# Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2015)

Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

Physics tells us that CO2 emitted LWIR (Long Wave Infrared Radiation) CANNOT influence anything but INCREASED evaporation rates which, actually cools the body of water.

The ocean is where AGW fails in the first few microns. Every combined SST & land temp chart “proving” AGW is meaningless because *LWIR/CO2 can not heat water.* Karl Et Al attempts to show increased SST's to erase the pause, but this only disproves AGW and affirms the sun and natural climate variability.

Downward LWIR radiation will all be captured in the top 5-50 microns of water surface. This leads to higher surface evaporation, which actually cools the surface thin layer. This will also cool the ambient air above it as the heat rises rapidly and water vapor collects the IR near surface.

When you look at the heat loss for downward surface (4/1 raito) transfer (of LWIR) it is highly unlikely that any warming can be caused by LWIR emitted from CO2. Only Short wave IR is capable of warming the oceans beyond 50 microns and CO2 emitted IR is insufficient to heat even the surface layer of 50 microns.

Its Rather telling that Senator Markey failed to recognize even basic physics when he was schooled by Ross Mckitrick, Judith Curry and Mark Styne on not only the snow storms he falsely claimed were caused by AGW but surface temperature, water vapor, and those who hide their work paid for by public funding.



Let the schooling begin..  Even COP21 is dead locked and failing..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 10, 2015)

Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2015)

*Tables turned: Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen Markey on climate*

*Full rounds of video on the testimony given at the above link.. *


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense



Making Progress on Crick?  He wont even admit that he has no empirical evidence to support his religion.. He must be sick..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 10, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense
> ...



Well he made the comment without realizing that AR5 bases its "the oceans ate my warming" conclusion on the concept of "Excess heat" So as soon as I pointed out to him that excess heat is important to AR5, he started dialing back his ridicule of the concept.

I read AR5, Crick --not so much


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



There are multiple items by themselves which disprove AGW. This is just one more item.  When you consider the temp records (unaltered of course) and the failure of CO2 to cause any incremental increase of the natural temperature rise and the pause of no temp rise while CO2 continued to increase, there isn't much left of AGW that anyone with any scientific knowledge would agree with.  

But i digress, there are many who refuse to use critical thinking skills and believe what they are being feed..


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2015)

_Climate Change

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)_

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

*Climate Change Commentary*
_(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)_

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

*So, here is what the physicists state. Perhaps ol' Silly Billy thinks he smarter than all these men and women put together. Presently, this statement is under review, and even though the people reviewing it include, Christie, Lindzen, and Curry, I bet the statement they finally deliver is stronger than this.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 10, 2015)

Wow, the AGWCult believes in AGW. Thanks, oldrocks, we had no idea


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2015)

Oh wow, the OP is talking about the laws of physics, and I posted what the largest Physicists Scientific Society in the world has to say about AGW, and you call them a cult. LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh wow, the OP is talking about the laws of physics, and I posted what the largest Physicists Scientific Society in the world has to say about AGW, and you call them a cult. LOL



LOL...  You posted agenda driven bull shit while ignoring the physical laws and thermal dynamics.. Now that is telling..


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2015)

Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 35, Issue 6 > Article





A High‐Resolution Study of CO2 Absorption Spectra between 15 and 18 Microns


Robert P. Madden1


J. Chem. Phys. 35, 2083 (1961); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.173221


A study has been made of the absorption due to individual lines and _Q_ branches of CO2 bands in the 15‐to 18‐μ spectral region. The strengths and widths of absorption lines on the low‐frequency side of the _v_ 2 fundamental band and in the 02°0–0110 band of C12O2 16 have been measured. In the latter band the variation of line strength and width with _J_ has been determined as well as the Coriolis interaction parameter. The strengths of five other bands of C12O2 16 have been determined from measurements on their _Q_ branches, and the strengths of the _v_ 2fundamental bands of the isotopes C13O2 16 and O18C12O16 have been estimated. The rotational structure of the _v_ 2 fundamental _Q_ branch for C12O2 16 is partially resolved, and the band constants determined. The _v_ 2 fundamental band head of the O18C12O16isotope is reported.

The spectra were taken in 1956 after construction of the large infrared spectrometer at the Laboratory of Astrophysics and Physical Meteorology, The Johns Hopkins University. This _f_/6 spectrometer utilizes 3‐in. long curved slits and a 14‐ by 12‐in. grating in a Fastie‐Ebert mounting. It is demonstrated that this instrument has available an optical slit width of 0.06 cm‐1at 17 μ.

*Real science, not Silly Billy flapyap.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2015)

I grow tired of Old Frauds constant appeals to authority while ignoring science. He seems to think that consensus some how implies that anything is correct, while ignoring simple physical laws. The political statement of a few who do not represent those they claim to represent is SOP for the alarmist shills as they lie about everything to support their agenda.

Old Fraud still has not refuted my questions backed by empirical evidence but he spouts political bull shit ignoring science as if it were proven science.. WHY HASN'T THE 120ppm INCREASE OF CO2 RESULTED IN AN INCREASE OF THE TEMP RISE?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 35, Issue 6 > Article
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yet they can not ascertain what warming it can drive because the heat LWIR can create is so small the 1/4 ratio required for heat to transfer into the oceans would result in cooling.

The only one flapping your gums is you.. again you ignore physical laws.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh my, all them thar ignorant scientists just don't appreciate the genius that is our Silly Billy. Just because he failed his GED is not reason to doubt that genius.



You know that you are being laughed at........don't you?  All you have is the tired old appeal to authority which on its face, simply isn't true.  We all know, even if you don't, that the political heads of scientific organizations are not the working membership of scientific organizations who in very large numbers are laughing at you also.....and when asked for empirical data that proves the most foundational, first claim of the AGW hypothesis...you strike out every time....but you keep on believing....and trying to convince people with an argument that is transparent  as the finest glass.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wow, the AGWCult believes in AGW. Thanks, oldrocks, we had no idea



His mind works like a hamster on a wheel...his feet are moving so he must be getting somewhere.  I don't think the warmers realize just how much comic relief they provide, being unaware that the majority of the people who read their posts see right through them.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 35, Issue 6 > Article
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't seem to be able....or willing to grasp that absorption and emission are just that...absorption and emission...those two do not equal warming and are certainly not empirical proof that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> I grow tired of Old Frauds constant appeals to authority while ignoring science. He seems to think that consensus some how implies that anything is correct, while ignoring simple physical laws. The political statement of a few who do not represent those they claim to represent is SOP for the alarmist shills as they lie about everything to support their agenda.
> 
> Old Fraud still has not refuted my questions backed by empirical evidence but he spouts political bull shit ignoring science as if it were proven science.. WHY HASN'T THE 120ppm INCREASE OF CO2 RESULTED IN AN INCREASE OF THE TEMP RISE?



Guess he is unaware of the very recent collapse of the consensus that stress causes stomach ulcers.....that dietary fat is bad....that colesterol causes heart disease...  Guess he is unaware that in nearly every developing field of science, the consensus is almost always dead wrong...guess he thinks this time will be different because they BELIEVE.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh wow, the OP is talking about the laws of physics, and I posted what the largest Physicists Scientific Society in the world has to say about AGW, and you call them a cult. LOL



Climate Change $ makes some scientists do and say anything no matter how ridiculous


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2015)

Record El Nino. Record weather disasters worldwide. Warming has now surpassed 1 degree C. But still the Frankie Boys of the world claim nothing at all is happening. They get their news directly from the aliens in the hollow moon.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Record El Nino. Record weather disasters worldwide. Warming has now surpassed 1 degree C. But still the Frankie Boys of the world claim nothing at all is happening. They get their news directly from the aliens in the hollow moon.



Turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING" is not real science; adjusted data fed through flawed models showing a 1C rise is also not real science

Can you explain the concept of "Excess heat" Crick said it was malarkey, but AR5 said its raising the ocean temps


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Record El Nino. Record weather disasters worldwide. Warming has now surpassed 1 degree C. But still the Frankie Boys of the world claim nothing at all is happening. They get their news directly from the aliens in the hollow moon.









Do'h!  No rise!

Doh! DOH!!


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense



Frank, I am going to report this post.  I have used the term "excess heat".  It has as much meaning as any two words, it simply has no specific meaning in the context of global warming.  I have explained this to you repeatedly but you are simply too stupid to understand.  Well, let's see if management can understand.


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense
> ...



Making progress on your claim to have a degree in atmospheric physics?

Did you get albedo all figured out?

Did you actually read Cook et al's abstract?

Were you aware that greater than 97% of publishing climate scientists accept that the primary cause of the global warming witnessed over the last century is human activity: GHG emissions and deforestation?

Did you realize that your only explanation for that warming is to claim that it hasn't actually taken place?  Did you realize how well that fits with the meme of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense
> ...



So you're reporting that excess heat is a meaningless concept or are you looking to have a mod help your squid ink retreat


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense
> ...



"Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science" --Crick


----------



## Coyote (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense




Do you have a quote from Crick for that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Coyote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense
> ...



"Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science" --Crick

Did you check the post above?

Are you on Crick Defense Detail?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That is not saying it's "fiction"


----------



## rdean (Dec 11, 2015)

Increased evaporation means water is getting cooler?

Put a pan of water on your stove and turn on the heat.  When evaporation is really pouring out of the water, stick your hand into the water and see how cool it is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Coyote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Even Crick admitted that "Excess heat" was a fiction and didn't make any sense
> ...



Notice, I didn't directly quote your pal Crick


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Coyote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I didn't directly quote him, I paraphrased his rejection of "excess heat"


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Now SSDD is claiming that photons carry no energy. LOL. He failed third grade physics for sure.




All lies all the time with you...isn't it.  But feel free to provide a quote by me stating that photons carry no energy if you care to prove that you aren't a bald faced liar...


----------



## mamooth (Dec 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Physics tells us that CO2 emitted LWIR (Long Wave Infrared Radiation) CANNOT influence anything but INCREASED evaporation rates which, actually cools the body of water.



That's absurd and contrary to the evidence. This stuff has been measured, you know. Scientists have actually put very sensitive instruments at the skin layer and shown that backradiation does not significantly increase evaporation. Backradiation simply does not raise the temperature of the skin enough to cause significantly more evaporation. Instead, it slows heat loss out of the ocean, which heats the oceans by increasing the heat that remains in the oceans,

Time for my lesson again concerning how backradiation heats the ocean. This diagram show how the ocean works during the daytime. Note that the vertical axis is a sort of log scale.






Most of the solar energy, contained in the visible and UV spectrum, penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as they get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. Now SSDD is claiming that photons carry no energy. LOL. He failed third grade physics for sure.
> ...



Coyote is hanging around, ask him/her to look into this


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

Long wave radiation is less efficient at heating the oceans than is short wave radiation, but the claim that it doesn't heat it at all or that it cools it, is simple ignorance.

A molecule of water released from the liquid state has more energy than one in the liquid state.  It is there, after all, because it absorbed sufficient energy to to break the bonds that were holding it in the liquid state.  You CAN cool water by forcing evaporation via pressure change.  You cannot cool it with evaporation forced by heating.  That evaporation REQUIRES the temperature first rise.  

The energy which goes in to evaporation can come from any of several sources: mixing with water from below, conducted and/or convected from air above or from any form of impinging EM radiation. The idea that LW energy ONLY goes into evaporation is simply stupid.


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Well he made the comment without realizing that AR5 bases its "the oceans ate my warming" conclusion on the concept of "Excess heat" So as soon as I pointed out to him that excess heat is important to AR5, he started dialing back his ridicule of the concept.
> 
> I read AR5, Crick --not so much



Let's see some AR5 Frank.  Let's see where AR5 or I use the phrase "the oceans ate my warming" as your text here strenuously implies.  Let's see where AR5 bases deep ocean warming on some specific definition of "excess heat".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean..."  p 260

"The Earth is absorbing more heat than it is emitting back into space, and nearly all this excess heat is entering the oceans and being stored there...." p 266

"Excess heat or cold entering at the ocean surface (top curvy red arrows) also mixes slowly downward (sub-surface wavy red arrows)." -- p 267

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Need more?  Fairly obvious to everyone now that you never read AR5, isn't it?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Its clear that you have A) either never looked at the paper or B)looked at it but found it all way over your head...Here are the first two instances I came across...took about a minute to find them.

section 12.4.3.1


			
				ipcc said:
			
		

> Arctic ampli cation (de ned as the 67.5 N° to 90°N warming compared to the global average warming for 2081–2100 versus 1986–2005) peaks in early winter (November to December) with a CMIP5 RCP4.5 multi-model mean warming for 67.5°N to 90°N exceeding the global average by a factor of more than 4. The warming is smallest in summer when* excess heat* at the Arctic surface goes into melting ice or is absorbed by the ocean, which has a relatively large thermal inertia.



Section 12.5.2


			
				ipcc said:
			
		

> Loss of *excess heat* from the ocean will lead to a positive surface air temperature anomaly for decades to centuries


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

And yet.....he can provide data to support his claims....where is that empirical data that proves the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Right, Crick. But I read AR5, why didn't you?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 11, 2015)

Stop discussing each other please and stick to the topic


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You didn't read squat.  You did a text search.

What is AR5's special meaning for "excess heat" Frank?  

Did you notice that they also used the terms "Earth", space, oceans, stored, surface, curvy red arrows and slowly downward.  Are those all scientific terms to which climate science has assigned special and unique definitions?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Did you not read my OP, Moonbat?

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

SSDD, tell us, is the thermal energy near the surface of the oceans being sorted by origin?  Does the ocean only allow absorbed LWIR to perform evaporation?  Is that how that works?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick, thanks for giving me an opportunity to highlight the difference between us, I read AR5, you just took it all on faith


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2015)

The differences between us need no highlighting.  It's been obvious since the point at which you first posted here to the present that your grasp of science is one of the weakest here.

Would you care to answer the question I put to SSDD?  Does the water at the ocean's surface sort thermal energy by its origin?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> The differences between us need no highlighting.  It's been obvious since the point at which you first posted here to the present that your grasp of science is one of the weakest here.
> 
> Would you care to answer the question I put to SSDD?  Does the water at the ocean's surface sort thermal energy by its origin?



I'm still stuck in this imaginary excess heat that supposedly overcame the pause


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> The differences between us need no highlighting.  It's been obvious since the point at which you first posted here to the present that your grasp of science is one of the weakest here.
> 
> Would you care to answer the question I put to SSDD?  Does the water at the ocean's surface sort thermal energy by its origin?



Actually crick...the more proper explanation is that it is "sorted" (your word, not mine) by its frequency.  You know...ocean water being very poor absorber of LW in the primary emission frequency of CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The differences between us need no highlighting.  It's been obvious since the point at which you first posted here to the present that your grasp of science is one of the weakest here.
> ...



I am waiting on a description of the mechanism that caused it to switch from warming the atmosphere to the ocean in 1998.  Are they saying that the atmosphere got as hot as it could be around that time and the "excess" heat had no where to go but the ocean?...how does that work?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 11, 2015)

rdean said:


> Increased evaporation means water is getting cooler?
> 
> Put a pan of water on your stove and turn on the heat.  When evaporation is really pouring out of the water, stick your hand into the water and see how cool it is.



IN the case if LWIR which heats only the first 50 microns, it allows faster evaporation of the surface tension waters, this cools them.  Evaporation takes heat to accomplish the change from a solid to a vapor.  The laws of thermal dynamics is not your firend.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Your 97% bull shit is a lie and a fabrication.  You tout it all the time and we tell you its bull shit every time. WE even show you empirical evidence and papers who looked into the Cook Et Al lie and you choose to bury your head in your ass.  

You make false claims all the time.  When your questioned about them you run and hide.  Then you place taunting crap in your sig line which is a flat out lie you cant hope to prove.   Then you use red, in violation of this forums rules to spout your lie.

Grow Up!

You wont even answer the questions I have given you supported by empirical evidence, showing how CO2 can not be doing what you claim..

Crick, you are a liar and a fool.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Even Goebbels would be embarrassed by the 97% Big Lie


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2015)

So, how do you two explain the numbers in Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?  Are all those studies just manufactured lies?

You know, it doesn't seem like doing a poll or a survey is all that difficult.  People do them all the time.  Surely Heartland or the Koch brothers could afford to do an honest one.  Where is it?

Let me guess, in a locked steel box with the confessions of the folks manipulating the temperature data.


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2015)

While we're at it: where is the GCM that successfully reproduces the 20th century temperature patterns  without AGW?


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2015)

While we're at that, and in an attempt to return to the thread topic, have any of you come up with an explanation as to how the water at the ocean's very surface is able to differentiate between thermal energy by source to make certain that all the IR energy (and none of the SW or conducted or convected energy) goes into evaporation AS THE FUCKING THREAD TITLE (COMPOSED BY SOMEONE THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE "A DEGREE IN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS") ASSERTS?

And while we're at that, have any of you tried the suggested experiment where you cause, say, half of a pot of water to evaporate by adding heat energy to it on your kitchen stove and then sticking your hand in there to see how much it has COOLED?  Anyone?  ANYONE?  Perhaps even the thread's OP, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A DEGREE IN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and who stated in the lead post that the ocean's absorption of IR energy "leads to higher surface evaporation, which actually *COOLS* the surface thin layer".


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 12, 2015)

THe LIAR CRICK spewing his crap once again..


> "_Net Back Radiation:_ *The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation).* This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature.* Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter."*



source

The fact that this cools the oceans is well known and well documented.  So is the fact that LWIR is absorbed in the first 5-50 microns of the surface.  Why is it you all refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence and cling to your dogma? Is this another one of Crick failed beliefs of his "degree's" that we know he doesn't hold as a cabin boy?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> "_Net Back Radiation:_ *The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation).*


 

You'll need to argue with your pal SSDD about that, as he violently disagrees with you. He says that the temperature of the adjacent atmosphere affects how much backradiation the ocean puts out. Just pointing out that you kooks can't get your conspiracy theories consistent.



> This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature.* Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter."*



That paragraph did most certainly _not_ say that atmospheric backradiation causes the oceans to cool, as you've been insanely claiming.

Damn, you're stupid. You don't even understand what the world "net" means. If a net total is negative, that in no way says that individual components can't be positive. You'd have to be a piss-guzzling moron of epic proportions to claim it does say that ... so that's exactly what you're doing. The atmospheric backradiation contribution is a positive. The ocean radiates away more, so the total is a negative. Quite simple, yet you still fail hard at it.

Holy shit, you're stupid. I know it's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> While we're at it: where is the GCM that successfully reproduces the 20th century temperature patterns  without AGW?



Why exactly do you nee a GCM?  There was nothing happening in the 20th century that even approached the bounds of natural variability?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> While we're at that, and in an attempt to return to the thread topic, have any of you come up with an explanation as to how the water at the ocean's very surface is able to differentiate between thermal energy by source to make certain that all the IR energy (and none of the SW or conducted or convected energy) goes into evaporation AS THE FUCKING THREAD TITLE (COMPOSED BY SOMEONE THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE "A DEGREE IN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS") ASSERTS?
> 
> And while we're at that, have any of you tried the suggested experiment where you cause, say, half of a pot of water to evaporate by adding heat energy to it on your kitchen stove and then sticking your hand in there to see how much it has COOLED?  Anyone?  ANYONE?  Perhaps even the thread's OP, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A DEGREE IN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and who stated in the lead post that the ocean's absorption of IR energy "leads to higher surface evaporation, which actually *COOLS* the surface thin layer".




Already answered that question....ocean water is a very poor absorber of IR in the peak radiating wavelength of CO2...come on guy...you are supposed to be a fake ocean engineer...at least you could try to be up on some of this stuff.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Already answered that question....ocean water is a very poor absorber of IR in the peak radiating wavelength of CO2...come on guy...you are supposed to be a fake ocean engineer...at least you could try to be up on some of this stuff.


According to this graph from the hockeyschtick blog, the emissivity of water remains above 0.75 to 0.9 in the far IR. I wouldn't consider that very poor absorption unless you have a source that gives finer detail.






 .


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Already answered that question....ocean water is a very poor absorber of IR in the peak radiating wavelength of CO2...come on guy...you are supposed to be a fake ocean engineer...at least you could try to be up on some of this stuff.
> ...



Sorry guy, but of ocean, vegetation, desert, and snow/ice, ocean is the poorest absorber by far in the peak emission range of CO2... Couple that with the fact that the IR from CO2 can only penetrate the first 10 microns of the ocean's surface and you don't have a leg to stand on with the claim that back radiation from CO2 (even if it existed) could warm the oceans...and there is the fact that the ocean is as poor an emitter in that wavelength as it is an emitter.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Already answered that question....ocean water is a very poor absorber of IR in the peak radiating wavelength of CO2...come on guy...you are supposed to be a fake ocean engineer...at least you could try to be up on some of this stuff.
> ...


if it takes 4 times as much heat to raise ocean temps 1 deg C and CO2 is just 400ppm and barely emits 30% of its absorbed IR back to the ocean how much IR is necessary for it to warm the ocean? During the night time there is not enough remitted IR to stop anything and during the day it is barely over the 4/1 ratio needed at noon time above the equator. For a good 3/4 of the day the oceans cool more then they are warmed, near surface, near the equator, and above 40 deg Lat it never gets above the 4/1 ratio needed.

Do the math!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > "_Net Back Radiation:_ *The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation).*
> ...



Wow... You cant even get your math right or your pile of conspiracy theroys either..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, but of ocean, vegetation, desert, and snow/ice, ocean is the poorest absorber by far in the peak emission range of CO2... Couple that with the fact that the IR from CO2 can only penetrate the first 10 microns of the ocean's surface and you don't have a leg to stand on with the claim that back radiation from CO2 (even if it existed) could warm the oceans...and there is the fact that the ocean is as poor an emitter in that wavelength as it is an emitter.


At the peak emission range, the emissivity of CO2 is above 0.9. I think most scientists would consider that to be a rather good absorber. Yes other substances may be even better, but that doesn't make water a poor absorber. Contrary to what you say, the ocean is also a good emitter since for black body radiation high emissivity works for both absorption and radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> if it takes 4 times as much heat to raise ocean temps 1 deg C and CO2 is just 400ppm and barely emits 30% of its absorbed IR back to the ocean how much IR is necessary for it to warm the ocean? During the night time there is not enough remitted IR to stop anything and during the day it is barely over the 4/1 ratio needed at noon time above the equator. For a good 3/4 of the day the oceans cool more then they are warmed, near surface, near the equator, and above 40 deg Lat it never gets above the 4/1 ratio needed.
> 
> Do the math!


Why are you talking to me? I never made any claim one way or another about what you are whining about.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> At the peak emission range, the emissivity of CO2 is above 0.9. I think most scientists would consider that to be a rather good absorber. Yes other substances may be even better, but that doesn't make water a poor absorber. Contrary to what you say, the ocean is also a good emitter since for black body radiation high emissivity works for both absorption and radiation.



Sorry again guy...but Kirchhoff's Law says that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....sea water is a poor absorber at CO2's peak radiating wavelength and therefore also a poor emitter....and  by the way...the ocean is not a black body.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Sorry again guy...but Kirchhoff's Law says that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....sea water is a poor absorber at CO2's peak radiating wavelength and therefore also a poor emitter....and by the way...the ocean is not a black body.


That's exactly what I said about emission and absorption being the same. And it's quite obvious that a substance with an emissivity less than 1.0 is not a true black body. It is also quite obvious that no existing substance is a true black body. What's your point?

If you want to argue that any substance with an absorption of 90% efficiency is a poor absorber, that's your prerogative. But every scientists will disagree with you.


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > While we're at it: where is the GCM that successfully reproduces the 20th century temperature patterns  without AGW?
> ...



Then someone on your side of the argument should be able to construct a GCM that uses only natural variability - no AGW - and reproduces the performance of the Earth's climate over the last 150 years.  It HAS been tried and every attempt has failed.  Why would that be?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 13, 2015)

Crick said:


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



And how would one use natural variability when the AGW cult makes sure that all money goes to prove Humans are the cause. It is hard to show something that has never really be studied in order to fund the AGW religion..

But then again not one AGW cult member can show the proof via datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> If you want to argue that any substance with an absorption of 90% efficiency is a poor absorber, that's your prerogative. But every scientists will disagree with you.



You don't seem to be able to see through the hype to the real problem with that number...which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it and that it causes warming.  Even if you believe back radiation exists, sea water absorbs less than 90% and that can only penetrate 10 microns  10 MICRONS into the surface where it does nothing but cause evaporation...which is a cooling feedback...even if you believe in back radiation...it would be a cooling feedback.  It is that sort of misunderstanding of physics that has led to the epic failure of climate models...






There is a reason that with every day the models diverge further away from reality....and the miscalculation of sea water's absorptivity is just one part of it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Then someone on your side of the argument should be able to construct a GCM that uses only natural variability - no AGW - and reproduces the performance of the Earth's climate over the last 150 years.  It HAS been tried and every attempt has failed.  Why would that be?



Here is some early work on just such a model...

Applying Basic Physics to Climate · Science Speak

Do feel free to point out any actual errors you find rather than just a general dislike for anything that questions your faith.

Here are the conclusions...they still require some CO2 forcing but as we learn more about the actual route of energy through our system, that number will continue to decrease till eventually it reaches zero....or so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from the number.


The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.


  The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades, μ, is like- ly less than 20%.


 The CO2 sensitivity, C , is likely less than 0.15 °C W−1 m2 (less than a third of the so- lar sensitivity).


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> And how would one use natural variability when the AGW cult makes sure that all money goes to prove Humans are the cause. It is hard to show something that has never really be studied in order to fund the AGW religion..
> 
> But then again not one AGW cult member can show the proof via datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..



Hell, they can't even provide any empirical evidence that proves the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis...that being that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperatures to increase.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2015)

SSDD said:


> .which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it


The sea absorbs over 90% of the IR spectrum, including CO2 backscatter. Please quote a reliable source that says the ocean is a poor absorber of IR. I already provided data that it's over 90%. Please quote a reliable source that says backscatter doesn't exist.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it
> ...


why don't you just post up the empirical evidence that exists that shows what you post first.  it seem you violate the very thing you complain about.  Post up the evidence of your claim bubba.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2015)

jc456 said:


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


Read the above where I said that I already did. If you need more info, it's in post #63.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2015)

Wuwei said:


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


ok, so I looked at your post, do you believe that is empirical data or calculated data?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ok, so I looked at your post, do you believe that is empirical data or calculated data?


It is very difficult if not impossible to calculate emissivity. I know it is measured data. There are many sources that have measured the IR emissivity of water to be around .96.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ok, so I looked at your post, do you believe that is empirical data or calculated data?
> ...


then why does it show calculated?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2015)

jc456 said:


> then why does it show calculated?


The emissivity shown is the hemispheric average of data over all angles. That is a non-controversial calculation. For more info see
Emissivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_Emissivities ε can be measured using simple devices such as Leslie's Cube in conjunction with a thermal radiation detector such as a thermopile or a bolometer._​That source shows the hemispherical emissivity at ambient temperatures. Water is listed at 0.96.  See the notes just under the table for the conditions of the measurements.

In short. SSDD was wrong when he said water is a poor absorber of CO2 IR.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > then why does it show calculated?
> ...


that is pure water, do you know what that is?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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


well then show some of what you got. Cause I'm confident you ain't got any.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2015)

jc456 said:


> that is pure water, do you know what that is?


If you have a solid point. Then make it. If you believe that minerals significantly reduces the emissivity of water from .96 then just say it and give evidence. I agree with Old Rocks - you are acting like a rude little brat.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > that is pure water, do you know what that is?
> ...



Look at your own graph...  See the vertical line at the peak emission frequency for sea water?  See the sea water line...do the two lines intersect at .96...of course they don't and do you really believe that minerals in sea water would not cause its emissivity to be different from fresh water?  And keep in mind that the emissivity for sea water described in that graph is calm water in a lab and doesn't take normal sea surface conditions or foam into account.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to argue that any substance with an absorption of 90% efficiency is a poor absorber, that's your prerogative. But every scientists will disagree with you.
> ...



The other misconception is that all radiation from CO2 will hit the water, when in reality less than 30% of the energy absorbed is remitted towards the water.  When you start doing the math there is simply to much loss to over come the 4/1 ratio required to warm the surface of the ocean at night or when there are clouds. The 10 micron average penetration leads to evaporation of surface tension water cooling the surface layer more than it is warmed at night.  The math simply doesn't work out in the alarmists favor.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2015)

SSDD said:


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


Foam? What percentage of the vast ocean surface is foam? Do you have any idea? What is the emissivity of a water bubble? How much IR will pass through the bubble and hit water surface and then be absorbed?
If you read the fine print on the graph you will see that the emissivity is "angularly averaged". That compensates for any wave motion since all the directions of absorption are averaged out. 
Finally the emissivity is still well above 0.9. Look at the following graph of the CO2 spectrum.




Compare this with the emissivity graph. The bulk of the spectrum is at wave number 2300 to 2400. A lesser peak is at wave number 700. The emissivitys at these two points are 0.93 and 0.96 respectively. 

As I said it's your prerogative to believe whatever your gut tells you. But you have no argument when you say the ocean is a poor absorber of the CO2 spectral lines. Every scientist will disagree with you.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2015)

Wuwei said:


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


What about calm, or warm?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 14, 2015)

Wuwei said:


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


Sure it is, it is you denying


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> What about calm, or warm?


What about it? Please state your point more clearly.


jc456 said:


> Sure it is, it is you denying


If you mean denying that 93 to 96% is a poor absorption. Then you are correct.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > What about calm, or warm?
> ...


do you believe that the oceans are calm?  What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> That has nothing to do with the emissivity of Sea water.....you are grabbing at straws.  If you want to discuss the topic, then address the FACT that even if IR from atmospheric C02 did radiate towards the surface it would be a small percentage and if it actually did hit the surface, it could only penetrate 10 microns....and then only aid in evaporation which is IN FACT a cooling mechanism.  Why do you refuse to address the observable facts that discredit the claim that CO2 causes the ocean to warm?


How can I address the topic if you don't believe the measured values of emissivity, and don't believe in backscatter from CO2. These are scientific principles believed by both warmers and deniers. 

You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> do you believe that the oceans are calm?  What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?


Emissivity is a concept that depends only on mechanisms at the atomic level. Atomic properties of that sort can't be changed by any energy levels that occur in the ocean. So waves, foam, temperature will not change the absorption rate of radiation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Hey, wait a second. AR5 claims 93% of the "excess heat" is absorbed


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > do you believe that the oceans are calm?  What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?
> ...





Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > do you believe that the oceans are calm?  What about the temperature of the oceans, do either of these factor in to emissivity for you?
> ...


I find at,
Emissivity of the Ocean

"*Smith et al – 1996*
Another excellent paper which measured the emissivity of the ocean is by Smith et al (1996):


It is also a challenge to demonstrate that such accuracies are being achieved, and conventional approaches, which compare the SST derived from drifting or moored buoys, generally produce results with a scatter of ±0.5 to 0.7K. This scatter cannot be explained solely by uncertainties in the buoy thermometers or the noise equivalent temperature difference of the AVHRR, as these are both on the order of 0.2K or less but are likely to be surface emissivity/reflectivity uncertainties, residual atmospheric effects, or result from the methods of comparison

Note that the primary focus of this research was to have accurate SST measurements from satellites.




From Smith et al (1996)

The experimental work on the research vessel _Pelican_ included a high spectral resolution Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) which was configured to make spectral observations of the sea surface radiance at several view angles. Any measurement from the surface of course, is the sum of the emitted radiance from the surface as well as the reflected sky radiance.

Also measured:


ocean salinity
intake water temperature
surface air temperature
humidity
wind velocity
SST within the top 15cm of depth"


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> How can I address the topic if you don't believe the measured values of emissivity, and don't believe in backscatter from CO2. These are scientific principles believed by both warmers and deniers.



Now you are just tilting at straw men...by your own graph, the emissivity of sea water is less than .90 and you are claiming that it is .96...and you are not addressing the fact that the IR only penetrates 10 microns into the surface of the ocean and does nothing more than set up evaporation which causes cooling...  the claim is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the ocean to warm...are you agreeing with me that it does not, in fact cause the ocean to warm?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


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


Yes, I agree that the sea surface temperature is hard to measure.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Now you are just tilting at straw men...by your own graph, the emissivity of sea water is less than .90 and you are claiming that it is .96...and you are not addressing the fact that the IR only penetrates 10 microns into the surface of the ocean and does nothing more than set up evaporation which causes cooling... the claim is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the ocean to warm...are you agreeing with me that it does not, in fact cause the ocean to warm?


I already addressed that question. I will repeat it here:
You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. *That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.
*
The emissivity of sea water varies in the graph I showed. However at the major CO2 spectral line the emissivity is around 0.93  That is what pertains the question at hand.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Now you are just tilting at straw men...by your own graph, the emissivity of sea water is less than .90 and you are claiming that it is .96...and you are not addressing the fact that the IR only penetrates 10 microns into the surface of the ocean and does nothing more than set up evaporation which causes cooling... the claim is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the ocean to warm...are you agreeing with me that it does not, in fact cause the ocean to warm?
> ...


and yet, there is the improbable measuring that seems can't be done. so what is the true conclusion?  Is there one?  If you can't validate the theory, then the theory is not good.  That is science.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


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


My only case or conclusion is that SSDD has not presented any case because he oversimplified the problem. Any solution must address the complete dynamics of the energy flow at the sea surface, and nobody has done that on this forum, including me.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


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


well I can't completely comment on that, but I will say that in the IPCC AR5 report, they did claim the ocean ate the heat without explaining where and how.  Called 'excess heat'.  Can you define excess heat?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

I have not read AR5, so I don't know what they they mean by "excess".


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> I have not read AR5, so I don't know what they they mean by "excess".


fair enough.

BTW, it is what much of the forum discussion is about. What is excess heat and where is supposedly at.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I have not read AR5, so I don't know what they they mean by "excess".
> ...


If it's a big deal, then in that case I would guess they define excess heat is the heat that presumably causes global warming - AGW or not.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


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


and thus the thread and how that is possible based on LW radiation.  understand now?  If one can't prove it, one cannot say it is.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. *That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.*



OK   evaporation is a cooling mechanism....radiating is a cooling mechanism.  The question is, what exactly, other than incoming solar radiation do you people claim is warming the oceans?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


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



Proof doesn't rate very high on their list of "scientific" priorities...it is how one tells that they are spouting pseudoscience....pseudosience requires no proof...it just requires that one be gullible enough to believe....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 15, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



What exactly is "excess"?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> OK evaporation is a cooling mechanism....radiating is a cooling mechanism. The question is, what exactly, other than incoming solar radiation do you people claim is warming the oceans?


You are confused. By your (faulty) logic the incoming solar radiation should cool the ocean because it warms it and thereby causes evaporation which cools the ocean. As I said before, you don't understand the complexity of the problem. Overall it is simple. Incoming solar radiation heats the earth. And backradiation from the moist air or by other greenhouse gasses is what keeps the planet from losing as much heat as it would if no green house gas were present. The dynamics of exactly how that happens is way too complex for you or me to cover in all it's detail.

Furthermore, don't refer to me as "you people" because I am neither a denier nor a warmer. I have no idea about the chaos of the atmosphere and weather. I am not trying to promote any conclusions. I am simply saying that your version of science is bad, and not clearly thought through at all.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You are confused. By your (faulty) logic the incoming solar radiation should cool the ocean because it warms it and thereby causes evaporation which cools the ocean.



That has to be one of the stupidest things ever uttered on this board....So you are saying that if I set a pot of water on an eye on my stove, that I am actually cooling the water?   Is that what you are claiming?



Wuwei said:


> As I said before, you don't understand the complexity of the problem. Overall it is simple. Incoming solar radiation heats the earth.



Sorry guy...not happening.  The inevitable consequence of more CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere would be a tropospheric hot spot.....not happening and a million radiosondes say so.



Wuwei said:


> And backradiation from the moist air or by other greenhouse gasses is what keeps the planet from losing as much heat as it would if no green house gas were present. The dynamics of exactly how that happens is way too complex for you or me to cover in all it's detail.



There is no back radiation...and no heat trapping by so called greenhouse gasses.  There is an atmospheric thermal effect that is larger than the claimed greenhouse effect, but it is not dependent upon the composition of the atmosphere beyond what each individual component adds to the mass of the atmosphere.



Wuwei said:


> Furthermore, don't refer to me as "you people" because I am neither a denier nor a warmer. I have no idea about the chaos of the atmosphere and weather. I am not trying to promote any conclusions. I am simply saying that your version of science is bad, and not clearly thought through at all.



You believe in the magic therefore you are a warmer whether you care to admit it or not.  And I have no "version" of science...I have reality and the reality is that the models based upon "your version" of physics have failed epically while what I have predicted since this whole hoax has begun has come to pass....no tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable and inescapable result of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> That has to be one of the stupidest things ever uttered on this board....So you are saying that if I set a pot of water on an eye on my stove, that I am actually cooling the water? Is that what you are claiming?


Hey, you said it, not me.


SSDD said:


> There is no back radiation...and no heat trapping by so called greenhouse gasses.


Every physicist, both warmers or deniers will flatly disagree with you.


SSDD said:


> You believe in the magic therefore you are a warmer whether you care to admit it or not. And I have no "version" of science...I have reality and the reality is blah blah blah.


Your hubris is dragging you down. If you think all physicists who understand backradiation are "warmers" and are out of touch with reality, then you are clearly out of touch with reality. It seems you don't really understand science at all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh wow, the OP is talking about the laws of physics, and I posted what the largest Physicists Scientific Society in the world has to say about AGW, and you call them a cult. LOL



They said NOTHING specific about the ability to sink LWIRadiation into the oceans now did they? In fact "they" didn't actually say a thing. This is a pro-forma front office creation of memo that has (to my knowledge) never been offered to the Society members for approval or comment.. 

The OP is correct to a large extent. But doesn't explain how the ice melts in my glass in a warm dark room. 
Heat has 3 common modes of transport. Conduction, Convection, and Radiation from IR.. 

And the oceans STILL warm with the surface temperatures. It just means they are not efficient in sinking the CO2 induced warming at all.. Which pretty much makes Trenberth look stupid AGAIN for leaping to explanations and conclusions that are less than flimsy and unsupported AGAIN..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. *That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.*
> ...



Radiative heat transfer is generally  bidirectional. but in the case of H2O, incoming IR will not penetrate to any extent. So in terms of Radiative heat transfer with the atmos, it's close to a big total net loss.

Just like on firm land, the ocean loses some surface heat through both conductive heating and Long Wave radiation.. So what? The ocean surface will eventually equalize to general mean changes in the atmosphere thermal content.  Even in the absence of any Radiative IR flux.. 

This topic just points out that the ocean is not accepting and eating all that down-dwelling CO2 thermal radiation that you deny exists. That's a losing position for you -- denying basic radiative physics -- and I have NO interest in going down that rathole with you again..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> _Climate Change
> 
> (Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)_
> 
> ...



I think it's HYSTERICAL that they waited 3 years to correct the goofs in their original statements. Especially leaving water vapor out as a GHouse Gas...             

Maybe the suits in the front office should have run it by a Physicist for review..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Hey, you said it, not me.



You claim that incoming solar radiation is cooling the ocean...what's the difference?


SSDD said:


> Every physicist, both warmers or deniers will flatly disagree with you.



And a not so many years ago practically every doctor in the world, including gastroenterologists would have disagreed with me when I said that my stomach ulcers were not caused by stress....consensus is not a scientific term and has little to do with science and much to do with group think and politics.



SSDD said:


> Your hubris is dragging you down. If you think all physicists who understand backradiation are "warmers" and are out of touch with reality, then you are clearly out of touch with reality. It seems you don't really understand science at all.



Got any observed measurements of back radiation?  Something that is not the product of a mathematical model?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> and I have NO interest in going down that rathole with you again..



I understand...making claims about a physical phenomenon that you believe exists, but can provide no observed, measured examples that do not come from mathematical models must be frustrating....why subject yourself to it?


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


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




So, what happens to the IR that strikes the ocean surface?

It all gets absorbed by the very opaque surface.

Some goes down by mixing and conduction.  Some goes up by evaporation and conduction.  Does any of it disappear?  Does any of it, at that moment, escape to space? No and no.

What else heats the ocean?  SW and conduction/convection. All of that, of course, takes place at or very near the surface and conduction/convection would be affected by increases in air temperature. Other mechanisms vertically mix the ocean.

So... where do you get the idea that you've disproved the deep ocean is warming?  The first thing I'd think you'd want to address if you were going to try to do so would be the actual direct measurements that show the deep ocean to be warming. Talking about the inefficiency of transfer by IR doesn't make those direct temperature measurements go away.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> You claim that incoming solar radiation is cooling the ocean...what's the difference?


You claim that backscattered IR cools the ocean. That's equivalent to you making a claim that any incoming radiation cools the ocean. That is how stupid your claim is.


SSDD said:


> And a not so many years ago practically every doctor in the world, including gastroenterologists would have disagreed with me when I said that my stomach ulcers were not caused by stress....consensus is not a scientific term and has little to do with science and much to do with group think and politics.


So you want to disagree with Max Planck, Einstein, every physicist for the last 100 years, and a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. You should pull the plug on your hubris.


SSDD said:


> Got any observed measurements of back radiation? Something that is not the product of a mathematical model?


It's a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. Do you have any observable measurements or theory or mathematical model that says backradiation is not valid in quantum mechanics? Maybe you have a theory that replaces quantum mechanics. If so, I'm curious to what it is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > _Climate Change
> ...



That's not as bad as waiting until AR5 to tell us that the Oceans ate 93% of the "excess heat" whatever the fuck that non-scientific term means


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You claim that backscattered IR cools the ocean. That's equivalent to you making a claim that any incoming radiation cools the ocean. That is how stupid your claim is.



]You clearly aren't listening...there is no back radiation...there is no back scatter.  Energy moves from cool to warm...not the other way around.[/quote]



Wuwei said:


> It's a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. Do you have any observable measurements or theory or mathematical model that says backradiation is not valid in quantum mechanics? Maybe you have a theory that replaces quantum mechanics. If so, I'm curious to what it is.



Yeah..I have heard it before...And it is clear that you don't have any observed, measured example that isn't the output of a mathematical model....and the second law of thermodynamics hasn't been rewritten to state that back radiation exists...has it?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> ]You clearly aren't listening...there is no back radiation...there is no back scatter. Energy moves from cool to warm...not the other way around.]



*Heat* moves from cool to warm. Radiant energy is swarming all over the place, no matter what the temperature of the emitter and absorber are.



SSDD said:


> Yeah..I have heard it before...And it is clear that you don't have any observed, measured example that isn't the output of a mathematical model....and the second law of thermodynamics hasn't been rewritten to state that back radiation exists...has it?



Backscatter is totally consistent with the second law. Every physicist - warmer or denier - understands that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Go and calculate about 1W/m2 being totally absorbed into about 10micron thick ocean layer and cook it for about 4 hours. (HINT: IT's the equiv or KW-hrs of POWER) The amount of thermal energy absorbed will go primarily into evaporation (convection) or be RERADIATED at some other IR frequency as up dwelling LongWave. You "boil off" the heat in that 10u layer or you "reflect" it back into the atmos..

Amount of any mixing depends on sea state and getting appreciable "conduction" into other layers is a ratio or 10microns to the rest of the volume.

This is why the heat lamps at MickeyD's are not true infrared. They are deep red VISIBLE.

You're gonna get a cranial hernia if you continue to BELIEVE that any real down-dwelling IR heating is largely stored in the ocean volume.  IF IT IS --- it is from a VERY long equalization with the general mean surface temp of the atmos.. ESPECIALLY since the NET IR heat flow from the surface (water or land) is ALWAYS towards the sky.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Go and calculate about 1W/m2 being totally absorbed into about 10micron thick ocean layer and cook it for about 4 hours.



Why? It doesn't relate to the real world, so what would be the point of it? In the real world, heat moves out of the skin layer by conduction, radiation and evaporation, so your evaporation-only thought experiment is meaningless.

The surface skin of he ocean is not constantly boiling away. That's not just a theory. This stuff has been measured. Backradiation doesn't heat the deep oceans directly, but it does reduce the net heat flow out of the oceans, which heats the deep ocean indirectly.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Nobody is disputing that we MIGHT be measuring some deep layer ocean warming. Point is (as we told you before) -- Trenberth et al have no real explanation to how this is DIRECTLY related to the couple watts/m2 of increased down IR radiation...


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Go and calculate about 1W/m2 being totally absorbed into about 10micron thick ocean layer and cook it for about 4 hours.
> ...



Of course there is always heat evap from the ocean surface. Even in the Arctic Ocean. WTF you talking about?

Heating a 10micron skin is a VERY inefficient way of getting heat into lower layers by conduction.. Go check yourself..

And since the entire CO2 theory depends on ONLY a few small bands of Radiative IR -- that "excess" more than likely NEVER goes directly into the oceans..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ]You clearly aren't listening...there is no back radiation...there is no back scatter. Energy moves from cool to warm...not the other way around.]
> ...



Heat moves from cool to warm?  The Earth is heating the Sun?


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2015)

How much of the ocean do you believe is calm enough that the upper 10 microns isn't getting mixed?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Heat moves from cool to warm? The Earth is heating the Sun?


Oops. Typo. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> How much of the ocean do you believe is calm enough that the upper 10 microns won't get mixed?



You're not seeing "the model" here. If you KILOWATTS of thermal power in 10 micron layer to mix (and we almost do if it wasn't evaporated or reflected as IR) --- that amount of thermal energy will always be insignificant -- even in the first 10 meters of ocean.. How many 10micron layer equivalents  are there in 10 meters????


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> How much of the ocean do you believe is calm enough that the upper 10 microns won't get mixed?


I would just like to know where the runaway heat is?  If what you say happens in the real world, then the temperature of the oceans should be incrementally getting warmer.  Why isn't that happening?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Heating a 10micron skin is a VERY inefficient way of getting heat into lower layers by conduction.. Go check yourself..



Given that the theory doesn't claim heat is carried down by conduction, I again ask what the point of your strawman is.



> And since the entire CO2 theory depends on ONLY a few small bands of Radiative IR -- that "excess" more than likely NEVER goes directly into the oceans..



Sounds like you're now shifting to a magical vanishing energy theory.

Again, backradiation does not heat the deep oceans directly. It decreases net heat flow out of the skin layer, which keeps more heat in the deep ocean, which results in more heat in the deep ocean.


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2015)




----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


>



So what?? Heat is contstained to 10 or 20 micron "skin" depth.. And any EVAP of water vapor works to block that skin layer almost COMPLETELY from down-dwelling IR.. All you are doing is generating clouds and weather..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> *Heat* moves from cool to warm. Radiant energy is swarming all over the place, no matter what the temperature of the emitter and absorber are.



So...is heat a form of energy or is heat, the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another?



SSDD said:


> Backscatter is totally consistent with the second law. Every physicist - warmer or denier - understands that.



Guess it's just me and the second law that don't get it...

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.


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Guess it's just me and the second law that don't get it...



No, just you.

Backscatter works exactly as described.  Your concept of radiative heat transfer is as stupid as stupid can be.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Physics tells us that CO2 emitted LWIR (Long Wave Infrared Radiation) CANNOT influence anything but INCREASED evaporation rates which, actually cools the body of water.
> ...



Bwhaaaaaaaaa...

Tell me where your getting your depth of heat? A water layer just 50 microns thick, at the surface of the ocean, add in winds, mixing, and you get more evaporation than energy to warm it..  I am talking about LWIR you fool.  You know the 12um to 18um wave length which can not penetrate teh oceans.. Again you dont have a dam clue ..


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2015)

Have you noticed that everyone who argues against you on radiative transfer says the same thing while NO ONE agrees with your contentions?  Have you noticed that several of us have taken and passed courses in thermodynamics while you, quite obviously, have not?  Doesn't that make you think that perhaps we're right and you're wrong?  

I'll bet it doesn't.  Know why?  Because I know you're just that stupid.

The greenhouse effect operates precisely as described.  Human GHG emissions enabling that effect are warming the planet and represent a significant threat to us and our descendants.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


>



Did someone ask Crick to show the link between CO2 and temperature?


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> A water layer just 50 microns thick, at the surface of the ocean, add in winds, mixing, and you get more evaporation than energy to warm it.



Care to give us a link to a reputable, published source saying this?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > then why does it show calculated?
> ...



First, of all wiki is crap as a source for anything..

Second, pure water was used in the experiment. Sea water is not pure and has minerals along with living organisms which do not allow penetration of the oceans by wave lengths above 10um. This means that it is a poor absorber as well as emitter.

Third,  the heat required to warm even that 50 micron layer is 4/1 ratio.  The ambient air above the surface of the ocean would have to be 4 times greater to warm the surface layer alone.

SSDD was correct in his analysis of sea water. You are wrong becasue you do not differentiate what the experiment was actually measuring and what happens in the real world.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > A water layer just 50 microns thick, at the surface of the ocean, add in winds, mixing, and you get more evaporation than energy to warm it.
> ...



TO you, reputable is anyone who pushes your agenda or lies.. You dismiss anyone who disagrees with you or any data provided that doesn't meet your agenda driven expectations.. 

To put it bluntly, your a left wing drone posting crap! I gave you a link up thread about how this all works and you failed to read it or you dismissed it because you disagree with it. Your not here to debate your here to push your agenda.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> First, of all wiki is crap as a source for anything..


Wiki is reliable on math and the hard sciences. Rather that broadly dismissing wiki, show me a source that substantially disagrees with the wiki article.


Billy_Bob said:


> Second, pure water was used in the experiment. Sea water is not pure and has minerals along with living organisms which do not allow penetration of the oceans by wave lengths above 10um. This means that it is a poor absorber as well as emitter.


Emissivity of non-reflective surfaces are generally above 0.90 in the thermal radiation range. There is no reason to believe that ocean water is much different. This source contains many examples of materials, some reflective.
ThermoWorks Emissivity Table


Billy_Bob said:


> Third, the heat required to warm even that 50 micron layer is 4/1 ratio. The ambient air above the surface of the ocean would have to be 4 times greater to warm the surface layer alone.


CO2 or colder air or any other greenhouse gas does *not *warm the ocean. GHG's prevent the ocean from loosing as much heat as they would otherwise.


Billy_Bob said:


> To put it bluntly, your a left wing drone posting crap! I gave you a link up thread about how this all works and you failed to read it or you dismissed it because you disagree with it. Your not here to debate your here to push your agenda.


Cool down. I think I answered your questions.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Second, pure water was used in the experiment. Sea water is not pure and has minerals along with living organisms which do not allow penetration of the oceans by wave lengths above 10um. This means that it is a poor absorber as well as emitter.


Here is a further note on emissivity of the ocean. This is from table 1 in the following reference:
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/5001/50010017.pdf
Note that the emissivitys of the ocean are much closer to black body radiation than pure water.

0.993  Buettner and Kern (1965) not considering the skin layer
0.986  Saunders (1967b, 1968) observation of the reflectance from the air plane
0.9875  Mikhaylov and Zolotarev (1970) calculation from the optical constant
0.992  (11 µm) Masuda et al. (1988) calculation of the reflectance using the numerical model surface
0.972  Davies et al. (1971) observation of sheltered water surface from the sky


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Have you noticed that everyone who argues against you on radiative transfer says the same thing while NO ONE agrees with your contentions?  Have you noticed that several of us have taken and passed courses in thermodynamics while you, quite obviously, have not?  Doesn't that make you think that perhaps we're right and you're wrong?



I have noticed over and over that you can't read a basic graph and make sense of it....the idea that you have passed any sort of science course is a bit funny and the claim that you are an engineer of any sort is absolutely laughable...if you are, then you are the worst engineer that ever lived and no one in their right mind should ever listen to you.  Another thing that I have noticed is that none of you believers can provide a single bit of observed, measured evidence of back radiation...nothing whatsoever that is not the product of a mathematical model.



Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect operates precisely as described.  Human GHG emissions enabling that effect are warming the planet and represent a significant threat to us and our descendants.



And yet, the climate models which are based upon that greenhouse effect have achieved nothing short of epic failure.  Don't guess you ever wonder why.


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2015)

The models have done quite well.  You need to stop basing your opinion on Spencer and Christy's lies.

The angst I suffer from you telling me I'm a bad engineer is closely akin to the effect I'd suffer receiving the same message from a three year old.  Well, actually, less.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Have you noticed that everyone who argues against you on radiative transfer says the same thing while NO ONE agrees with your contentions?  Have you noticed that several of us have taken and passed courses in thermodynamics while you, quite obviously, have not?  Doesn't that make you think that perhaps we're right and you're wrong?
> 
> I'll bet it doesn't.  Know why?  Because I know you're just that stupid.
> 
> The greenhouse effect operates precisely as described.  Human GHG emissions enabling that effect are warming the planet and represent a significant threat to us and our descendants.


*The greenhouse effect operates precisely as described. Human GHG emissions enabling that effect are warming the planet and represent a significant threat to us and our descendants.*

Prove it is dangerous.  Ah, that's right, you can't. more blah, blah, blah sky is falling talk


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Have you noticed that everyone who argues against you on radiative transfer says the same thing while NO ONE agrees with your contentions?  Have you noticed that several of us have taken and passed courses in thermodynamics while you, quite obviously, have not?  Doesn't that make you think that perhaps we're right and you're wrong?
> 
> I'll bet it doesn't.  Know why?  Because I know you're just that stupid.
> 
> The greenhouse effect operates precisely as described.  Human GHG emissions enabling that effect are warming the planet and represent a significant threat to us and our descendants.



And, of course, you can show us in a controlled lab setting how truly dangerous this CO2 is, correct?

You can show us the incremental temperature increase for every 10PPM from 280PPM to 400PPM, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.



They're smart enough to follow their laws


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?



The AGWCult BELIEVES that heat radiates from cooler to warmer, it just has to!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?
> ...


hey Frank, it seems they believe in the smart photon.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.
> ...




Exactly. That's why SSDDs claims are so ludicrous.

And the claims that there is no measured evidence for such things as 'back radiation' is foolish as well. Back radiation is simply radiation. Every substance above absolute zero gives off radiation, in all directions, because of kinetic molecular collisions. 

Temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output. The surface receives 165W of solar energy. The temperature is 15C which means it gives off 400W. Where does the extra energy come from? The back radiation from the atmosphere. 

Why is the atmosphere warm enough to return part of its energy to the surface? Solar input, both directly and indirectly from the surface. An atmosphere without GHGs would still be warmer than space and return some energy to the surface. With GHGs it is warmer still, and returns more, because some surface energy from radiation does not directly escape at the speed of light.

We can, and have, measured the radiation coming back from the atmosphere. It is significant and without it there would be no life here because it would be too cold.

The Greenhouse Effect is both real and necessary.


Fortunately the main GHG, water vapour, works as both a heater (absorbing radiation) and cooler (evaporation, convection, clouds and latent heat). The balance between these two functions is what has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilock's Zone' for billions of years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Their laws have them "moving" from warmer to cooler


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



How bad does it suck for the AGWCult there's there's actually MORE scientific evidence that the Moon may have a hollow core than there is that 120PPM increase in CO2 will kill all life on earth by baking us all to death?


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?
> ...



Define your terms. Radiation transfers energy from one place to another, and is independent of temperature once it is formed. 'Heat' is a much more complicated entity and only travels from warm to cool. Radiation- all times, all directions. Heat (depending on how it is defined)- always from warm to cold.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Stuff besides heat can radiate from cool to warm...yeah, maybe. But heat, whatever it is, is one directional.  Maybe it's like proton decay, cool to warm heat might happen one day, but so far not in 15 billion years


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Except there have been brief excursions that were very detrimental to life at the time. Snowball earth from too little GHGs in the atmosphere, the P-T extinction, and others, from too much GHGs in the atmosphere. And the present increase in GHGs is proceeding at a rate unmatched by any in the geological past according to paleo-climatologists. And we have many, many giga-ton of CH4 clathrates in our oceans. Probably won't come out. We sincerely hope.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


LOL. SSDD owes you support for the hollow moon, now, Frankie Boy. Make him pay his debts.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Explain what you mean by heat and radiation. Do you even understand that they are different concepts? One is a complex function of a system with huge numbers of constituents, the other is a simple function of molecules shedding energy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> The models have done quite well.  You need to stop basing your opinion on Spencer and Christy's lies.



No Crick...they haven't...which is why the climate sensitivity to CO2 keeps being reduced...every reduction means that the models have been changed, yet again, in an attempt to more closely match reality...when they get to zero...then the real work of learning what drives climate can begin..



Crick said:


> The angst I suffer from you telling me I'm a bad engineer is closely akin to the effect I'd suffer receiving the same message from a three year old.  Well, actually, less.



You are no engineer....the fact that you can't read a graph...even a simple one and make sense of it telegraphs that fact loud and clear.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.



Anyone who believes I have ever advanced the idea that photon are smart is an illiterate imbecile and anyone who states that I have ever advanced such an idea is a bald faced liar.  You are guilty on both counts.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?




I already have....the very fact that you believe that a photon must be smart in order to follow the laws of physics puts you in the mental midget category...I guess you think rocks that fall are smart enough to go down rather than up...and water that flows downhill must be smart enough to go down...and air in a punctured tire must be smart in order to go out of the puncture hole...you have said it over and over and it just highlights how stupid and or fundamentally dishonest you are.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?
> ...



It is one of their most fundamental claims even though it has never been observed or measured.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



They believe in the rebellious, law breaking photon which disregards the laws of physics...the photon that has fallen under the evil influence of CO2..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> And the claims that there is no measured evidence for such things as 'back radiation' is foolish as well. Back radiation is simply radiation. Every substance above absolute zero gives off radiation, in all directions, because of kinetic molecular collisions.



And still no observed, measured examples of back radiation...talk talk talk but not the first measured example....all your evidence is nothing more than the output of unprovable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models.



IanC said:


> We can, and have, measured the radiation coming back from the atmosphere. It is significant and without it there would be no life here because it would be too cold.



The only direct measurements of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the surface are made with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere...so in effect, the radiation is not even moving towards the surface....it is moving towards the cooler instrument.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

Given the posts you have put up, I have hardly ever bothered to argue with you on the subject, your depth of ignorance, willful ignorance, was just to great to try to correct. Ian has done a very good job pointing out the errors in your arguements.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> Define your terms. Radiation transfers energy from one place to another, and is independent of temperature once it is formed. 'Heat' is a much more complicated entity and only travels from warm to cool. Radiation- all times, all directions. Heat (depending on how it is defined)- always from warm to cold.



Is heat a form of radiation or is it just the evidence, or residue, or fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another?  The answer is important and the inability of science to provide an answer goes straight to the heart of your belief...and belief is precisely what it s as you have no empirical evidence upon which to base your claims.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Do you actually believe all these wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom that you are always regurgitating? A tonne of conclusions from a thimble full of evidence. And yet you are always so certain. And so unwilling to even consider looking at evidence going in another direction. I cannot converse with you. You only have talking point, endlessly repeated, and no intelligent thought to back them up.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Given the posts you have put up, I have hardly ever bothered to argue with you on the subject, your depth of ignorance, willful ignorance, was just to great to try to correct. Ian has done a very good job pointing out the errors in your arguments.


concession, thanks.  I see you can't prove any of the claims of LWIR or that CO2 can cause warmer temps.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Except there have been brief excursions that were very detrimental to life at the time. Snowball earth from too little GHGs in the atmosphere, the P-T extinction, and others, from too much GHGs in the atmosphere. And the present increase in GHGs is proceeding at a rate unmatched by any in the geological past according to paleo-climatologists. And we have many, many giga-ton of CH4 clathrates in our oceans. Probably won't come out. We sincerely hope.



Got anything like actual evidence to support that claim?  Best estimates are that about 600 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm/


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> Explain what you mean by heat and radiation. Do you even understand that they are different concepts? One is a complex function of a system with huge numbers of constituents, the other is a simple function of molecules shedding energy.



So which is it Ian?  Is heat a form of energy....or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another...the answer matters and science doesn't know at this point which calls all your claims and pretend "knowledge" into question.  Youre just making it up as you go.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Given the posts you have put up, I have hardly ever bothered to argue with you on the subject, your depth of ignorance, willful ignorance, was just to great to try to correct. Ian has done a very good job pointing out the errors in your arguements.



All Ian has done is bring his faith into high relief...like you, he takes a great deal on faith when observation is in direct opposition to what he believes.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Define your terms. Radiation transfers energy from one place to another, and is independent of temperature once it is formed. 'Heat' is a much more complicated entity and only travels from warm to cool. Radiation- all times, all directions. Heat (depending on how it is defined)- always from warm to cold.
> ...




You are just as bad as Old Rocks. 

Radiation is one of the most thoroughly investigated subjects in science. Much of our technology is based on odd results at the edge that are seldom, if ever, found in nature.

Heat is an amorphous concept heavily dependent on how you define it, or what you're studying. If I say one thing you will simply reframe the question. You make a declarative statement first, and then I will respond.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Given the posts you have put up, I have hardly ever bothered to argue with you on the subject, your depth of ignorance, willful ignorance, was just to great to try to correct. Ian has done a very good job pointing out the errors in your arguements.
> ...




What observations are in direct opposition?

For example, the Pause does not disprove the warming influence of CO2 as a GHG. It is highly likely to be there, whether temps are increasing, decreasing or neutral. There are too many unknown factors also involved.

I have no problem with the basic, well supported concept of CO2 as a GHG. I have many problems with WV as a feedback that triples the CO2 influence.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


OK, Ian, name the wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom I have made. 

Remember Dr. Hanses's 1981 paper in which he predicted more droughts and the opening of the Northwest Passage in this century? And he was castigated even by many scientists as an 'alarmist'. Yet the Passage opened for the first time in 2007. He was far too conservative.

As for the clathrates, they are a known fact. And we do not know how much heat it would require to set them off. Richad Alley thinks that we are safe for the foreseeable future from that. But we really don't know. Is that wild ass guesses? A proclamation of doom?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It's odd that for a group so completely convinced you've eliminated all variables save for trace amounts of GHG you STILL in 20 years, don't have one single fucking repeatable lab experiment demonstrating your hypothesis.

Why is that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The big list of failed climate predictions


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> You are just as bad as Old Rocks.
> 
> Radiation is one of the most thoroughly investigated subjects in science. Much of our technology is based on odd results at the edge that are seldom, if ever, found in nature.
> 
> Heat is an amorphous concept heavily dependent on how you define it, or what you're studying. If I say one thing you will simply reframe the question. You make a declarative statement first, and then I will respond.



Shuck and jive...bob and weave..duck and cover....answer the question...is heat a form of energy in and of itself, or is it merely what happens when energy moves from one place to another....if radiation is the most thoroughly investigated subject in science...and as well understood as you seem to believe...then you should be able to answer such a fundamental question...why can't you?  If you were half as sure of yourself as you seem to believe you are, you wouldn't need to wait for me...you could provide information from a perfectly credible source stating whether heat is itself a form of energy or whether it is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> What observations are in direct opposition?



Energy has never been observed moving from a cool object to a warm object.



IanC said:


> I have no problem with the basic, well supported concept of CO2 as a GHG. I have many problems with WV as a feedback that triples the CO2 influence.



That basic concept is supported only by faith...there is not the first bit of empirical evidence to support the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will result in warming...the hot spot that would be the inevitable and inescapable result of CO2 doing what you claim has failed to show up and will continue to fail to show up...again...the only place your claims hold true are in unobservable, untestable, unprovable mathematical models.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> 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.


You have a mistake. Your use of energy is wrong. It should be,
*Heat *will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. 
If you don't think it's a mistake please cite a source for that statement.


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2015)

Wuwei, have you ever discussed radiative heat transfer with SSDD before?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wuwei, have you ever discussed radiative heat transfer with SSDD before?


Yes. A few months ago. Just as it was getting interesting, he disappeared.


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2015)

Okay. So you know that he  believes matter will not radiate towards other matter with a lower temperature.  He believes that matter is somehow able to know the temperature of other matter in all directions at any distance and can selectively throttle its own radiation.  When you ask him how that takes place, he simply says we don't know and probably never will.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Why that would be every time it rains -- or it doesn't. 

Or it snows --- or it doesn't. 

Or when there is a violent tornado outbreak -- or there isn't. 

Or when spring comes early or it doesn't.. 

Or when the permafrost melts -- with a house on it or not. 

Or when all the smart Physicists join a consensus -- or they don't.. 

You;'re pretty much frightened by your own shadow..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 17, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You are just as bad as Old Rocks.
> ...



Lemme take a whack and you tell me where I go wrong.. K??

Heat is a form of energy and it moves by only conduction or convection in MATERIAL MATTER... However, all matter is capable is capable of generating radiative energy as a function of their temperature in the form of IR photons at wavelengths particular to their atomic structure.

These photons obey different laws of propagation and are not heat. But if ABSORBED by another material that is capable of being excited at their wavelength -- will be directly converted to heat and ring the atomic lattice of the receiving matter. That will RAISE the temperature of the accepting matter.. Now this last part is confused even by some physicists who just take the pansy approach and call Radiative energy in the IR --- another form of heat. Because it's the EFFECT of the impinging energy that matters.  ((some simple elemental gases and materials are completely incapable of being excited by IR transfer because of the simplicity of their atomic lattice))

The study of RADIATIVE thermal transfer is kept quite separately from elementary Thermo physics curriculums and gets just a passing mention.. Leaving many semi-educated people to believe that Radiative heat transfers don't obey the laws of thermo.. *But they DO.*.

If you take the advanced course -- you'll find that even tho this photon energy PROPAGATES differently -- and has more complex equations for it's distribution and "thermal flow". Because it propagates in any direction available to it from the source and the amount accepted by the receiver is determined by 3 dimensional geometry - the exchanges that occur obey conservation of energy and the fundamental laws of thermo..

Thus the NET FLOW of radiative heating between matter depends on geometry and the temperature of the objects and ALL objects are radiating IR in some fashion --- And the exchanges between items depend simply on "line of sight".. Any 2 objects exchanges radiative energy will have a net flow in favor of the HOTTER object.

You're welcome.. Simply acknowledge this new knowledge and I will sign for a 2 hour credit in your name at the University of your choice....


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 17, 2015)

BTW -- I realize how off topic all this is. I won't shut down for being off-topic. But we certainly can't have ALL threads in this forum end in this same discussion. So at some point -- there needs to be a topic created for this "debate" and have it contained there..

Because lord knows -- there's already been 400 pages of this "intervention" that I can recall.. And possibly twice that.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Okay. So you know that he  believes matter will not radiate towards other matter with a lower temperature.  He believes that matter is somehow able to know the temperature of other matter in all directions at any distance and can selectively throttle its own radiation.  When you ask him how that takes place, he simply says we don't know and probably never will.


I agree.  I was getting into it by a different approach, and I was curious to see just how he handled that, but he didn't and just disappeared for a while. The fact that he disappeared indicated to me that it was his way of ceding the argument. Also, I wonder where he got his faulty idea of the 2nd law.


----------



## Crick (Dec 18, 2015)

I can almost guarantee you that no one else gave it to him.  I'd say he got it from an overactive imagination and a compulsion to be contrary in order to feed his superiority complex.

Isn't that right SSDD?

I understand that he also rejects the existence of photons.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


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



I didn't write it...it came from the physics department at Georgia State.    Is heat a form of energy in and of itself, or is heat what happens when energy moves from one place to another.  The answer is important as you have pointed out...so which is it...and provide a credible source for your answer.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei, have you ever discussed radiative heat transfer with SSDD before?
> ...



The only thing interesting was that you couldn't provide any actual observed, measured examples to support any of your claims... my bet is that you will still not be able to provide any as neither heat nor energy have yet been observed spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Okay. So you know that he  believes matter will not radiate towards other matter with a lower temperature.  He believes that matter is somehow able to know the temperature of other matter in all directions at any distance and can selectively throttle its own radiation.  When you ask him how that takes place, he simply says we don't know and probably never will.



Actually I gave you a thorough explanation which apparently was way over your head....it involved the fact that photons (if you believe they exist) exist under certain rules...one of them being that they exist at all points between their origin and destination at the same time.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Heat is a form of energy and it moves by only conduction or convection in MATERIAL MATTER... However, all matter is capable is capable of generating radiative energy as a function of their temperature in the form of IR photons at wavelengths particular to their atomic structure.



According to *Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text, Volume 1 *heat is not a form of energy..

Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text

According to *Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics * heat is not a form of energy.

Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics

According to *Entropy for Biologists: An Introduction to Thermodynamics  *heat is not a form of energy.

Entropy for Biologists

According to *Theoretical Physics Second Edition *heat is not a form of energy.

Theoretical Physics


My point is that at this point in the 21st century science is not agreed on whether heat is or is not a form of energy.  You guys spout what you believe as if it were true.  You stated that heat was a form of energy as if it were carved in stone somewhere and was a proven fact....and then proceeded on this whole explanation based on what you believe to be true and failed to mention that the entire ball of wax remains entirely theoretical.  

What we know is that neither heat nor energy whether they are one in the same or not have ever been observed spontaneously moving from cool to warm.




flacaltenn said:


> You'll find that even tho this photon energy PROPAGATES differently -- and has more complex equations for it's distribution and "thermal flow". Because it propagates in any direction available to it from the source and the amount accepted by the receiver is determined by 3 dimensional geometry - the exchanges that occur obey conservation of energy and the fundamental laws of thermo..



Now what if the receiver will not accept any of that radiation because it is warmer than the radiator?  Why would the radiator even radiate in that direction.  If it is all straight lines as you say, would not a straight line from the warmer "receiver" already exist to the origin of that straight line from the radiator?  And if the "radiator" were already acting as receiver along that straight line...or all possible straight lines...what mechanism would the radiator use to radiate in the direction from which it was already receiving energy of a higher frequency?  We know that we have never observed energy or heat spontaneously moving from cool to warm...any "evidence" is the result of a mathematical model...but you speak as if we see it every day....we don't.  And thanks for telling me what you believe, but as you can see, what you believe is in fact, just what you believe right down to your most basic belief that heat is a form of energy...even that claim is unclear and unproven.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Okay. So you know that he  believes matter will not radiate towards other matter with a lower temperature.  He believes that matter is somehow able to know the temperature of other matter in all directions at any distance and can selectively throttle its own radiation.  When you ask him how that takes place, he simply says we don't know and probably never will.
> ...



I have no idea of the second law other than what it says....Here, again, from the physics department at Georgia State University.

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.

That is the entirety of my "idea" on the second law of thermodynamics.  It is you, and those who believe as you do who seem to be adding something to it that isn't there.  You are adding an unobservable, untestable, unprovable mathematical model to the mix and trying to rewrite the second law.  I'm not.  I accept what it says as fact till such time as we observe and measure something different and as a result, rewrite the second law of thermodynamics..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> I can almost guarantee you that no one else gave it to him.  I'd say he got it from an overactive imagination and a compulsion to be contrary in order to feed his superiority complex.
> 
> Isn't that right SSDD?
> 
> I understand that he also rejects the existence of photons.



Do you have any proof that photons exist?...of course you don't...Do you have any actual proof that energy is not electromagnetic waves?  Do you have any thing beyond the theory of particle/wave duality which is, at this point in time, nothing more than a place holder, or story science tells itself until the actual nature of energy is more thoroughly understood?  Of course you don't.

As to my "ideas" on the second law....they don't go beyond what it states....that being that neither energy, nor heat will move spontaneously from cool to warm...energy is always moving towards a state of greater entropy unless some work is done to move it in the other direction.



> 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.



You either believe it or you don't.  If you don't, then you are the one required to provide hard, observable evidence that the statement is wrong...otherwise, it is you who is the one who has the over active imagination...I accept the law as it is stated...it is you who has a beef with it and can't prove it wrong.....apparently in not accepting the second law of thermodynamics as it is stated, are the one who is wrongly feeling superior..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> 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.





SSDD said:


> I didn't write it...it came from the physics department at Georgia State.


Below is a screen shot of the Georgia State University site that you referenced. I generally try not to be rude, but if you look at the picture you will find that what they are referring to is
*a fucking refrigerator with a fucking flow of fucking FREON not phucking PHOTONS.*





We are talking about CO2 radiation: PHOTONS, not FREON.
Look at the context context context. I'm surprised you don't think a snow flake will never land on your bald head because it is energy spontaneously moving from cold snow to your hot head.

That diagram from the site you cited
1) Explained refrigeration. Not radiation thermodynamics.
2) Referred explicitly to Clausius in 1854 who knew nothing about radiation or photons
3) Clarified the the word “energy” with a diagram that referred solely to heat.
4) In thermodynamics Q refers to *heat *energy, *not any kind* of energy. See the diagram. It refers to a flow of heat, Q, not energy.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

Hahahaha, I see SSDD is up to his usual BS. 

Sometimes he says energy is not heat, sometimes it is. Sometimes one Thermodynamics Law takes precedence, sometimes another. Sometimes he scoffs at Quantum Mechanics, at other times he he uses the most esoteric of its properties.

His 'understanding' lies stillborn as it cannot describe even the simplest of cases, two bodies at the same temperature radiating at each other. He proclaims that no radiation is possible, yet that would mean both bodies would have to miraculously lose all energy because it is kinetic energy and collisions that produce radiation. For SSDD to be right some intelligence must control every particle in the universe, linked over the entire history (past, present and future) of the universe, and make individual decisions over which interactions are allowed.

I think I will stay with all substances radiate at all times according to their temperature. No forbidden interactions.

Go ahead, you can ask SSDD what the mechanism is that stops 'incorrect' radiation but he won't tell you. "Rocks fall down" and "air comes out of a tire" seem to be his go to explanations. He simply ignores the entropy and momentum implications of his 'special theory'.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


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




Yup. That's just how SSDD rolls. He is impossible to converse with on certain topics, like this one.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Yup. That's just how SSDD rolls. He is impossible to converse with on certain topics, like this one.


Can you tell me what is going on in his mind? Is he a troll? He certainly fits the definition. Does he firmly believe his crap? Does he have a pride so rigid that he has to defend the indefensible to the point where he looks foolish and looses all self esteem?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> The only thing interesting was that you couldn't provide any actual observed, measured examples to support any of your claims... my bet is that you will still not be able to provide any as neither heat nor energy have yet been observed spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.


You forgot that I did provide you with an example of thermal radiation from a cold object to an object 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K can strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K. 

There are sixty five experiments in the following reference that all saw the CMB, using these detectors, or combinations,
30 bolometers,
20 HEMT,
9 Interferometers,
4 SIS detectors.
Etc.
List of cosmic microwave background experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After the CMB passes through the warmer atmosphere it must strike the warmer parabolic dish so that it can reflect to the detector. The dish is at an ambient temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than the CMB.

Those are 65 cases of actual observed, measured examples to support the claim that radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. That's just how SSDD rolls. He is impossible to converse with on certain topics, like this one.
> ...




He is just firmly set in a particular and peculiar way of thinking. No amount of arguments will get him off his fixed position. He's not smart enough to actually run things through in his head. Lots of people like that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Heat is a form of energy and it moves by only conduction or convection in MATERIAL MATTER... However, all matter is capable is capable of generating radiative energy as a function of their temperature in the form of IR photons at wavelengths particular to their atomic structure.
> ...



All semantics without any impact on the fundamentals.  Some folks prefer to quibble about the difference between thermal ENERGY and thermal POWER.. And "heat" is generally considered to be thermal energy in motion or in transfer between objects..

A BTU is defined as the amount of "heat" required to raise 1 pound of water by 1 degF.. YET -- if you contained that energy energy and restricted it's flow -- by SOME definitions you no longer have "heat"..  Just the potential to CREATE heat..

In my specialty which is electronics -- the same equations used to calculate the power delivered in various branches of a circuit having different resistances are the SAME EQUATIONS (Kirchkoff's Laws) that are used to calculate thermal flow in materials with different insulation (or thermal resistance) values. Where Voltage takes the role of temperature and Current takes the role of heat flow. When heat energy flows -- it becomes heat power. So CLEARLY --- these are both quantities related to the ability of heat to be stored and transferred.

What you have here -- is just an esoteric distinction that is made because some Physicists gets pissy that HEAT is only heat energy in motion.. Capice ???? NOT -- any kind of earth of earth-smashing refutation of basic science.  By that definition -- a BTU is a measure of "heat energy" not heat power...

Listen up..  *By that reasoning -- a battery does not store electricity. Because there is no electricity --- unless a current flows*...   Hopeless semantics..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> *a fucking refrigerator with a fucking flow of fucking FREON not phucking PHOTONS.*




You think the second law applies to photons, but not to every other thing in the universe?  Interesting.  Tell me, other than photons, what else do you believe is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Sometimes he says energy is not heat, sometimes it is. Sometimes one Thermodynamics Law takes precedence, sometimes another. Sometimes he scoffs at Quantum Mechanics, at other times he he uses the most esoteric of its properties.



Unlike you, I don't make any claims at all about what heat is or isn't...that is all you.  Believing you know a thing when clearly, you don't.  As I have shown before, science remains unsure as to whether heat is a form of energy or a mode of energy transfer.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. That's just how SSDD rolls. He is impossible to converse with on certain topics, like this one.
> ...



Waiting for you to say other than photons what else do you believe is exempt from the second law...and explain how it is that you think that photons get a pass?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You forgot that I did provide you with an example of thermal radiation from a cold object to an object 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K can strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K.



Sorry, but you didn't...all you managed to do was show that you think a resonance frequency had a measurable temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



If you mean I don't think I am smart enough to make a claim that the second law does not support...no..I don't think I am that smart.  I will continue to accept the second law as stated till such time as you write a paper providing proof that as it stands, it is wrong and get it rewritten.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

Now -- what else did I say about Radiative transfers that you take issues with SSDD???


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> All semantics without any impact on the fundamentals. Some folks prefer to quibble about the difference between thermal ENERGY and thermal POWER.. And "heat" is generally considered to be thermal energy in motion or in transfer between objects..



Says the guy who believed that he knew that heat was a form of energy even though science remains unsure.  I am sure that it isn't important to you because you believe you know...you believe.



flacaltenn said:


> What you have here -- is just an esoteric distinction that is made because some Physicists gets pissy that HEAT is only heat energy in motion.. Capice ???? NOT -- any kind of earth of earth-smashing refutation of basic science. By that definition -- a BTU is not a measure of "heat energy" not heat power...



What I have here is a perfectly valid point that neither you, nor anyone else can satisfactorily answer... Post up the second law...heat can't move from a cool object to a warm object and someone invariably pipes up....heat and energy are two different things...heat can't move from cool to warm but energy can....so is heat energy or not?  The answer matters.



flacaltenn said:


> Listen up.. By that reasoning -- a battery does not store electricity. Because there is no electricity --- unless a current flows... Hopeless semantics..



Piss poor analogy flacaltenn...

hook that 1.5V battery up to a wire and run that wire to a 12V battery...do you think those electrons are going to disobey the second law and run up that wire from the 1.5V battery to the 12V battery?  Do you think that they need to be intelligent in order to not at least try?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > *a fucking refrigerator with a fucking flow of fucking FREON not phucking PHOTONS.*
> ...



The heat potential that photons carrry --- is NOT exempt from the 2nd law. You just don't know how to calculate the heat flow involved in radiative transfers. If you DID -- you would see that those flows OBEY the 2nd law in all instances where the flow is not so small that it is statistically determined. 

And then you could clean your mind of doubt, focus on other things and enjoy life a LOT more..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Now -- what else did I say about Radiative transfers that you take issues with SSDD???



Anything that you have said that runs contrary to the second law and its statement that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm.  There are no observed examples because it simply doesn't happen.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


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



You are referring to a mathematical model...an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable, unprovable mathematical model and nothing more.



flacaltenn said:


> And then you could clean your mind of doubt, focus on other things and enjoy life a LOT more..



You think I would be happier if I just believed in an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable, unprovable mathematical model?  I don't think so.  I much prefer seeing what the consensus though that they knew fall to reality...one domino after another.  The idea that back radiation happens will eventually fall in the face of reality as well.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > All semantics without any impact on the fundamentals. Some folks prefer to quibble about the difference between thermal ENERGY and thermal POWER.. And "heat" is generally considered to be thermal energy in motion or in transfer between objects..
> ...



I would refrain from doing experiments that could blow up in your face --  until you understand the mechanics of those transfers.. Certainly those electrons are gonna be guided by the VOLTAGE (temperature) and RESISTANCE (thermal insulation values) of the sources and the path.. 

This is INDEED the case in the flow of IR photons in a radiative transfer as well.. UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY before you reply. Before you make asinine statements about electrons running backwards. 

Then I can blow your mind with the concept of "holes" running in the OPPOSITE direction in a semiconductor device...


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Now -- what else did I say about Radiative transfers that you take issues with SSDD???
> ...



NET FLOWS between objects of different temperature in radiative transfers obey the 2nd law. You have a mode of heat transfer that just has different propagation rules..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

I'm tired.. I want to SSDD to either ACKNOWLEDGE that radiative transfers are the 3rd form of heat transfer -- or not. Because that's what it says in the Thermo books. 

*And if he doesn't deny it -- He needs to explain HIS VERSION of how radiative heat transfers happen..*.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> You think the second law applies to photons, but not to every other thing in the universe? Interesting. Tell me, other than photons, what else do you believe is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics?


You got that backwards. It's astounding that you think the second law applies to refrigerators but not everything else in the universe. Can you tell my why you think refrigerators explain atmospheric physics?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> I would refrain from doing experiments that could blow up in your face --  until you understand the mechanics of those transfers.. Certainly those electrons are gonna be guided by the VOLTAGE (temperature) and RESISTANCE (thermal insulation values) of the sources and the path..



In other words, they adhere to the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What mathematical model? How does light propagate? I measure individual photons all the time. I count them in bio-fluorescent markers that glow different colors with different protein tags added to the material.. 

I can count them, calculate the flow and works as advertised.. What's your problem with my model???


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> NET FLOWS between objects of different temperature in radiative transfers obey the 2nd law. You have a mode of heat transfer that just has different propagation rules..



The second law of thermodynamics is all about gross flows...net flows are the product of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable, unprovable mathematical models.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot that I did provide you with an example of thermal radiation from a cold object to an object 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K can strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K.
> ...


Can you go into detail why you think the CMB did not strike radio dishes in 65 separate experiments even though scientists detected the radiation using those radio dishes.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics is all about gross flows...net flows are the product of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable, unprovable mathematical models.


Please supply a reference to experimental proof that the second law is valid.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I would refrain from doing experiments that could blow up in your face --  until you understand the mechanics of those transfers.. Certainly those electrons are gonna be guided by the VOLTAGE (temperature) and RESISTANCE (thermal insulation values) of the sources and the path..
> ...



Not rigorously no..  Because that's not a thermodynamic process. It's an electron charge driven process. But it's PROPAGATION equations are identical to propagation equations for heat in CONDUCTION for materials. 

That's just ONE form of heat. There are 2 others that PROPAGATE differently.. That's where you are hopelessly mired..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> I
> 
> *And if he doesn't deny it -- He needs to explain HIS VERSION of how radiative heat transfers happen..*.



Sure...here is "my" version.... 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.

Simple as that...either you can prove it wrong via empirical evidence which would result in rewriting the law or you can not....we both know which it is......not.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You think the second law applies to photons, but not to every other thing in the universe? Interesting. Tell me, other than photons, what else do you believe is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics?
> ...



Maybe you should go back and re read that section from hyper physics and try to grasp what it actually said...the second law was stated... 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. And then it went on to say that that law precluded a perfect refrigerator...why do you believe that the laws of physics would behave differently for a refrigerator than they would in the atmosphere...the laws of physics apply to everything...if neither heat nor energy will flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object, it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a refrigerator, the atmosphere, or the point where the ocean's surface stops and the atmosphere starts...neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Not rigorously no..  Because that's not a thermodynamic process. It's an electron charge driven process. But it's PROPAGATION equations are identical to propagation equations for heat in CONDUCTION for materials.



Everything adheres to the second law of thermodynamics.  Energy always runs down hill unless you expend energy to make it go in a different direction.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Maybe you should go back and re read that section from hyper physics and try to grasp what it actually said.



Maybe you should go back and re read that section from hyper physics and try to grasp what it actually said.



SSDD said:


> 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.



That is correct.



SSDD said:


> Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.



That is what Clausius thought in 1854, when he was unaware of radiation. Einstein et.al. said radiation energy does flow spontaneously from any object to any other object.



SSDD said:


> And then it went on to say that that law precluded a perfect refrigerator...why do you believe that the laws of physics would behave differently for a refrigerator than they would in the atmosphere.



Why do you believe that radiation acts like a refrigerator?



SSDD said:


> .neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool to warm.



Heat will move spontaneously from cool to warm. Radiation has no such constraint.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Sure...here is "my" version.... 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.
> 
> Simple as that...either you can prove it wrong via empirical evidence which would result in rewriting the law or you can not....we both know which it is......not


I'm still waiting for a reference from you with repeatable, observable, evidence that the second law is valid. A mathematical proof would be OK too.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> member: 40906"]Maybe you should go back and re read that section from hyper physics and try to grasp what it actually said.



Maybe you should go back and re read that section from hyper physics and try to grasp what it actually said.



SSDD said:


> 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.



That is correct.



SSDD said:


> That is what Clausius thought in 1854, when he was unaware of radiation. Einstein et.al. said radiation energy does flow spontaneously from any object to any other object.



And you have observed measured evidence of this?  And don't claim that an antenna receiving a resonance radio signal is evidence because it isn't.



Wuwei said:


> Why do you believe that radiation acts like a refrigerator?



You think sounding like a 5 year old is cute?



Wuwei said:


> Heat will move spontaneously from cool to warm. Radiation has no such constraint.



That's not what the second law says....let me know when it is re-written to state what you believe.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sure...here is "my" version.... 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.
> ...



How about every observation ever made in the history of the universe.....Can't do much better than that.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...



Heat only flows from warm to cool...correct.

But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.

Heat only flows in one direction because warmer object give off higher energy photons on average, and more of them, because there are more collisions and at higher speeds. The net energy transfer is always more from the warm object than it receives back from the cool one.

SSDD is nuts.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> And you have observed measured evidence of this? And don't claim that an antenna receiving a resonance radio signal is evidence because it isn't.


Yes, the CMB experiment is a perfect example of thermal radiation from a cold object hitting a warmer radio antenna dish. The cosmic background emits thermal radiation not "resonance radio signals". You will have to carefully state how thermal radiation from the cosmos has anything to do with resonance. 


SSDD said:


> You think sounding like a 5 year old is cute?


Do you think your acting like a 5 year old is cute?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> How about every observation ever made in the history of the universe.....Can't do much better than that.


You think that is proof of anything? Generalizations are never a proof. So you don't have any proof do you.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD is nuts.


Yes SSDD, you are nuts. There is a lot of pathology in your posts, but I think you are more of an immature troll who is nuts. Crying for attention. You have no self pride though and are willing to demean yourself just for the futile appearance of trying to seem intelligent.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


ok, let me step in for a moment here, where I agree that all objects radiate, where does it go?  you say the IR makes it to the surface, I say it doesn't  and it doesn't because there are pressures that keep it from getting there.

BTW, Judith Curry doesn't believe in back radiation.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Link to the Curry quote. I believe you have misunderstood something.

Explain this 'pressure' thing. Photons can only be absorbed or reflected. Either way there is a transfer of momentum, a la entropy. One of the thermodynamic laws that SSDD chooses to ignore.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


wator vapor, clouds, barometric pressure.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...



Doesn't answer the question at all chief.. How does radiative heat transfer work? Where does it come from? Where does it go? What is the energy transport mechanism?

3 questions there. Please answer all threee --- THEN --- we can chat about any "violations"....


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Sure Dr. Curry believes in "back radiation".. Might not call it that -- but I'm certain she does.. 
We are talking about LIGHT.. Infra Red radiation is LIGHT. You think pressures matter??? 

How about a complete lack of pressure as it travels space? Or doesn't care about wind speed... 
Did you KNOW we were talking about light waves or particles?


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You're not making any sense. How do those things stop radiation?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


most likely temperature.  The thing is it is not understood.  Can you show how it works or is your answer that it radiates in all directions therefore it is?

BTW, I was in error it is she is still trying to understand it.

Here's a link for Judith:

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

"There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative transfer texts.  The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap.  Good explanations that I have come across are:


scienceofdoom
Real Climate
Chris Colose
Skeptical Science
presumably there are others that I’ve missed?
However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms.  Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect.  But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules.  I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend."


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

Nope.. Never measured Infra Red radiation.. Nuh uh... Can't be done..

Asked for one of these for Christmas..

Amazon.com: Arctic Star AR550 Mini Infrared Thermometer: Home Improvement

How do you suppose it does this?

Measures in Celsius or Fahrenheit (Range: -32 ° C to +550 ° C / -26 ° F to +1022 ° F)
without caring about it's own temperature??
Think if I tuck it under my arm for an hour and then point it into my freezer -- it will refuse to violate the 2nd Law and have me arrested???







Now seriously -- there ARE calibration and "bias" issues (related to temperature)  in these detectors that pop up in design.. But a well-designed IR light meter is pretty damn accurate no matter what it's temperature is..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The words there says she has no problem with the basic Physics.. Only with how to model the effects of GHouse gases varying and contributing to new thermal equilibrium due to radiative transfer.. That's a surprisingly honest statement and I respect that.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




jc - I think you should read at least the first few Science of Doom articles. It would help you get a grasp of the basics.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


That's okay, if what you believe were true, we'd have run away temps. That isn't happening so explain why not?


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





Hahahaha, when have I ever said there would be runaway warming?

Dude! I have debunked claim after claim from the warmers. And a few from the skeptical extreme. Do you not read my stuff, or do you just not understand it?

The Science of Doom stuff is just basic physics but tailored to global warming. Everyone should read it, just to fill in any gaps.

You may also find some of the measured evidence that you guys scream for all the time. Like actual measured downward radiation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 18, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > First, of all wiki is crap as a source for anything..
> ...



Wiki is prone to unreliable changes and is therefore suspect at all times.  No student I teach is allowed to use WIKI as it is prone to exaggerations and mathematical gross errors.  One need only look to William Connelly and his abuses of changing "facts" in relation to all things dealing with AGW, any science or math related to it or climate change in general.  His fabrications and changing of facts, posting half truths, and outright lies is legendary.    Wiki is not a reliable source for ANYTHING!

As Sea water is not a BLACK BODY it does not Emmit sufficient heat to the atmosphere through LWIR release to heat anything. In the opposing direction, sea water can only emit LWIR from the first 5-50 microns of the surface rendering it incapable of warming anything.  Evaporation is how sea water cools and that is not inhibited by CO2. Winds, mixing, waves, sea spray (water forced into an evaporative state) are all ways water vapor is created and how the majority of heat escapes the oceans.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I didn't say you said that. I said if back radiation exists as you claim, then there'd be runaway temperatures.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wiki is prone to unreliable changes and is therefore suspect at all times. No student I teach is allowed to use WIKI as it is prone to exaggerations and mathematical gross errors. One need only look to William Connelly and his abuses of changing "facts" in relation to all things dealing with AGW, any science or math related to it or climate change in general. His fabrications and changing of facts, posting half truths, and outright lies is legendary. Wiki is not a reliable source for ANYTHING!
> 
> As Sea water is not a BLACK BODY it does not Emmit sufficient heat to the atmosphere through LWIR release to heat anything. In the opposing direction, sea water can only emit LWIR from the first 5-50 microns of the surface rendering it incapable of warming anything. Evaporation is how sea water cools and that is not inhibited by CO2. Winds, mixing, waves, sea spray (water forced into an evaporative state) are all ways water vapor is created and how the majority of heat escapes the oceans.


These are emissivities of the ocean not from wiki. My prediction that the ocean would have a high emissivity is verified in the following reference.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/5001/50010017.pdf

0.993 Buettner and Kern (1965) not considering the skin layer
0.986 Saunders (1967b, 1968) observation of the reflectance from the air plane
0.9875 Mikhaylov and Zolotarev (1970) calculation from the optical constant
0.992 (11 µm) Masuda et al. (1988) calculation of the reflectance using the numerical model surface
0.972 Davies et al. (1971) observation of sheltered water surface from the sky

Note that the emissivitys of the ocean are much closer to black body radiation than pure water. Nobody should claim that CO2 or any other greenhouse gas warms the ocean, the land or anything else. GHG's prevent the ocean and land from loosing as much heat as it would lose otherwise.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2.  It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase.  Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2.  It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase.  Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.



Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood.  He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses.  How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen?  I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third.  You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2.  It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase.  Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.
> ...



I've seen a lot of thermo courses. I know the curriculum. I never saw an Thermo Intro course that got into examples of the geometry issues of IR light propagation. (strangely -- ScienceofDoom found some very old thermo books that did all that - but since academics writing the texts got lazy or the semesters got shorter or some damn thing)  So it's impossible to calculate or give numeric calculations of radiative transfers in the basic courses anymore. It was usually a chapter on definitions and explanations and black body basics.

Now the 200 level courses -- went in several directions. For electrical engineers -- it was "fields and waves". Which is the entirety of EMagnetic propagation. Not truely a "thermo" course.. And in there -- Radiative transfers WERE set up in terms of the geometry of the transmitter and receiver and calculations were made. And the special case of IR heat transfers was handled.

But in other cases (material science, aerospace,  mechanical eng, advanced specialized physics) you would get into modeling IR "heating" in any number of different courses. "Thermal Properties of Materials" for example..

Because of the time I spent in Optical Computing -- I also have a background in optics and optical modulators, filters and detectors which helps a lot in understanding LWIR issues. 

I always let SSDD "off the hook" because I have no intention of a fight to the death over any of these things. Not my responsibility for wiping out every science misconception that exists out there. If it was -- you'd already be on my score card..


----------



## IanC (Dec 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Give a short explanation why you think there would be runaway temps. I already explained why we need some GHE for life to exist. Why do you think there is a tipping point for back radiation?


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> I've seen a lot of thermo courses.



Where?



flacaltenn said:


> I know the curriculum.



You didn't teach them and unless you failed one and took another, you didn't attend more than one.  So, why would you "know the curriculum"?



flacaltenn said:


> I never saw an Thermo Intro course that got into examples of the geometry issues of IR light propagation.



"Thermo intro course"?  Where would you find a thermo intro course?  Do you perhaps mean Thermo I?



flacaltenn said:


> (strangely -- ScienceofDoom found some very old thermo books that did all that



Maybe that's because its quite common to do so.



flacaltenn said:


> - but since academics writing the texts got lazy or the semesters got shorter or some damn thing)



The authors didn't get lazy and the semesters didn't get shorter.



flacaltenn said:


> So it's impossible to calculate or give numeric calculations of radiative transfers in the basic courses anymore.



That's simply untrue. Radiative transfer is commonly covered in college physics classes and is probably given short shrift in basic thermo (ie, not heat transfer) because so much more time is required to handle materials and flowing liquids.



flacaltenn said:


> It was usually a chapter on definitions and explanations and black body basics.



Yes, Boltzmann is a common topic



flacaltenn said:


> Now the 200 level courses -- went in several directions. For electrical engineers -- it was "fields and waves". Which is the entirety of EMagnetic propagation. Not truely a "thermo" course.. And in there -- Radiative transfers WERE set up in terms of the geometry of the transmitter and receiver and calculations were made. And the special case of IR heat transfers was handled.



Why do you think the geometry is such a problem?



flacaltenn said:


> But in other cases (material science, aerospace,  mechanical eng, advanced specialized physics) you would get into modeling IR "heating" in any number of different courses. "Thermal Properties of Materials" for example..
> 
> Because of the time I spent in Optical Computing -- I also have a background in optics and optical modulators, filters and detectors which helps a lot in understanding LWIR issues.
> 
> I always let SSDD "off the hook" because I have no intention of a fight to the death over any of these things. Not my responsibility for wiping out every science misconception that exists out there. If it was -- you'd already be on my score card..



You've tried to "put me on your score card for several years now and failed.  I don't see any changes going forward.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen a lot of thermo courses.
> ...



Folks that have been part of Eng faculties should know about the curriculum and pre-reqs and those sort of things --- dontchathink???   What a wieny response. Especially the ending where you agree about the absence of any in-depth treatment of radiative heating in Intro Thermo...

You're a real ankle-biter.. I'll give ya that Catfish....


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

What part of an engineering faculty were you?

You seem to have missed my message re radiative heat transfer: that it was simpler than that of solid and liquids and needed less time to explain.  Your claim that it is more complex than the rest of thermo is what doesn't fly, catfish.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> What part of an engineering faculty were you?
> 
> You seem to have missed my message re radiative heat transfer: that it was simpler than that of solid and liquids and needed less time to explain.  Your claim that it is more complex than the rest of thermo is what doesn't fly, catfish.



Oh but it IS far more complex than understanding conduction or convection.. Every transfer problem is a 3D geometry exercise.. And setting them up requires a lot of smart assumptions to get close to the correct answer.. 

Maybe you slept thru those parts..


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Well I don't believe in back radiation. If there was, IR would be in a loop as reradiation would be infinite


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The atomic structure of water, in a vapor state, does not slow heat retention (absorption and emittance back towards the surface) by CO2.  It infact, the convection cycle is speed up by a thinner (lighter) atmosphere, which it would be if CO2 levels rose. The potential retardation of heat loss is offset by convection increase.  Quite the opposite of the failed IPCC/EPA's GCM's which use water vapor as a positive feedback.
> ...



You have no understanding of atomic weights? Or gravity? Or the spinning of the earth?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2015)

Guess what, jc, back radiation does not give a damn about what you believe.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 19, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Guess what, jc, back radiation does not give a damn about what you believe.


Get back to us when you have empirical evidence to support your assumption.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nope.. The effect only slows the inevitable and overwhelming loss of heat to the sky... Net effect is still a loss.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I appear to have a better understanding of every topic that might even loosely fall under the rubric of physics than do you.  The idea that you have a degree in atmospheric physics is absolutely laughable.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What part of an engineering faculty were you?
> ...



That makes me think you never took thermo or heat transfer.  Which of these two problems do you think harder to calculate: 
1) I give you the radiative flux of the sun and the albedo of the Earth.  Calculate the rate at which the Earth is absorbing solar energy
2) I have a cylindrical tank made of half inch steel, 5 meters tall and 2 meters in diameter installed in an air conditioned 23C facility.  I have an 300 liter water heater rated at 20 kW and set to 60C.  Water feeding in to the heater is 20C.  We start off with the water heater full of 60C water and then  open the taps to the tank and fill it at a rate of 15 liters/minute.  When the tank is  full, what is its temperature?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2015)

Crick said:


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



Your legend in your own mind...

Now that is what is funny.  The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order.  Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth?  In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth..  I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your legend in your own mind...



ROFL.  I never claimed to have a degree you quite obviously do not possess.



Billy_Bob said:


> The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order.  Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth?  In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth..  I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.



What you have clearly shown is that you have never passed any course in any variety of physics.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


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




Billy Bob - why do you say such stupid things? I have never heard anyone say all CO2 emissions head towards Earth. There is only one idiot that says none of them do, and that's SSDD.

Do the skeptical side a favour by not posting such embarrassing comments.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2015)

IanC said:


> But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.



You said that heat is energy....so now you are saying that some energy can't flow from cool to warm but other energy can?  How does the energy know which is which and when it can and when it can't?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> [
> Yes, the CMB experiment is a perfect example of thermal radiation from a cold object hitting a warmer radio antenna dish. The cosmic background emits thermal radiation not "resonance radio signals". You will have to carefully state how thermal radiation from the cosmos has anything to do with resonance.



Sorry guy, all that CMB business did was highlight the fact that you are yet another person who is fooled by side show claims....receiving a resonance radio frequency is not evidence of back radiation.  Already did....unfortunately it apparently was way over your head...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You think that is proof of anything? Generalizations are never a proof. So you don't have any proof do you.



And yet, you apparently believe wholeheartedly in photons, QM, and both the AGW and greenhouse hypotheses with far less evidence than every observation ever made...and the second law didn't get to be a law based on the thin correlation that serves as support for the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2015)

IanC said:


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



No Ian, What is embarrassing are those who think that LWIR can cause ocean warming. It Can Not.  The math does not work in your favor. Crick Simply thinks that it can even though only 30% of re-emitted LWIR (near surface) is towards the planet. As altitude increases that amount dwindles rapidly. Had you read my post you would have understood this.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD is nuts.
> ...



I'm sure that you believe that...just as I am sure that you believe that crick's heat of compression experiment was actually evidence proving the greenhouse effect, and that receiving a resonance radio signal is evidence that a radio telescope received CMB IR radiation...and I bet you believe that a pyrogeometer at ambient temperature actually measures DLR...if you believe that CO2 in a closed bottle heated by a lamp is evidence of a greenhouse effect, you will probably believe anything.

And the ad hominems are nothing more than badges to me...they are evidence that you can't actually hold your own in a discussion so you do what you can in lieu actually making some valid point.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> [
> 
> Doesn't answer the question at all chief.. How does radiative heat transfer work? Where does it come from? Where does it go? What is the energy transport mechanism?



I am afraid that both of us know that there really isn't a solid answer for those questions...we now that radiative heat transfers, but the actual mechanism?...we don't know that any more than we know the actual mechanism by which gravity works....That is a problem for you...I am sure that you believe that you actually know the answers to the questions that you asked but the fact is that whatever you believe you "know" or that science "knows" is at this point, just a place holder explanation till such time as we actually know....like light being particle and wave...no proof of that exists and yet,, I am sure that you believe that you know that light is both particle and wave.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 20, 2015)

Crick has absolutely no scientific background or even lyrical knowledge, he just reposts AGW Cult nonsense


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> without caring about it's own temperature??
> Think if I tuck it under my arm for an hour and then point it into my freezer -- it will refuse to violate the 2nd Law and have me arrested???



If you think that IR thermometer is measuring radiation from your freezer, then you don't know how it works...  If you have one, take a look at the front of it...see that lens?  On the other side of that lens is a thermopile...it works on the same principle as Pictet's experiment..  Whatever you are pointing the lens at, whether it be warmer or cooler than the thermopile results in the thermopile changing temperature and from there the speed and direction of the change goes through a mathematical model to determine the temperature of whatever you are pointing it at...point it in your freezer and the thermopile starts cooling down...which results in a temperature reading...radiation from the freezer is not coming out to your thermometer at ambient temperature.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.
> ...




Pull up the quote where I said energy and heat are equivalent terms. Radiation is a means of transferring energy, composed of individual interactions. Heat is a concept of energy transfer in substances comprised of many, many particles. 

Eg. For one coin flip it is 50/50 heads comes up. For one million coins it is nearly impossible to have all heads. 

Once you get into the actual transfer of heat in a substance the complexity goes up dramatically. I don't think you are capable of discussing it since you have no understanding of even basic physics.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > without caring about it's own temperature??
> ...




Here we go again. Reminiscent of the solar heater/cooler box argument with Polar Bear.

Explain how radiation magically stops when the IR gun is pointed at something the same temperature. I say they both continue to radiate, you say they stop but refuse to give a mechanism to abort the collisions that produce the radiation in the first place.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.
> ...



That's an easy one dude. You can store "energy" in a spring. It's simply a description of the capacity to do work. 

And every form of energy might have different rules for how it's stored and propagated. Only heat energy cares about cool to warm or vice versa because temperature in that case is the "motive force" that PUSHES the energy along..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > without caring about it's own temperature??
> ...



OMG --- how close you are..  But how far it is to the truth.. The LENS is there because it's accepting IR radiation in the forrm OF LIGHT. Lenses don't focus "temperatures".. And I haven't held a thermopile in my hands for about 20 years. They are a very complicated way to measure heat and have virtually no sensitivity to objects that aren't very warm..   All of these Home Depot IR thermometer use direct photoelectric conversion. With small and cheap and accurate photodiodes that are tuned to IR. Like the IR sensor in a remote control.. 

And radiation from your freezer IS coming out -- IS focused by lens -- and IS delivered to the photosensors that then measure an electric current corresponding to the number of IR photons received per unit time.. 

Go buy one -- take it apart -- and send us a pic of the "thermopile" in it.  Even it HAD a thermopile in it -- it's still the incoming IR radiation thru that lens that would "warm" that thermopile..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Do you deny the basic premise that the 3rd method of heat transfer (radiative) exists then? Or are you just too lazy to research WHY it's included in all textbooks on thermo..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, all that CMB business did was highlight the fact that you are yet another person who is fooled by side show claims....receiving a resonance radio frequency is not evidence of back radiation. Already did....unfortunately it apparently was way over your head..


My gosh SSDD that is one of the stupidest things you think. The CMB emits *thermal radiation*. *Not* “resonant radio frequencies”. You are making crap up. Show me a source that says that the CMB is anything but thermal radiation at 2.7 K.

Furthermore, you don't even understand the point. Of course CMB is not back radiation. It's thermal radiation from a distant source. It shows that energy from a cold source can strike a warmer object, the antenna dish!


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> And yet, you apparently believe wholeheartedly in photons, QM, and both the AGW and greenhouse hypotheses with far less evidence than every observation ever made...and the second law didn't get to be a law based on the thin correlation that serves as support for the AGW hypothesis.


Shuck and jive...bob and weave..duck and cover. You can't answer the question. You accept thermodynamic models of refrigerator physics! And you can't prove it applies to radiation physics can you. And you try to divert your ignorance by attacking quantum mechanics and photons. Talk about hypocrisy.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> I'm sure that you believe that that receiving a resonance radio signal is evidence that a radio telescope received CMB IR radiation.


There you go again making up words for radiation thermodynamics. You have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you tell the Nobel prize winners that their experiment was all wrong.


SSDD said:


> And the ad hominems are nothing more than badges to me...they are evidence that you can't actually hold your own in a discussion so you do what you can in lieu actually making some valid point.


You don't even know what ad hominem means. I wasn't using it to make an argumentative point. I was simply saying you are nuts. That should be labeled as fact, not an argument.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> Explain how radiation magically stops when the IR gun is pointed at something the same temperature. I say they both continue to radiate, you say they stop but refuse to give a mechanism to abort the collisions that produce the radiation in the first place.



Your basic error here Ian is that you don't seem to know how an IR gun operates.  Once again you have shown that people fool themselves with instrumentation all the time.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> My gosh SSDD that is one of the stupidest things you think. The CMB emits *thermal radiation*. *Not* “resonant radio frequencies”. You are making crap up. Show me a source that says that the CMB is anything but thermal radiation at 2.7 K.



Poor child...a radio telescope can't receive anything but radio signals...CMB is not a radio signal...  Here is the simplest explanation of what was actually detected that I could find...



> Measurements of CMB by the COBE gave the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 to Georg Smooth and John Mather for discovering CMB. Similarly, measurements of DLR are presented as evidence of DLR supporting CO2 alarmism.
> 
> The existence of both CMB and DLR is thus manifested by certain instrument readings and to understand the nature of CMB and DLR, we have to ask what in fact the instrument or detector, is recording.
> 
> ...



A radio spectrum was recorded and then a radiance temperature is computed...it is very much like the same process for measuring back radiation at ambient temperature...it is the output of a mathematical model...not an actual measurement of back radiation.  To measure anything that could be construed as back radiation, the sensing device must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Do you deny the basic premise that the 3rd method of heat transfer (radiative) exists then? Or are you just too lazy to research WHY it's included in all textbooks on thermo..



Are you saying that my statement was untrue?  You don't seem to be...but you seem reluctant to admit that it is true.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, you apparently believe wholeheartedly in photons, QM, and both the AGW and greenhouse hypotheses with far less evidence than every observation ever made...and the second law didn't get to be a law based on the thin correlation that serves as support for the AGW hypothesis.
> ...



I suggested that you re read the section again so that you could understand what was being said...clearly you didn't...thus your continued misunderstanding.  Here, let me help.



> 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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.



What is being stated there is the second law...then it goes on to say that the consequence of that law is that we can not make a perfect refrigerator...or a perfect heat engine...or a perfect anything.....not the last 2 words...same principles.  They are just pointing out that the second law applies to everything.

Read for comprehension...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure that you believe that that receiving a resonance radio signal is evidence that a radio telescope received CMB IR radiation.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> OMG --- how close you are..  But how far it is to the truth.. The LENS is there because it's accepting IR radiation in the forrm OF LIGHT. Lenses don't focus "temperatures".. And I haven't held a thermopile in my hands for about 20 years. They are a very complicated way to measure heat and have virtually no sensitivity to objects that aren't very warm..   All of these Home Depot IR thermometer use direct photoelectric conversion. With small and cheap and accurate photodiodes that are tuned to IR. Like the IR sensor in a remote control..



Here you go flacaltenn...from the Fluke site...I am sure that you are familiar with Fluke.

http://support.fluke.com/hart-sales/Download/Asset/4100366_6203_ENG_A_W.PDF



> What is an infrared thermometer?
> 
> Infrared thermometers are a subset of radiation thermometers. These devices measure infrared radiation and display a temperature based on the radiation measured by the infrared thermometer and the emissivity setting of the infrared thermometer. The term infrared thermometer generally refers to *handheld devices with a thermopile detector*. Some other names used for infrared thermometers are IR guns, point and shoot thermometers, spot pyrometers, laser thermometers.






flacaltenn said:


> And radiation from your freezer IS coming out -- IS focused by lens -- and IS delivered to the photosensors that then measure an electric current corresponding to the number of IR photons received per unit time..



Sorry guy...it isn't... in the case of objects that are warmer, the thermopile warms up and that results in a voltage which is then converted into a temperature...if the object is cooler, the focus of the lens results in the thermopile cooling down which also results in a voltage which is then converted into a temperature...the whole thing is operating based on a mathematical formula assigned to a voltage that results from the thermopile warming or cooling...or not changing at all.  It all works much like Pictet's experiment.



flacaltenn said:


> Go buy one -- take it apart -- and send us a pic of the "thermopile" in it.  Even it HAD a thermopile in it -- it's still the incoming IR radiation thru that lens that would "warm" that thermopile..



No need...I actually read the book that came with mine...  Since there is no question that I am right about how IR thermometers work the only real question is whether or not you are grown up enough to admit that you were wrong....fooling yourself with instrumentation isn't something to be to embarrassed about...half of climate science is fooling itself with instruments and the other half is adjusting temperatures in part based on the failure of the other half to understand what their instruments are doing.

Reference Pictet's experiment for a very crude version of that high tech beauty you probably own but don't understand how it works.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2015)

God are you stupid.

He didn't say they don't exist, he said they're bloody antique.  Look them up in Wikipedia and you'll note that one of the primary references is this: Thermo-Electric Generators., from the fucking MUSEUM OF RETRO TECHNOLOGY.

And if you think Fluke is the expert, did you note this item on the very same page?:

Kirchhof’s Law and Emissivity For energy incident on a surface, the ratios of the energy reflected, transmitted and emitted sum to unity. When a surface is opaque, the emitted and reflected energy sum to unity. The emissivity is the ratio a surface of temperature (T) emits when compared to a perfect blackbody of the same temperature. Every object has an emissivity less than unity. The energy exiting an opaque surface is a combination of reflected and emitted energy. It is important to note that emissivity is not necessarily constant over all wavelengths.
*************************************************************

Where is the proviso you would have added concerning emittance being inversely proportional to the temperature of the matter towards which the subject radiates?  They say NOTHING about it.  ODD.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> A radio spectrum was recorded and then a radiance temperature is computed...it is very much like the same process for measuring back radiation at ambient temperature...it is the output of a mathematical model...not an actual measurement of back radiation. To measure anything that could be construed as back radiation, the sensing device must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.


You forgot that I provided you with* 65 examples *of thermal radiation from a cold object to an antena 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K must strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K in order to be detected.

30 of the systems use bolometers as detectors. 
You don't need any mathematical models to compute or interpret the detected bolometer signals because *they directly detect HEAT*.

*What is a Bolometer? *



Bolometers are detectors used to measure incident Infrared radiation. They are very sensitive to thermal radiation and are predominantly used in the infrared spectrum between 10 to 5000µm (30THz to 60GHz). The detector element is an extremely sensitive thermistor ... 
Infrared detectors, IR imagers, IR cameras, spectrometers, cryogenic systems, cryostats & dewars - Infrared Laboratories About Bolometers


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A radio spectrum was recorded and then a radiance temperature is computed...it is very much like the same process for measuring back radiation at ambient temperature...it is the output of a mathematical model...not an actual measurement of back radiation. To measure anything that could be construed as back radiation, the sensing device must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.
> ...



You must have skipped over this part

"The detector element is an extremely sensitive thermistor that is cooled to LHe temperatures in order to decrease the thermal background."


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> What is being stated there is the second law...then it goes on to say that the consequence of that law is that we can not make a perfect refrigerator...or a perfect heat engine...or a perfect anything.....not the last 2 words...same principles. They are just pointing out that the second law applies to everythin


That is funny. You now openly admit that you are using refrigerator thermodynamics to explain radiation thermodynamics. Thank you. That is what I have been saying all along. For your own good try to cite a source that applies only to the thermodynamics of radiation .


SSDD said:


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


I have given you an explanation over and over for what was actually measured. If it is over your head I am sorry but your inability to understand doesn't alter the fact that thermal radiation is not a resonance frequency. The CMB was measured with *devices that directly MEASURE HEAT, NOT FREQUENCIES*. I made that bold faced so that your attention span might be jolted to reality a little bit.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.



Says one of the biggest lying idiots on the board.



Crick said:


> He didn't say they don't exist, he said they're bloody antique.  Look them up in Wikipedia and you'll note that one of the primary references is this: Thermo-Electric Generators., from the fucking MUSEUM OF RETRO TECHNOLOGY.



Sorry guy, but once again you demonstrate conclusively that on yet another topic, you don't have a clue.  And anyone who looks to wikipedia for anything is indeed an idiot.

Here crick..the best rated infrared thermometers from 2015...the one with the best rating is a fluke 572-2 which has a thermopile...next is the FLIR TG165...and here is a link to a discussion of a tear down on one...you will see mention of the location of the thermopile...  
EEVblog #669 - FLIR TG165 Thermal Imager Teardown - Page 1..  and on it goes...here is the 
Testo Far-Field and Close Focus Infrared Thermometer with Aluminum Case, -35 to +950 Degree C Range, 0.1 Degree C Resolution..this is a $1400 thermometer...again...thermopile.  Do you ever bother to learn anything...ever...before you speak?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You must have skipped over this part
> 
> "The detector element is an extremely sensitive thermistor that is cooled to LHe temperatures in order to decrease the thermal background."


LHe temperatures is 4 deg K.  The CMB is 2.7 deg K. Not only is the detector warmer, but the antenna it hits is at 300 deg K. That shows that thermal radiation can and does strike objects warmer than the source.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You forgot that I provided you with* 65 examples *of thermal radiation from a cold object to an antena 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K must strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K in order to be detected.



No you didn't, but I believe that you believe you did...each and every one of those examples either represented reception and calculation based on a radio signal...or they were received by IR instruments which were cooled down to a temperature lower than 2.75K.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You must have skipped over this part
> 
> "The detector element is an extremely sensitive thermistor that is cooled to LHe temperatures in order to decrease the thermal background."



It is like they are the world champions at fooling themselves with instrumentation...or anything that they believe proves their point for that matter....like crick's "greenhouse" experiment that is really only showing the heat of compression.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You must have skipped over this part
> 
> "The detector element is an extremely sensitive thermistor that is cooled to LHe temperatures in order to decrease the thermal background."



Liquid helium is still warmer than the CMB.  And, of course, that CMB radiation had to penetrate a very warm atmosphere and was likely concentrated by large dishes that were at ambient temperature.  For SSDD's assertion to hold, those photons would have had to see 13.82 billion years into the future at a target 13.82 billion light years away probably less than a centimeter across and decide whether or not to make the trip.

Sticking with SSDD is not making you look any brighter Frank.  Besides every single "warmer" Ian and FCT both think he's nuts.  Do you really think SSDD knows more physics than the two of them?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> I have given you an explanation over and over for what was actually measured. If it is over your head I am sorry but your inability to understand doesn't alter the fact that thermal radiation is not a resonance frequency. The CMB was measured with *devices that directly MEASURE HEAT, NOT FREQUENCIES*. I made that bold faced so that your attention span might be jolted to reality a little bit.



Thermodynamics is thermodynamics regardless of what it is applied to.  You think there are separate laws of thermodynamics that only apply to refrigerators?  What a goober.

And again, check the specs on those bolometers...they were cooled to about 2.75K in order to receive the CMB...fooling yourself with instrumentation again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You must have skipped over this part
> ...



I'm confused. If my thermometer currently reads 72 degrees in my office, you're telling me that I can point it to a colder office across the street and it will read 68?

Really?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You must have skipped over this part
> ...



If your physics is correct, why bother to cool it all?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot that I provided you with* 65 examples *of thermal radiation from a cold object to an antena 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K must strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K in order to be detected.
> ...


It's in post #198. You are getting quit forgetful lately. Thirty of the examples are bolometers that directly measure heat, not radio signals.

_You forgot again that I did provide you with an example of thermal radiation from a cold object to an object 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K can strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K. 

You are getting quit forgetful lately.

There are sixty five experiments in the following reference that all saw the CMB, using these detectors, or combinations,
30 bolometers,
20 HEMT,
9 Interferometers,
4 SIS detectors.
Etc.
List of cosmic microwave background experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After the CMB passes through the warmer atmosphere it must strike the warmer parabolic dish so that it can reflect to the detector. The dish is at an ambient temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than the CMB.

Those are 65 cases of actual observed, measured examples to support the claim that radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature._​


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm confused. If my thermometer currently reads 72 degrees in my office, you're telling me that I can point it to a colder office across the street and it will read 68?
> 
> Really?


Nope, I never said or implied that. Are you one of SSDD's minions that has a screwy view of thermodynamics?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You said it yourself. You quoted my source which stated, "in order to decrease the thermal background." Cooling detectors and electronics always significantly decreases "shot noise" or Poisson noise - a type of electronic noise.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Thermodynamics is thermodynamics regardless of what it is applied to. You think there are separate laws of thermodynamics that only apply to refrigerators? What a goober.


Nope. There is only one law. It can be stated heat can not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a warmer object. You had two statements of the law. The second one was only for refrigerators, and the first one was the general law. What a goober.


SSDD said:


> And again, check the specs on those bolometers...they were cooled to about 2.75K in order to receive the CMB...fooling yourself with instrumentation again.


Some were at 4 K. Also the the cold CMB heat radiation has to hit the 300 degree antenna.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused. If my thermometer currently reads 72 degrees in my office, you're telling me that I can point it to a colder office across the street and it will read 68?
> ...



What's so screwy about following the laws of physics?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Nothing is wrong with that unless you purposefully misinterpret the laws like SSDD. I don't really know if you are one of SSDD's minions and think that thermal radiation shuns objects that are colder than the source. There is no physical mechanism for that. SSDD thinks photons from a colder source somehow disappear. 

Look I really don't care if you believe that AGW is a farce. You have plenty of ways of making your point. You don't have to bastardize the laws of physics like SSDD does to make the point.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> ..or they were received by IR instruments which were cooled down to a temperature lower than 2.75K.



With what?


----------



## Dale Smith (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Here is my question to you, sir....how can we have a benchmark for "global climate change" when geo-engineering has been going on in earnest since 1997 at the very latest? Soil and water samples do not lie. Other NATO countries have produced some incredible documentaries complete with sub-titles for us Americans that show irrefutable truth that aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters have been causing these weather anomalies that have been blamed on climate change. This scam goes all the way back to the Iron Mountain Report that was leaked in 1967 claiming that climate change and pollution could be used to unite the masses into global governance. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N jumped all over it and when they were formed in 1969 (to bring down the middle class of America) and they started pushing environmental laws...I have their own words lest you be unconvinced. You and your fellow tree-hugging liberals are being played for chumps...me? I am not buying tickets to this bad theater because I can see right through this bad play.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2015)

Dale Smith said:


> Here is my question to you, sir....how can we have a benchmark for "global climate change" when geo-engineering has been going on in earnest since 1997 at the very latest? Soil and water samples do not lie. Other NATO countries have produced some incredible documentaries complete with sub-titles for us Americans that show irrefutable truth that aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters have been causing these weather anomalies that have been blamed on climate change. This scam goes all the way back to the Iron Mountain Report that was leaked in 1967 claiming that climate change and pollution could be used to unite the masses into global governance. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N jumped all over it and when they were formed in 1969 (to bring down the middle class of America) and they started pushing environmental laws...I have their own words lest you be unconvinced. You and your fellow tree-hugging liberals are being played for chumps...me? I am not buying tickets to this bad theater because I can see right through this bad play.


You can believe what you want, I really don't care. But at least you are not bastardizing the laws of physics.


----------



## Dale Smith (Dec 21, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my question to you, sir....how can we have a benchmark for "global climate change" when geo-engineering has been going on in earnest since 1997 at the very latest? Soil and water samples do not lie. Other NATO countries have produced some incredible documentaries complete with sub-titles for us Americans that show irrefutable truth that aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters have been causing these weather anomalies that have been blamed on climate change. This scam goes all the way back to the Iron Mountain Report that was leaked in 1967 claiming that climate change and pollution could be used to unite the masses into global governance. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N jumped all over it and when they were formed in 1969 (to bring down the middle class of America) and they started pushing environmental laws...I have their own words lest you be unconvinced. You and your fellow tree-hugging liberals are being played for chumps...me? I am not buying tickets to this bad theater because I can see right through this bad play.
> ...


 It's the Hegelian Dialectic, cause the problem, wait for the emotional outcry and then propose a solution to the very problem that you caused that suits your agenda....that is what "climate change" bullshit is all about....guarantee you on that one. I would love to get off of petroleum based energy but the powers that be will never allow that to happen because they stand too much to lose...what they want to do is "double dip" by charging you a tax to use their product so you can eek out a meager existence on this POS prison planet. Technology to get us off of oil and coal has been around since the 1930's and it has been suppressed. Nikola Tesla's patents were stolen by USA.INC....fact.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Do you deny the basic premise that the 3rd method of heat transfer (radiative) exists then? Or are you just too lazy to research WHY it's included in all textbooks on thermo..
> ...



The lack of clarity on light being wave or particle hasn't stopped the optics folks or the laser folks or the imaging folks or changed any designed equipment in any substantial way. Sounds like you are making excuses to not accept the entire concept of radiative heating.. ARE YOU???


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how radiation magically stops when the IR gun is pointed at something the same temperature. I say they both continue to radiate, you say they stop but refuse to give a mechanism to abort the collisions that produce the radiation in the first place.
> ...



I know how they work..  Told you they don't use thermopiles anymore. Told you what the lens is for. And you scooted right out of the topic.. How DO they work SSDD??  Got an entertaining alternate explanation other than measuring the amount of IR radiation being received (regardless of the relative temperatures)?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



The cooling of the detector is only required to measure very weak signals. Because even without an input from a radiating object -- all detectors have a noise component that increases with temperature. Even a simple diode or transistor (even resistors)  has a similar noise issue with temperature.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OMG --- how close you are..  But how far it is to the truth.. The LENS is there because it's accepting IR radiation in the forrm OF LIGHT. Lenses don't focus "temperatures".. And I haven't held a thermopile in my hands for about 20 years. They are a very complicated way to measure heat and have virtually no sensitivity to objects that aren't very warm..   All of these Home Depot IR thermometer use direct photoelectric conversion. With small and cheap and accurate photodiodes that are tuned to IR. Like the IR sensor in a remote control..
> ...



Those FLuke devices use a thermopile because they combine contact temperature measurements with non-contact "gun" readings. So that the thermistor calibration is already there for the CONTACT measurements.

As I told you --- wouldn't matter. Because the "ring of thermistors" design is still measuring the heat content of the photons that impinge on the target.. Point it at a -40degC and you get no voltage because that's the limit of it's dynamic range. Point it at -20degC and you will see the heating effect of photons being absorbed into the target. The thermopile design probably gives these more expensive devices a slightly better cold range because the noise floor of a thermistor is less than that of photodiode at room temperatures.

*STILL --- you are measuring photon energy from a distant object. EVEN IF the reference temperature of the thermistor pile and the target  is at a higher temperature. *

*Far as I can tell -- you believe the lens is magically focusing "cool" onto the target. Target never goes below the reference temperature. Which is roughly whatever the ambient temperature of the device is.. It's not COOLING the target to -40degC. That's for certain..*.

So --- bloviate away as required to preserve whatever physic fantasies gets you hot.
BTW --- that link to a bunch of hack-artists taking apart a 2D thermal imager was hysterically funny. The word "thermopile" was found once on that page. From a guy who thought he spotted it behind the screws. Unfortunately -- thermopiles or discrete photodiodes don't DO 2D imaging. You use an actual IR tuned CAMERA for that job...


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 21, 2015)

Good News SSDD --- The labtests are back and I've diagnosed the exact poison that has damaged your ability to understand radiative physics.. And since I've only ever been in these threads as a friendly intervention -- I can assure you that a CURE is imminent. Within a day -- you'll be up to 21st Century understanding of the topic.

*You have Pictet Disease*. A rare re-emergence of a bad 18th century understanding of IR propagation and heating. Finally convinced me to go look it up.. And I was amazed (and at 1st stumped) by what I saw. But putting aside that every "hard-core" GW denier uses this as an explanation to explain away the GHouse effect -- it is a marvelous Vegas Strip Magic Act.. A true Hogwarts lecture for physicists.

So thanks for the entertainment. I gotta go work. But I will post a new thread here addressing how the professional GW deniers manage to make even me blush with their misrepresentations of what the Pictet Experiment proved...

You actually believe right now that "cold" can be focused by a lens.. Couldn't understand this until I spent a couple hours revisiting 18th century physics. You will be OK very shortly...


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Does that mean you take back your asinine accusation that Crick said all CO2 radiation is emitted towards the surface?

Now on to your latest idiotic statement. 30% of re-emited LWIR is directed at the surface. Where is your source? All of the CO2 reemission that makes it to thesurface is from the first 20 metres, most from 2 metres and less. Hardly enough distance for the curvature of the Earth to make a difference. Perhaps you mean water vapour reemission. I don't have the extinction distance but I presume it is 100 metres or less,most within 20 metres, depending on the wavelengths of course. Still not enough for curvature to make much difference because the sideways component is being absorbed long before it escapes.

I really wish you would think your statements through before you post them. My reasonable skeptical statements get tainted by your foolish and unreasonable ones.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Good News SSDD --- The labtests are back and I've diagnosed the exact poison that has damaged your ability to understand radiative physics.. And since I've only ever been in these threads as a friendly intervention -- I can assure you that a CURE is imminent. Within a day -- you'll be up to 21st Century understanding of the topic.
> 
> *You have Pictet Disease*. A rare re-emergence of a bad 18th century understanding of IR propagation and heating. Finally convinced me to go look it up.. And I was amazed (and at 1st stumped) by what I saw. But putting aside that every "hard-core" GW denier uses this as an explanation to explain away the GHouse effect -- it is a marvelous Vegas Strip Magic Act.. A true Hogwarts lecture for physicists.
> 
> ...




Interesting. Is there really more to it than just the solar heater/cooler box example?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Good News SSDD --- The labtests are back and I've diagnosed the exact poison that has damaged your ability to understand radiative physics.. And since I've only ever been in these threads as a friendly intervention -- I can assure you that a CURE is imminent. Within a day -- you'll be up to 21st Century understanding of the topic.
> ...



Not familiar with that discussion. This is kinda neat because it's not obvious at first. Just like making tigers disappear on stage.. Phuds are STILL writing papers on it because it's fun for them..


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2015)

Pictet did an experiment where cold and colder at one focal point were seen as cold and colder thermometer readings at the other focal point. Initially there was some confusion whether there was both heat and anti-heat. Is that the one?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






The amount re-emitted towards the surface is less than 30% of the absorbed LWIR. DO THE MATH!  There are only about three or four people who can understand this math on this board, I am hoping your one of them.

Source


----------



## IanC (Dec 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I am unsure why you think a paper on MidWave IR, which does not even address the important CO2 band, is relevant to supporting your statement. Did you even read it? surely you must have at least read the summary?

6. SUMMARY

The spectral and radiometric characteristics of the radiative transfer process in the MWIR have been examined. The
effects of mixed gases are numerous in the MWIR, although much of the spectral region is dominated by water vapor
and carbon dioxide absorption. Aerosols were found to still have an influence in the MWIR and should be included in
any radiative transfer calculations. Surface emissivity varies less than in the VNIR/SWIR, with typical values at or above
0.85. Combining radiative transfer equations for both the solar reflective and the thermal emissive regimes, and
neglecting terms that provided minimal contributions to the overall at-sensor radiance, the expected at-sensor radiance
could be estimated. From this a simplified equation for the surface-leaving radiance including both solar and thermal
components was derived.* Limited availability of MWIR data precluded application of the technique at this time.*
Click to expand...
I honestly havent a clue as to what you understand, if anything about atmospheric radiation. the surface is affected by the atmosphere directly above it, a few hundred metres at most. the surface radiates 400W and it gets 335W back because the atmosphere above it is close to the same temp.

TOA radiation is much different than surface radiation. roughly half escapes freely through the atmospheric window (ignored in your link), the rest of the radiation is produced at higher altitudes and only escapes because water has precipitated or the atmosphere has thinned enough so that other wavelengths start getting through. CO2 is the last to let go, at 60 below.






are there other things involved? of course! but get an idea of some of the basics before you swamp yourself with complexities


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

IanC said:


> But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.



Can you prove that outside of a mathematical model?  Answer.....No SSDD, I can't...but I believe it anyway.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You must have skipped over this part
> ...



Sorry guy....liquid helium can cool to sub 2k temperatures.  I know you want the second law to be false, but it just isn't....

The Fundamentals of Imaging

Frequency Standards and Metrology

https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:859430/FULLTEXT01.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Liquid helium is still warmer than the CMB.



And the fake engineer jumps up and once again demonstrates that he doesn't have a clue...you just went out and grabbed the first source that you could find that said that the temperature of liquid helium is 4k...didn't you?  And then you stated that CMB is colder than liquid helium....and not being an engineer, you never considered the fact that devices using liquid helium can be cooled to temperatures lower than 4k..

Liquid helium can be used to cool instruments to temperatures below 2k...you need sources?

New Scientist

here is one capable of 1.5K

Patent US20110120147 - Pressurized Superfluid Helium ...

Laser Spectroscopy VII

And I could go on ad nauseum with references to devices being cooled to 2k and below using liquid helium.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

And being a practiced engineer, you think such devices are built into every IR detector made, right?


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> [
> 
> Your legend in your own mind...
> 
> Now that is what is funny.  The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order.  Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth?  In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth..  I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.



Where the fuck did you get the idea that anyone was suggesting all IR gets reradiated towards the surface?  And which thermodynamic law do you believe disproves AGW?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> And being a practiced engineer, you think such devices are built into every IR detector made, right?



No, only the ones used to measure CMB.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

The comment about cooling detectors said it was done to reduce thermal noise.  It is not a make or break issue.  It did not say that if they did not cool them, they could not detect the CMB.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> And being a practiced engineer, you think such devices are built into every IR detector made, right?



I never claimed to be an engineer...that's your lie....and devices capable of detecting CMB certainly do have such cooling systems installed.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> The comment about cooling detectors said it was done to reduce thermal noise.  It is not a make or break issue.  It did not say that if they did not cool them, they could not detect the CMB.



Like jones saying that they made up data does not mean that they actually made up data...you are so full of it that it would be funny were it not so sad.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

I'm not the one calling for magic photons that _we'll just never be able to explain_.

Seems to me that I've hit you up for specific explanations and specific links and specific support several times over the last few days and so far you're batting .000.

Seems to me that you've all pretty clearly demonstrated that you have NO confessions from any of the hundreds of people you've accused of falsely manipulating data and NO complaints from any of the thousands of climate scientists for whom that data is a major component of their professional lives.  ALL you've got is deniers claiming that the data adjustment must be unjustified because some of it goes in a direction they don't like.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> I'm not the one calling for magic photons that _we'll just never be able to explain_.



Red herring?  Logical fallacy all you have crick?  The man said that he made up data because he didn't have enough actual data...no getting around it...it is an admission of fabricating data.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

It's an admission that climate scientists looking to calculate the average global temperature have to infill areas of sparse data.  Big whoop.  It is not a confession of wrong doing.  You fail.

Allow me to add that what Jones is talking about are NOT the adjustments you've all been claiming to be unjustified.  Those adjustments have taken place for the most part in areas well represented in the instrument record.  Jones is talking about areas with poor coverage - a long known problem.

You need to get your story straight.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy....liquid helium can cool to sub 2k temperatures. I know you want the second law to be false, but it just isn't....





SSDD said:


> you never considered the fact that devices using liquid helium can be cooled to temperatures lower than 4k.





SSDD said:


> and devices capable of detecting CMB certainly do have such cooling systems installed.


Still cherry-picking the problem I see.

Yes, of course some of the later more sophisticated experiments used lower temperatures detectors. But the first discovery of the CMB by A. A. Penzias and R. A. Wilson was done with a detector using liquid helium temperatures. It was documented in their paper. Also, other earlier measurements were at liquid helium temperature detectors.

Finally the one thing you keep blocking your eyes and ears and shout la-la-la about is that no matter what the detector temperature is, the antenna is still at ambient temperature 300 degrees warmer than the CMB source. That is a fundamental point that destroys any argument you might conjure up.

*Thermal radiation from a 2.7 K source has been observed and measured to hit huge antennas at 300 K. *

*That proves that radiation energy can move from a cold object to a warmer one.*

The second law is still valid but not the way you state it.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

SSDD uses Satan's thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> It's an admission that climate scientists looking to calculate the average global temperature have to infill areas of sparse data.  Big whoop.  It is not a confession of wrong doing.  You fail.
> 
> Allow me to add that what Jones is talking about are NOT the adjustments you've all been claiming to be unjustified.  Those adjustments have taken place for the most part in areas well represented in the instrument record.  Jones is talking about areas with poor coverage - a long known problem.
> 
> You need to get your story straight.



I am perfectly aware of what he was talking about...and am equally aware that you are a lying sack who will attempt, no matter how poorly, to defend the indefensible actions of the priests of your cult.

Data tampering is a whole other issue which will also bite you all in the ass in the not to distant future.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Still cherry-picking the problem I see.


There is no problem...the devices were cooled to a temperature lower than 2.75k...simple as that.



Wuwei said:


> Yes, of course some of the later more sophisticated experiments used lower temperatures detectors. But the first discovery of the CMB by A. A. Penzias and R. A. Wilson was done with a detector using liquid helium temperatures. It was documented in their paper. Also, other earlier measurements were at liquid helium temperature detectors.



Sorry guy...sub 2k temperatures have been possible using liquid helium for some time...all you need do is pump the stuff through a system...liquid helium just sitting is around 4k...



Wuwei said:


> Finally the one thing you keep blocking your eyes and ears and shout la-la-la about is that no matter what the detector temperature is, the antenna is still at ambient temperature 300 degrees warmer than the CMB source. That is a fundamental point that destroys any argument you might conjure up.



The antenna is not doing the measuring...and all that was measured was what hit the cooled instrument...you lose again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD uses Satan's thermodynamics.



No matter how you dice it, I am the one who accepts the statement of the second law...it is you and yours who claim that it says something that it doesn't...much like you claim that climate scientists aren't fabricating data when they state clearly that they are fabricating data.  Liars will be liars.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 22, 2015)

Winter_ heat wave_ to bring threat of tornadoes to Deep South


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...sub 2k temperatures have been possible using liquid helium for some time...all you need do is pump the stuff through a system...liquid helium just sitting is around 4k...


Of course. But absolutely not with the first discovery.
*
The first discovery of the CMB by A. A. Penzias and R. A. Wilson was done with a detector using liquid helium temperatures. It was documented in their paper.*



SSDD said:


> The antenna is not doing the measuring...and all that was measured was what hit the cooled instrument...you lose again.


Yes. It hit the antenna before it was measured. But nevertheless....
*Thermal radiation from the 2.7 K source must have hit huge antennas at 300 K. *
*That proves that radiation energy can move from a cold object to a warmer one.*


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> No matter how you dice it, I am the one who accepts the statement of the second law


You are the only one who uses refrigerator thermodynamics to explain radiation thermodynamics. That is so ignorant.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> It's an admission that climate scientists looking to calculate the average global temperature have to infill areas of sparse data.  Big whoop.  It is not a confession of wrong doing.  You fail.
> 
> Allow me to add that what Jones is talking about are NOT the adjustments you've all been claiming to be unjustified.  Those adjustments have taken place for the most part in areas well represented in the instrument record.  Jones is talking about areas with poor coverage - a long known problem.
> 
> You need to get your story straight.





SSDD said:


> I am perfectly aware of what he was talking about...and am equally aware that you are a lying sack who will attempt, no matter how poorly, to defend the indefensible actions of the priests of your cult.
> 
> Data tampering is a whole other issue which will also bite you all in the ass in the not to distant future.



But you've added absolutely nothing to the discussion here.  No facts.  No reasoning.  No evidence.  No logic.  Just insults.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> The antenna is not doing the measuring...and all that was measured was what hit the cooled instrument...you lose again.



Your claim was never restricted to cold can't be measured by warm.  You've claimed all along that photons could not move from cold to warm.  The CMB was detected via a parabolic dish at ambient temperature.  You lose.  Period.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...sub 2k temperatures have been possible using liquid helium for some time...all you need do is pump the stuff through a system...liquid helium just sitting is around 4k...
> ...


*
*
You idiot...sub 2k is liquid helium temperatures...you think that moving it through a system is new knowledge...and besides, that first discovery was made with a radio telescope...it didn't detect IR at all...it was discovered via a resonance radio frequency.   You are a prime example of how people fool themselves with instrumentation...you believe a radio telescope was directly detecting IR among other falsehoods.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how you dice it, I am the one who accepts the statement of the second law
> ...




Your claim is a lie....are you trying to displace crick as the biggest lying sack on the board?  Aside from your blatant dishonesty, how do you suppose the laws of thermodynamics differ for refrigerators than they do for radiation?  It is all radiation whether it is in a refrigerator or the atmosphere isn't it?  Exactly how do you believe the atmosphere might bend the law when refrigerators can't?  Is there some sub set of the law that only applies to everything but refrigerators?


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

Are you thinking that radio and IR are different forms of energy?  Please tell us you're not that stupid.  Then explain to us why you think that makes a difference.  Cause, again, your claim has always been that photons will not travel from warm to cold, not that they can't be measured when they get there.

And I note you still haven't addressed the 300K reflector dish.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> [
> 
> But you've added absolutely nothing to the discussion here.  No facts.  No reasoning.  No evidence.  No logic.  Just insults.



And you continue to lie...you asked for an admission to fabricating data...I gave you two instances of climate scientists stating in clear language that they fabricated data...then you started doing what you do...lie.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Are you thinking that radio and IR are different forms of energy?  Please tell us you're not that stupid.  Then explain to us why you think that makes a difference.  Cause, again, your claim has always been that photons will not travel from warm to cold, not that they can't be measured when they get there.



Are you claiming that radio waves have a temperature?  Is that what you are claiming bucky?

And again...I make no claims that are not clearly stated in the second law of thermodynamics...here, let me post it for you again...then you tell me what I am claiming that the second law does not state.

*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.*


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

You do not have such admissions.  You have statements which you've removed from context and interpreted as you choose to interpret them.  Neither fits your initial charges and neither would be interpreted by a reasonable, objective intellect as you have done.  What I have repeatedly contended was lacking was a CONFESSION.  See the thread of mine - the first organized instance of this topic being brought into the discussion - in which that term appears.

So, pack sand asshat, you haven't got shite..


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Are you thinking that radio and IR are different forms of energy?  Please tell us you're not that stupid.  Then explain to us why you think that makes a difference.  Cause, again, your claim has always been that photons will not travel from warm to cold, not that they can't be measured when they get there.





SSDD said:


> Are you claiming that radio waves have a temperature?  Is that what you are claiming bucky?



I'm observing (no claiming required for established facts) that both are electromagnetic radiation. As such, radio can be considered as photons and it does have a temperature: E=hf applies to all EMR whizzo.



SSDD said:


> And again...I make no claims that are not clearly stated in the second law of thermodynamics...here, let me post it for you again...then you tell me what I am claiming that the second law does not state.
> 
> *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.*



I aced thermo and heat transfer.  I highly doubt you have a high school diploma.  Don't bother trying to run your insane fantasies on me.  They give shit a bad name.

So, since you've repeated your claim that photons will not move from cold to warm, how'd the CMB get past that parabolic dish?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> You idiot...sub 2k is liquid helium temperatures...you think that moving it through a system is new knowledge...and besides, that first discovery was made with a radio telescope...it didn't detect IR at all...it was discovered via a resonance radio frequency. You are a prime example of how people fool themselves with instrumentation...you believe a radio telescope was directly detecting IR among other falsehoods.


You are the idiot. Liquid helium temperature is 3.216 K which is .491 K above the CMB. You are inventing "facts" from your gut feelings again. There is no such thing as a black body radiation emitting "resonance radio frequencies". That is a totally stupid and childish invention of "facts" again. You are a prime example of how deniers fool themselves with nonexistent, invented "facts". You believe the CMB radiation did not strike the antenna of the radio telescope, nor the detector - both warmer than the CMB source.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Your claim is a lie....are you trying to displace crick as the biggest lying sack on the board?



Nope. You are the biggest liar on the board. Nobody can come near you in your ability for lies and fabrications.



SSDD said:


> Aside from your blatant dishonesty, how do you suppose the laws of thermodynamics differ for refrigerators than they do for radiation?



They don't differ. There is only one law. You are the one that thinks there are two laws.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> 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. [correct] Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. [only for refrigeration, etc.]



Those are the two laws you quote time and again. The first is a general law that applies to radiation, the CMB, refrigeration, engines, and everything else. The second law works on refrigeration, engines, and other non-radiative examples



SSDD said:


> It is all radiation whether it is in a refrigerator or the atmosphere isn't it?



That is another lie on your part. Refrigerators don't use radiation in their operation. Just what is wrong with your thinking. That's totally stupid.



SSDD said:


> Exactly how do you believe the atmosphere might bend the law when refrigerators can't?



C'mon pay attention. They both obey the same law. It is you that doesn't understand it.



SSDD said:


> Is there some sub set of the law that only applies to everything but refrigerators?



That is exactly my question to you. You quote two laws of thermodynamics from a refrigerator site. You quote two sentences. The first sentence is the general law accepted by all physicists. The second applies only to non-radiative examples. How can you miss something that is so simple???


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> You do not have such admissions.  You have statements which you've removed from context and interpreted as you choose to interpret them.



I provided the entire statements in both cases...there was no context other than that the people who wrote them admitted to fabricating data.  You, on the other hand engaged in all sorts of out of context excusing...and interpreting.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You are the idiot. Liquid helium temperature is 3.216 K which is .491 K above the CMB.



You didn't even bother to look before you spoke did you?  Why is that not surprising?  Here....

New Scientist

http://www.oxford-instruments.com/p...m-optical-2-2k-500k-cryostat-with-narrow-tail

Patent US20110120147 - Pressurized Superfluid Helium Cryostat




Wuwei said:


> You are inventing "facts" from your gut feelings again.



Sorry guy, that's all you.  As you can see I provide credible sources to support my claim...you on the other hand decided from your gut that I was just making up the 2k number and went with it rather than actually taking the time to learn something.



Wuwei said:


> There is no such thing as a black body radiation emitting "resonance radio frequencies".



Of course not... I never claimed that they did....as I said the whole topic is so far over your head that you simply can't even get the basics...and because you don't understand you reject it.  Black body radiation can be detected with a radio telescope via resonance frequencies.

 That is a totally stupid and childish invention of "facts" again.[/quote]

Sorry again guy...the stupidity is on your part...you failed so miserably to grasp even the basics that you can't even repeat what I said...what you are saying bears almost no resemblance to what I said.  What I actually said was:

The detector of CMB was a radio-telescope, which like a radio tuner tunes in different resonance frequencies of an antenna which produces an electrical signal, which is amplified into a recording over frequency or a spectrum. 

The recorded spectrum is matched with a black-body spectrum according to Planck's law,  where the peak of the recorded spectrum determines the temperature (3 K) from which a radiance can be computed by Planck's law. The recorded spectrum is thus translated by using Planck's law into a radiance measured in W/m2, which is perceived as a "faint glow".


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 23, 2015)

As the east coast prepares for the *warmest Christmas Eve ever,* the prequel promises to be warmer still. Today, Washington, D.C., is expected to break existing high temperature records *by a full 10 degrees*.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. You are the biggest liar on the board. Nobody can come near you in your ability for lies and fabrications.



Feel free to bring forward a lie on my part.



Wuwei said:


> They don't differ. There is only one law. You are the one that thinks there are two laws.



Of course they don't and yet you suggested something about refrigerator thermodynamics as if the physical laws were different for refrigerators...just one more example of the while topic being so far over your head that you can't even understand what is being said to you.



Wuwei said:


> Those are the two laws you quote time and again. The first is a general law that applies to radiation, the CMB, refrigeration, engines, and everything else. The second law works on refrigeration, engines, and other non-radiative examples



Sorry guy..that is just one law...it is known as the second law of thermodynamics...again...so far over your head that you are completely lost.    Here is the first law of thermodynamics:







The first law of thermodynamics is the application of the conservation of energy principle to heat and thermodynamic processes.

[quote="wuwi.post13100575, member.54364]  That is another lie on your part. Refrigerators don't use radiation in their operation. Just what is wrong with your thinking. That's totally stupid.[/quote]

Who ever said that they did?  Are you really this ignorant on the topic?  Do you get that matter "radiates" energy?  Where did you get the idea that anyone ever proposed the idea of nuclear refrigerators?  Just so that people who are watching this can see how badly you misunderstand this topic...I am going to bring the whole statement in question so that perhaps they can figure out how you made the jump to nuclear refrigerators.



> 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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator.  The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.



So goober...the statement is the second law of thermodynamics...not the first...it states that heat won't move from a colder body to a warmer body without doing work to make it happen and it goes on to state that energy won't move spontaneously (that means by itself) from a cold object to a warm object....Then it goes on to say that because of this, we can't produce a perfect refrigerator...or a heat pump...or air conditioner...It is the second law that explains why we can't build these perfect appliances....not that the second law somehow applies to everything but refrigerators or refrigerators and nothing else...and where you got the idea about nuclear refrigerators, is beyond me.....energy, and heat are forms of radiation...and the second law is all about radiation and where it spontaneously will go and where it spontaneously won't go.



			
				wuwi said:
			
		

> That is exactly my question to you. You quote two laws of thermodynamics from a refrigerator site. You quote two sentences. The first sentence is the general law accepted by all physicists. The second applies only to non-radiative examples. How can you miss something that is so simple???



Holy cow....could you be more wrong?  I haven't quoted two laws off thermodynamics...I have only quoted one...it goes like this..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...

And it isn't a refrigerator site you idiot...it is from the physics department at Georgia State University...they only mentioned refrigerators in an attempt to put the second law of thermodynamics into a real world context....The second law applies to all forms of energy...


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Black body radiation can be detected with a radio telescope via resonance frequencies.



Only for temperatures so low the EM frequency gets into the radio band.  Radio receivers do NOT respond to IR.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 23, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Winter_ heat wave_ to bring threat of tornadoes to Deep South


Chicago may be close to the 1982 records.  That's a damn long time of cold don't you think?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...sub 2k temperatures have been possible using liquid helium for some time...all you need do is pump the stuff through a system...liquid helium just sitting is around 4k...
> ...


didn't SSDD state they needed liquid helium?  You said but not the first one, and then post up the first one showing liquid helium.  Too funny.  dude.  just sitting here and laughing at that one.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 23, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> As the east coast prepares for the *warmest Christmas Eve ever,* the prequel promises to be warmer still. Today, Washington, D.C., is expected to break existing high temperature records *by a full 10 degrees*.


finally no nut stomping freeze for christmas.  yahoo.  about time, since the 1980s.  been that damn cold for that long.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> You didn't even bother to look before you spoke did you? Why is that not surprising? Here....


It is quite obvious that you don't know the difference between the temperature of Helium at atmospheric pressure (3.216) and pumped He at lower pressure (as low as 1 K).
He at atmospheric pressure was used in the earlier CMB experiments. Pumped He is what you are referring to and was used in the later CMB experiments.


SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, that's all you. As you can see I provide credible sources to support my claim...you on the other hand decided from your gut that I was just making up the 2k number and went with it rather than actually taking the time to learn something.


You are confused about the actual experiments. Let me reword it.
The first discovery of the CMB by A. A. Penzias and R. A. Wilson was done with a detector using liquid helium *at atmospheric pressures and 3.216 K*. It was documented in their paper.
Yes you were thinking from your gut, but it should be clear now what the experiment actually was.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> The detector of CMB was a radio-telescope, which like a radio tuner tunes in different resonance frequencies of an antenna which produces an electrical signal, which is amplified into a recording over frequency or a spectrum.
> 
> The recorded spectrum is matched with a black-body spectrum according to Planck's law, where the peak of the recorded spectrum determines the temperature (3 K) from which a radiance can be computed by Planck's law. The recorded spectrum is thus translated by using Planck's law into a radiance measured in W/m2, which is perceived as a "faint glow".


Yes that's exactly how a maser works. Of course before the CMB hits the maser, the CMB first hits the antenna dish and is focused on the maser.Of course if there were no focusing dish, the CMB would be extremely weak or impossible to measure.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Of course they don't and yet you suggested something about refrigerator thermodynamics as if the physical laws were different for refrigerators...just one more example of the while topic being so far over your head that you can't even understand what is being said to you.


Nope, you are saying that the first law is denying accepted concepts of radiation physics.


SSDD said:


> Here is the first law of thermodynamics:
> blah blah blah


So what? You are confused again. We are talking about the second law.


SSDD said:


> Who ever said that they did? Are you really this ignorant on the topic? Do you get that matter "radiates" energy? Where did you get the idea that anyone ever proposed the idea of nuclear refrigerators? Just so that people who are watching this can see how badly you misunderstand this topic...I am going to bring the whole statement in question so that perhaps they can figure out how you made the jump to nuclear refrigerators.


C'mon. Quit the lying. That's your idea not mine. Now you want to talk about nuclear refrigerators!!! The term “nuclear” in the context of energy refers to atomic energy. You don't know that?


SSDD said:


> .it states that heat won't move from a colder body to a warmer body without doing work to make it happen


That is correct.


SSDD said:


> and it goes on to state that energy won't move spontaneously (that means by itself) from a cold object to a warm object.


That is only in the case of refrigerators. A counterexample is that thermal radiation energy can can move from an object at any temperature to an object at any other temperature.  If you disagree please cite a source on radiation physics not refrigerator phyisics.


SSDD said:


> Then it goes on to say that because of this, we can't produce a perfect refrigerator...or a heat pump...or air conditioner...It is the second law that explains why we can't build these perfect appliances....not that the second law somehow applies to everything but refrigerators or refrigerators and nothing else...and where you got the idea about nuclear refrigerators, is beyond me.....energy, and heat are forms of radiation...and the second law is all about radiation and where it spontaneously will go and where it spontaneously won't go.


Yes as I said the whole section was about refrigeration. That last sentence was not intended to involve radiation.


SSDD said:


> I haven't quoted two laws off thermodynamics...I have only quoted one...it goes like this..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...


The second sentence is not part of the first law. It does not apply to radiation.


SSDD said:


> And it isn't a refrigerator site you idiot...it is from the physics department at Georgia State University...they only mentioned refrigerators in an attempt to put the second law of thermodynamics into a real world context....The second law applies to all forms of energy


Then why is it titled *Second Law: Refrigerator*

If you think that radiant energy cannot move from a cold object to a hot object, what is there to keep the photons of the cold object from striking the hot object. I heard others talk about your belief in smart photons, but I want to hear it from you.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> didn't SSDD state they needed liquid helium? You said but not the first one, and then post up the first one showing liquid helium. Too funny. dude. just sitting here and laughing at that one.


You haven't been following all the text. Liquid helium at *atmospheric *pressure was used in the first CMB experiment. I said that several times. I never ever said it wasn't. The thing you should sit there laughing at is the fact that SSDD thought the temperature of *low pressure* liquid helium was used in the first experiment. OK so now have your laugh at him.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> As the east coast prepares for the *warmest Christmas Eve ever,* the prequel promises to be warmer still. Today, Washington, D.C., is expected to break existing high temperature records *by a full 10 degrees*.


No dreaming of a white Christmas there. Christmas in Florida is predicted at 86 degrees.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 23, 2015)




----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

SSDD, it is quite obvious that you've never had a class in thermodynamics. A dozen people here who have, have told you repeatedly that your interpretations are utter nonsense.  Where do you get off telling ANYONE they don't know what they're talking about re thermodynamics?  You're the one here, out of EVERYBODY here, who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Still waiting to hear how the CMB got past the 300K reflector dish


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD, it is quite obvious that you've never had a class in thermodynamics. A dozen people here who have, have told you repeatedly that your interpretations are utter nonsense. Where do you get off telling ANYONE they don't know what they're talking about re thermodynamics? You're the one here, out of EVERYBODY here, who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.


It isn't just the people here; every physicist for the past 100 years or so would say he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. He knows that, but he likes to play games.


Crick said:


> Still waiting to hear how the CMB got past the 300K reflector dish


Yes, we are still waiting for him to man up, and not just come up with another distraction.


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

*Radiation Heat Transfer*

*Net Radiation Loss Rate*
If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

_q = ε σ (Th4 - Tc4) Ac_ 

_[q = ε σ Th4 Ac - ε σ Tc4 Ac] my addition to illustrate the reality of two way flow_

_where_

_Th_ _= hot body absolute temperature (K)_

_Tc_ _= cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)_

_Ac = area of the object  (m2)
*****************************************************
SSDD, do you understand what the term "NET" means?_


----------



## jc456 (Dec 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they don't and yet you suggested something about refrigerator thermodynamics as if the physical laws were different for refrigerators...just one more example of the while topic being so far over your head that you can't even understand what is being said to you.
> ...


"That is only in the case of refrigerators. A counterexample is that thermal radiation energy can can move from an object at any temperature to an object at any other temperature. If you disagree please cite a source on radiation physics not refrigerator phyisics."

Please post evidence of such a thing. Now you're out there bubba.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Black body radiation can be detected with a radio telescope via resonance frequencies.
> ...


You really dont know shit, do you.  Do you have even an inkling of what a resonate response is? 2nd order wave component? 3rd order wave  component?  All radiated energy creates sub bands that are both higher in frequency and lower in frequency of the given wave. These are more commonly known as REFLECTIONS.  Your totally ignorant of basic wave prolongations and physics.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 23, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> You really dont know shit, do you.  Do you have even an inkling of what a resonate response is? 2nd order wave component? 3rd order wave  component? All radiated energy creates sub bands that are both higher in frequency and lower in frequency of the given wave. These are more commonly known as REFLECTIONS.  Your totally ignorant of basic wave prolongations and physics.



And if we realign the alternate ambient muon flux coupler of the ionic spatial matrix, it will result in an asymmetrical flux domain that will create a modulated trans-warp dampening singularity.

See Billy? We can write bullshit technobabble too.


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2015)

Reflections? Reflections?!?  They're fucking harmonics you stupid dipshit  My specialty is underwater acoustics.  All radiated energy does NOT produce harmonics and harmonics were not required in the detection of the CMB.  Your babbling nonsense is more evidence that you have no knowledge of basic physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> "That is only in the case of refrigerators. A counterexample is that thermal radiation energy can can move from an object at any temperature to an object at any other temperature. If you disagree please cite a source on radiation physics not refrigerator phyisics."
> 
> Please post evidence of such a thing. Now you're out there bubba.


I already did. The cold CMB at 2.7 K can hit a radio antenna 300 degrees warmer. That has been show to have happened.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> You really dont know shit, do you. Do you have even an inkling of what a resonate response is? 2nd order wave component? 3rd order wave component? All radiated energy creates sub bands that are both higher in frequency and lower in frequency of the given wave. These are more commonly known as REFLECTIONS. Your totally ignorant of basic wave prolongations and physics.


You are kidding right? You do know that harmonics are created from modulation or a nonlinear process and not a tuned resonant system right? You do know that radiated energy creates sub-bands only when they are frequency or amplitude modulated right? You do know that reflections are a linear process and do not create sub-bands right? If you are talking about the CMB, none of what you say makes one bit of sense. 

If you are kidding, you have to realize people here will think your serious since you don't have a good reputation for science understanding. People like mamooth and others would then rightfully mock you.  If you are serious, then you are quite a sad case.


----------



## Crick (Dec 24, 2015)

He is still seriously attempting to push the blatant lie that he has "a degree in atmospheric physics".  You're absolutely right that none of what he says makes one bit of sense.  I'm not certain why we're even discussing this point.  The shite about cold can't radiate to warm comes from SSDD's insanely twisted interpretations of basic thermo. The detector technology (thermopiles vs CCDs} came from FlaCalTenn, the lab tech.  What stick Billy Boy has in this fire I haven't a clue.

I'd say he grew his spiel from SSDD's comment: _The detector of CMB was a radio-telescope, which like a radio tuner tunes in different resonance frequencies of an antenna which produces an electrical signal, which is amplified into a recording over frequency or a spectrum.
_
First, for SSDD, by bringing that antenna into your description you have admitted that the 2.7k CMB can hit a 300K target.  Second, actual radio telescopes don't use resonant antennas (like a log-log or a yagi or folded dipole) but large dishes, like Arecibo or Goldstone or the VLA. Dishes have upper limits - half lambda - but they don't resonate. What the detector is doing is another story but it will be constructed to avoid resonance as much as humanly possible.  People like receivers with flat responses over wide bands.  They do like to be able to tune the dogshit out of them, but they want that response to be the same anywhere in the receiver's band.  That means, as a whole, outside the tuner, the receiver doesn't resonate and has a very low Q.  It's the tuner that does the resonating.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 24, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> As the east coast prepares for the *warmest Christmas Eve ever,* the prequel promises to be warmer still. Today, Washington, D.C., is expected to break existing high temperature records *by a full 10 degrees*.



So the AGWCult is on record that the new normal winter in NY is 65-70 degrees, or are they once again attributing whatever top story is on the Weather Channel to AGW?


----------



## Crick (Dec 24, 2015)

Frank, you need to stop lying about what other people say. No one said that was "the new normal".  Try to get this through your head.  AGW does not mean an end to variation - an end to WEATHER - it means the climate - the long term average of weather - is going to get warmer and that extra warmth is going to make the long term average of that weather more energetic.  And the ocean will soon be lapping at your front door and when you scream and cry about the cost of moving since all the insurance companies will have reneged on any coverage, you may find that your government has been listening to you and citizens like you and is unable to help.  Won't that be... special.  But, hey, those oil company stocks will still be worth...maybe the paper they're printed on.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> He is still seriously attempting to push the blatant lie that he has "a degree in atmospheric physics". You're absolutely right that none of what he says makes one bit of sense. I'm not certain why we're even discussing this point. The shite about cold can't radiate to warm comes from SSDD's insanely twisted interpretations of basic thermo. The detector technology (thermopiles vs CCDs} came from FlaCalTenn, the lab tech. What stick Billy Boy has in this fire I haven't a clue.



What SSDD and his minions do is look up science sites for scientific words and put those words into sentences that make no sense. The don't understand that written science is different than written novels.



Crick said:


> I'd say he grew his spiel from SSDD's comment: _The detector of CMB was a radio-telescope, which like a radio tuner tunes in different resonance frequencies of an antenna which produces an electrical signal, which is amplified into a recording over frequency or a spectrum._
> 
> First, for SSDD, by bringing that antenna into your description you have admitted that the 2.7k CMB can hit a 300K target. Second, actual radio telescopes don't use resonant antennas (like a log-log or a yagi or folded dipole) but large dishes, like Arecibo or Goldstone or the VLA. Dishes have upper limits - half lambda - but they don't resonate.
> 
> What the detector is doing is another story but it will be constructed to avoid resonance as much as humanly possible. People like receivers with flat responses over wide bands. They do like to be able to tune the dogshit out of them, but they want that response to be the same anywhere in the receiver's band. That means, as a whole, outside the tuner, the receiver doesn't resonate and has a very low Q. It's the tuner that does the resonating.


Yes, I agree. It seems SSDD is referring to high Q masers which are tuned to reduce noise. The CMB radiation is sampled at several frequencies to get the black-body curve and determine the temperature. He seems to attempt a screwy back-extrapolation that the CMB itself is a set of high Q frequencies.

However all bets are off for the majority of systems that use bolometers. These directly absorb thermal energy, so there is no high Q in the system at all. For that SSDD has to resort to the fact that many of them would use pumped helium at a lower boiling point of around 2 deg K to reduce noise, etc. etc. in order to avoid his other stupid oversights.

His tactic is to scatter-shoot his portfolio of nonsense sentences or nonsense ideas to the various types of radio-telescopes, all to avoid having to face the terrible fact that no matter what, the CMB must hit the warm dish. These guys just don't realize how silly and stupid they sound to those who are familiar with the science.


----------



## Crick (Dec 24, 2015)

To my knowledge, SSDD is unique in his failure to understand the idea of net radiative flow.  He's adamant.  The absurdity of his contention has been demonstrated to him a dozen different ways but, of course, he cannot back down now.  When I (and others) asked him sometime back what mechanism was throttling IR emissions from some piece of matter facing a (corr) hotter piece of matter on the other side of the universe, his only answer was that "we" don't know and it is something we will "probably never know".


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> To my knowledge, SSDD is unique in his failure to understand the idea of net radiative flow.


Yes, uniquely nuts. But he is a mentor to a number of others (you know who you are) who give "agree" or "winner" ratings to many of his ridiculous posts. It seems that if SSDD puts in enough scientific words, (some made up and the rest misused,) he will get applause from his mindless minions who have no idea what SSDD is trying to say. Of course SSDD has no idea himself. 

His disciple minions often try to emulate him by making scientific sounding sentences themselves, but the results are quite amusingly nuts.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD, it is quite obvious that you've never had a class in thermodynamics. A dozen people here who have, have told you repeatedly that your interpretations are utter nonsense.  Where do you get off telling ANYONE they don't know what they're talking about re thermodynamics?  You're the one here, out of EVERYBODY here, who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.



Once again...here is the statement of the second law...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......

So I ask again...what have I said that is inconsistent with that statement?  What have I said that would require any interpretation of that statement?  What have I said that deviates from that statement in the slightest?

Answer the question crick...you know as well as I that my position is that statement...yours on the other hand requires interpretation and outright rewriting.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> *Radiation Heat Transfer*
> 
> *Net Radiation Loss Rate*
> If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
> ...



Your second equation is not how SB wrote the equation.....applying the distributive property does not alter the fact that the energy exchange is a one way street...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> To my knowledge, SSDD is unique in his failure to understand the idea of net radiative flow.  He's adamant.  The absurdity of his contention has been demonstrated to him a dozen different ways but, of course, he cannot back down now.  When I (and others) asked him sometime back what mechanism was throttling IR emissions from some piece of matter facing a (corr) hotter piece of matter on the other side of the universe, his only answer was that "we" don't know and it is something we will "probably never know".



I understand the idea perfectly crick...I also know that it is fiction...you demonstrated the fiction with your "alternative" version of the SB law in an attempt to demonstrate two way energy flow...at least one of us knows that SB never wrote the equation that way....and the alternative version of the equation can not be valid for a couple of reasons...first and foremost is that there is no two way Planck Law to integrate...second, it violates the assumption that T>Tc...third, you can apply no physical meaning or proof to rationalize the application of the distributive law of algebra to an equation that is already simplified...why would you do that?


----------



## il Tupe (Dec 24, 2015)

This thread is so scientific. The situation is evident. Global Warming is a conspiracy. No wait it's a hoax. Well... it's either a conspiracy or hoax. Perpetrated by the people of Maldives.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 24, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Your second equation is not how SB wrote the equation.....applying the distributive property does not alter the fact that the energy exchange is a one way street...


Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:






This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation. 



 

These papers verify what Crick posted.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, you need to stop lying about what other people say. No one said that was "the new normal".  Try to get this through your head.  AGW does not mean an end to variation - an end to WEATHER - it means the climate - the long term average of weather - is going to get warmer and that extra warmth is going to make the long term average of that weather more energetic.  And the ocean will soon be lapping at your front door and when you scream and cry about the cost of moving since all the insurance companies will have reneged on any coverage, you may find that your government has been listening to you and citizens like you and is unable to help.  Won't that be... special.  But, hey, those oil company stocks will still be worth...maybe the paper they're printed on.



So you are predicting that winters in NY will be warmer and less snowy or are you waiting to see whats on the Weather Channel next week?  I'm betting we'll just have to wait for the top story on the Weather Channel to catch your next prediction about "Climate" in the NE.

In any event, the AGWCult just told us that the oceans absorb 93% of this "excess energy" so how is that heating the NE? Or is excess heat and "Extra warmth" 2 different things?

You do read AR5 and your other Cult literature, right?

Oh, and these imaginary "rising oceans" seem to have by passed Guam


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 25, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > As the east coast prepares for the *warmest Christmas Eve ever,* the prequel promises to be warmer still. Today, Washington, D.C., is expected to break existing high temperature records *by a full 10 degrees*.
> ...



Boy are these fools in for a surprise...

Take a look at the global temp drop in just the last week or so. During the last week there has been a dramatic drop in temperature anomaly, globally by about 0.5degC (black line) and NH by nearly 1degC (blue line).






Say good by to El Nino...  The shift to cold is upon us.. One Degree C in a week of cooling in the Northern hemisphere...  You wont see this information on any lib infested AGW station.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2015)

Oh Silly Billy, perhaps you haven't noticed? It is winter. 















2015 December Quick Look

*Since for the whole of this year, the scientists have been batting 100% correct, while Silly Billy has been batting 100% incorrect, I think that I will go with the scientists predictions. Note on the Plume model predictions, there is one model that predicts the El Nino dropping only to 1.4 in JJA, then going back up again. Should that happen, Katy bar the door.*


----------



## Crick (Dec 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, you need to stop lying about what other people say. No one said that was "the new normal".  Try to get this through your head.  AGW does not mean an end to variation - an end to WEATHER - it means the climate - the long term average of weather - is going to get warmer and that extra warmth is going to make the long term average of that weather more energetic.  And the ocean will soon be lapping at your front door and when you scream and cry about the cost of moving since all the insurance companies will have reneged on any coverage, you may find that your government has been listening to you and citizens like you and is unable to help.  Won't that be... special.  But, hey, those oil company stocks will still be worth...maybe the paper they're printed on.





CrusaderFrank said:


> So you are predicting that winters in NY will be warmer and less snowy or are you waiting to see whats on the Weather Channel next week?



I am not actually making predictions. I am accepting of those being produced by the world's climate scientists.  They tell us that the entire world is going to get warmer.  They do not tell us that it will never snow again or that Winters are gone forever or any of the other red herring bullshit you, Frank, have a strong tendency to toss about.



CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm betting we'll just have to wait for the top story on the Weather Channel to catch your next prediction about "Climate" in the NE.



I don't get cable TV Frank and therefore do not have access to The Weather Channel.  I get my local weather from Weather Underground website.  You should try them.  I pay very little attention to other people's weather unless it makes the CNN/CBS/BBC/ABC/NBC/Fox websites as news items.  I do not go to weather sources for climate information.  You shouldn't either.



CrusaderFrank said:


> In any event, the AGWCult just told us that the oceans absorb 93% of this "excess energy" so how is that heating the NE?



The increased deep ocean heating has fueled a very large el Nino.  The el Nino is releasing that heat to the atmosphere and accelerating warming worldwide but, of course, with regional variations.  That and the normal variations of our chaotic climate have given you (I presume) a warm winter in the NE.



CrusaderFrank said:


> Or is excess heat and "Extra warmth" 2 different things?



Jesus, Frank, the limited value in being a one-trick pony is completely dependent on the assumption that the one-trick actually works.  For the umpteenth time, "excess heat" is not a unique or specific thing.  It does not have the sort of fixed and constant definition that for reasons beyond my ken, you believe "warmists" maintain for it.  If I put a pot on to boil and it explodes into vapor, I've probably applied excess heat.  If I go out to cut the grass but collapse from heat prostation, I've probably suffered from excess heat.  If the radiator of my car boils over and leaves me in a steaming heap on the side of the road, it's probably suffered from excess heat.  If the Earth had been in thermal equilibrium but increasing GHG levels cause the temperature to rise, that rise is being driven by excess heat.  Is any of this getting through to you Frank.  I was tired of holding your hand on this ten posts back.



CrusaderFrank said:


> You do read AR5 and your other Cult literature, right?



Golly you are funny... and SO clever!



CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh, and these imaginary "rising oceans" seem to have by passed Guam



What are you trying to say here Frank?  Is this a seriously dated gibe regarding Congressman Johnson's question to COMPACFLT Admiral Willard?  Or do you actually believe that sea levels are not rising?

A few points that seem to have shot right over your head: Johnson's question didn't concern global warming or sea level rise whatsoever.  Johnson was talking to Willard about the Navy's plan to move an additional 8,000 servicemen and their 17,000 dependents to Guam and the "capsizing" comment - addressed to an admiral - was an obvious jest.  That YOU and your denier buddies didn't seem to catch either point tells us a great deal more about you than Johnson and says absolutely nothing about the science that tells us, unequivocallly, that sea level is rising.

PS: The day you find someone that you actually _can _belittle for scientific ignorance will be a red-letter day Frank


----------



## IanC (Dec 25, 2015)

obvious jest? really?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 25, 2015)

According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists,* "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in peer review journals*


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists,* "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in peer review journals*



According to Kenji, a full fledged, bonified voting member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Alden Meyer is full of shit.  Here is a photo of Kenji. The fact that Kenji is a multiple year member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and retains full voting rights, casts aspersions upon the credibility of said organization...would't you say?

Old Rocks and Kenji have much in common...they are both members of the Union of Concerned Scientists.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2015)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists,* "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in peer review journals*
> ...


Meyer is right. Why don't you try to submit your idea that the CMB does not strike antenna dishes for peer review. Why don't you submit your idea that thermal radiation exchange only happens in one direction between any two bodies at any temperatures.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



No need...you and a select few goobers on the board are the only ones who believe such nonsense...the people who built the instrument now that in order to actually receive such radiation the instrument has to be cooooooooollllllllllllddddddddd.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2015)

SSDD said:


> No need...you and a select few goobers on the board are the only ones who believe such nonsense...the people who built the instrument now that in order to actually receive such radiation the instrument has to be cooooooooollllllllllllddddddddd.


So it is nonsense that the CMB was detected after it hit an antenna 300 K warmer? Why don't you try to publish that. 

Why don't you submit your idea that thermal radiation exchange only happens in one direction from a hot body to a colder body. Or do you believe that radiation is exchanged between two bodies no matter what the temperatures are.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > "That is only in the case of refrigerators. A counterexample is that thermal radiation energy can can move from an object at any temperature to an object at any other temperature. If you disagree please cite a source on radiation physics not refrigerator phyisics."
> ...


I don't buy it, sorry.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No need...you and a select few goobers on the board are the only ones who believe such nonsense...the people who built the instrument now that in order to actually receive such radiation the instrument has to be cooooooooollllllllllllddddddddd.
> ...



CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature of less than 2.75k

The second law says that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool to warm...It isn't my idea, and I didn't think of it, but every observation ever made bears it out.  That's why the call it a law.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2015)

jc456 said:


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


I really don't care if you want to disagree with every astronomer. I'ts your problem not mine.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature of less than 2.75k


Nope. None of the antennas of the detector system were cooled. They were at an ambient outdoor temperature.


SSDD said:


> The second law says that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool to warm...It isn't my idea, and I didn't think of it, but every observation ever made bears it out. That's why the call it a law.


Nope, the SB law states that thermal radiation energy is bidirectional. Here, I will post this again.
Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:






This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> I really don't care if you want to disagree with every astronomer. I'ts your problem not mine.



The astronomers know that CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.75K.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't care if you want to disagree with every astronomer. I'ts your problem not mine.
> ...


 Not the original experiment.
The astronomers know that CMB was detected by an instrument with an antenna at around 300K.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CMB was detected by an instrument cooled to a temperature of less than 2.75k
> ...



Sorry guy, you just keep failing.   This is the proper form for the SB law when the radiator is not an ideal radiator...that is to say when the object is real 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

When the object is radiating energy to cooler surroundings, the equation takes the form 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  which describes a one way energy transfer.  Had you posted the entire page from the paper by SB, the first equation would have been shown....what you provided was a form of it.  The paper above that shows an invalid version of the SB equation as used when the radiator is radiating into its cooler surroundings....not the use of the SB constant twice in one equation....although they do, in the end reduce the equation to reflect the actual SB equation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 which is a description of a one way energy flow.  I would be interested to see how you get a two way energy flow out of that equation.  It clearly states that the energy emitted by the radiator (P) is equal to the emissivity of the radiator times the SB constant times the area of the radiator times the difference between the temperature of the radiator to the 4th power and its surroundings to the 4th power.  How do you manage to see a two way flow in that equation?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


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



No they didn't....I provided you with the facts and you ignored them.  Here, once more for your reading pleasure...



> 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 wavesbounced 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.



A liquid helium cooled instrument and they detected a resonance radio frequency...not CMB itself...as I have clearly stated over and over and over and you have ignored over and over and over in favor of what you would rather believe.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2015)

Yo, numbnuts, where does it say they used liquid helium to cool their 6 meter horn antenna?  Have you ever seen a cooled antenna?  Ever?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, you need to stop lying about what other people say. No one said that was "the new normal".  Try to get this through your head.  AGW does not mean an end to variation - an end to WEATHER - it means the climate - the long term average of weather - is going to get warmer and that extra warmth is going to make the long term average of that weather more energetic.  And the ocean will soon be lapping at your front door and when you scream and cry about the cost of moving since all the insurance companies will have reneged on any coverage, you may find that your government has been listening to you and citizens like you and is unable to help.  Won't that be... special.  But, hey, those oil company stocks will still be worth...maybe the paper they're printed on.
> ...



*Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists.. *

*So crick, can man make the air warmer?*
*how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?*
BTW, Crick, you do have the internet and guess what grasshopper, the weather channel has a web site.  Imagine that in today's world.  you don't need cable TV to see weather.  so you lose yet again.

Hey got that scientist name that is not funded by government money yet?  Why are you ignoring that question, cause you ain't got a name?  Just say that and I'll go away,


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2015)

THAT


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> Yo, numbnuts, where does it say they used liquid helium to cool their 6 meter horn antenna?  Have you ever seen a cooled antenna?  Ever?




Can't read huh?  Sad.



> 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.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2015)

Wow, you are the tech heavy.  An antenna is not a receiver and you will never find anyone that ever cooled a 6 meter antenna with anything, much less liquid helium.  If you disagree, show us a picture - or even a clear, text description - of a 6 meter horn antenna cooled with liquid helium.  It should be an interesting arrangement.  Tell you what, find us one for sale that states it has cooling apparatus built in or on or that it can be added.  Surely, smaller horns would be easier to cool and thus more common.  Find us one, eh?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wow, you are the tech heavy.  An antenna is not a receiver and you will never find anyone that ever cooled a 6 meter antenna with anything, much less liquid helium.  If you disagree, show us a picture - or even a clear, text description - of a 6 meter horn antenna cooled with liquid helium.  It should be an interesting arrangement.


*Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists.. *
Dude, does an antenna transmit then?  holy crap the stupid that flows in your posts is remarkable.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2015)

Note that none of these has any provision for cooling.  The large ones show no signs of being cooled.  Both are in environments with relatively high humidity yet we see no sign of condensation, frost or the like. None of these antenna are sporting any insulation.  And we have never seen a picture of a cooled antenna, have we.  That's because no one cools antennnas.  That's because it's not necessary.  All matter radiates in all directions.  SSDD's ideas otherwise are harebrained shite.http:// http://

The large horn in the second shot is the one Penzias and Wilson used to discover the CMB.
































I have one of these in my office.  We use it to transmit calibrated signals when we do PMs on our two threat simulators.  It has no provision for cooling.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> Note that none of these has any provision for cooling.  The large ones show no signs of being cooled.  Both are in environments with relatively high humidity yet we see no sign of condensation, frost or the like. None of these antenna are sporting any insulation.  And we have never seen a picture of a cooled antenna, have we.  That's because no one cools antennnas.  That's because it's not necessary.  All matter radiates in all directions.  SSDD's ideas otherwise are harebrained shite.http:// http://
> 
> The large horn in the second shot is the one Penzias and Wilson used to discover the CMB.
> 
> ...


So curious, do they only point in one direction or do they continually rotate 360 degrees?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

They are normally fixed (but usually adjustable).  They would be a bit awkward to rotate.  Largish mass and moment of inertia


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wow, you are the tech heavy.  An antenna is not a receiver and you will never find anyone that ever cooled a 6 meter antenna with anything, much less liquid helium.  If you disagree, show us a picture - or even a clear, text description - of a 6 meter horn antenna cooled with liquid helium.  It should be an interesting arrangement.  Tell you what, find us one for sale that states it has cooling apparatus built in or on or that it can be added.  Surely, smaller horns would be easier to cool and thus more common.  Find us one, eh?



You miss the entire point crick...when CMB was first discovered...it was via a resonance radio frequency....and it was detected by a radio telescope that has nothing to do with IR radiation.  You are arguing a non point....when CMB itself was actually measured, it was done with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.75K.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

Despite your extensive efforts to dodge, I am NOT missing the point.  Radio and IR are both electromagnetic radiation.  They both obey Stefan-Boltzman and the laws of themodynamics.  Your claim that cold cannot radiate at hot would apply to both of them.  You have no choice in the matter.  The CMB was detected via reflections from a horn antenna that was at AMBIENT temperature, hundreds of celsius degrees above the CMB's source temperature.  It's a very clear demonstration that your contention regarding  radiative heat transfer is the ignorant bullshit every educated person on this board has tried to tell you it was.  I applaud Wuwei for having spotted this one.

Eat me.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> They are normally fixed (but usually adjustable).  They would be a bit awkward to rotate.  Largish mass and moment of inertia


Why does it matter where they face?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Despite your extensive efforts to dodge, I am NOT missing the point.  Radio and IR are both electromagnetic radiation.  .



So are you saying that radio signals depend have a temperature?.....correct me if you are wrong, but that seems to be what you are saying.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

Their source certainly has a temperature.

Hunting for another bob and weave?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Their source certainly has a temperature.
> 
> Hunting for another bob and weave?


You sure are hung on correlation


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

Corrrelation?  You seem to be in the wrong thread; else you are speaking from a deeper than usual ignorance.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Corrrelation?  You seem to be in the wrong thread; else you are speaking from a deeper than usual ignorance.


Well the thread is about lwir and you're discussing CMB. Why?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

FOR SSDD


Crick said:


> *THEIR SOURCE CERTAINLY HAS A TEMPERATURE*
> 
> Hunting for another bob and weave?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


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


Well again the thread is lwir. And everything has a temperature and you like correlations. None of which are causal


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

All cause and effect relationships show some form of correlation

Not all correlations indicate a cause and effect relationship

If you have an effect and are looking for a cause, you WILL find it among the correlations.

***********************************************************************************************

*THEIR SOURCE CERTAINLY HAS A TEMPERATURE*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> All cause and effect relationships show some form of correlation
> 
> Not all correlations indicate a cause and effect relationship
> 
> ...


But my friend, the earth warms and CO2 in the atmosphere goes up, are purely correlation. You can't prove causal anything with CO2 going up causing warming. And you haven't since this forums been up


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

I'm sorry JC, you simply aren't worth the bother. Anyone trying to talk with you spends all their time correcting mistakes you shouldn't have made in the first place.  I'm putting you back on ignore.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> I'm sorry JC, you simply aren't worth the bother. Anyone trying to talk with you spends all their time correcting mistakes you shouldn't have made in the first place.  I'm putting you back on ignore.


Thanks I see you still lose debates. You should really learn how. You're terrible


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Their source certainly has a temperature.
> 
> Hunting for another bob and weave?



You are dodging...are you saying that radio waves have a temperature?  You seemed to be saying it but now it appears that you lack the courage of your conviction.  Typical.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Corrrelation?  You seem to be in the wrong thread; else you are speaking from a deeper than usual ignorance.
> ...



Crick seems to be on the cusp of claiming that radio waves have a temperature.....


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Their source certainly has a temperature.
> ...



Yo, asshole, can you not read?

The source of the CMB has a temperature.  It radiated the CMB in all directions, including towards the 300K horn antenna with which Wilson and Penzias detected it.  Your contention that cold cannot radiate towards warm is thrown in the trash where it belongs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > All cause and effect relationships show some form of correlation
> ...


And all the physicists in the world say that you are completely full of shit, jc.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Yo, asshole, can you not read?
> 
> The source of the CMB has a temperature.  It radiated the CMB in all directions, including towards the 300K horn antenna with which Wilson and Penzias detected it.  Your contention that cold cannot radiate towards warm is thrown in the trash where it belongs.


[/quote]

You seem to be the one who can't read crick...or understand even the basics....CMB itself, the actual radiation of CMB was not detected...a resonant radio frequency was detected....and then via a mathematical model, the existence of CMB was determined....The horn antenna was just receiving radio waves....radio waves don't care about temperature...they care about frequency....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Where is the hard empirical evidence in that bit of religious dogma that you keep posting that proves that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming....you keep waving that piece around like a Bible thumper waves his book....what sort of hard evidence for anything is in there that has convinced you that the AGW hypothesis is correct?...or are you just ashamed to admit that you are operating from a position of faith?


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Yo, asshole, can you not read?
> 
> The source of the CMB has a temperature.  It radiated the CMB in all directions, including towards the 300K horn antenna with which Wilson and Penzias detected it.  Your contention that cold cannot radiate towards warm is thrown in the trash where it belongs.





SSDD said:


> You seem to be the one who can't read crick...or understand even the basics....CMB itself, the actual radiation of CMB was not detected...a resonant radio frequency was detected....and then via a mathematical model, the existence of CMB was determined....The horn antenna was just receiving radio waves....radio waves don't care about temperature...they care about frequency....



You've got no choice but to lie, do you.

The *cosmic microwave background* (*CMB*) is the thermal radiation left over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the_background_) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. *This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum*. The accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2]was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize.

The original radiation was infrared.  Massive Doppler shifting from the expansion of the universe stretched the wavelength to the microwave band A RADIO FREQUENCY THAT THE PHONE COMPANY USES FOR OVER-LAND COMMUNICATION.  It was detected DIRECTLY, by a microwave receiver, not as a harmonic.  Your use of the term "resonance" here is an obvious and pathetic attempt at techno-babble.

However, none of that matters.  Everything we are talking about here is electromagnetic radiation.  It is ALL subject to the laws of thermodynamics.  Your ignorant contention that cold cannot radiate to hot, would apply to all of it and the detection of the CMB via a 300K horn PROVES you have the intellect of a four year old and the ethics of a dog.


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2016)

*From A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s.*

Here is Penzias and Wilson's first report of the excess noise they had found (at 4.08 GHz).  THEY seem to think it has a temperature.
*
Title:*
A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s.
*Authors:*
Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W.
*Affiliation:*
AA(Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc.), AB(Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc.)
*Publication:*
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 142, p.419-421 (ApJ Homepage)
*Publication Date:*
07/1965
*Origin:*
ADS
*Astronomy Keywords:*
Microwave Background, Cosmic Background Radiation
*DOI:*
10.1086/148307
*Bibliographic Code:*
1965ApJ...142..419P
*Abstract*
*Measurements of the effective zenith noise temperature of the 20-foot horn-reflector antenna (Crawford, Hogg, and Hunt 1961) at the Crawford Hill Laboratory, Holmdel, New Jersey, at 4080 Mc/s have yielded a value of about 3.5 K higher than expected.* This excess temperature is, within the limits of our observations, isotropic, unpolarized, and free from seasonal variations (July, 1964 - April, 1965). A possible explanation for the observed excess noise temperature is the one given by Dicke, Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson (1965) in a companion letter in this issue.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You seem to be the one who can't read crick...or understand even the basics....CMB itself, the actual radiation of CMB was not detected...a resonant radio frequency was detected....and then via a mathematical model, the existence of CMB was determined....The horn antenna was just receiving radio waves....radio waves don't care about temperature...they care about frequency....


The antenna was receiving low temperature thermal radiation that came from a thermal source with a black body spectrum.  

The maser type detectors sample the BB radiation spectrum, that means the antenna received black body radiation. Later bolometer instruments directly measured the heat reflected from an antenna that came from the CMB. The CMB thermal radiation had to hit the warm antenna before it hit the cold bolometer. It is a very simple example of cold thermal radiation going through a warm atmosphere, and hitting a warm antenna.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 1, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be the one who can't read crick...or understand even the basics....CMB itself, the actual radiation of CMB was not detected...a resonant radio frequency was detected....and then via a mathematical model, the existence of CMB was determined....The horn antenna was just receiving radio waves....radio waves don't care about temperature...they care about frequency....
> ...



If that's how it works why do they bother to cool down the receiver?  Can't they just point it out to space and get it to read absolute zero?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If that's how it works why do they bother to cool down the receiver? Can't they just point it out to space and get it to read absolute zero?


All electronics has what is called "shot noise" which is minimized by cooling. 

You get garbage without a focusing antenna. For the same reason, that is why your camera has a lens.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2016)

hey SSDD....the CBR started off as much more energetic radiation from a hot source. only the expansion of space has sapped its energy. 

so....does the earthbound receptor consider the low energy photon as coming from a hot source??? hahahahaha


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2016)

More magic required


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> hey SSDD....the CBR started off as much more energetic radiation from a hot source. only the expansion of space has sapped its energy.
> 
> so....does the earthbound receptor consider the low energy photon as coming from a hot source??? hahahahaha


Hey don't confuse the guy. He's muddled enough.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Ahh Herr Koch again. Thanks for the reminder you still haven't provided us with the correction experiment, you know to invalidate that one he so nicely performed. 

CO2 what?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> *From A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s.*
> 
> Here is Penzias and Wilson's first report of the excess noise they had found (at 4.08 GHz).  THEY seem to think it has a temperature.
> *
> ...



 4.08 GHz has a temperature? 104.3 has a FEVAH!!!!

how does a radio wave have a temperature?????????


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 4, 2016)

So, is 104.3 (NY Classic rock) warmer than say 88.3 (Newark Jazz)?  Is it 16F or 16FM warmer?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, is 104.3 (NY Classic rock) warmer than say 88.3 (Newark Jazz)?  Is it 16F or 16FM warmer?


i'm rolling on the floor Frank, thanks for the laugh of the week.  Holy crap , I can't believe it.  \


BTW, we have classic rock at 104.3 as well in Chicago, but no 88.3. Instead 95.9.  Wonder what the temp difference is.  Wonder if they have an  experiment that shows what those differences are.  BUT rolling on the floor my friend, thanks,  Happy New Year by the way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So, is 104.3 (NY Classic rock) warmer than say 88.3 (Newark Jazz)?  Is it 16F or 16FM warmer?
> ...



Happy new Year, brother


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So, is 104.3 (NY Classic rock) warmer than say 88.3 (Newark Jazz)?  Is it 16F or 16FM warmer?
> ...



8PM on 104.3 Carol Miller's Get the led out


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 4, 2016)

Now that ya mention it, when I turn the FM dial to 107.5, it does tend to get a little warm

_Sir Bedevere_: ...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
_King Arthur_: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Excellent


----------



## Crick (Jan 7, 2016)

Frank said:
			
		

> how does a radio wave have a temperature?????????



Don't worry your pretty little head about it Frank.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But no explanation how radio waves have an associated temperature.

Maybe you should post one of your no temperature axis charts to prove your point


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 7, 2016)

*Mod Note:

This thread is LONG overdue for closure.. Feel free to discuss wave propagation in a new thread.. *


----------

