes...every measurement ever made...toddster's reference to CMB is just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation...even though it has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency...not CMB toddster and apparently the rest of you yahoos remain fooled.  

Tragic...simply tragic.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2018)

Crick said:


> Your faulty interpretation of observations is hardly an authoritative source - besides being a perfect example of circular logic.
> 
> I want to hear someone else with a graduate education in one of the hard sciences state that IR photons can only travel from warm to cold; that some unknown force prevents them from traveling from cold to warm and that somehow, all matter is able to know the temperature of all other matter in its view despite distance and is able to throttle its own emissions, taking relative motion and travel time into account.  Those are your claims, are they not?
> 
> Got somebody?



All you need do to prove me wrong skidmark is to find an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...we can certainly detect and measure very small energy movements...go find yourself an example of energy moving, with no work being applied, from a cool object to a warm object.

If you have to have a so called expert tell you what every observation and measurement ever made indicates, then you are at least as stupid as I have always thought you to be...


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Just like a rock knows which direction is down. .
> ...



Not my theory...it is you goof balls who seem to think that everything in the universe must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...

And I am just speaking at your level...you don't seem to be able to get past juvenile arguments...it is you who believes that you can validate a model with the output of the model...how much more juvenile can you get?


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Trying to validate the predictions of a model with the output of the model?  Are you really that stupid?

How about you just find a measured observation and stop chasing your tail in a never-ending loop of circular logic.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your chunk A, B example is a great example, but it's too sophisticated for SSDD's distorted view of science.



One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...

You guys really are that stupid aren't you?


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Some of SSDD's "arguments" sound like Claes Johnson. IMO
> ...



Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object?  Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object?  Any at all?  

Didn't think so.  What you have is a never ending attempt to validate your model with the model itself, or mental experiments based upon the model.  Newsflash...not science...that is faith....belief in the model...not actual evidence.


----------



## Crick (May 14, 2018)

Got anything new?  Care to explain why every scientist for the past century would say you were wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No, not "every measurement ever made." Todd's reference to the CMB is an example of 2.7 K radiation penetrating the warmer atmosphere to strike a warmer microwave horn and on to a resonantly tuned detector at degrees 4 K.
> ...



* has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency...not CMB 
*
A warm telescope at the bottom of a warmer atmosphere detected colder photons that didn't hit the telescope? 

Wow!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got any measured observation of objects at equilibrium ceasing all radiating?
Or is that claim based on your faith in a model?


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No, not "every measurement ever made." Todd's reference to the CMB is an example of 2.7 K radiation penetrating the warmer atmosphere to strike a warmer microwave horn and on to a resonantly tuned detector at degrees 4 K.
> ...


Except for your usual ad hominem, you are exactly right. The 2.7K CMB radiation went through the warmer atmosphere hit a warmer reflector and then hit a resonantly tuned amplifier at a slightly warmer 4 K and then was *recorded*. A clear measure of cold radiation hitting a surface at ambient temperature. 

Your phrase "_... not CMB_" of course refers to the trivial fact that the output of an amplifier is no longer the CMB, which was absorbed immediately upon hitting the tuned amplifier, and then became an electronic signal.

You think that output displays of recorded signals show people are fooled by instrumentation? You should realize that the output of every transducer in every measuring instrument does exactly the same thing. Do you distrust other instruments too?


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Wow. He did the "I know you are so what am I" troll gambit again! Are you going to try that for a third time on this post? Go for it!


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?


Yes. The cold CMB striking the warm earth.


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...



Look! A new sound bite! Are you going to use that for everything from now on? You seem to think that is a crippling blow to physics. What you forget is that the science of *physics is mathematical models*. If you don't believe in physics, then don't talk about it. (Fat chance.)

For your pleasure, here are some more models you should disparage and dismiss:

The "action at a distance" gravitational model of Newton.

The "warped space-time" gravitational model of Einstein.

The Stefan-Boltzmann model of radiation exchange. (Yes, a model. Stefan's experiments only approximated a 4th power exponent. Boltzmann justified the exact math with a model.)

Entropy is a very abstract model of observations and other models.


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


still no observed measured evidence to support your sources.  hmmmmmm


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Just like a rock knows which direction is down. .
> ...


and yet, you post crickets hmmmmm


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?
> ...


where is that at?


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...
> ...


cyclical


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


all they have to do is light a match and put an ice cube near it and show us the temperature of the match goes up.  That's all.  Doesn't seem that hard to test.


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2018)

still looking for an answer as to why warm pop put in a freezer gets cold?


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2018)

how about this one:

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopene...m-tea-turns-cold-if-left-out-for-a-while.html
*"Short answer:* Because heat always travels from an object at a higher temperature to objects at a lower temperature."

also,

"Note that heat never travels in the opposite direction (under normal conditions), i.e. from a cold object to a warm one, unless there is work being done. This is the basic working principle behind refrigerators and heat pumps. In these appliances, electricity does the work that is required to actively reverse the direction of heat transfer."


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...
> ...


speaking of entropy....
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopene...m-tea-turns-cold-if-left-out-for-a-while.html

*"Second Law of Thermodynamics*
First, let me tell you what the second law of thermodynamics actually says. It states that the total entropy of an isolated system (a system that does not interact with other systems and therefore remains unaffected by its surroundings) always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal scenarios, where the system is undergoing a reversible process or exists in a stable state.






In simple terms, this means that if a physical process is irreversible, its entropy must increase. An important corollary from that transfer of thermal energy, or in simple terms, transfer of heat energy from/to a body, takes place in such a way that the body and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., a state where there is no difference between their temperatures."


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

Crick said:


> Got anything new?  Care to explain why every scientist for the past century would say you were wrong?




Don't need anything new...reality is on my side.  Here is how conversation goes with you guys.

You:  man made global warming is real...energy moves spontaneously in two directions...every scientist of the past 100 years says so.

Me:  Great.  Care to show me some of the evidence upon which they based their belief upon?

You:  The models, observations, and measurements.

Me:  Great.  Lets see some of the observations and measurements.

You:  Every scientists of the past 100 years says so.

Do you have anything new?  Actual observations and measurements supporting your claims would be something new?


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You think that output displays of recorded signals show people are fooled by instrumentation? You should realize that the output of every transducer in every measuring instrument does exactly the same thing. Do you distrust other instruments too?



Sorry guy...the receiver received a resonant radio frequency.  Go on being fooled...it's in your nature.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You think that output displays of recorded signals show people are fooled by instrumentation? You should realize that the output of every transducer in every measuring instrument does exactly the same thing. Do you distrust other instruments too?
> ...


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?
> ...



Sorry guy...wrong again.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...
> ...



This is how conversations with you wack jobs go..

You: man made global warming is real...energy moves spontaneously in two directions...pick whatever unobserved, unmeasured, untested claim you guys like to make....every scientist of the past 100 years says so.

Me: Great. Care to show me some of the evidence upon which they based their belief upon?

You: The models, observations, and measurements.

Me: Great. Lets see some of the observations and measurements.

You: Every scientists of the past 100 years says so.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...
> ...



Got any actual observation or measurement to support the claim or are you once again going to try to validate the model with the model and then tell me who else believes it?

My bet is......a resounding no..you do not have any observation or measurement.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



And he never will.


----------



## Crick (May 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You think that output displays of recorded signals show people are fooled by instrumentation? You should realize that the output of every transducer in every measuring instrument does exactly the same thing. Do you distrust other instruments too?
> ...




And you contend the resonance in every receiver is identical?  You ARE the physics master.


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Do you have anything new? Actual observations and measurements supporting your claims would be something new?


Do you have anything new?
Do you have any actual observation or measurements that say atomic physics is violated? Anything besides saying you don't believe in science, or anything besides saying you don't believe actual observation or measurements of science?


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 15, 2018)

This thread has worn itself out.

Anything new indeed, what hasn't been argued over yet?

On and on it goes to the point boring and Zzzzz......................


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 15, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> This thread has worn itself out.
> 
> Anything new indeed, what hasn't been argued over yet?
> 
> On and on it goes to the point boring and Zzzzz......................



SSDD's confusion is boring.


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2018)

SSDD only believes one thing in science and even that is wrong. C'mon SSDD give us a new physics phantasy theory so we can watch you lash out in anger at everyone and at science in general. We are getting bored of your old blather. We need new blather from you.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have anything new? Actual observations and measurements supporting your claims would be something new?
> ...




Same as always...do you have anything beyond your belief...someone else's belief....or the output of a model to support your claim that energy moves spontaneously both ways between a warm object and a cooler object?  Anything at all.  If you don't, simply say that you don't rather than this incessant string of logical fallacies...why can't you simply admit that you got nothing?


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> This thread has worn itself out.
> 
> Anything new indeed, what hasn't been argued over yet?
> 
> On and on it goes to the point boring and Zzzzz......................





Sunsettommy said:


> This thread has worn itself out.
> 
> Anything new indeed, what hasn't been argued over yet?
> 
> On and on it goes to the point boring and Zzzzz......................



It is boring beyond belief.  Conversation with these guys follows a tired and predictable template..

Them: man made global warming is real...energy moves spontaneously in two directions...pick whatever unobserved, unmeasured, untested claim they  like to make....every scientist of the past 100 years says so.

Me:   Great. Care to show me some of the evidence upon which they based their belief upon?

Them:    The models, observations, and measurements.

Me:    Great. Lets see some of the observations and measurements.

Them:    Every scientists of the past 100 years says so.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD only believes one thing in science and even that is wrong. C'mon SSDD give us a new physics phantasy theory so we can watch you lash out in anger at everyone and at science in general. We are getting bored of your old blather. We need new blather from you.



I don't have any fantasy...all I have is the second law of thermodynamics stating that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction....apply work and you can make it go in another direction...you say it isn't true, but then you can't provide any evidence to the contrary.  All you can manage is appeals to authority who also has no evidence...or an attempt to validate the models with the output of the models...and that's it.  You just go round and round chasing your tail...and when we get to the point that you are to produce the evidence you claim exists, you go back to the models validating themselves, or the same old fallacious appeal to authority.  And the precious few examples you manage to think up are nothing more than you being fooled by instrumentation...how much weaker could your position possibly get?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has worn itself out.
> ...



You: I have no sources that agree with my one-way flow of radiation

Me: No kidding. If you had any sources, you'd post them.


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I don't have any fantasy...all I have is the second law of thermodynamics stating that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction....apply work and you can make it go in another direction...you say it isn't true, but then you can't provide any evidence to the contrary. All you can manage is appeals to authority who also has no evidence...or an attempt to validate the models with the output of the models...and that's it. You just go round and round chasing your tail...and when we get to the point that you are to produce the evidence you claim exists, you go back to the models validating themselves, or the same old fallacious appeal to authority. And the precious few examples you manage to think up are nothing more than you being fooled by instrumentation...how much weaker could your position possibly get?


Since you don't believe in physics, you have no basis for physics discussion except for anti-science trolling. You fantasize non-science in order to deny the CMB actually does hit the earth and was discovered by actual observed and measured experiments on earth. You have not proved otherwise. We are getting bored of your current anti-science mantras. Got anything new?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


SSDD: post observed measurements

you: you have no sources that show radiation cold to warm.  

Me: still waiting.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Since you don't believe in physics, you have no basis for physics discussion except for anti-science trolling. You fantasize non-science in order to deny the CMB actually does hit the earth and was discovered by actual observed and measured experiments on earth. You have not proved otherwise. We are getting bored of your current anti-science mantras. Got anything new?



"Believe" in physics?  Are you kidding?  The whole point of physics is to get beyond having to "believe".  Belief is a religious term.  Physics is about actual understanding via observation, experiment, testing and measurement.  Physics doesn't require belief.  Faith requires belief.

And again...its to bad that you can't grasp the concept of resonant frequencies. 

And it is not me who is anti science.  I am asking for you to provide evidence to support your claims...that is by definition, the way science works.  You, on the other hand are asking me to believe...and when I won't take your claim on faith, you tell me that I don't "believe" in physics...as if physics required belief.  Grab yourself a dictionary and look up the words physics and religion.  Now tell me which one includes the word belief in the definition.

  You are asking me to take a claim on faith with no actual observed, measured evidence in support of that claim....and as much as you wish it to be true...being fooled by instrumentation is not evidence.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



At least he has finally got around to the crux of his position.  Now he is telling me that I don't "believe" in physics.  As if physics required belief.  He has no evidence so he is asking me to believe and if I don't believe, then I must be an anti science heretic.  What sort of science, exactly, requires belief?


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2018)

I grasp the concept of resonant frequencies just fine.  Did I miss the point where you explain how dozens of different receivers over years and years of observations all resonate to the exact same frequencies?  And then you can explain how they all pass calibration.  Let me guess.  All RF devices ever made resonate in the exact same way.  

And, BTW, a resonance curve looks nothing like the spectrum of the CMB.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Since you don't believe in physics, you have no basis for physics discussion except for anti-science trolling. You fantasize non-science in order to deny the CMB actually does hit the earth and was discovered by actual observed and measured experiments on earth. You have not proved otherwise. We are getting bored of your current anti-science mantras. Got anything new?
> ...



Nope, you have nothing new. Just the same distractions and troll mentality. 

You don't like that use of the word belief? OK. I will reword it. You don't accept the mathematical models of physics as a method for codifying experimental observations and measurements. That's ironic since you misuse the models right and left. 

*to bad that you can't grasp the concept of resonant frequencies*

You are just being a troll again. We all know that the cold radiation must come through the warm atmosphere to be detected by the resonant amplifiers. You are pretending to confuse the actual radiation with the detection method. But you already know that, and prefer to be a troll.


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Wow, look at you, how many posts now has SSDD stated all you have is a mathematical model and to actually post observed measured results? And still you fail to provide observations showing energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm. Fk dude, must be over 50 posts asking for that observation evidence. Still nothing. And if radiation must come through the atmosphere, then you should have observation of that! Post it. That wouldn’t be a mathematical model. Instead, it would be actually measured. I get it that confuses you


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



* Now he is telling me that I don't "believe" in physics.*

You believe in physics. Your confused, unique version.
All alone. No backup. No proof.

Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*how many posts now has SSDD stated all you have is a mathematical model and to actually post observed measured results? *

CMB was discovered using an actual telescope receiving actual radiation.

* And if radiation must come through the atmosphere, then you should have observation of that! *





Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


asked and answered by him.  Explained as well.  In fact, as I stated, at least 50 times.  so, the option is to either accept his response or find another option for discussion.  cause all you're doing is repeating yourself over and over and over and over.  You do know that right?

And since you can't seem to pull anything else, I supposed you will never convince him or me about energy moving from cold to warm spontaneously.


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


BTW, still want to know why a pop can in a freezer doesn't get warmer.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency...not CMB*
> 
> A warm telescope at the bottom of a warmer atmosphere detected colder photons that didn't hit the telescope?
> 
> Wow!



Your explanation is a bit terse for those unfamiliar with the process. I will give a little detail on the CMB:

The Cosmic Microwave Background 101.

Radiation comes from a cold cosmic source at 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.


It penetrates to the earth surface at 300 degrees above absolute zero.


It then strikes a reflector at 300 degrees above absolute zero.


It focuses on a resonantly tuned amplifier at 4 degrees above absolute zero.


Those resonant radio frequency are recorded at several frequencies.


It was an observed, measured, repeatable experiment of radiation of a colder source hitting a warmer object.
SSDD admitted that many times, for example,



SSDD said:


> it has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency.



We all agree with SSDD's statement. Compare step 5 above with his quote.

Why does SSDD deny the experiment? He never stated why. He just keeps trolling the same non-sequitur about step 5 being true, but step 6 being false. That is one characteristic of a troll.

That is clearly radiation from a much colder 2.7 degree K source hitting a much warmer 300 degree K detector. It was an observed, measured, repeated experiment. There are no theories, or models used in that experiment; just measurements.

Will it warm ice cubes? Not by a long shot. The earth radiates much more energy than it receives, so total energy moves from the warm earth to the cold source, and total energy never moves from the cold source to the earth. The second law is never violated.


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well he did and you choose to ignore him.  just saying.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> well he did and choose to ignore him. just saying.


Your objection is not clear.


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well he did and choose to ignore him. just saying.
> ...


fixed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*asked and answered by him. Explained as well.*

Yes, his "Waves were detected without hitting the telescope" claim was hilarious.

*cause all you're doing is repeating yourself over and over and over and over.*

Yes, I'll keep pointing out SSDD's errors, over and over.

* I supposed you will never convince him or me about energy moving from cold to warm spontaneously.*

Right, keep ignoring the evidence, like the picture of the "cold energy" from space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency...not CMB*
> ...



*Why does SSDD deny the experiment? He never stated why. *

Because he'd be admitting his claim, "back radiation doesn't exist because the 2nd Law says radiation can't move from cold matter to warmer matter",  was wrong.


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'll have ignored your evidence when you present some.  tick tock bubba


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


back radiation doesn't exist.  You can't post any evidence.  still waiting tick tock.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nothing,  just like normal.  thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nothing? LOL!

That's a map of microwave radiation, received over a 9 year period, of the Universe.

Only one of the coolest things ever recorded in the history of science.

I'm not surprised you can't understand any of it.


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's a picture.  LOL


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nice photo, but you didn't post a link for it.


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


or a data plot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I have known about this discovery since the 1980's but not convinced it is from the big bang event, since they have not eliminated the obvious alternative possibilities.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Such as...……?


----------



## Crick (May 17, 2018)

Oh yes, such as.  I am dying to hear these "obvious alternative possibilities".  Let me guess.  RF resonance?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....
> ...



*if you want to detect the actual CMB IR radiation, you must have an instrument cooled to less than 2.75K... *

_Over two decades later, working at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a supersensitive, 6 meter (20 ft) horn antenna originally built to detect radio waves bounced off Echo balloon satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero. _

Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia

Hmmmmm……...


----------

