# LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

I wrote about this experiment about 2 years ago here and now that we have done the experiment 10 times and obtained the same results each time, its time to write about it. A technical paper is in process but here are the basics...

A 30 meter long tube was filled with atmospheric value gases. The tube was constructed such that the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room. The ends were opaque and thermo-couplers (accurate to 0.001 Deg C +/-0.003) were positioned throught the length of the tube.They were shielded from LWIR to make sure there were no erroneous readings obtained.

We started with just 396W/m^2 narrow band LWIR (6um-75um) introduction at one end of the tube and measured the opposing end with a receptor.  The tube was set for <10% humidity and the temperature and output monitored.  After 24 hours the tube had not warmed at all proving that the atmosphere is incapable of warming without another catalyst. We increased water vapor in 10% increments and repeated the test. Only after we reached 50% humidity did the tube warm and then only by 0.013 Deg C over 24 hours.

When you consider the earths average humidity level is just 35-38% you can see that the majority of the planet is incapable of warming due to LWIR. To add to this, when the Humidity was low it passed 100% of its energy. When we introduced higher levels of CO2 (2000ppm) to the tube at 50% humidity, the energy pass increased and warming decreased.  The exact opposite of what is expected in the AGW models...

I expect there will be a whole lot of people who do not understand why what we saw was in line with physics and properties of the gases and I really could care less.  2 years of experiments and reproducing it over and over again speaks for itself...

Increasing emissitivty of the atmosphere allows bandpass.  The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis.. Warming was only seen in high humidity, which is not present in over 80% of the globe..  We even tried to over power the gases by increasing the power of the LWIR to that of total sun output of 1356W/m^2 (@TOA) and found no warming over 24 hours @ <10% humidity.

This experiment raises other questions as well which strike right at the heart of the AGW deception..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2018)

Finally! Real science testing AGW


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.
> 
> I wrote about this experiment about 2 years ago here and now that we have done the experiment 10 times and obtained the same results each time, its time to write about it. A technical paper is in process but here are the basics...
> 
> ...



You pumped in energy, the tube was perfectly insulated and it didn't warm?
Can't wait for this one to be replicated.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...



Well, er, the planet Venus or something


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...



* adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.*

Of course it does, emissivity equals absorptivity. DURR!

_Kirchhoff's law states, in simpler language: _

_For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity._

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia


----------



## IanC (Nov 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.
> 
> I wrote about this experiment about 2 years ago here and now that we have done the experiment 10 times and obtained the same results each time, its time to write about it. A technical paper is in process but here are the basics...
> 
> ...



More bullshit and bafflegab from our resident Cliff Clavin.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...


There was lot more that we did in this testing and we found that CO2 levels really had very little to do with anything absent a secondary molecule to warm it. Many of the things we found stunned us.  Now to see how others respond to the technical paper over the next few months after it is finished and submitted.  This is the part that I for one dread the most... But it is science and we don't learn if we don't allow others to inspect it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.
> ...



Directed and focused energy.. Its really not that hard to do this..

One of the interesting things we found was less than 1% is reflected or redirected towards the emitter...  Why?


----------



## miketx (Nov 25, 2018)

As stated many times, stains are incapable of accepting that which proves them wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...
> ...



Real world examples of achieving cooling by increasing emissivity.  It isn't as if it is a secret.

How To Cool A Hot Hydraulic System
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/nbstechnologic/nbstechnologicpaperT254.pdf
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4860839


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...
> ...



Well, you know how people react when you challenge their faith and they have no empirical evidence to counter with.


----------



## IanC (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...



Basically  a lie.

Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb to extinction the surface emission of CO2 reactive IR wavelengths then the CO2 concentration  has no further effect on the emissivity. (Quantum effects from widening the wings from increased pressure are ignored as it is atmospheric  effect not CO2 specific)


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...
> ...



So say the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...heard it all before...never saw any empirical evidence to back it up.  IR does not warm the atmosphere and the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in our gravity/pressure, conduction dominated atmosphere is laughable and the fact that so many people believe is testament to the failing educational systems...everywhere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How many times have I said that the climate sensitivity to CO2was zero OR LESS?And i have pointed out to the local cultists over and over that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emissivity...increasing an object's emissivity increases its ability to radiatively cool itself.  Some how they believe that increasing emissivity leads to warming...
> ...


Holy Crap the amount of BS..

CO2 in our atmosphere is energy saturated..  This means that energy from the earth is escaping at the base rate unimpeded..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Directed and focused energy.. Its really not that hard to do this..*

Not difficult?
You put energy into an insulated tube.
The energy isn't absorbed by either the gas or the tube itself, as shown by an unchanging temperature.
Difficult? Sounds impossible.

Are you sure your IR power source was plugged in?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*Real world examples of achieving cooling by increasing emissivity.*

Thanks......what does this have to do with your confusion about CO2 in the atmosphere?


----------



## IanC (Nov 26, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



"energy saturated"? Is that another example of your bafflegab?

CO2 absorbs all surface generated radiation in the CO2 reactive bands. None escapes to space.

The CO2 reactive radiation that does escape to space is emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere, at a rate determined by the temperature of the air when it was created.

There is supporting evidence for this every time a satellite  measures outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere. The bands of radiation that are not absorbed by air show a brightness that reflects the temperature of the surface, the bands that are absorbed reflect the temperature at which the air is thin enough to allow the radiation to escape rather than be reabsorbed again.

Do I really have to repost a graph yet again that shows surface radiation escaping freely in the atmospheric window with various 'chunks' missing because of absorption due to greenhouse gases?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Convection is the primary mover of energy in the troposphere by a wide margin over radiation...radiation is a bit player in the troposphere and all your radiative greenhouse effect pseudoscience is nothing more than a steaming pile.


----------



## IanC (Nov 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2018)

IanC said:


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




Are you under the impression that non greenhouse gasses can't radiate energy they have acquired via collision?  If so, get yourself another impression.  Aren't you always saying that everything radiates?  Does that not include non greenhouse gasses?  Let me guess...you are so wrapped up in your radiative greenhouse effect and magic gasses that you never even considered the fact that N2, O2, H etc also radiate energy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.



Tell me, What happens to energy in the Troposphere and how is it moved?  Conduction and Convection... Only when it reaches the tropopause, above cloud boundary, does it become radiative only.  At that point there is so little atmosphere and water vapor that it can not be stopped.

While the earth does lose all of its energy by radiative means, the primary mechanisms to get that energy to the point where it is released are conduction and convection.

Your summary is both disingenuous and deceptive..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> CO2 absorbs all surface generated radiation in the CO2 reactive bands. None escapes to space.



Your bull shit is so extreme that I am busting a gut laughing at you... ALL of the energy escapes to space...  Please show, by empirical evidence, how you stopped CO2 molecules from radiating towards space... I'll Wait..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Many times I have tried to explain that you might have energy in a system but without a medium which is capable of reacting to it, it does nothing...  Think of it like the 120Vac you have in your home.  The energy is there, it is present, but it does nothing until it has a medium to react with. The Atmosphere is no different.

As for the tube, it was made of ceramics which was non-LWIR reactive.  So it did not warm with the amount of LWIR we were directing through it. IT was our attempt at keeping the only thing which could warm was the atmosphere in the tube. Ceramics, when warmed, take very little convective energy to warm or cool so they will not adversely affect the outcome of the experiments. Insulating was made much easier as well.   

We took a lot of time to think this experiment through...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Many times I have tried to explain that you might have energy in a system but without a medium which is capable of reacting to it, it does nothing..*

You claimed you pumped energy into a tube, "396W/m^2 narrow band LWIR (6um-75um) introduction at one end of the tube and measured the opposing end with a receptor". Also, "The tube was constructed such that the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room"

So, if the energy didn't warm the gas, or the tube, did it disappear?
Did it build up, like a laser, until you opened the tube?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did you destroy it?

*The ends were opaque*

Was the middle of the tube transparent to narrow band LWIR?


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2018)

Todd, don't question Billy.  He's a physicist for god's sake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> Todd, don't question Billy.  He's a physicist for god's sake.



Have you seen his, "cooler photons can cool warmer matter" claim?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> After 24 hours the tube had not warmed



IT'S  A MIRACLE! CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS DISPROVED!

To summarize: The experiment pumped IR energy into a sealed tube, and the tube failed to warm at all, thus rather brazenly violating conservation of energy. Back in the real world, you'd expect the tube to warm pretty much the same no matter what gas mixture was inside, as the IR energy pumped into has to go somewhere. 

At least that seems to be the description. It is kind of vague. It says the ends of the tube are opaque, but the sides are "non reactive" to IR, whatever that means.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > After 24 hours the tube had not warmed
> ...



Imagine the awesome air conditioners you could create with this wonder tube...……...


----------



## IanC (Nov 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Oxygen and Nitrogen are very poor absorbers and emitters of thermal IR. The absorption of near IR, visible and UV radiation  does not lead to re-emission because the atmosphere is too cold to provide the necessary energy.


----------



## IanC (Nov 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 absorbs all surface generated radiation in the CO2 reactive bands. None escapes to space.
> ...



The altitude at which CO2 reactive radiation escapes to space is both very cold and very sparse.

The amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 molecules is only a fraction of the energy absorbed from the surface in the first few metres of atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Nov 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.
> ...



I have written hundreds of posts describing energy movement in the atmosphere.  Perhaps you should present a concise explanation why you think the missing energy between  (absorbed from the surface) minus (emitted from the atmosphere) doesn't make a difference.


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2018)

Billy Boy?  Do you have an answer for the man?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2018)

LOL

We just finished 2 years of empirically observed experiments and I don't give a shit about your political, bull shit, model derived, fiction positions..  When we are finished with the technical paper I'm sure you will all have your hay-day and voo-doo dances...

The experiment was designed to determine if the gases in our atmosphere were capable of warming, without a secondary catalyst, with the introduction of LWIR. We proved it does not.  Without water vapor our atmosphere passed all LWIR and we did not see warming until we were over 44 - 48% humidity.

The design of the structure, to do testing, was such that LWIR did not warm it. This was by design to stop convective and conductive interference allowing us to see exactly how the atmosphere reacts. Pressures were reduced to see how it changed at altitude as well. 

Until you all do the science and disprove what was found you have nothing! Of course nothing is what you all have had all along.. What we found challenges the holy book of AGW.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2018)

IanC said:


> The amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 molecules is only a fraction of the energy absorbed from the surface in the first few metres of atmosphere.


There is insufficient CO2 to interact with the energy load. So are you giving your CO2 molecules a stop sign to keep the LWIR from emitting to or through other molecules and space?

One of the main reasons we did this experiment was the earths deserts. The only places on earth that can have 110-120 degree F swings in 24 hours. The only thing that is lacking in these regions from most of the planet is water vapor. During the day there is little to block the energy from the earth, at night there is very little to keep it warm.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

IanC said:


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



And, yet, they move the vast bulk of energy through the troposphere...radiation is a bit player at best in the troposphere.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Yes....you have spent a lot of words pushing that bit of pseudoscientific fiction. TYhe fact is that we know very little about how energy moves through the system.


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2018)

We know precisely how it enters and leaves the Earth's atmosphere and in what amounts.  The Earth is being heated by trapped radiation.  That is an EMPIRICAL fact.


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL
> 
> We just finished 2 years of empirically observed experiments and I don't give a shit about your political, bull shit, model derived, fiction positions..  When we are finished with the technical paper I'm sure you will all have your hay-day and voo-doo dances...
> 
> ...




I love the way you think YOU are the first person to do science.  And did I miss your explanation as to where the energy DID go?  Your claim that you pumped energy into a closed system without raising its energy content tells us that you are either lying or utterly incompetent or both.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

Crick said:


> We know precisely how it enters and leaves the Earth's atmosphere and in what amounts.  The Earth is being heated by trapped radiation.  That is an EMPIRICAL fact.



Really? Let's see the observed measured evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

Crick said:


> I love the way you think YOU are the first person to do science.  And did I miss your explanation as to where the energy DID go?  Your claim that you pumped energy into a closed system without raising its energy content tells us that you are either lying or utterly incompetent or both.



Is that what he said he did? Or is that just you being unable to read words and understand what is being said?


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 molecules is only a fraction of the energy absorbed from the surface in the first few metres of atmosphere.
> ...



We are not talking about the whole energy load. We are talking about discrete frequencies where CO2 has an emissivity close to one rather than the usual emissivity of zero.







CO2 has three wavelengths where there is total absorbance, 3 5 and 15 microns. 3 and 5 are not particularly relevant because neither the Sun nor the surface supply much of them. On the other hand, 15 microns is in the maximum area for surface thermal IR emission. Roughly 8% of all surface radiation interacts strongly with atmospheric CO2. The rest doesn't interact at all. The graph shows that zero percent of the surface CO2 reactive radiation gets through to space. Any that does escape to space was produced in the upper atmosphere, where the air is cold and thin.

We know from the S-B equations that cold things radiate less than warm things. There is more 15 micron radiation produced at the warm surface and intercepted by CO2 than is later emitted to space at a higher altitude.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



You can move energy around all you want, but the only way to get rid of it is to radiate it to space.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2018)

If the atmosphere was totally made up of only nitrogen then the only significant way of adding or subtracting energy would be conduction across the surface/air boundary.

In the daytime  solar energy would warm the surface, but to a lesser temperature because some energy would be directed to the atmosphere which would store the energy as both temperature  (kinetic energy) and height (potential energy).

At night the reverse would happen.  The atmosphere would cool and shrink as it gives up energy  that slows the cooling of the surface.

Remember, the surface is always shedding energy by thermal radiation because it is a blackbody radiator at those frequencies and temperature. The non-GHG atmosphere has no wavelengths to lose energy so it returns the energy to the surface by conduction only.


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I love the way you think YOU are the first person to do science.  And did I miss your explanation as to where the energy DID go?  Your claim that you pumped energy into a closed system without raising its energy content tells us that you are either lying or utterly incompetent or both.
> ...



Here is precisely what he said.

_"I wrote about this experiment about 2 years ago here and now that we have done the experiment 10 times and obtained the same results each time, its time to write about it. A technical paper is in process but here are the basics...

A 30 meter long tube was filled with atmospheric value gases. The tube was constructed such that the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room. The ends were opaque and thermo-couplers (accurate to 0.001 Deg C +/-0.003) were positioned throught the length of the tube.They were shielded from LWIR to make sure there were no erroneous readings obtained.

We started with just 396W/m^2 narrow band LWIR (6um-75um) introduction at one end of the tube and measured the opposing end with a receptor. The tube was set for <10% humidity and the temperature and output monitored. After 24 hours the tube had not warmed at all proving that the atmosphere is incapable of warming without another catalyst."_

And, so, the question remains.  Where did 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 GO?

This is right up there with your contention that the Earth tilts more for one pole than it does for the other.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...


Tell me moron,  Will the energy in the electrical system in your home burn it down without a catalyst which is capable of enabling/using the energy?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2018)

Crick said:


> And, so, the question remains. Where did 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 GO?


It exited the tube without causing warming.. We measured the output of the tube to determine how much was being passed through the coulomb. essentially its like putting a spotlight at one end of a tunnel, then watching the light exit the tunnel onto a wall (receptor pad) at the other end..

Its a basic physics thing..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2018)

IanC said:


> We know from the S-B equations that cold things radiate less than warm things. There is more 15 micron radiation produced at the warm surface and intercepted by CO2 than is later emitted to space at a higher altitude.


Would you like to know why?

Its actually very simple.  CO2 is not the major player. Water vapor is.  Water cools as it rises therefore the energy it emits at altitude will be at a much longer wave length.





The energy at the surface is more than the CO2 in our atmosphere can deal with. Water vapor is abundant at that level and is where the majority of all energy is absorbed and thus the mover of energy in this region. Convection and Conduction are the major players, PERIOD!

Our experiment proved that the energy will pass without warming the atmosphere until water vapor is introduced.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And, so, the question remains. Where did 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 GO?
> ...



*It exited the tube without causing warming.*

You said, _"The ends were opaque" _and_ "the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room"_

How does LWIR leave an opaque, insulated tube?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Opaque to LWIR....  Meaning; not reactive or obstructive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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




*It exited the tube without causing warming.*​
How does LWIR leave an opaque, insulated tube?

*Meaning; not reactive or obstructive.*

Opaque isn't obstructive?

_not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through._

the definition of opaque


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me moron,  Will the energy in the electrical system in your home burn it down without a catalyst which is capable of enabling/using the energy?



Are you really that stupid?  Cut one of the two hot wires on your 120V power and see how well your lights work.  You claim to be pushing energy into a system from which it cannot escape.  Where the fuck did it go fool?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me moron,  Will the energy in the electrical system in your home burn it down without a catalyst which is capable of enabling/using the energy?
> ...


You don't have a clue..  Fool!


You idiots think that just because there is energy present it must cause warming... IT DOESN'T! Energy can pass through a system and make no changes. Something in the system must be able to enable/react the energy in order for it to make changes, if it is not present it can not change anything.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Its actually very simple.  CO2 is not the major player. Water vapor is.  Water cools as it rises therefore the energy it emits at altitude will be at a much longer wave length.
> 
> View attachment 231479
> 
> ...




I hate to burst your bubble, but the gas mixture at the top of the Earth's atmosphere, from which all radiation is emitted,  is almost entirely devoid of water vapor.

It's one of those basic physics things.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Energy can pass through a system and make no changes. *

You said the tube was opaque and insulated. That means energy can't pass through.
Were you lying?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

I'm with Todd here.  Here is everything I could find you saying about this tube.

_A 30 meter long tube was filled with atmospheric value gases. The tube was constructed such that the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room. The ends were opaque and thermo-couplers (accurate to 0.001 Deg C +/-0.003) were positioned throught the length of the tube.They were shielded from LWIR to make sure there were no erroneous readings obtained.

As for the tube, it was made of ceramics which was non-LWIR reactive. So it did not warm with the amount of LWIR we were directing through it. IT was our attempt at keeping the only thing which could warm was the atmosphere in the tube. Ceramics, when warmed, take very little convective energy to warm or cool so they will not adversely affect the outcome of the experiments. Insulating was made much easier as well. 

The design of the structure, to do testing, was such that LWIR did not warm it. This was by design to stop convective and conductive interference allowing us to see exactly how the atmosphere reacts.

It exited the tube without causing warming.. We measured the output of the tube to determine how much was being passed through the coulomb. essentially its like putting a spotlight at one end of a tunnel, then watching the light exit the tunnel onto a wall (receptor pad) at the other end.
_
I know of no transparent or even translucent ceramics. Detectors, by design, would be completely opaque.  Where did the energy go?

Tell us something.  Could you show us the relationship between CO2 levels and the amount of LWIR received at the end of the tube?  For example, with CO2 at 10%, what were the received levels at the far end of the tube from the moment your energized your LW source till you considered the run complete.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Again you have no concept of the experiment. It was precisely designed to look at the atmosphere and identify how it reacts. The Tube was designed to remove other outside influences such as convection and conduction against the tube wall...
Its amazing how reading comprehension problems affect alarmists..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> I'm with Todd here.  Here is everything I could find you saying about this tube.
> 
> _A 30 meter long tube was filled with atmospheric value gases. The tube was constructed such that the tube itself was not reactive to LWIR and was insulated to stop energy loss to the room. The ends were opaque and thermo-couplers (accurate to 0.001 Deg C +/-0.003) were positioned throught the length of the tube.They were shielded from LWIR to make sure there were no erroneous readings obtained.
> 
> ...


Why don't you talk to NASA they developed the ceramics for use on space craft.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

I am familiar with the ceramics used on the shuttle.  Is that what your tube was made of?

You still haven't answered the very basic question: where did 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 GO TO?  That you can't or won't answer this very basic question doesn't bode well for your efforts to become a scientist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Again you have no concept of the experiment. *

Again, I'm just going by what you said,
Light can't escape the ends, right?
Energy can't escape the tube, it's insulated.
So where did it go?

*Its amazing how reading comprehension problems affect alarmists..*

Its amazing how idiocy affects idiots..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with Todd here.  Here is everything I could find you saying about this tube.
> ...



Did space craft ceramics make heat disappear? Or just your ceramics?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> *The non-GHG atmosphere has no wavelengths to lose energy* so it returns the energy to the surface by conduction only.


Where are you getting this bull shit?

Just WOW! You telling me that LWIR is now stopped because the atmosphere has nothing to stop it?  

What are you smoking?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands.  It is transparent to LWIR.  Get it?

Again, where does 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 go to in this experiment of yours?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands.  It is transparent to LWIR.  Get it?
> 
> Again, where does 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 go to in this experiment of yours?


IF THERE IS NOTHING TO ABSORB IT, IT PASSES UNRESTRICTED!

LOL 
And you say you have scientific background.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands.  It is transparent to LWIR.  Get it?
> ...



*IF THERE IS NOTHING TO ABSORB IT, IT PASSES UNRESTRICTED!*

It can't pass unrestricted, your damn tube is opaque and insulated.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > *The non-GHG atmosphere has no wavelengths to lose energy* so it returns the energy to the surface by conduction only.
> ...




A nitrogen atmosphere would neither absorb nor emit thermal IR. The emissivity would be very close to zero in the thermal bands.

The surface would lose all of its thermal IR directly to space at the speed of light. None would be captured and recycled by the atmosphere. 

I have explained all this dozens of times in the past and you ignored it. I have little hope that you will grasp the concept any time soon.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands.  It is transparent to LWIR.  Get it?



Tell that to jupiter, saturn, neptune etc...There are several non GHG atmospheres in the solar system that prove your fantasy wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands.  It is transparent to LWIR.  Get it?
> ...



Guess they don't realize that there are several non GHG atmospheres in the solar system that prove their magic wrong.  Ignoring observable, measurable evidence over unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...so it goes with the greenhouse gas cult.


----------



## Crick (Nov 30, 2018)

What planets would those be?


----------



## Crick (Nov 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Again you have no concept of the experiment.
> 
> Its amazing how reading comprehension problems affect alarmists..




Our concept of the experiment is based ENTIRELY on your explanations.  If we're not getting it (and I don't see anyone here who is) perhaps you might try clarifying some of these points by answering our questions.


----------



## Crick (Nov 30, 2018)

RE SSDD's non-GHG planets

Jupiter's atmosphere is predominantly hydrogen and helium but contains small amounts of ammonia, methane and water vapor (GHGs).

Saturn's atmosphere is the same.  Predominantly hydrogen and helium but containing small amounts of ammonia, methane and water vapor (GHGs).

Uranus and Neptune are similarly composed primarily of hydrogen and helium but both contain relatively high (1.5%) levels of methane, a powerful GHG.

Mars has perhaps the weakest greenhouse effect of any of the planets that actually possess an atmosphere (ie, excluding Mercury and Pluto).  Though there is CO2 in Mars' atmosphere, the atmosphere as a whole is so thin it is unable to retain any significant amount of heat.

Titan is perhaps the most interesting example.  It possesses atmospheric components that produce both a greenhouse effect and and anti-greenhouse effect. The atmosphere is primarily nitrogen, but the presence of methane oceans on the moon provide for a high methane content in the atmosphere.  The anti-greenhouse effect is produced by an organic haze high in the atmosphere that is partially, reflectively opaque to direct solar irradiance but transparent to LWIR.  See https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1991/91-143.txt

So, Shit, have you a different set of facts?

Greenhouse effects... also on other planets

Greenhouse effect on other planets - Energy Education

Greenhouse effect on other planets?

Greenhouse effect on planets

NASA - TROPICAL RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE PROVIDES INSIGHT TO VENUS

What Is the Greenhouse Effect?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands.  It is transparent to LWIR.  Get it?
> 
> Again, where does 24 hours worth of 396W/m^2 go to in this experiment of yours?


You moron...   Transparent; means it has no way to interact with the energy. IT MEANS THAT IT CAN NOT STOP IT....  Nice to see you agree with what we found empirically! Are you done running around in circles?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


IF earth were a nitrogen atmosphere we would be an ice cube in space...  But this is the earth were talking about and our atmosphere is very different.


----------



## Crick (Nov 30, 2018)

Yes.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The non-GHG atmosphere has no absorption bands.  It is transparent to LWIR.  Get it?
> ...



Opaque is the opposite to transparent.  Why did you say your experiment was opaque to LWIR if you meant the opposite ?

CO2 is highly reactive to 15 micron thermal radiation, and the mean free path is only two metres near the surface at STP. In other words, opaque.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




I agree that the Earth would be much colder without GHGs. 

But I thought you were saying the opposite,  that GHGs make no difference?


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2018)

One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere. 

Elastic collisions  result in both objects recoiling with the same amount of kinetic energy as they entered with.

Inelastic collisions  have a different amount of kinetic energy because some amount of potential energy has been stored or released as a result of the collision. 

Near the surface CO2 absorbs more energy than it emits. That energy is transformed into kinetic speed  (temperature) by collision. Warming.

Near the top of the atmosphere CO2 emits radiation to space using energy that it got from collisions which resulted in vibrational states. Cooling

There is more 15 micron radiation produced at the 15C surface than at the -50C TOA. That energy is stored in the atmosphere until it finds a different path out.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.
> 
> Elastic collisions  result in both objects recoiling with the same amount of kinetic energy as they entered with.
> 
> ...


Or transfers that energy to the oceans.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> What planets would those be?



Maybe you can get an adult to help you out with this...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.
> 
> Elastic collisions  result in both objects recoiling with the same amount of kinetic energy as they entered with.
> 
> ...



Pure fantasy without the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.
> ...


The oceans determine the temperature of the atmosphere...not the other way around...it is that sort of belief that has made a dupe of you.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.
> ...



Which part do you consider fantasy? 

You seem to approve of many mechanisms of physics when it is useful for your narrative, only to scorn them when they are shown to disagree with your narrative. 

Do you disagree that molecular collisions can add or remove vibrational states in GHGs? And that the energy  comes from (goes to) the stored kinetic energy of the atmosphere? 

OR do you disagree that warm surface produces more GHG specific  radiation  than the cold atmosphere produces up high where the radiation can finally escape?

You never seem to actually explain your position.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > One more attempt at explaining how GHGs warm the atmosphere.
> ...



Thermal infrared does not transfer energy into the oceans. The Sun warms the oceans with visible and UV. Downwelling atmospheric thermal radiation only replace some of what is generated at the surface. 

Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface also happens  at night because the surface is close to a blackbody radiator and cools more quickly than the atmosphere which only has weak GHG radiation from high up to shed heat to space.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2018)

IanC said:


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



Opaque means energy interacts but has little or no result.

Transparent  means that the energy does not react at all and it is incapable of slowing or stopping it.

A trace gas being highly reactive to energy that can not warm does nothing to warm our atmosphere... That was the whole premise of our experiment. You people look at only what you want to see and ignore the rest..  Its amazing to me how you ignore the facts..  Increased water vapor is the only way CO2 can increase the temperature because the water absorbs the energy and warms. Collision with the warmer water is what warms CO2. However, as CO2 increases so does the emisitivty of the column which we clearly saw as the column rate of warming reduced as the ppm increased.

As we introduced water vapor into the tube we only found a pass loss of about 1.2w/m^2 @ 50% humidity which decreased to 0.7W/m^2 as we approached 800ppm.  Everything we have been told about CO2 and its effect by alarmists is wrong.

The technical paper is going to cause major waves...  Count on it..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Opaque means energy interacts but has little or no result.*

That's funny. So it's not absorbed, it doesn't pass through...……..it must bounce around.
Like the inside of a laser.
When you opened the tube, did it burn a hole through the wall?

*The technical paper is going to cause major waves... * 

Major waves of laughter......count on it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

IanC said:


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



I scorn misuse of physical laws and mechanisms...and assumptions loosely based upon them like applying the SB law to a gas, or using variations on the SB equations which allow one to violate the assumption that the temperature of T is always greater than or equal to Tc...or the assumption that absorption and emission equals warming..and on and on and on without the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the claims that are made by such shoddy science.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



True that...they are perfectly willing to disregard decades and a million hours of research, testing, and observation in commercial and residential installations which demonstrate pretty conclusively that IR does not warm air.  Any thing that challenges their belief is immediately disregarded.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface also happens at night because the surface is close to a blackbody radiator and cools more quickly than the atmosphere which only has weak GHG radiation from high up to shed heat to space.


Incorrect;

The thermal LWIR never warms the ocean.  The boundary layer (skin) is evaporating so fast that cooling of the upper layer of the ocean is seen just below the skin of the oceans surface.  LWIR can not warm the ocean.   Sorry but empirical evidence proves you wrong, again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface also happens at night because the surface is close to a blackbody radiator and cools more quickly than the atmosphere which only has weak GHG radiation from high up to shed heat to space.
> ...




Amazing how they disregard observed, measured evidence in favor of their failed models.  If they had the physics right, the CIMP models would be spot on...they are their flawed understanding of physics incarnate and they fail to produce anything like reality...time after time after time...even with constant adjustment they continue to fail.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Heat shields are pretty darn good items that do not react to LWIR..


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me moron,  Will the energy in the electrical system in your home burn it down without a catalyst which is capable of enabling/using the energy?
> ...


Cut one of the two hot wires? There aren’t two hot wires you fking idiot. One is neutral and one is hot. And only hot lights a bulb when neutral is present and flow is to neutral. Hly fk

BTW, All one has to do is unplug the light. What happens to an open outlet? Does the wire produce energy even though the one lead is hot?  Or does something need to draw that energy? A load? Maybe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Heat shields are pretty darn good items that do not react to LWIR.. *

Do they also make it disappear, like your magic tube?


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2018)

I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR".  There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three.  There is no "no reaction" option.  Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW. 

Every material used on the shuttle emitted (and thus absorbed) LWIR.  There is absolutely no reason an ablative or non-ablative heat shield material should be designed to not absorb LWIR and several significant reasons indicating it should.  Where have you gotten the idea that a heat shield wouldn't "react" with LWIR?

Instead of playing these stupid games, why don't you tell us precisely what your tube was made of.  If you don't know, man up and tell us so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2018)

Crick said:


> I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR".  There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three.  There is no "no reaction" option.  Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW.
> 
> Every material used on the shuttle emitted (and thus absorbed) LWIR.  There is absolutely no reason an ablative or non-ablative heat shield material should be designed to not absorb LWIR and several significant reasons indicating it should.  Where have you gotten the idea that a heat shield wouldn't "react" with LWIR?
> 
> Instead of playing these stupid games, why don't you tell us precisely what your tube was made of.  If you don't know, man up and tell us so.



He won't spill the beans.

He's saving the good stuff for his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR".  There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three.  There is no "no reaction" option.  Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW.
> 
> Every material used on the shuttle emitted (and thus absorbed) LWIR.  There is absolutely no reason an ablative or non-ablative heat shield material should be designed to not absorb LWIR and several significant reasons indicating it should.  Where have you gotten the idea that a heat shield wouldn't "react" with LWIR?
> 
> Instead of playing these stupid games, why don't you tell us precisely what your tube was made of.  If you don't know, man up and tell us so.


Billy is a troll. If he was serious, he would give us a blueprint or drawing or a photograph of his experiment and preliminary data. He seems to be playing the people in this thread that think he is nuts. He just want's attention to waste our time.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

I suspect he has some involvement or familiarity with an experiment being conducted by students where he takes his meteorology courses. When he first appeared - or at least when I first ran into him, it seemed he was a retired police officer who was taking some classes in meteorology.  That transmogrified itself into his being (and I quote) "an atmospheric physicist".  That has been difficult to get past. I simply wish he'd be more honest.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> I suspect he has some involvement or familiarity with an experiment being conducted by students where he takes his meteorology courses. When he first appeared - or at least when I first ran into him, it seemed he was a retired police officer who was taking some classes in meteorology. That transmogrified itself into his being (and I quote) "an atmospheric physicist". That has been difficult to get past. I simply wish he'd be more honest.


Yes, being dishonest sometimes equivalent to lying. But in his case he very often states something ludicrous without knowing or even caring what the facts might be. When he does that it seems like he has zero self-respect.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

You girls enjoying your little circle jerk?  Do you find comfort in your catty conversation?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR".  There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three.  There is no "no reaction" option.  Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW.
> 
> Every material used on the shuttle emitted (and thus absorbed) LWIR.  There is absolutely no reason an ablative or non-ablative heat shield material should be designed to not absorb LWIR and several significant reasons indicating it should.  Where have you gotten the idea that a heat shield wouldn't "react" with LWIR?
> 
> Instead of playing these stupid games, why don't you tell us precisely what your tube was made of.  If you don't know, man up and tell us so.



You have no concept of REACTIVITY...

You don't even have a basic grasp of the concept or scientific principal for energy movement..  Crick, Give it up Your an Idiot..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect he has some involvement or familiarity with an experiment being conducted by students where he takes his meteorology courses. When he first appeared - or at least when I first ran into him, it seemed he was a retired police officer who was taking some classes in meteorology. That transmogrified itself into his being (and I quote) "an atmospheric physicist". That has been difficult to get past. I simply wish he'd be more honest.
> ...


You and Crick do that quite a bit...

Honesty is something I never find in an alarmist...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about with "react to LWIR".  There are three things it could do: reflect, absorb or transmit and will usually do some combination of the three.  There is no "no reaction" option.  Your material is completely opaque to visible light making it extremely unlikely that it is transparent to LW.
> ...


LOL

The technical paper will be out soon enough...  Until then I will only talk about it in generalities... Heat shields are made to be inactive to LWIR and able to release energy from friction.. You folks are idiots and all you see is your beloved AGW lie... You ignore the real science being done to tout your power grab...


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2018)

A heat shield needs to get rid of heat through conduction and radiation.  Silica block tiles on the shuttle were extremely poor conductors, by design.  Thus your contention makes no sense.

And none of what you've said goes one angstrom towards explaining what happened to the heat energy you put into the system.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> The technical paper will be out soon enough... Until then I will only talk about it in generalities... Heat shields are made to be inactive to LWIR and able to release energy from friction.. You folks are idiots and all you see is your beloved AGW lie... You ignore the real science being done to tout your power grab...


Ad hominem does not make your point. And just as I expected you have no experimental apparatus.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 15, 2018)

For the two morons who don't have a clue... Some basic tents on which the experiments are based.

1. All components of our atmosphere have reactivity points with energy passing through our atmosphere. (Note: energy "passing through' as it does not reside and has no capability to stop it).

This means we were looking precisely at those points to see what effect it actually has.

2. The method includes focused energy, at specific wavelengths, and carefully measured at input and exit of the closed system. (9.14M tube at 914.4mm in diameter - made of ceramic ash which is not reactive to LWIR in the bands of 5-100um. Ends were polished glass causing no interference or diffusion.)

The design is specific to reflect back into the gas all LWIR inside the tube. Then we placed sensors throught the tube to measure the reactions. Noting any gradient from input to exit and overall changes.

3. Understanding how each component of our atmosphere reacts at the molecular level was the first step filling the tube with various levels of one gas and nitrogen which is nonreactive to LWIR.

We took a look at what went in, what was passed, and what was reflected off the walls all while noting temperature changes within the cylinder.

One important lesson observed, when cooler energy (LWIR at longer wave lengths) was introduced cooling of the cylinder was noted.  This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength. Also energy which can not react (outside of reaction bands) with the molecule and will pass unaltered

The second lesson was the molecules only accept energy within their reactive regions and all other energy is passed unaltered. So while we introduced 394w/m^2 of 5-100um radiation only 4% was expected to be affected without water vapor. Given the mass of the tube little or no warming can occur or was observed (at 1 atmosphere pressure and current concentrations of gasses). The output of the tube reflected only 1.8% change in output and a 0.7% reflected from the top of the tube.

Essentially we found that the atmosphere passed 99.2% of all radiation in the LWIR band unaltered, reflected 0.7% leaving just 0.1% reacting to the atmosphere, absent water vapor. This is why there is no warming found within the tube.  We didn't find warming when the tube was 50% CO2 and 50%Nitrogen and very similar energy pass rates.

IF  you want a molecular level interaction explanation you can wait for the paper.

We essentially explain why a desert can be 120 in the day time and 15 deg at night in very short order and why the polar regions can cool to maximum theoretically possible every night on earth.  They are devoid of water vapor and CO2 can not retain heat.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 15, 2018)

jc456 said:


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


These idiots don't have a clue about energy flow or what is necessary to conduct it.  The molecules in our atmosphere are much the same as the light bulb, if the energy is to small or the wrong value it can do nothing..


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> For the two morons who don't have a clue... Some basic tents on which the experiments are based.
> 
> 1. All components of our atmosphere have reactivity points with energy passing through our atmosphere. (Note: energy "passing through' as it does not reside and has no capability to stop it).
> 
> ...




Haha haha. Another dump truck full of Billy Bob bullshit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > For the two morons who don't have a clue... Some basic tents on which the experiments are based.
> ...



Another useless post... 

Adhoms and attack the poster rather than debate the facts presented.. Thank you for admitting you don't have a clue and that you surrender...


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> One important lesson observed, when cooler energy (LWIR at longer wave lengths) was introduced cooling of the cylinder was noted. This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength. Also energy which can not react (outside of reaction bands) with the molecule and will pass unaltered



Hahahahaha. It is hard to imagine more stupidity packed into a short three sentence paragraph.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > One important lesson observed, when cooler energy (LWIR at longer wave lengths) was introduced cooling of the cylinder was noted. This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength. Also energy which can not react (outside of reaction bands) with the molecule and will pass unaltered
> ...


Proving once more you have no concept of how energy flows through our atmosphere. This experiment was designed to see how the atmosphere alone reacts to passing LWIR..  You care to refute the findings of this observed empirical evidence from experiment or are ahoms all you can muster?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength. *

How much shorter?


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Pointing out your foolish stupidity is not an ad hom when you actually are stupidly foolish.


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That is bordering on disobeying the SLoT. Without extra energy being supplied by molecular collision, you cannot have a low energy photon go in and a high energy one come out.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2018)

I guess its time to show why you all are imbeciles....

First lets look at the reactivity of O2... In the graph below there are just two regions that O2 can react with energy passing through the atmosphere.



The Y axis is wavelength in nanometers.  In the graph above it are the major components of our atmosphere and their reaction bands where LWIR can affect that component by absorption or emission..





We focused on outgoing LWIR.  Our region of investigation was 5um to 100um. LWIR is not stopped by Oxygen and the region in the outgoing bands is less than 1% that can be affected. In a pure O2 environment the shear mass of earths atmosphere could not be warmed by outgoing LWIR.





Again, just as with O2 and Ozone, CO2 can only affect 4% of the radiation band. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is so minute that it is incapable of stopping outbound radiation.  It theoretically affects just 4% of the total energy being emitted from the black body.  *CO2 has very low energy residency time and will not warm without a secondary molecule that can warm, with which it must collide.  This hypothesis was proven correct by the experiment which removed water vapor from the atmosphere.
*
Its amazing how many people can not grasp this simple concept.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Within the band of reactivity..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Look whose talking...the guy who can't manage a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support his beliefs and still believes that he is the smartest guy in the room.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Its amazing how many people can not grasp this simple concept.



They will ride that CO2 crazy train right over the cliff.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Nice non-responsive answer.
What wavelength enters, what shorter wavelength leaves?
Use specific numbers.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2018)

IanC said:


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


I guess you need to explain what a Photon is then...  Is it matter or is it an electromagnetic wave?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


We observed a 0.15um increase in wavelength.We bombarded CO2@100% concentration with 12um energy until it emitted at the same level then we bombarded CO2 with low energy (16um energy) it responds at a slightly shorter wave length increase until it cooled to the new level of the incoming energy.
IE: 12um >>>>>>>15.85um, 13um>>>15.85um, 14um>>>15.85um, 16um>>>16um...  The spike in energy output was just above the new energy input.  This indicates that it is warming mater to re-emit it until input equaled output at which time the spike disappeared.   So the question remains, are we emitting photons that are matter or energy? Our work suggests it is matter. A question for another experiment to be sure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*We observed a 0.15um increase in wavelength.*

An increase in wavelength? But you said a shorter wavelength.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Like you?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2018)

IanC said:


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


Still waiting on that observed measured data!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> I guess its time to show why you all are imbeciles....
> 
> First lets look at the reactivity of O2... In the graph below there are just two regions that O2 can react with energy passing through the atmosphere.
> View attachment 235032
> ...



Holy F¥€K! You are irredeemably stupid. Do you even understand what temperature is? Warming and cooling have meaning and definition.


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Photons are bosons. Bosons are not restricted to unique quantum states like fermions that make up matter.

Any amount of light can exist at one point of space. But only one particle of matter can occupy any individual point at one time.

Do you really not understand the fundamental difference between  light and matter?


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Molecules have their own unique patterns of absorption and emission, that is why they can be identified by spectography.

CO2 reacts strongly with 15 micron radiation. CO2 also reacts with 14.9 and 15.1 micron radiation, but less strongly.  The analogy is a poorly fitted key that unlocks the door if you wiggle it just right.

But a CO2 molecule does not absorb a 15 micron photon and then emit a 16 micron photon. Or vice versa


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> Do you really not understand the fundamental difference between  light and matter?



Neither does science...but that never stops you from pretending that they do.  The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out.  The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> CO2 reacts strongly with 15 micron radiation. CO2 also reacts with 14.9 and 15.1 micron radiation, but less strongly.



Describe the "reaction" you are visualizing.  And visualizing is precisely what you are doing because at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out. The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.


The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion. You are the one for which it is a mystery.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.


That is total hog wash. The point is "you" not "we" don't understand.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out. The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.
> ...


avoidance, your only weapon of debate.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.
> ...


avoidance, your only weapon of debate.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out. The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.
> ...



Really...is light a wave or a particle?  Be specific...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.
> ...



Really?  Describe the mechanism by which a vibration within a molecule or atom becomes radiation traveling at the speed of light.  Be specific.

You guys who believe science knows all are doing nothing more than demonstrating how badly you either have been duped, or have duped yourselves.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



Wait till you see his reply...it will prove pretty conclusively that he doesn't even begin to understand what he doesn't know.

Today...a week or so before the year of 2019, we don't know whether photons actually exist...they remain theoretical particles...we don't know for sure whether the speed of light is as fast as something can move or if it may be exceeded...and just recently, scientists "think" they discovered a whole new kind of light.  

These wack jobs who believe science knows everything are a sad lot indeed..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



This answer should be good too.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 17, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I guess its time to show why you all are imbeciles....
> ...


Tell me, Do molecules have a temperature?

Why YES, yes they do.. And they radiate at that temperature... so what happens when you place energy in a narrow band and bombard molecules, then change that energy to a lower temperature emission? How will the molecule respond?  How will the elongating molecule be seen in spectrograph? How will the shrinking molecules energy be seen in emission? Do you know?

You are an irredeemable moron.  You fail to grasp even the most basic physics at the molecular level. 


Please enlighten me... Are photons matter or energy?

What we OBSERVED was in keeping with a photon being matter.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




No, an individual  molecule does not have a temperature.

A photon is energy and has no mass. A photon has characteristics of both a wave and a particle therefore it is neither.  

Have you ever met someone who agreed that light is matter?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Really...is light a wave or a particle? Be specific...



Mathematically light behaves as a wave when traveling through space and acts as a particle when interacting with matter. That behavior at the atomic level has been observed tested to parts per billion accuracy



SSDD said:


> Really? Describe the mechanism by which a vibration within a molecule or atom becomes radiation traveling at the speed of light. Be specific.



It was known over a century ago that accelerating charges (as in vibration of a dipole) radiate EM energy. It has been observed and measured many times.

But of course you will not believe that because many trolls here don't believe science.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Mathematically light behaves as a wave when traveling through space and acts as a particle when interacting with matter. That behavior at the atomic level has been observed tested to parts per billion accuracy



I didn't ask you for mathematical model...You claimed that the NATURE of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion.  The particle/wave nature of light is a story put in place in an attempt to explain something that had no explanation...it still has no explanation...just a story made up a very long time ago.





Wuwei said:


> It was known over a century ago that accelerating charges (as in vibration of a dipole) radiate EM energy. It has been observed and measured many times.



So again...no answer...of course we have observed energy moving...I asked you to describe the mechanism by which a vibration in a molecule, becomes radiation moving at the speed of light...again...we don't know and aren't likely to know for quite some time if we ever know.

Is there any lie you won't tell..or any sewer you won't drag your intellect through rather than simply admit that there are things which science doesn't know?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I didn't ask you for mathematical model...You claimed that the NATURE of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion. The particle/wave nature of light is a story put in place in an attempt to explain something that had no explanation...it still has no explanation...just a story made up a very long time ago.


The *behavior *of light is known to parts per billion. Physicists have known for a century that the *nature *of light is not intuitive. The ability to compute the behavior at the atomic level comes from the models. In that case a "story" isn't involved and is unnecessary in light of the success of the models.



SSDD said:


> So again...no answer...of course we have observed energy moving...I asked you to describe the mechanism by which a vibration in a molecule, becomes radiation moving at the speed of light...again...we don't know and aren't likely to know for quite some time if we ever know.


You are always focusing on observations, and now you want a model? Describing a mechanism in quantum mechanics cannot be done with English sentences. If you insist on that you will always be in the dark ages of physics. It must be done using the variables and math of physics. Maybe some philosopher is involved in the metaphysics you are requesting. You are on your own for that.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2018)

The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The *behavior *of light is known to parts per billion. Physicists have known for a century that the *nature *of light is not intuitive. The ability to compute the behavior at the atomic level comes from the models. In that case a "story" isn't involved and is unnecessary in light of the success of the models.



Still weaseling rather than simply admitting that science doesn't know...You said that we fully understood the NATURE of light...you can observe and note the behavior of a thing to a very high degree and not know the first thing about its fundamental nature.  You said, and I quote "The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion."  

It is well known that we know next to nothing about the nature of light...photons remain theoretical particles and particle/wave remains just a place holder....a story about what might be till such time as we can actually know.

So don't tell me any more about how light behaves, or how predictable it is..that is nothing more than observation over and over...it doesn't tell you anything at all about its nature.  Maybe you should grab a dictionary and look up the definitions of words like nature, behavior, fundamental, mechanism, etc.



Wuwei said:


> You are always focusing on observations, and now you want a model?



Of course I don't want a model...I am pointing out that we don't know regardless of what you think.  The only way to know whether a model is correct is to observe the reality that it is modeling...You speak of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as if they were real, and I believe that you believe that they actually are real...You are clearly unable to differentiate reality from fiction.



Wuwei said:


> Describing a mechanism in quantum mechanics cannot be done with English sentences.



Then it can not be done.  Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Deferring to models, rather than simply describing how a thing happens is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to complexity.  If you actually understand the fundamental mechanism of how a thing happens, and why it happens, then a model is not necessary...you can simply state what is happening and why.  

You really do have a deficiency when it comes to separating reality from unreality.



Wuwei said:


> If you insist on that you will always be in the dark ages of physics.



If I insist on reality rather than simply accept stories that are told in an attempt to explain things that we can't yet know?  Accept the stories as true rather than wait for the truth to actually be known?

Did you ever hear the story about the emperor's new clothes...you are one of the dolts who was standing around admiring his beautiful ensemble'....I am the guy pointing out that he is parading his hairy pimply ass all about town.  Given the choice, I would much rather know that he his naked than be a dupe who believes that we possess knowledge that we don't..and may never possess.

You have the meanings of words so twisted in your mind that it appears that you really are unable to know what we don't know and aren't even prepared to acknowledge that the universe of things that we don't know is orders and orders and orders of magnitude greater than what we have learned in our first scratchings of the surface of reality.

You are the sort who will accept a story as truth...and actually believe it in your mind...I am not.  If you do a bit of research into the dark ages, you will learn that part of what made them dark was superstitious belief in stories told in an effort to come to terms with things they didn't understand...the enlightenment brought us out of the dark ages...it was a time when the stories were challenged and actual work was done to get to a level of truth.  

When stories become accepted as truth, you are heading back towards an age of darkness.  I expect the next real renaissance in science to be at least 100 years from now...maybe a bit longer.  At that time, this period will be looked back on with a quaint sort of disgust.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.



Only when the results of the model can be tested against reality...and the predictions are accurate over and over and over...it is only then that a model is useful...till that time, it is just a wild assed guess.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

Bullshit.  ALL models are attempts to mathematically represent real world processes.  ALL models are tested against reality.  You and your denier buddies reject models when they clearly indicate you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - which is as frequent as frequent can be.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still weaseling rather than simply admitting that science doesn't know...You said that we fully understood the NATURE of light...you can observe and note the behavior of a thing to a very high degree and not know the first thing about its fundamental nature. You said, and I quote "The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion."
> 
> It is well known that we know next to nothing about the nature of light...photons remain theoretical particles and particle/wave remains just a place holder....a story about what might be till such time as we can actually know.
> 
> So don't tell me any more about how light behaves, or how predictable it is..that is nothing more than observation over and over...it doesn't tell you anything at all about its nature. Maybe you should grab a dictionary and look up the definitions of words like nature, behavior, fundamental, mechanism, etc.



Look up the nature of light on Google. Many quality sites will explain it for you. The behavior of light, (not the nature), is used in the atomic physics of gases.



SSDD said:


> Of course I don't want a model...I am pointing out that we don't know regardless of what you think. The only way to know whether a model is correct is to observe the reality that it is modeling...You speak of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as if they were real, and I believe that you believe that they actually are real...You are clearly unable to differentiate reality from fiction.



Physics at the more advanced level finds that models are more useful than “reality”. If you want to focus on reality, you should study metaphysics.



SSDD said:


> Then it can not be done. Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
> 
> Deferring to models, rather than simply describing how a thing happens is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to complexity. If you actually understand the fundamental mechanism of how a thing happens, and why it happens, then a model is not necessary...you can simply state what is happening and why.
> 
> You really do have a deficiency when it comes to separating reality from unreality.



You misunderstood Einstein. You certainly can explain quantum mechanics simply to anyone, but that isn't enough for that person to understand how to compute the energy levels of a hydrogen atom, for example.



SSDD said:


> If I insist on reality rather than simply accept stories that are told in an attempt to explain things that we can't yet know? Accept the stories as true rather than wait for the truth to actually be known?
> 
> Did you ever hear the story about the emperor's new clothes...you are one of the dolts who was standing around admiring his beautiful ensemble'....I am the guy pointing out that he is parading his hairy pimply ass all about town. Given the choice, I would much rather know that he his naked than be a dupe who believes that we possess knowledge that we don't..and may never possess.
> 
> ...



Posting that stuff here does not enlighten the topic. If you are more interested in the metaphysics of “reality” than the behavior of matter and light, you should be studying along the lines of Aristotle rather than principles of modern physics.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> Bullshit.  ALL models are attempts to mathematically represent real world processes.  ALL models are tested against reality.  You and your denier buddies reject models when they clearly indicate you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - which is as frequent as frequent can be.



Really?  Then lets see the observed, measured results of any experiment which demonstrated that energy can move spontaneously and freely from a cool object to a warmer object as wuwei's model suggests..

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for results.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.



Denier? That's not a word in science, that's more like a lunatic fringe Moonbat Cult word.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Look up the nature of light on Google. Many quality sites will explain it for you. The behavior of light, (not the nature), is used in the atomic physics of gases.



So you have no answer and figure if I go off looking at google that I will find something that satisfies me?  NEWSFLASH...I have already looked...unlike you, I read to learn...I wouldn't have said that we don't understand the nature of light if I thought that there was any chance that you could provide evidence that we do....all you can provide is observations of behavior...that  tells us nothing about the nature of light...it only tells us what it does...

You have exceptionally poor command of the language...you misinterpret and misunderstand a great deal...do you really not know the difference between behavior and fundamental nature?



Wuwei said:


> Physics at the more advanced level finds that models are more useful than “reality”. If you want to focus on reality, you should study metaphysics.['quote]
> 
> Refer back to what made the dark ages dark...belief in stories...inability to separate what was real from what was fiction...
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The denier rejection of models lasts right up till they need one, then they're perfect.
> ...



You know another word that isn't in science....consensus.  Scientists are supposed to be natural born skeptics.....certainly isn't much of that in science these days.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Consensus and denier and cult words; it's just not science


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you have no answer and figure if I go off looking at google that I will find something that satisfies me? NEWSFLASH...I have already looked...unlike you, I read to learn...I wouldn't have said that we don't understand the nature of light if I thought that there was any chance that you could provide evidence that we do....all you can provide is observations of behavior...that tells us nothing about the nature of light...it only tells us what it does...
> 
> You have exceptionally poor command of the language...you misinterpret and misunderstand a great deal...do you really not know the difference between behavior and fundamental nature?


Cut the crap TROLL. The behavior of light given by quantum mechanics is all you need to investigate the physics behind how LW radiation interacts with the atmosphere. Not metaphysics.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2018)

The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383

The American Journal of Science and Arts

A two page report in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that CO2 absorbs heat. She measured the temperatures in two glass 4x30 inch cylinders with internal thermometers. She exposed them to sunlight, one filled with air and one with CO2. Foote speculated that if there had been a period when the atmosphere held more of the gas, the planet would have been warmer. 

She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions:
_On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°._​


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Cut the crap TROLL. The behavior of light given by quantum mechanics is all you need to investigate the physics behind how LW radiation interacts with the atmosphere. Not metaphysics.



TRANSLATION:  "Stop kicking my stupid ass all over the board...I don't like it."

You made a bullshit claim and now you can't back it up...but then what else is new?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383
> 
> The American Journal of Science and Arts
> 
> ...



Quaint 19th century science again?  You grow more boring every day...Like I said...look up  "heat of compression..therein lies your answer.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2018)

And when did this compression take place?


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2018)

Waiting for an answer.  When did the Earth's atmosphere first develop its current density and altitude?

When I asked Google, the answer was 4.5 billion years ago.  Do you accept that?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you have no answer and figure if I go off looking at google that I will find something that satisfies me? NEWSFLASH...I have already looked...unlike you, I read to learn...I wouldn't have said that we don't understand the nature of light if I thought that there was any chance that you could provide evidence that we do....all you can provide is observations of behavior...that tells us nothing about the nature of light...it only tells us what it does...



There are lots of books on the nature of light without formulas so that people like you who don't understand physics can easily grasp it.  Who gives a ꞰↃՈℲ about the nature of light, when it comes to computations of interactions of light in a gas. Since you think the nature is most important, it's no wonder that you sneer at the mathematics of QM. You couldn't possibly understand it, and you say idiotic things about the second law and the SB equation that absolutely unrelated to what is actually happening, and far from what the discoverers and body of science knows and understands. 

Your understanding of the nature of light is so much fantasy that you can't even fabricate a phony reason why photons from cold object can't hit a warm object. We have to fabricate it for you: "smart photons".


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383
> ...



Yes, it was quite quaint, but nevertheless a breakthrough for that time. The whole physics of heat absorption of GHGs has been modeled by today's scientists. 

The heat of compression adds less than 1% to the total temperature change compared to air. That is easily calculated from the IGL. For you to think it's "your answer" without investigating it is your usual BS.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> And when did this compression take place?



When the glass or plastic in the bottle warmed up and conducted heat to the gas inside..you really are clueless.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> There are lots of books on the nature of light without formulas so that people like you who don't understand physics can easily grasp it.



Nope...there are books on observations of the behavior of light with hypotheses and theories about what is going on in an attempt to explain the observations...

Again...failure to differentiate between reality and unreality.



Wuwei said:


> Who gives a ꞰↃՈℲ about the nature of light, when it comes to computations of interactions of light in a gas.



Certainly not me...you made a stupid statement when you claimed that the nature of light was well known..it isn't...I just thought it might be fun to yank your chain over your stupid claim and watch you squirm and see how far you would drag your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend it.  Now we know.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, it was quite quaint, but nevertheless a breakthrough for that time. The whole physics of heat absorption of GHGs has been modeled by today's scientists.



Gasses absorb radiation...and emit it...they do not absorb heat.



Wuwei said:


> The heat of compression adds less than 1% to the total temperature change compared to air. That is easily calculated from the IGL. For you to think it's "your answer" without investigating it is your usual BS.



I suggest that you do a bit of investigation into the compressed air industry..whole classes of equipment are dedicated to capturing energy resulting from the heat of compression...a lot of work and expense to attempt to capture 1% don't you think? 

Again....all bullshit from you all the time.  In the text of the greenhouse in a bottle experiment that I provided for you...when the bottle was capped tight even plain old air warmed 16 degrees vs 7degrees when the bottle is vented...CO2 being more dense than air, warmed to 22 when capped tight, but didn't warm any more than garden variety air when the bottle was vented...

Even plain air saw more than 30% increase in temperature when the bottles were capped due to the heat of compression...considerably more than 1% wouldn't you say?  Observed, measured, repeatable evidence.

IR does not warm the air....


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > There are lots of books on the nature of light without formulas so that people like you who don't understand physics can easily grasp it.
> ...



You are the one making stupid statements about the nature of light.
*Part 1 Nature of light*​Haven't you heard the wave-*nature *and particle-*nature *of light?

The nature of light is all over the web, for example,
_Most commonly observed phenomena with light can be explained by waves. But the photoelectric effect suggested a particle *nature *for light. Then *electrons *too were found to exhibit dual *natures*._​
Quantum Mechanics is the "strange" theory introduced in 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg to describe the *fundamental nature* of basic particles: the atomic nucleus, electrons and light (photons, or electromagnetic waves).

Bell's inequality experiments look at the *nature *of light and *realism*.
Articles such as:  BIG Bell Test Collaboration (May 2018). "Challenging local realism with human choices", _Nature_. *557* (7704)

*Part 2 Behavior of light*.​The mathematics of Quantum ElectroDynamics says it all when it comes to practical applications and behavior.
----------------
That is the way scientists look at the *nature *and *behavior *of light. Nature of light does not lead to inventions or tell us the radiant behavior of gases.

It looks like you don't understand anything about neither the nature nor the behavior of light.
​


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Gasses absorb radiation...and emit it...they do not absorb heat.


You are totally wrong.
The time from absorption to  emission of CO2 is a few micro seconds.
The mean time between collisions with air molecules is a few nano seconds.
CO2 very rarely emits the energy it absorbs. It transfers it to kinetic energy.


SSDD said:


> I suggest that you do a bit of investigation into the compressed air industry..whole classes of equipment are dedicated to capturing energy resulting from the heat of compression...a lot of work and expense to attempt to capture 1% don't you think?


It obviously follows from the IGL don't you think?


SSDD said:


> Again....all bullshit from you all the time. In the text of the greenhouse in a bottle experiment that I provided for you...when the bottle was capped tight even plain old air warmed 16 degrees vs 7degrees when the bottle is vented...CO2 being more dense than air, warmed to 22 when capped tight, but didn't warm any more than garden variety air when the bottle was vented...
> 
> Even plain air saw more than 30% increase in temperature when the bottles were capped due to the heat of compression...considerably more than 1% wouldn't you say? Observed, measured, repeatable evidence.


Nope. Your "analysis" doesn't hold water. You absolutely don't understand the experiment. The heat of compression is negligible.


SSDD said:


> IR does not warm the air....


Oh yes it does. I challenged you with the physics behind it several times and you ducked and dodged the question.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383
> 
> The American Journal of Science and Arts
> 
> ...


You sir are a moron..

The experiment you cite was done in DOWN WELLING RADIATION of broad spectrum. Both Conduction and Convection were not accounted for and her glass cylinders warmed themselves due to its reactivity to energy in the 0.1-0.8um spectrum. What she observed was due to the glass and the convection and conduction within the cylinder. A mistake we chose to remove from the experiment.

LOL.. You guys are desperate. I had 2 Phd's try this paper already and we blew them out of the water with the failures a good scientist would see coming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The time from absorption to emission of CO2 is a few micro seconds.
> The mean time between collisions with air molecules is a few nano seconds.
> CO2 very rarely emits the energy it absorbs. It transfers it to kinetic energy.


WE could quibble about the nano seconds between collisions and the shorter duration of energy residency inside the CO2 molecule but the simple fact remains that of the possible 8 reactions to energy that most molecular structures have, CO2 responds in only only 4 due to its make up. All four of these "vibrational modes" in CO2 do not result in warming. The four others, which do respond in water vapor, can because the energy resides much, much longer.

CO2 cannot warm due to passing LWIR.  CO2 can only transmit its energy by collision or emittance to other molecules. CO2 can only warm by conduction.

The whole premise of our experiment was to show what LWIR actually does in our atmosphere.  And what we found was almost entirely out of sync with alarmist modeling and hype.


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2018)

This is your NASA space tube in which all the energy input simply vanishes into another dimension?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



And that, boys and girls brings us to the end of story time today...  Let me know when you have something real to say.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are totally wrong.



Alas, I am not...CO2 emits everything it absorbs till such time as it reaches its equilibrium temperature of about -80F



Wuwei said:


> Nope. Your "analysis" doesn't hold water. You absolutely don't understand the experiment. The heat of compression is negligible.



So do explain why there was a 9 degree difference between the capped bottle of plain air and the vented bottle of plain air...The vent was the only difference between the two.



Wuwei said:


> Oh yes it does. I challenged you with the physics behind it several times and you ducked and dodged the question.



Reality proves your model wrong...there are literally millions of hours of testing, development, and observation from the IR heating industry that prove your models wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2018)

Crick said:


> This is your NASA space tube in which all the energy input simply vanishes into another dimension?




Appeal to absurdity? Well at least you are trying out new logical fallacies...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And that, boys and girls brings us to the end of story time today... Let me know when you have something real to say.


End of story. Good. You brought it up not me. I kept telling you the "nature of light" has nothing to do with the OP.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Reality proves your model wrong...there are literally millions of hours of testing, development, and observation from the IR heating industry that prove your models wrong.


Refer to the article I quoted by Emily Foote.
She noted the temperature rises in various gases under the same conditions, two non-vented cylinders. The values are final temperature in Fahrenheit:

_On comparing the sun's heat in different gases, I found it to be in hydrogen gas, 104° ; in common air, 106°; in oxygen gas 108°; and in carbonic acid gas, 125°._​Why do you suppose the cylinder with CO2 heated up so much more than the other gases?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Reality proves your model wrong...there are literally millions of hours of testing, development, and observation from the IR heating industry that prove your models wrong.
> ...



Isn't CO2 at 1 atm under more pressure than hydrogen, oxygen or air at 1 atm?

We'll probably never know. An unknowable mystery.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 23, 2018)

IanC said:


> No, an individual molecule does not have a temperature.


BULL SHIT!

All matter has a temperature and all matter will emit energy at that temperature..

In your world energy has no temperature?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Isn't CO2 at 1 atm under more pressure than hydrogen, oxygen or air at 1 atm?
> 
> We'll probably never know. An unknowable mystery.



It all depends on if the sides of the container are sloped creating a pinching effect.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No, an individual molecule does not have a temperature.
> ...


What is the temperature of a molecule going 100 miles per hour?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't CO2 at 1 atm under more pressure than hydrogen, oxygen or air at 1 atm?
> ...



Or if it's in a vacuum at 0K.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The time from absorption to emission of CO2 is a few micro seconds.
> ...



*CO2 can only transmit its energy by collision or emittance to other molecules*.​
That's pretty much what I said. When CO2 molecules transfer energy by random collisions they impart random kinetic energy to the molecules they hit. That is the definition of thermal energy. The air heats. 

.






​


----------



## IanC (Dec 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No, an individual molecule does not have a temperature.
> ...




Hahahahaha.  You need remedial science classes.

Go look up the definition of temperature. 

Then look up the Planck curve of thermal emissions  for two objects that are 10 or 20C different.  The overlap in range is almost total. Only the proportions are slightly  different with the warmer object producing more radiation at all of the wavelengths .

That is one of the reasons that SSDDs theory that temperature of the first object controls the emissions of the second object is so bizarre.  There is the same radiation wavelengths coming off both objects!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are totally wrong.
> ...


QUOTE="SSDD, post: 21448052, member: 40906"]So do explain why there was a 9 degree difference between the capped bottle of plain air and the vented bottle of plain air...The vent was the only difference between the two[/QUOTE]

The absorbed swir from the sun in the plastic, heated the bottle air! Just like seats in a car does the inside of a car with the windows up! Simple


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



The absorbed swir from the sun in the plastic, heated the bottle air! Just like seats in a car does the inside of a car with the windows up! Simple[/QUOTE]

*The absorbed swir from the sun *

Can you post the wavelength of this "short-wave infrared" from the Sun?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


LOL

Ignorant of the physics....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


CO2 radiates at its temperature. In our atmosphere that is generally about -80 deg F. The band of 12-16um is approximately -78 to -81 deg F.  
I am amazed at the number of people on this forum who claim to have scientific back ground and fail to even understand this simple concept.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



*The absorbed swir from the sun *

Can you post the wavelength of this "short-wave infrared" from the Sun?[/QUOTE]]
The sun radiates from about 0.1um out to around 6um Boundary LWIR is about 4-6um...  But anyone with even half a brain cell can find this out by looking at the range the sun emits..


----------



## jc456 (Dec 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



*The absorbed swir from the sun *

Can you post the wavelength of this "short-wave infrared" from the Sun?[/QUOTE]
Why exactly?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


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





> Why exactly?



Because it sounds like something new.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Short wave IR is more commonly known as boundary LWIR.  The definition can be found in any physics 100-101 book. It simply refers to the shorter wavelength of IR.

Using common sense is something alarmists have problems with.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Using common sense is something alarmists have problems with.*

Using science is what you and the other morons have problems with..


----------



## jc456 (Dec 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So you never heard of the sun. Wow


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



There must be a lot of SWIR from the Sun, eh?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 25, 2018)

bear513 said:


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



Thanks. Had nothing to do with my question, but thanks anyway.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


There is! Read up


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 26, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



How much? 50%? More?


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2018)

bear513 said:


> View attachment 236868


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


All we get


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



All the radiation we receive from the Sun is SWIR?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


LOL, I answered your question. Re read your question


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2018)

jc456 said:


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


You mumble.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 236868



Did you look at your graph?  What are current reconstrctions?  And what might a new reconstraction be?  Do they do science like they spell check?    Climate science gets sloppier all the time.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

The point was that Bear513's graph showing a match between solar irradiance and Arctic temperature was a fake.  The real data do not match.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Based on what was written, I supposed you do mumble! Too funny. I said, reread your question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



How much of the radiation we receive from the Sum is SWIR?


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

Ir extends to 1 mm lambda


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

So many who have no clue what it is we have accomplished. We isolated gases and identified their actual effectual properties in our atmosphere, with regard to LWIR at 6-100um.

The picture below is from the draft proposal several years ago. It demonstrates the basic principal parts of the system.





This was an attempt to isolate the atmosphere from other influences and identify how they react to the LWIR energy passage.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

Are the ends of the tube capped to retain the gases under examination?  If so, with what?

And why do you continue to use the term "reactive" when describing the relationship between the tube material and LWIR?  The options re EM radiation striking matter are reflect, absorb and transmit.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


All swir heat we get, is from the sun


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> Are the ends of the tube capped to retain the gases under examination?  If so, with what?
> 
> And why do you continue to use the term "reactive" when describing the relationship between the tube material and LWIR?  The options re EM radiation striking matter are reflect, absorb and transmit.


Had you read the thread this information was clearly stated.  Go Back and read moron..That's right, I know you need crayons and pretty pictures you have no hope of understanding.. You cant even grasp the concept of reactivity to LWIR as "causing change". IF the tube absorbed LWIR then it changed the output and thus the level of energy we were testing would have to be adjusted and the loss accounted for. We wpould also have to make adjustments to the temprature of the air as the tube would be heating up and convection and conduction would then come into play.  

I have no idea why I should try and educate an idiot like you..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are the ends of the tube capped to retain the gases under examination?  If so, with what?
> ...



The more you talk to these guys, the more evident it becomes that they are just mouthpieces for whoever gave them their opinions...the nuts and bolts of the whole topic is so far over their heads, that there is little hope of them ever getting it...at least until whoever gave them their opinions gives them a different one...

Over on both the Grand solar minimum thread, and the no evidence thread wuwei is demonstrating beyond any doubt that the whole concept of energy transfer is completely beyond is ability to grasp...he failed to understand that two objects of different temperatures would be losing energy at different rates to their surroundings so long as one of the objects was losing energy to the surroundings and the cooler object and the other was losing energy to the surroundings and gaining energy from the warmer object...he simply couldn't grasp that they would cool at different rates till such time as they were only losing energy to the surroundings....of course that assumes that the objects are the same size, but geez...if they can't wrap their mind around that, then it is easy to see how they became top shelf dupes.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

So that you can maintain your fantasy


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> So that you can maintain your fantasy



Us skeptics are the ones who can point to every observation, and measurement ever made to support our position...you guys, on the other hand have no actual empirical evidence...you base your position on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...in short...you favor fiction over reality...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Us skeptics are the ones who can point to every observation, and measurement ever made to support our position...you guys, on the other hand have no actual empirical evidence...you base your position on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...in short...you favor fiction over reality...


Total lie from a Troll.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

You lying sack of shit.  "The Physical Science Basis" contains almost two thousand pages of empirical evidence derived from thousands of published scientific studies filled with empirical evidence.  You have NO empirical data supporting your insane smart photon delusion.  You have NO empirical data refuting QM.  You have NO empirical data supporting the contentions you've made regarding CFCs in the Arctic or CO2 in the atmosphere.  You are a *LIAR *and a* TROLL*.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Us skeptics are the ones who can point to every observation, and measurement ever made to support our position...you guys, on the other hand have no actual empirical evidence...you base your position on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...in short...you favor fiction over reality...
> ...



Says the third biggest liar on the board after the skidmark and the hairball.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> You lying sack of shit.  "The Physical Science Basis" contains almost two thousand pages of empirical evidence derived from thousands of published scientific studies filled with empirical evidence.  You have NO empirical data supporting your insane smart photon delusion.  You have NO empirical data refuting QM.  You have NO empirical data supporting the contentions you've made regarding CFCs in the Arctic or CO2 in the atmosphere.  You are a *LIAR *and a* TROLL*.



And not a shred of it even begins to challenge either of the 3 statements in the OP of the No Evidence post...you seem to believe that evidence that the temperature has changed is also evidence that we caused it...sorry skidmark..that isn't science...that is assumption.

Be mad and get your panties in a twist...You wouldn't keep having your ass handed to you if you didn't keep spewing your nonsense.....and trying to use graphs...don't forget that you can't read a graph...


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

My *GOD *are you *STUPID and DISHONEST*


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Says the third biggest liar on the board after the skidmark and the hairball.


Nope you are the biggest liar and troll. We gave you noncontroversial evidence that radiant energy is a two way flow. Your only tool is claiming QM is fairy dust. Go figure.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> My *GOD *are you *STUPID and DISHONEST*



And you can't provide a single piece of observed measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements in the OP of the No Evidence thread...your abject failure has reduced you to nothing more than a name calling imbecile...and a laughable one at that.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Says the third biggest liar on the board after the skidmark and the hairball.
> ...



Sorry, but you didn't...you did demonstrate conclusively how easily you are to fool though...


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

How many physicists have you found that agree with your contention that matter can stop radiating?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> How many physicists have you found that agree with your contention that matter can stop radiating?



I don't need anyone to agree with me...the physical law itself supports my position....







Solve for P...

My bet is that you can't or won't because it challenges your faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.


And that's the end of the thread right there.

Go home, folks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



That wasn't the question.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How much energy does the earth/atmosphere lose by convection and conduction? Zero, zilch, nada.
> ...



How much energy moves from the surface of the earth, through the troposphere, where the climate happens to the stratosphere where it is then radiated out....better than 90%

Energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by conduction and convection that the very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable.

So much for the end of the conversation...interesting, when you finally say something about the science, you are so far from the mark that one wonders why you didn't just stick to spewing the opinion someone with a political agenda gave you.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> How much energy moves from the surface of the earth, through the troposphere, where the climate happens to the stratosphere where it is then radiated out.



How much of Venus's 15,700 W/m² is radiated out of Venus. That might help you understand earth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


We are currently proofing out the documents and its going to be a shocker to many people.  Several Phd's have already read the paper draft and have given us many questions. Its shaking the belief structure of many we have talked with.  As of yet, we have not seen major concerns with the math and process which is a good sign for a paper of this technical aspect.  It is already making waves in scientific circles, that was expected.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

"The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa god what a fucking *MORON*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Talking away the 10% uv rays, it’s the most coming from the sun. What’s your point?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



Nobody asked about UV.
My point is, you made a claim about SWIR but don't know how much of the total energy we get from the Sun is in the SWIR range.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> "The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable"
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa god what a fucking *MORON*


No such thing crickster. Just show the evidence


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Are you then saying our heat doesn’t come from swir?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



Are you saying it does? How much?


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

SWIR is 1100 to 3000 nM wavelength.  The HyperPhysics site has a calculator that will tell you what percent of solar energy is in that range, but though I saw the calculator, I did not note the link.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

*All objects glow* (even the gases in the sky); it is just the intensity and peak wavelength that shifts with respect to their thermal temperature.

3.2. Basic Rules of Light Quantification | EME 810: Solar Resource Assessment and Economics


----------



## Dale Smith (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> *All objects glow* (even the gases in the sky); it is just the intensity and peak wavelength that shifts with respect to their thermal temperature.
> 
> 3.2. Basic Rules of Light Quantification | EME 810: Solar Resource Assessment and Economics




'Father of Global Warming' Scientist Finally Admits Theory Is Wrong | PSI Intl


Climate change in a nutshell.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *All objects glow* (even the gases in the sky); it is just the intensity and peak wavelength that shifts with respect to their thermal temperature.
> ...



Water vapor, very series!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Are you saying it doesn’t?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



How much?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> "The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable"
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa god what a fucking *MORON*



Typical cherry picking bullshit from a congenital liar...What's the matter skidmark...can't bring yourself to quote the entire sentence?...or are your reading skills so poor that you can't even identify where a sentence starts and where it ends?  Here let me help you out...

What I said was:

"Energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by conduction and convection that the very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable."

Now do describe, in reasonable, scientifically valid terms how a greenhouse effect might override the energy movement in the troposphere which is so completely dominated by conduction and convection...This should be interesting...and base your answer on empirical evidence...not models which completely discount the major means of energy movement through the troposphere.

I predict you won't even come close to justifying a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere because there isn't a whit of empirical evidence to support it.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

The Greenhouse Effect doesn't have to "override" anything.  It is not fighting with conduction or convection.  Planet-wide, the only changes taking place with conduction and convection are those due to the increased temperature of the planet.  CO2 is slowing the release of LWIR to space and thus causing the planet to warm.  Humans are the source of the increased CO2 and that of several other GHGs.  You are an idiot, a liar and a troll.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> The Greenhouse Effect doesn't have to "override" anything.  It is not fighting with conduction or convection.  Planet-wide, the only changes taking place with conduction and convection are those due to the increased temperature of the planet.  CO2 is slowing the release of LWIR to space and thus causing the planet to warm.  Humans are the source of the increased CO2 and that of several other GHGs.  You are an idiot, a liar and a troll.



Got any observed, measured evidence to support that claim?  

Didn't think so.

According to data from NOAA, outgoing LW into space has not been decreasing as your hypothesis predicts, but increasing.





In addition, it is highly questionable that we are the cause for increases in CO2.  There are a number of published papers that have analyzed changes in atmospheric CO2 and a very good case can be made that we are not the cause of increased CO2. 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

Clip:  “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2  emissions*. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year.  … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*.”








SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Clip:  “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2.* It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2*. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that *temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans*.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

Clip:  “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then *supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. *This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”








https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL040613

Clip:  “*[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity]* since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.* The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. *Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found*.”


Your entire belief system is based on assumptions and terribly flawed models...empirical evidence shows quite clearly that you have been duped


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by conduction and convection that the very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable.


Well, you are wrong, and you are an uneducated slob that knows less than nothing about this topic. You would get laughed out of a room of climate scientists, and you have done zero research, have zero education, and have zero experience in any of these fields.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by conduction and convection that the very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable.
> ...



So tell me...how much energy do you believe moves through the troposphere via radiation compared to conduction and convection?  Let me guess...you have no idea...you are just repeating the opinion that someone with a political agenda gave you.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


all visible light


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



Actually radiation accounts for something less than 10% of the energy moving through the troposphere...the time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the time it takes a molecule to absorb radiation and then emit it that most molecules capable of absorbing IR lose it to oxygen or nitrogen molecules via collision before they have time to radiate it on to space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



Visible light is a much larger portion than SWIR.
You didn't know that?
I'm shocked!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



* most molecules capable of absorbing IR lose it to oxygen or nitrogen molecules via collision before they have time to radiate it on to space. *

Nice of you to finally learn how IR warms our atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sorry...air is warmed via conduction...IR does not warm the air.  Again, refer to the infrared heating industry...they don't live by models...they are constrained with reality and what actually happens in the world vs what happens in a model...


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


I was referring to surface absorption, there is no downward LWIR. So the sun is our heater and only the sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*Sorry...air is warmed via conduction...IR does not warm the air. *

You just said, IR is absorbed and then the IR energy is lost by collision.
The energy from IR has now warmed the atmosphere.
Two steps to warmer air.

*Again, refer to the infrared heating industry...they don't live by models...*

Did you bother to look at emission spectra of those IR heaters and the absorption spectra of the atmosphere?
It would highlight your errors, so I understand your reluctance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



* there is no downward LWIR. *

It's funny, even when you say it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



What is funny is that you believe it exists even though it can't be measured unless you cool the instrument down to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



What's funny is you think the atmosphere can sense the temperature of the instrument when the instrument can't radiate (because it's colder).


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


2nd law! That’s all


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


IR can’t warm air. Dude, you can write it down as often as you feel.  Just doesn’t. If you put your arms in front of an IR heater, it will heat your arms, that’s it.  And it is SSDD and I laughing at you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You just said, IR is absorbed and then the IR energy is lost by collision.



Sorry guy...failure to understand...when the energy is in the molecule, it is just energy...not infrared.  It is only infrared once it has been emitted.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did you bother to look at emission spectra of those IR heaters and the absorption spectra of the atmosphere?
> It would highlight your errors, so I understand your reluctance.



Clearly you didn't....far infrared...just like IR from the surface of the earth.  In fact, they go to great lengths to explain that fact...had you ever bothered to look.  It is unfortunate to accept an opinion from someone else....pretty much stops your learning process in its tracks.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> the time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the time it takes a molecule to absorb radiation and then emit it that most molecules capable of absorbing IR lose it to oxygen or nitrogen molecules via collision before they have time to radiate it on to space.


If the CO2 loses most of it's energy by colliding with O2 or N2, that means the air must heat up. Right? You better tell Billy that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



The 2nd Law allows the atmosphere to sense the temperature of an instrument to tell whether it is cooled or not?

That's funny!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



*IR can’t warm air.*

If any component of the air absorbs any IR, it does warm.

* If you put your arms in front of an IR heater, it will heat your arms, that’s it. *

Of course, those coils get HOT!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You just said, IR is absorbed and then the IR energy is lost by collision.
> ...



*when the energy is in the molecule, it is just energy...not infrared.*

Yup, absorbed energy is energy.

*It is only infrared once it has been emitted.*

Yup, infrared is infrared. How profound.

*Clearly you didn't....far infrared...just like IR from the surface of the earth.*

Post the spectra. Not "*just like IR from the surface of the earth"*

* It is unfortunate to accept an opinion from someone else....*

Says the guy with the solo misinterpretation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> If the CO2 loses most of it's energy by colliding with O2 or N2, that means the air must heat up. Right? You better tell Billy that.



No one ever said that air couldn't warm via conduction...It is IR that can't warm the air.  And no matter how you spin and interpret, you simply can't make a radiative greenhouse effect out of conduction.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Interesting how you think everything must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...now that is funny.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If any component of the air absorbs any IR, it does warm.



You are operating under the impression that absorption and emission equals warming...it doesn't...ask an engineer in the infrared heating industry....a million plus hours of development, experiment, observation and installation is a pretty big data base of information demonstrating that IR does not warm the air.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course, those coils get HOT!



The air between you and the coils is not heating via IR....it may warm a bit due to conduction, but IR can not, and does not warm the air.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Interesting how you think violations of causality are allowed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If any component of the air absorbs any IR, it does warm.
> ...



*You are operating under the impression that absorption and emission equals warming*

Absorption equals warming.
Emission equals cooling.

*The air between you and the coils is not heating via IR....*

Of course not, because the emission spectra of the coil does not overlap the absorption spectra of the air.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



I don't...you, on the other hand do...you thoroughly believe that it is possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Absorption equals warming.
> Emission equals cooling.



well, that won't be the first thing you have believed that isn't true.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course not, because the emission spectra of the coil does not overlap the absorption spectra of the air.



IR heating generally has an emission spectrum between .05 and 19 microns....that covers most all of the so called greenhouse gasses except for the full spectrum of water vapor and we all know that IR can warm water vapor because it doesn't necessarily emit all that it absorbs unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*I don't...you, on the other hand do..*

You feel that IR won't go from air, toward a warmer instrument, but will toward a colder instrument.
The air doesn't "know" the instrument is cooler, because you claim, falsely, that the cooler instrument cannot emit toward warmer air.

Without this exchange of information, how can the air "know" when it is "allowed" to emit toward the cooled detector?

You feel the same applies to emitters and absorbers billions of light years apart. Simply ridiculous.

*you thoroughly believe that it is possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object..*

Still awaiting your explanation for "cool photons" from the Sun being allowed to hit the hotter corona.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Absorption equals warming.
> ...



*well, that won't be the first thing you have believed that isn't true.*

Cool story, explain my error.

*IR heating generally has an emission spectrum between .05 and 19 microns*

Link?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *IR heating generally has an emission spectrum between .05 and 19 microns*
> 
> Link?



Look it up yourself...if you had read a bit in the first place, you wouldn't be so ignorant on the topic now...

I will give you a clue...the IR heating industry is particularly interested in IR wavelengths that effect water.....can you even begin to guess why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *IR heating generally has an emission spectrum between .05 and 19 microns*
> ...



Millions of hours of observations and you don't have any backup for your claim? Funny.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



To stupid and lazy to look it up yourself?...now that's funny.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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









Preferred wavelengths for comfort heating

Lamps at 500-2700C don't emit at the same wavelengths as the Earth at 15C.
I wonder why they aren't absorbed the same by the atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You are looking up lamps?  You think if you drop thousands on an IR heating system for your home, they are going to give you a box of lamps?  You think you are a French fry or a mcdonalds apple pie?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Why do they cool the instruments then?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Still waiting for your proof of your claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > If the CO2 loses most of it's energy by colliding with O2 or N2, that means the air must heat up. Right? You better tell Billy that.
> ...


In post 257 you said,
_the time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the time it takes a molecule to absorb radiation and then emit it that most molecules capable of absorbing IR lose it to oxygen or nitrogen molecules via collision before they have time to radiate it on to space._​You directly say most  green house molecules loose their absorbed IR energy to O2 or N2 via collision. The gain of energy by O2 and N2. is called thermal energy because it is random. So the atmosphere is warmed by CO2 which gains energy by IR. Therefore the premise of this thread is wrong according to you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



It doesn't matter what form the energy was when it was absorbed...when it is lost via collision, it is not IR...Twist and gyrate all you like...but it is conduction that moves the vast bulk of energy through the atmosphere...and it is via water vapor...not CO2...CO2 is barely a trace gas and is completely overwhelmed by water vapor.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are not absorbed by water.  It is not an either or situation Shit for Brains.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> CO2 absorbs frequencies that are not absorbed by water.  It is not an either or situation Shit for Brains.


Does it warm? If you say yes, point to the hot spot


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


Dude, they’re so confused, they think conducting is IR. Too funny!!!


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

Dude, you;re so stupid, you think you've made a viable argument


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> Dude, you;re so stupid, you think you've made a viable argument


Says the guy that thinks a molecule holds Infrared


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It doesn't matter what form the energy was when it was absorbed...when it is lost via collision, it is not IR.



That is exactly right. The absorbed energy is internal and no longer IR. When it is lost by collision the internal energy is transfered to kinetic energy of the molecule it hit. Since that is random the original IR heats the atmosphere via those collisions. That disproves the title of this thread. Don't tell Billy that you abandoned him.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter what form the energy was when it was absorbed...when it is lost via collision, it is not IR.
> ...


Where’s the hot spot then?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > "The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable"
> ...






I cant imagine why water vapor would be the dominant factor?  The facts tell us why it is...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> The Greenhouse Effect doesn't have to "override" anything.  It is not fighting with conduction or convection.  Planet-wide, the only changes taking place with conduction and convection are those due to the increased temperature of the planet.  CO2 is slowing the release of LWIR to space and thus causing the planet to warm.  Humans are the source of the increased CO2 and that of several other GHGs.  You are an idiot, a liar and a troll.


You are soo fooled its flat out amazing..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> CO2 absorbs frequencies that are not absorbed by water.  It is not an either or situation Shit for Brains.


Oh look.. Shit for brains posts up a graph he hasn't a clue about...

Tell me Crick, what percentage of upwelling radiation can CO2 potentially react to?  Now tell me what that represents in energy defined as W/m^2?

And the bonus question: Both CO2 and Water vapor react in the 12-16um band, where they overlap. Given the 1,000,000,000 to 1 molecular ratio of water vapor over CO2 what is the percentage of Photons that will interact with another CO2 molecule before being carried away by water vapor?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> CO2 absorbs frequencies that are not absorbed by water.  It is not an either or situation Shit for Brains.


Stop using graphs you have not the slightest clue what they represent you lying POS!  Your deception bull shit is exposed.  So now CO2 is absorbed full spectrum now?  Is that your schtick?


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2019)

Is that what you think that graph shows?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter what form the energy was when it was absorbed...when it is lost via collision, it is not IR.
> ...



Since you want to follow the energy back to where it came from..why cherry pick and stop at a point where it was IR...why not follow it back to its original source and simply admit that it is the sun that warms the atmosphere...and CO2 is irrelevant?


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2019)

Because CO2 IS relevant and the core of this debate.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> Because CO2 is not irrelevant and is the core of this debate.



Got any empirical evidence that supports your claim that CO2 is relevant?  Any at all?  A bit of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere would be nice....got any? 

Didn't think so.  Maybe you could get the infrared heating industry to reneg on their million plus hours of experiment, development, testing, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems that proves pretty conclusively that IR can not, and does not warm the air.


----------



## deanrd (Jan 1, 2019)

Right wingers and science.  So hilarious.

Remember, these are the people who think Michael Behe is a great scientist.

These are people who think dumping garbage into a closed system will never fill with garbage.

People who think vaccines cause autism.

The same people who are convinced that the Grand Canyon is evidence of Noah's Flood.

I would be careful believing the right wing on anything.  Look who their leader is. 

But I would be especially skeptical of anything they insisted they have proven using scientific techniques.

Hilarious!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Right wingers and science.  So hilarious.
> 
> Remember, these are the people who think Michael Behe is a great scientist.
> 
> ...



Oh look...another alarmist who has no informed opinion of his own...but is perfectly willing to spew the opinion given to him by someone with a political agenda...and like all before him, is completely unable to provide a single shred of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.  And a liar.  And a troll.



Troll:  a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.  

By definition, it is you who is the troll.  You make claims.. I ask for evidence to support the claims...you can't provide it so you take on the roll of troll.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> *HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaaa, jesus, what a fooking MORON
> 
> For the rest of you: go to www.ipcc.ch, find "The Physical Science Basis" and give it a look.*



No answer to the challenge to provide observed, measured data to support the claim...just name calling and a suggestion to visit a web address along with the hope that they will find something that fools them as easily as it fooled you?


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Didn't think so. Maybe you could get the infrared heating industry to reneg on their million plus hours of experiment, development, testing, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems that proves pretty conclusively that IR can not, and does not warm the air.


But it warms the greenhouse gas components of the air, Shirley? I mean that's the whole theory, isn't it?


----------



## deanrd (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Right wingers and science.  So hilarious.
> ...


Yea, because everyone knows respected scientists have enormous political agendas.  They want their children to live.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't think so. Maybe you could get the infrared heating industry to reneg on their million plus hours of experiment, development, testing, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems that proves pretty conclusively that IR can not, and does not warm the air.
> ...



No...alas it doesn't.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory?



It was never a theory...only a hypothesis and a piss poor one at that..


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

Call it the greenhouse effect then. But you've falsified it?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> But you've falsified it?



Nah...the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize falsified it...every failed prediction it made falsified it...tell me, in real science, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped and the work begins on a new hypothesis?

Now, in real pseudoscience, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped?


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

I guess NASA has it all wrong then.






_Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[19]_
_Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia_


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Nah...the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize falsified it...every failed prediction it made falsified it...tell me, in real science, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped and the work begins on a new hypothesis?


So, you're saying the data from NASA is false and energy is not absorbed by any atmospheric gas?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't think so. Maybe you could get the infrared heating industry to reneg on their million plus hours of experiment, development, testing, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems that proves pretty conclusively that IR can not, and does not warm the air.
> ...


That is the hypothesis, but it has been proven wrong...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> I guess NASA has it all wrong then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even NASA's own chart shows that watervapor can and does react to LWIR in those regions...You and crick must have taken the very same graph reading class..





In the upwelling spectrum, which is what AGW represents and on which the theroy is derived, they overlap...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory?


Why are you assigning the term Theory to a hypothesis that is unproven?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



That's a totally irrelevant distraction. The current relevancy is the fact that CO2 can absorb certain LW IR and gain internal energy which can be passed to the atmosphere by collision. You said that yourself. Now you seem to be trying to back-pedal or digress.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't think so. Maybe you could get the infrared heating industry to reneg on their million plus hours of experiment, development, testing, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems that proves pretty conclusively that IR can not, and does not warm the air.
> ...


CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously. He thinks quantum mechanics is fairy dust. He has a distorted view of thermodynamics. He thinks some photons perceive heat and avoid that direction. He doesn't understand spontaneous processes. He thinks the cosmic background radiation cannot hit earth, and many other idiotic things. Your perception of greenhouse gases far exceeds his.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> I guess NASA has it all wrong then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again.... in real science, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped and the work begins on a new hypothesis?

Now, in real pseudoscience, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped?


And I can only guess that you think that graph some how demonstrates that the AGW hypothesis is correct....does it mean that you think absorption and emission equals warming?  Got any observed, measured evidence to support that belief?  Didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Nah...the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize falsified it...every failed prediction it made falsified it...tell me, in real science, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped and the work begins on a new hypothesis?
> ...



Of course so called greenhouse gasses absorb energy..with the exception of water vapor, the so called greenhouse gasses then emit that energy, or lose it via collision with another molecule...loss of the energy via collision happening better than 90% of the time...it is called conduction and is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...the assumption that it does is a major flaw in the hypothesis and the very reason the tropospheric hot spot never showed up.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



Of course it isn't...you want to say that the energy that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses lose to collision is due to IR...that is simply cherry picking a step other than the actual energy transfer from the so called greenhouse gas to the non greenhouse gas...If you want to follow the energy back, why stop there for any other reason than to support a failing narrative...if you are going to follow the energy back, you are obligated to follow it all the way back...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



Listing off all the subjects in which I have handed you your ass and you have utterly failed to provide any empirical evidence to support your beliefs?  Odd tactic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*you want to say that the energy that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses lose to collision is due to IR.*

The energy loss is due to the collision. Energy doesn't give a fuck how it got to the GHG in the first place.

You never said why matter on the Sun is allowed to hit the hotter corona?
Chicken much?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You never said why matter on the Sun is allowed to hit the hotter corona?
> Chicken much?



Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves and you will see that I provided the information no less than nine times that it was the latest theory on what was providing the work necessary to move the energy from the cooler surface to the warmer corona.

How simple must you be to have missed it all those times....or how much of a liar must you be to claim that I haven't provided the information when I have...all those times...

So which is it?  Are you simple, or are you a liar?

In case you are just simple...here are the posts where I provided the information over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...……..and over.

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
No Evidence
Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
No Evidence


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You never said why matter on the Sun is allowed to hit the hotter corona?
> ...



*Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves*

Nope.
I'm talking about photons from cooler matter on the surface.
You feel it isn't "allowed" somehow to hit the corona.
If clearly does.

So explain why your error isn't an error.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You aren't playing obtuse are you?  You really are just that daft....aren't you.  Read the posts...it is all there...explanations about moving energy from cool to warm by applying work...its all there...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Don't care why the corona is hotter.
Your faulty claim is matter isn't "allowed" to emit toward warmer matter.
The Sun clearly does.
Don't be a pussy, explain how it is allowed.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And I can only guess that you think that graph some how demonstrates that the AGW hypothesis is correct


Well I think it demonstrates atmospheric gases can be warmed, which you deny in the face of data from NASA. There is no profit in discussing any hypothesis with anyone holding such a position.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

This is fun.


SSDD said:


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





SSDD said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're saying the data from NASA is false and energy is not absorbed by any atmospheric gas?
> ...


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously.


But he is amusing light entertainment for a short while, don't you think?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously.
> ...


That's right. It isn't science he is interested in. It's the game. He keeps shooting himself in the foot. As you can see, it makes him rather ill-tempered.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course it isn't...you want to say that the energy that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses lose to collision is due to IR...that is simply cherry picking a step other than the actual energy transfer from the so called greenhouse gas to the non greenhouse gas...If you want to follow the energy back, why stop there for any other reason than to support a failing narrative...if you are going to follow the energy back, you are obligated to follow it all the way back..


Sure follow other narratives, but I was focused on one important energy exchange mechanism out of many others: The surface of the earth is largely warmed by short wave energy from the sun. The earth's heat emits broad band long wave radiation. Some of those wavelengths are captured by CO2 and increase the internal energy of those molecules. The internal energy of CO2 is predominantly transfered to O2 and N2 through collisions. Those collisions increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It's as simple as that. Now what do you think I cherry picked?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it isn't...you want to say that the energy that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses lose to collision is due to IR...that is simply cherry picking a step other than the actual energy transfer from the so called greenhouse gas to the non greenhouse gas...If you want to follow the energy back, why stop there for any other reason than to support a failing narrative...if you are going to follow the energy back, you are obligated to follow it all the way back..
> ...



You don't use enough epicycles.

Einstein was wrong because SSDD, by himself, understands the 2nd Law.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



No...my claim is the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...sorry that you really don't understand this...the word spontaneous is very important to the idea...till you grasp that, you simply aren't going to have any idea of what I am talking about...maybe you can find an adult to help you understand what spontaneous means and how it applies to the issue...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And I can only guess that you think that graph some how demonstrates that the AGW hypothesis is correct
> ...



You "think" it does?  When you "think", or believe a thing, with no observed, measured evidence to support that belief, you are expressing faith...faith is different from hard science.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously.
> ...



Funny..I was just thinking the same about you...and it is you who has no observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and you don't even realize that you are arguing from a position of faith that you believe is science...that is part of what makes you so entertaining....And you seem so sure of yourself, even when you use terms like "you think" with no actual evidence to support what you think... 

It is all so wonderfully entertaining to watch...it is like a sitcom...bumblers, bumbling about going on and on about what they know, when they can't produce the first piece of observed, measured data to support it....

And I enjoy predicting which topics you will instinctively avoid, like vampires and sunlight...I keep asking you, in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a new, more workable hypothesis.....You keep dodging that question...Are you consciously dodging, or is it a subconscious thing with you?

My bet is that it is subconscious...you are so sure of your faith, that you seem the sort who couldn't bear to leave any question unanswered in a manner that supports your faith...that question though, doesn't have an answer that supports your faith...so you don't answer...and I believe that you don't even realize that you aren't answering even though it is a very important question to this issue...why pursue a hypothesis that has had not one, but multiple predictive failures?

So again...in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get?

How many predictive failures are allowed in pseudoscience?

Now I have to wonder if you are even able to see these words on paper...is your subconscious even allowing you to read them?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Sure follow other narratives, but I was focused on one important energy exchange mechanism out of many others: The surface of the earth is largely warmed by short wave energy from the sun. The earth's heat emits broad band long wave radiation. Some of those wavelengths are captured by CO2 and increase the internal energy of those molecules. The internal energy of CO2 is predominantly transfered to O2 and N2 through collisions. Those collisions increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It's as simple as that. Now what do you think I cherry picked?



Interesting that you can see the problem with your belief, but you can't accept it...climate models assume that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...they discount conduction entirely and yet, that is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...that is why they fail...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist because conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Right wingers and science.  So hilarious.
> 
> Remember, these are the people who think Michael Behe is a great scientist.
> 
> ...


and then there's you.  thanks for the laugh.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Right wingers and science.  So hilarious.
> 
> Remember, these are the people who think Michael Behe is a great scientist.
> 
> ...


so post up a link to observed empirical evidence from one of your scientists.  just one.  I'll wait.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

deanrd said:


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


well then, you have a simple task, just post up a link to one of their observation of the actual empirical evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


he did make that statement, and it is a correct one. what do you think happens after the collisions?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


you think the energy violates the second law.  hmmmmm why?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> This is fun.
> 
> 
> SSDD said:
> ...


It is.  because you will never post up one observation of that which you parrot.  Hey Polly!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it isn't...you want to say that the energy that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses lose to collision is due to IR...that is simply cherry picking a step other than the actual energy transfer from the so called greenhouse gas to the non greenhouse gas...If you want to follow the energy back, why stop there for any other reason than to support a failing narrative...if you are going to follow the energy back, you are obligated to follow it all the way back..
> ...


Toddsterpatriot  at  least this guy knows short wave energy from the sun warms the surface.  I will give him that koodo. he then falls into some other traps of the leftist warmers afterwards.  but, he at least understands what actually warms the surface.  you, not so much so.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Interesting that you can see the problem with your belief, but you can't accept it...climate models assume that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...they discount conduction entirely and yet, that is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...that is why they fail...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist because conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...


It isn't belief that radiation affects the atmospheric energy flow it's simple logic. If you have objections, tell me which step you think is wrong.

You will have to explain exactly what you think concerning conduction through the troposphere. It is well known that conduction is very poor through gases. That's why we use things like blankets and sweaters when we are cold.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that you can see the problem with your belief, but you can't accept it...climate models assume that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...they discount conduction entirely and yet, that is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...that is why they fail...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist because conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...
> ...


 hly fk.  did you just state that IR is what warms a person under a blanket?  really?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*No...my claim is the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm..*

Cool story.
Still waiting for your explanation for why energy is "allowed" to travel from cooler Sun's surface to hotter Sun's corona.

Don't be such a pussy, answer the question.
Maybe you should email Dr. Raeder?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



After? The atmosphere is warmer than before and the CO2 can absorb more IR.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


where's the hot spot then?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



In the empty space between your ears.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


ahh, looky here, so you got nothing as usual.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Liar says what?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yes you do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Can't post your proof?
Or none exists?


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You "think" it does? When you "think", or believe a thing, with no observed, measured evidence to support that belief, you are expressing faith...faith is different from hard science.


Well, I see you will continue to deny observed measured data from NASA. Thanks for the entertainment.


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Now I have to wonder if you are even able to see these words on paper...is your subconscious even allowing you to read them?


I scroll past the bullshit to get to the entertainment.


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


> so post up a link to observed empirical evidence from one of your scientists. just one. I'll wait.







_Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[19]_
_Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia_


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


ahhh gonna play spinorama.  2nd law is my proof.  until you prove otherwise.  I'm still waiting.  I guess it's ding dong your witch is dead.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so post up a link to observed empirical evidence from one of your scientists. just one. I'll wait.
> ...


what's the proof in that?  that's some model.  I asked for proof observed measured evidence.  not a model.  come now child, listen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* 2nd law is my proof.*

Right, I remember your lie.

_The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative._


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


> I asked for proof observed measured evidence. not a model. come now child, listen.


Hilarity.

_INFRARED ABSORPTION BY CH4 , H2 0 AND CO2

David A. Gryvnak
Darrell E. Burch
Robert L. Alt
-Dorianne K: Zgonc

SECTION 5

ABSORPTION BY C02 BETWEEN 500 AND 850 cmut

SAMPLING

The temperatures and total -pressures of the samples studied were varied
over wide ranges representative of the -earth's atmosphere. Samples varied-in
pressure from I atm=-to less than 0.03 atm and were maintained near -one of
three different temperatures: 310 K, 274 K, and 245 K. The highest temperature
corresponds approximately to the-maximum atmospheric temperature in the
 tropics. The lowest temperature, 245-K, approximately-represents stratospheric
temperatures. Ideally, somewhat lower temperatures should be employed to cover
the full temperature range of the atmosphere; however, the experimental diffi-
culties associated with operating at lower temperatures -would greatly increase
the time involved in obtaining the data and would also -reduce the accuracy:. As
a compromise, the lower temperature of 245 K was chosen. An intermediate
temperature near 274 K was also employed in order to -provide additional data
on the temperature dependence of the absorption.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a039380.pdf_​


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Obtuse denial. It must be a gift.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for proof observed measured evidence. not a model. come now child, listen.
> ...


and this proves what?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> Obtuse denial. It must be a gift.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


and you still show nothing observed or measured.  LOL. same old same old.

BTW, why didn't you answer why instruments are cooled to read IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Right, except for all the observations.

Why do you think instruments are cooled?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I have no idea, it's why I asked you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Another in the long list of things you have no idea about...…...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you don't know.  got it.  more of the same old same old.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



_A modern cooled thermal imaging camera has an imaging sensor that is integrated with a cryocooler, which lowers the sensor temperature to cryogenic temperatures. This reduction in sensor temperature is necessary to reduce thermally-induced noise to a level below that of the signal from the scene being imaged._

Cooled or Uncooled?

Silly person.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it's cooled to read what an uncooled instrument can't read.  enough said.  an uncooled instrument will not read the output of cooler objects. 2nd law.  hmmmmm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*it's cooled to read what an uncooled instrument can't read.*

Exactly. Happy I was able to educate you. However slightly. And temporarily.

* an uncooled instrument will not read the output of cooler objects.*

Of course not, because "_thermally-induced noise"._

*2nd law.  hmmmmm.*

LOL!

I love that you think you can get matter to emit by cooling an instrument.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*I love that you think you can get matter to emit by cooling an instrument.*

cooling the instrument allows energy to move to the cooler instrument.  2nd law.  the test manufacturers know what the 2nd law says.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*cooling the instrument allows energy to move to the cooler instrument.  *

Yes, your ignorance makes me chuckle.

*the test manufacturers know what the 2nd law says.*

You should post something they said that actually backs your silly claim.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


still got nothing on that downward LWIR yet still today, you're holding nadda.  too funny.  any day though, right?  you're going to produce that observed measured data some day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*still got nothing on that downward LWIR*

Except for all the stuff I posted already.

_This reduction in sensor temperature is necessary to reduce thermally-induced noise to a level below that of the signal from the scene being imaged._

I underlined the further proof of your ignorance.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yep with cooled instruments.  again, 2nd law will allow that.  It's why they cool the instrument, yet again.  now, post the data on downward LWIR that is falling from above with an instrument at ambient temperature.   snoooze


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*yep with cooled instruments*

Yep. Increasing the signal to noise ratio. The signal which is there already.

*post the data on downward LWIR that is falling from above with an instrument at ambient temperature. *

Why?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Yep. Increasing the signal to noise ratio. The signal which is there already.*

then why can't they read it with an instrument at ambient temperature?  noise?  I fking agree.  the fact is it isn't there, it's just noise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*then why can't they read it with an instrument at ambient temperature? noise? *

You don't understand very much.

_*Signal-to-noise ratio* (abbreviated *SNR* or *S/N*) is a measure used in science and engineering that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise. SNR is defined as the ratio of signal power to the noise power, _

Signal-to-noise ratio - Wikipedia


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*You don't understand very much.*

I know energy doesn't move from cold to warm.  It's more than you know.


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


> and this proves what?


It is evidence of  greenhouse gases absorbing IR. Evidence you appear to believe does not exist. It is a link to observed measured evidence, which you asked for, rather than the graphic demonstrating that evidence, which you refused as 'a model'. Forgotten already?
Ffs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I know energy doesn't move from cold to warm. *

You'll already broadcast your confusion, no need to repeat your errors.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Naw I’ll scream it to stupid fks like you all day long. See, you can’t prove it. And, I know you can’t! So, I play with your stupid ass to show others your stupid


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Found a nice drawing for you.










_However, even if the two objects are not in contact and there is no physical medium to carry heat, the two objects will still eventually reach a common temperature. This occurs because *objects with a nonzero temperature release and absorb energy via electromagnetic radiation.* This emitted energy is commonly called blackbody or thermal radiation._

https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/311173396/original/fcad163b42/1539883108?v=1

_Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in mutual thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature T surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature T on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium. The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[21][22] Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body. This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature T, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature T.[23] 

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia_

*Radiative exchange equilibrium[edit]*
_Planck (1914, page 40)[4] refers to a condition of thermodynamic equilibrium, in which "any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other."_

_The term *radiative exchange equilibrium* can also be used to refer to two specified regions of space that exchange equal amounts of radiation by emission and absorption (even when the steady state is not one of thermodynamic equilibrium, but is one in which some sub-processes include net transport of matter or energy including radiation). Radiative exchange equilibrium is very nearly the same as Prevost's relative radiative equilibrium.

Radiative equilibrium - Wikipedia_


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It is well known that conduction is very poor through gases.



Ergo the warming...radaition is a very efficient mover of energy...if you want to cool a thing, you move energy away from it in the fastest possible mode...ie...radiation...cooling fins...etc...You increase an objects emissivity by making it a more efficient radiator therefore making cooling more efficient.

Your blanket analogy represents conduction..not radiation...if you lie on your bed in a cold room..you will radiate heat right on out of your body into the room...lay a blanket over yourself and you make conduction the main means of moving energy from the surface of your body...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You "think" it does? When you "think", or believe a thing, with no observed, measured evidence to support that belief, you are expressing faith...faith is different from hard science.
> ...



You seem to think that observed data equals evidence for "something"  NASA is chock full of observed data..what they lack is evidence of what is causing warming...The medical community was chock full of observed, measured data regarding, stomach ulcers, salt intake, cholesterol, etc...and they thought that data supported their belief that stomach ulcers were caused by stress...salt raised your blood pressure...cholesterol caused heart disease, etc...turns out the data, while observed, and measured, didn't support those claims at all.

But feel free to bring forward a single piece of observed, measured data from NASA which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...I would be interested in seeing it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Now I have to wonder if you are even able to see these words on paper...is your subconscious even allowing you to read them?
> ...




You dodge the questions you are uncomfortable answering...just like all warmers...Predictive failure is a very real, and very important issue in science, and the scientific method...what's the matter...don't care to admit that your hypothesis has already falsified itself over and over...

In real science, how many predictive failures is a hypothesis permitted before it is scrapped and work begins on a more workable hypothesis...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so post up a link to observed empirical evidence from one of your scientists. just one. I'll wait.
> ...



Still waiting for that observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....  Got any?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that radiation is a more efficient means of moving energy through the atmosphere than conduction...conduction is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere...what bit of movement of energy through the troposphere via radiation there is resents an open window..a faster means of moving energy than conduction...

Radiative gasses increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...if you increase the emissivity of a thing...what do you do to its ability to cool itself?  Can you describe a real world scenario where you increase a things emissivity and that increased emissivity results the thing being less able to cool itself?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> Obtuse denial. It must be a gift.




And you guys have it in spades...as evidenced by your refusal to answer the question regarding how many failures a hypothesis is allowed before it is rejected and work begins on a new, more workable hypothesis...or wuwei's refusal to sate in plain english what a simple algebraic equation says because to do so would call his beliefs into question...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > and this proves what?
> ...



But it isn't evidence that absorption and emission of IR by said gasses equals warming...again...the addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...what happens to a thing's ability to cool itself when you increase its emissivity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*the addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...*

GHGs increase the absorptivity of the atmosphere. IR which would have immediately zipped into outer space (because it isn't absorbed by O2 or N2) instead is absorbed by GHGs. It can then be given to O2 and N2 via collision. Some of that "captured" energy is also now available to be re-emitted in random directions. Some of it even moves back down toward the Earth's surface.

These alternate paths end up delaying the ultimate escape of this energy. The delay results in a warmer, not cooler, atmosphere compared to one without those GHGs.

Your claim that slowing the escape, turning an immediate 100% escape into something less than an immediate 100% escape, results in cooling is ……..faulty.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > and this proves what?
> ...


it also emits and hands it off on collisions.  so what, it doesn't warm a damn thing, and that is what is being asked as observed measured evidence.  and still you got crickets.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_*However, even if the two objects are not in contact and there is no physical medium to carry heat, the two objects will still eventually reach a common temperature.*_

I agree, the cooler object will absorb from the warmer object while the warmer object cools down to the temperature of the cooler object.  Never said that didn't happen.  I claim the cooler object doesn't make the warmer object warmer. I'm still waiting on that evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* I claim the cooler object doesn't make the warmer object warmer. *






The cooler object emits much less than the warmer object. 
How would it make the warmer object warmer?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It doesn't.  no exchange of energy to it.  none. The only flow is warm to cold.  seems you haven't figured that out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*It doesn't.*

I've never seen anyone argue it did.

* no exchange of energy to it. *

Of course there is. Matter above 0K emits, even if warmer matter is nearby.

*The only flow is warm to cold. *

You're wrong.

* seems you haven't figured that out.*

I figured out your confusion a long time ago.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Ergo the warming...radaition is a very efficient mover of energy...if you want to cool a thing, you move energy away from it in the fastest possible mode...ie...radiation...cooling fins...etc...You increase an objects emissivity by making it a more efficient radiator therefore making cooling more efficient.
> 
> Your blanket analogy represents conduction..not radiation...if you lie on your bed in a cold room..you will radiate heat right on out of your body into the room...lay a blanket over yourself and you make conduction the main means of moving energy from the surface of your body...


Suprise!! For once I agree with every thing in your post. It's rather elementary, but agreeable. 

So, in summary,

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
So the IR from the earth surface heats up the air.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2019)

Solids and liquids are usually very good at producing a wide variety of radiation wavelengths from internal molecular collisions because there are many types of 'bonds' holding the matter together.

Gases are not like that. They only have certain clear cut wavelengths that they absorb or emit. 

The Ideal Gas Laws operate under the assumption that all molecular collisions are elastic. That is not true. Sometimes energy is absorbed to excite a molecule, sometimes an excited molecule ADDS kinetic energy by relaxing. The overall effect is minimal for a local area but is noticeable when you have a temperature gradient.

The atmosphere can absorb as much CO2 specific radiation as the surface can produce BUT it can only lose to space the amount of CO2 radiation that can be internally produced by the cold, thin air where it stops getting reabsorbed by the next CO2 molecule.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> So the IR from the earth surface heats up the air.



Not at all...Convection is not radiation...There is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...the temperature of our atmosphere is due to convection of energy absorbed from the sun and pressure acting upon the atmosphere...

The models are wrong because they are based on a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science and that doesn't describe energy movement through the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

IanC said:


> Solids and liquids are usually very good at producing a wide variety of radiation wavelengths from internal molecular collisions because there are many types of 'bonds' holding the matter together.
> 
> Gases are not like that. They only have certain clear cut wavelengths that they absorb or emit.
> 
> ...



Once a CO2 molecules loses its radiation to a collision with O2, or N2...it is no longer "CO2" radiation..nor is it "CO2 specific" radiation...it is just energy moving via conduction till such time as it reaches the top of the troposphere where radiation becomes the primary means of energy movement...The amount of energy that actually moves through the troposphere via radiation is miniscule...Convection is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere by a very very wide margin.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Not at all...Convection is not radiation...There is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...the temperature of our atmosphere is due to convection of energy absorbed from the sun and pressure acting upon the atmosphere...
> 
> The models are wrong because they are based on a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science and that doesn't describe energy movement through the atmosphere.



If you think so, then which step is wrong?

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all...Convection is not radiation...There is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...the temperature of our atmosphere is due to convection of energy absorbed from the sun and pressure acting upon the atmosphere...
> ...



Simply add a #7 which states clearly that the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere is conduction and you are there...Will you then try to claim that back conduction is heating the surface of the earth?  

What a putz..


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*You're wrong
*
Prove it!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Simply add a #7 which states clearly that the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere is conduction and you are there...Will you then try to claim that back conduction is heating the surface of the earth?


So, you are agreeing that IR from the earth indirectly causes the atmosphere to heat.

I don't understand why you say conduction is a primary means of energy movement when you said 



SSDD said:


> .radaition is a very efficient mover of energy...if you want to cool a thing, you move energy away from it in the fastest possible mode.



Everyone knows air is very poor at conduction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Simply add a #7 which states clearly that the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere is conduction and you are there...Will you then try to claim that back conduction is heating the surface of the earth?
> ...



He has confused conduction with convection before.
It may be Alzheimer's.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He has confused conduction with convection before.
> It may be Alzheimer's.


He has used the word conduction over and over he got it right with what a blanket does, so it's hard to know what he is thinking.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


says T is greater than Tc.  not sure what you're implying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Tc.....where?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


in the equation of SB.  and what is the area you're measuring?  gas has no area.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*in the equation of SB. *







No Tc anywhere in this excerpt.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Understood.  but you quoted SB and in the SB equation, T is always greater than Tc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Read the excerpt. Just T. No Tc anywhere.

Now if you can show the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has been refuted, I'm willing to listen.
Or you could just admit your error and I'll stop bugging you about it.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It says T is greater than Tc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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








No Tc in the excerpt.
You're still confused.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Nope


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Ok, show me where the excerpt mentions Tc.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


there wasn't.  I already explained why I used it.  it is you confused.  I said nope to the second line.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> So, you are agreeing that IR from the earth indirectly causes the atmosphere to heat.



I agree that conduction is the primary means of energy movement through the atmosphere...and that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible



Wuwei said:


> I don't understand why you say conduction is a primary means of energy movement when you said  "radaition is a very efficient mover of energy...if you want to cool a thing, you move energy away from it in the fastest possible mode."



Of course you didn't...because you have next to zero critical thinking skills...What if the atmosphere were the same density as it is now except that so called greenhouse gasses were the bulk of the atmosphere and energy was actually radiated through the troposphere at the speed of light,  rather than moving through the atmosphere by the cumbersome and slow means of conduction?  The emissivity of the atmosphere would be very high and what happens to the ability of an object when you raise its emissivity?



Wuwei said:


> Everyone knows air is very poor at conduction.



A poor conductor moves energy more slowly than a good conductor...If you are moving energy slowly do you think that means that you will be cooler or warmer?  What would happen to the temperature in the atmosphere if air were a better conductor?  Or radiation were the primary means of energy transport moving the bulk of energy on to space at the speed of light?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Sure follow other narratives, but I was focused on one important energy exchange mechanism out of many others: The surface of the earth is largely warmed by short wave energy from the sun. The earth's heat emits broad band long wave radiation. Some of those wavelengths are captured by CO2 and increase the internal energy of those molecules. The internal energy of CO2 is predominantly transfered to O2 and N2 through collisions. Those collisions increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It's as simple as that. Now what do you think I cherry picked?
> ...


We have a Winner!!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so post up a link to observed empirical evidence from one of your scientists. just one. I'll wait.
> ...


This graph proves what?   Let me guess, your taking your cues from Crick..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for proof observed measured evidence. not a model. come now child, listen.
> ...


Tell me, The gases you just described are less than 0.0136% of our atmosphere. Do they posses the weight in mass necessary to warm our atmosphere?  Do you have an Observed, Empirical Experiment to prove your answer?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I don't understand why you say conduction is a primary means of energy movement when you said


And there in is your problem in understanding... Molecule 1 collides with molecule 2 moving energy kinetically by contact, conduction. This is not energy transfer by LWIR.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I agree that conduction is the primary means of energy movement through the atmosphere...and that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible


My argument was that earth LW IR warms the atmosphere, and you agreed and added a non sequitur about conduction.  



SSDD said:


> .What if the atmosphere were the same density as it is now except that so called greenhouse gasses were the bulk of the atmosphere and energy was actually radiated through the troposphere at the speed of light,


Then we would have a planet like Venus which radiates 16,549 W/m². (Have you figured out what happens to that radiation yet?) The earth would not be that hot of course.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that conduction is the primary means of energy movement through the atmosphere...and that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible
> ...



IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light...  That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...




Wuwei said:


> we would have a planet like Venus which radiates 16,549 W/m². (Have you figured out what happens to that radiation yet?) The earth would not be that hot of course.



No..you would have nothing like venus...the atmosphere on venus is 90 times more dense than our own...

I have always been able to explain the radiation...and am perfectly ready to do so when you are able to state in plain english what the equation I gave you says...and hell, I even did more than half of it for you...all you had to do was speak in plain english, a simple subtraction problem..and you can't do it...

When you do, I will be happy to provide you with an explanation for the apparent discrepancy in energy on venus complete with testable, workable formulas to explain...not that you would be able to grasp those formulas either since you can't even state in plain english what a simple subtraction problem says...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...



I asked you which step is wrong and you said you would add a seventh step. You did not say which step you disagreed with therefore I assumed you agreed. Again, which step of the following do you disagree with.

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.



SSDD said:


> No..you would have nothing like venus...the atmosphere on venus is 90 times more dense than our own...
> 
> I have always been able to explain the radiation...and am perfectly ready to do so when you are able to state in plain english what the equation I gave you says...and hell, I even did more than half of it for you...all you had to do was speak in plain english, a simple subtraction problem..and you can't do it...
> 
> When you do, I will be happy to provide you with an explanation for the apparent discrepancy in energy on venus complete with testable, workable formulas to explain...not that you would be able to grasp those formulas either since you can't even state in plain english what a simple subtraction problem says...



I gave you what the equation says in plain English several times. 
You have been shucking and jiving now for pages rather than simply admitting that you have no idea what happens to the 15,700 W/m². That's a failure on your part.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light...*

Until it gets absorbed by a GHG molecule.
I guess increasing emissivity actually slowed down the "speed of light escape" of IR, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...
> ...



No..the air heats up via conduction...conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible in a troposphere dominated by conduction as much as you might wish otherwise...IR can not, and does not warm the air...conduction warms the air.



Wuwei said:


> I gave you what the equation says in plain English several times.
> You have been shucking and jiving now for pages rather than simply admitting that you have no idea what happens to the 15,700 W/m². That's a failure on your part.



No you haven't...but hell, lets try it again...although I bet you will dodge again....







and as always, I will help you get started...Power equals emissivity times the S-B constant, times Area times.....?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



You didn't name which of the 6 steps you disagree with. That is a failure on your part. 

You really don't know what happens to the 15,700 W/m² that radiates from the surface of Venus. The only reason I'm pressing that is that it does not fit in with your fake physics and is an embarrassment that you are trying to avoid.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



Of course I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 on Venus...I wouldn't have claimed that I could if I couldn't do it..

The only reason you are pressing is to dodge stating what that equation says in plain language because you are such a f'ing bleating sheep, you can't bear to say it...The only one here being embarrassed, is you....running away from stating what a simple equation says...it's laughable...and I can watch it indefinitely...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 on Venus...I wouldn't have claimed that I could if I couldn't do it..


Nope. You can't. It embarrasses you every time I ask. Look, I understand. You painted yourself into a corner.



SSDD said:


> The only reason you are pressing is to dodge stating what that equation says in plain language because you are such a f'ing bleating sheep, you can't bear to say it...The only one here being embarrassed, is you....running away from stating what a simple equation says...it's laughable...and I can watch it indefinitely...



You are ɓuɩʞɔոɟ lying. I gave it to you many many times. It is the same as the Dartmouth paper. Just because you don't like the physics doesn't mean I didn't tell you about it. Do you want me to post the answer again?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. You can't. It embarrasses you every time I ask. Look, I understand. You painted yourself into a corner.



Nope...I will be more than happy to explain as soon as you state what that equation says....not your version of it....but the equation I provided..l




Wuwei said:


> You are ɓuɩʞɔոɟ lying. I gave it to you many many times. It is the same as the Dartmouth paper. Just because you don't like the physics doesn't mean I didn't tell you about it. Do you want me to post the answer again?



And still you are dodging...your equation is invalid for the reasons I gave...if you want to know about he energy on venus, you are going to have to simply state in plain language what the equation says...

Here...various links providing information on the S-B Law...not a single one requires you to apply the S-B constant twice....

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia
Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Stefan–Boltzmann Law - Stefan-Boltzmann Constant


This one is particularly informative....as it gives formula for radiation, convection, and conduction...

Law of cooling, heat conduction and Stefan-Boltzmann radiation laws fitted to experimental data for bones irradiated by CO2 laser

In short...your "alternative" S-B equation is bogus...invalid..irrelavent...trash...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.


Unless the molecule can absorb the energy, retain the energy, and consume some of the energy before release, it can not warm..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.
> ...



How does a molecule "consume" energy?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. You can't. It embarrasses you every time I ask. Look, I understand. You painted yourself into a corner.
> ...



The Dartmouth excerpt has three equations - emission, absorption, and net. The third equation  is the same as the one you keep showing except for notation. You are going to have to define what you mean by "alternative" SB equation. I have no idea how you think about science because it's always bizarre. Your references are just standard stuff, and I don't know why you felt motivated to cite them.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Nope,


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.
> ...




What an idiot you are.

You cannot understand any of the basic principles. 

Temperature is the expression of energy in a large cohort of molecules. Molecules do not 'consume' energy.  Hahahahaha maybe they do and then shit out dark matter!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The Dartmouth excerpt has three equations - emission, absorption, and net. The third equation  is the same as the one you keep showing except for notation. You are going to have to define what you mean by "alternative" SB equation. I have no idea how you think about science because it's always bizarre. Your references are just standard stuff, and I don't know why you felt motivated to cite them.



'
]I suggest that you brush up on the S-B Law....it has nothing to do with absorption beyond the fact that it initially speaks to a perfect black body which absorbs all energy across all bands.....The S-B law is about emission...and how a radiator behaves.

It is kind, but entirely unnecessary for you to keep providing reminders of how easily you are baffled and bamboozled by bullshit.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I suggest that you brush up on the S-B Law....it has nothing to do with absorption beyond the fact that it initially speaks to a perfect black body which absorbs all energy across all bands.....The S-B law is about emission...and how a radiator behaves.



That is exactly right. Boltzmann derived the equation

P = *e* sigma A T⁴

directly from Plank's black body radiation law. Plank's law defined radiation over a full spectrum. His student, Boltzmann, simply integrated over the full spectrum to get the above equation including an exact value for sigma for radiation.

Stefan found in his experiments the cooling rate of an object was not just dependent on the object temperatures 4th power, but also on the surround temperatures 4th power. He heuristically discovered a subtracted form followed the data.

To understand the experimental values of the cooling rate of an object, the absorption of heat of the object due to the surround at temperature Tc had to be considered. The input power that slows the cooling rate has a factor called absorptivity *a*.

Input power slowing the cooling rate is Pc = *a* sigma A Tc⁴

Kirchhoff, assuming only the conservation of energy, discovered the absorptivity was identical to the emissivity.
*a* = *e*.

The net power emitted due to the radiation minus the surround absorption is

P – Pc = *e* sigma A T⁴ - *a* sigma A Tc⁴

But since *a* sigma A = *e* sigma A, the result can be factored:
 P – Pc = *e* sigma A(T⁴ - Tc⁴)

That form is not representative of the original Boltzmann derivation concerning BB radiation, but it is for understanding how an object loses or gains heat within a larger surround. In that sense it is not bastardized, nor bullshit. Some texts refer to the subtracted form as the SB equation anyway, most likely for practical use.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest that you brush up on the S-B Law....it has nothing to do with absorption beyond the fact that it initially speaks to a perfect black body which absorbs all energy across all bands.....The S-B law is about emission...and how a radiator behaves.
> ...



Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...



Wuwei said:


> To understand the experimental values of the cooling rate of an object, the absorption of heat of the object due to the surround at temperature Tc had to be considered. The input power that slows the cooling rate has a factor called absorptivity



Sorry guy...the story that goes with your bogus equation is bogus as well...

By the way...there is no two way Planck equation either...both understood full well that energy moves in one direction...warm to cool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...*

Dimmer switch!!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Your interpretation not mine...






Set T to any temperature above 0K....now set Tc to any temperature less than T...P will have a value...Now set Tc to a different temperature...higher than the first number you set Tc too...P will be reduced...you call it a dimmer switch...I call it obeying the laws of physics...The fact is that P is reduced...meaning the object is radiating less energy because the temperature difference between T and Tc is less.  The colder Tc gets, the more the object radiates...


----------



## polarbear (Jan 5, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Aha perhaps you have a better explanation what an  endothermic process is. Hilarious who chimes in here pretending to be holier than though using climate freak new-speak buzzwords to revise physics for the selfie stick dimwits. I remember a couple of years ago you wrote posts which made it quite obvious that you had trouble understanding the difference between power and energy....and look at you now "Temperature is the expression of energy in a large cohort of molecules"  How many "cohorts" does a molecule have to have before I get to say what temperature it`s at?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Set T to any temperature above 0K....now set Tc to any temperature less than T...P will have a value...*

Yes, it's very useful when you want to calculate net power.

*The fact is that P is reduced...meaning the object is radiating less energy because the temperature difference between T and Tc is less.*

The net power is reduced because Tc is radiating more toward T. 

Your claim of a causality violating reduction is in error.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures..


The *net *power, P, changes.



SSDD said:


> Set T to any temperature above 0K....now set Tc to any temperature less than T...P will have a value...Now set Tc to a different temperature...higher than the first number you set Tc too...P will be reduced...you call it a dimmer switch...I call it obeying the laws of physics...The fact is that P is reduced...meaning the object is radiating less energy because the temperature difference between T and Tc is less. The colder Tc gets, the more the object radiates...


You are confused. No I would say the power changes because of changes in emission and absorption of the object. Your hypothesis requires a dimmer switch.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...



One further note. You are wrong. Stefan was not looking at power P. It may have been too difficult to measure at that time. Stefan was looking at the cooling rate of an object under a uniform surround temperature. The cooling rate depends on the objects heat capacity; he referred to the Dulong–Petit law that made his experiments possible. Of course a material with a higher heat capacity would cool more slowly and that had to be carefully factored in. 

The more fundamental reasons behind the SB law, namely radiation exchange, came much later when EM theory came about.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures..
> ...



You can't derive net from that equation...



SSDD said:


> You are confused. No I would say the power changes because of changes in emission and absorption of the object. Your hypothesis requires a dimmer switch.



You would say whatever you needed to say in order to support your belief...even to the point of altering what a mathematical equation says...or claiming that it is possible to derive net from an equation that describes gross one way energy movement.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> One further note. You are wrong. Stefan was not looking at power P. It may have been too difficult to measure at that time..



Sorry guy....wrong again...why don't you trying to read just for the sake of the information you can gain rather than skimming for anything that you think you can interpret to support your beliefs...

The Stefan Boatsman law is precisely looking at power...the amount of energy being radiated by a warm object...Do you ever take a break from making shit up?


Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

The *Stefan–Boltzmann law* describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time 



Stefan-Boltzmann Law

The thermal energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by







the definition of stefan-boltzmann law

law stating that the total energy radiated from a blackbody is proportional to the fourthpower of its absolute temperature.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



The equation exists because it was derived from a net. See the Dartmouth text for the derivation. That derivation occurs in any textbook with SB details.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > One further note. You are wrong. Stefan was not looking at power P. It may have been too difficult to measure at that time..
> ...


You are wrong. *Stefan looked at cooling rate*. The final radiant power form of the SB equation was developed later from his cooling rate data.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



Sorry...I will stick with S-B rather than your idiot dartmouth paper apparently trying to support a narrative...S-B most certainly was not derived from a net...The concept of net energy exchange was decades away when the S-B law was formulated.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry...I will stick with S-B rather than your idiot dartmouth paper apparently trying to support a narrative...S-B most certainly was not derived from a net...The concept of net energy exchange was decades away when the S-B law was formulated.


If you want to disagree with science then you are dead wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry...I will stick with S-B rather than your idiot dartmouth paper apparently trying to support a narrative...S-B most certainly was not derived from a net...The concept of net energy exchange was decades away when the S-B law was formulated.
> ...



If you want to make up history..it is you who is wrong...  All the evidence....and all the physical laws are on my side...you on the other hand are a moonbat...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If you want to make up history..it is you who is wrong... All the evidence....and all the physical laws are on my side...you on the other hand are a moonbat...


No that is a lie. I have not made up anything. It's in the textbooks of science. You have constantly professed that you don't believe in the science.

.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures...
> ...


Just when it looks like that you maxed out in terms of hippie-physics stupidity you come up with another gem.
_"Stefan was not looking at power P. Stefan was looking at the cooling rate of an object"_
Now you are saying Herr Boltzmann was as stupid as you and had no idea that energy per time *is the definition of power.*  You must be consuming some pretty potent "chill-out" shit to be able to communicate with Herr Boltzmann`s spirit when he told you that. Get some more LSD  for another seance session and ask him what the *W *is doing in his _σ _Stefan Boltzmann constant. Maybe it`s W for Wuwei instead of Watts


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Just when it looks like that you maxed out in terms of hippie-physics stupidity you come up with another gem.
> _"Stefan was not looking at power P. Stefan was looking at the cooling rate of an object"_
> Now you are saying Herr Boltzmann was as stupid as you and had no idea that energy per time *is the definition of power.* You must be consuming some pretty potent "chill-out" shit to be able to communicate with Herr Boltzmann`s spirit when he told you that. Get some more LSD for another seance session and ask him what the *W *is doing in his _σ _Stefan Boltzmann constant. Maybe it`s W for Wuwei instead of Watts


Nope I was talking about how Stefan did his experiment. A more detailed explanation came later with his student Boltzman. 

BTW chill out. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > One further note. You are wrong. Stefan was not looking at power P. It may have been too difficult to measure at that time..
> ...



_The *Stefan–Boltzmann law* describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time _


Your own source, refuting your dimmer switch misinterpretation.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Just when it looks like that you maxed out in terms of hippie-physics stupidity you come up with another gem.
> ...


So tell us how he did his experiment, the one you say he was not looking at power. Not that I care about your hippie opinion for reasons other than exposing the stupefaction effect of granting the mentally inferior equal rights.
You are just another  example that proves that we should have adhered to the natural selection principle and allow for the extermination of stupidity instead of coming up with laws to protect and further it.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Still waiting for you to show me where we need a "dimmer switch" to show that a cold object can`t heat a warmer one.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You can call it whatever you want, the radiating object cools down.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2019)

polarbear said:


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



Who claimed it could? Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Both objects radiate.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ergo the fact that he found that P changes as the difference in temperature between T and Tc changes...not because T is absorbing energy from Tc...but because it radiates according to the difference between the two temperatures..
> ...


The *net *power, P, changes.

P doesn’t change, it is an answer derived by a conclusion, a warm object radiating and cooling down based on a cooler object


----------



## jc456 (Jan 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Nope, and you’ll never prove it. The equation calls T the radiator, therefore the surrounding doesn’t radiate. Read it!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



_For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power.[1][2][3][4][5][6]_

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

If you only had some observed, measured evidence to support you...Imagine....you could prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong...you could prove that energy does move spontaneously from cool to warm..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If you only had some observed, measured evidence to support you...Imagine....you could prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong...you could prove that energy does move spontaneously from cool to warm..



None of my positions require a violation of the 2nd Law, or a violation of causality, or a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Unlike your solo positions..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you only had some observed, measured evidence to support you...Imagine....you could prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong...you could prove that energy does move spontaneously from cool to warm..
> ...


So you agree that energy can’t move spontaneously from cool to warm and that a radiator in the presence of other matter radiates according to its area, it’s emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings?

Because that is what the laws and associated equations say.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*So you agree that energy can’t move spontaneously from cool to warm *

I disagree with your solo claim that matter above 0K can't radiate in all directions.

*and that a radiator in the presence of other matter radiates according to its area, it’s emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings?*

I disagree with your solo claim that matter doesn't radiate according to the 4th power of its thermodynamic temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So you agree that energy can’t move spontaneously from cool to warm *
> 
> I disagree with your solo claim that matter above 0K can't radiate in all directions.



That is a dodge...not an answer to my question...

* and that a radiator in the presence of other matter radiates according to its area, it’s emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings?*



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I disagree with your solo claim that matter doesn't radiate according to the 4th power of its thermodynamic temperature.



And yet another dodge rather than answering the question...good one...makes me look great and you look afraid to answer a couple of very simple questions...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If you only had some observed, measured evidence to support you...Imagine....you could prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong...you could prove that energy does move spontaneously from cool to warm.



The concept that entropy is constant or increases was proven. The second law expressed by saying radiant energy is inhibited from moving from cold to hot objects has never been proven. The entropy law allows it. Quantum mechanics disallows that inhibition.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


only in your dreams.  you should really rename the SB law.  cause it says radiates from a hot body, not a cool body.   Please post up where it states that.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


again, I never said that an object wouldn't emit when around a cool object.  I'm waiting for you to show where a cool body emits near a warm body.  Cause when in that state, the warm body radiates to the cool body that is absorbing. And again, if that warmer body now, comes into proximity of a cooler body, it will emit towards it. 2nd law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *So you agree that energy can’t move spontaneously from cool to warm *
> ...



*That is a dodge...not an answer to my question...*

Does matter above 0k radiate in all directions or not?

*And yet another dodge rather than answering the question..*

Pointing out that matter radiates according to the 4th power of its thermodynamic temperature
neatly points out your solo confusion.

*makes me look great *

Yes, your epicycles make you look great, to a handful of clowns.

But still, you have ZERO backup for your solo misinterpretations.
Weird. You should have hundreds of sources to easily confirm your claims...……...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Does matter above 0k radiate in all directions or not?*

sure, when it is around cooler surroundings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*only in your dreams.*

Mine. Einstein's. Planck's. Kirchoff's.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*But still, you have ZERO backup for your solo misinterpretations.
Weird. You should have hundreds of sources to easily confirm your claims...……...*

projection!!!! gaslighting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength* in thermodynamic equilibrium,*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Excellent claim! Now post some links confirming your claimed restrictions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Projection? Did you forget my link to Kirchoff's law of thermal radiation already?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2019)

The warming of the earth caused by CO2 is not hypothetical. Researchers at Berkeley Lab made direct observations and measurements.  

*First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect (Feb 2015)*
First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

_The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America.....

The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2._​





.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The warming of the earth caused by CO2 is not hypothetical. Researchers at Berkeley Lab made direct observations and measurements.
> 
> *First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect (Feb 2015)*
> First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect
> ...




So as the amount of CO2 increased...the amount of radiation that could be measured with COOLED instruments increased..that is, the amount of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument increased...while the amount of back radiation that could be measured with uncooled instruments remains zero...what is your point?...other than perhaps, how easy it is to fool you.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I agree with their version, not yours.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


since you haven't provided any links showing they do, means I have proven my point.  thanks.  keep not posting links.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Their version has matter at equilibrium emitting and absorbing identical amounts of energy.
At the same time.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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





Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you only had some observed, measured evidence to support you...Imagine....you could prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong...you could prove that energy does move spontaneously from cool to warm.
> ...


Great, then post that evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*since you haven't provided any links showing they do, *

_All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero. The radiation represents a conversion of a body's internal energy into electromagnetic energy, and is therefore called thermal radiation. It is a spontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy. _

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


that doesn't prove your point. Again, I never said all objects don't radiate above absolute zero.   I said they don't radiate until they are around cooler surroundings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*that doesn't prove your point. *

_All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero. 
_
Unless you saw any exceptions, that does prove my point.

*I said they don't radiate until they are around cooler surroundings.*

You keep saying that. Now can you prove it?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero._

Again,  I never said it didn't when it is around cooler surroundings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Again, I never said it didn't when it is around cooler surroundings*

If you find anything in the link that mentions surroundings, post it.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


from your link.

"*Black-body radiation* is the thermal electromagnetic radiationwithin or _surrounding_ a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, or emitted by a black body (an opaque and non-reflective body)."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yes, I already saw the refutation of SSDD's claim that equilibrium means no radiating. Thanks.

Here's the next sentence.....*It has a specific spectrum and intensity that depends only on the body's temperature,
*
The underlined portion refutes the claim that the radiation is "dialed down" based on the temperature of surrounding matter.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, not the interpretation at all.  warm only radiates.  Only warm.  sorry bubba.  your own link busted ya!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*nope, not the interpretation at all.  *

What interpretation?

_intensity that depends only on the body's temperature,_

That's very straight forward.

*warm only radiates.  Only warm.*

Yes, your fantasy is very amusing, but you still haven't posted anything that refutes any of the sources I posted.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


more from your link:

"Black-body radiation has a characteristic, continuous frequency spectrum that depends only on the body's temperature,[9]called the Planck spectrum or Planck's law. _The spectrum is peaked at a characteristic frequency that shifts to higher frequencies with increasing temperature, and at __room temperature _most of the emission is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum.[10][11][12] "

surrounding.

BTW, there is even more in that link.  you should actually read  it since you posted it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



None of that disagrees with my claims. Or helps your claims.

So when are you going to post something that agrees with your claims?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So as the amount of CO2 increased...the amount of radiation that could be measured with COOLED instruments increased..that is, the amount of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument increased...while the amount of back radiation that could be measured with uncooled instruments remains zero...what is your point?...other than perhaps, how easy it is to fool you.


The instruments are cooled to increase the signal to noise ratio. Back radiation would still continue no matter what the earth surface temperature is. That's science. Not your fake second law crap.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So as the amount of CO2 increased...the amount of radiation that could be measured with COOLED instruments increased..that is, the amount of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument increased...while the amount of back radiation that could be measured with uncooled instruments remains zero...what is your point?...other than perhaps, how easy it is to fool you.
> ...



The instruments are cooled so that energy will move to them...you don't even get a degraded energy signature when the instrument is warmer than the radiator...cool the instrument to just a degree below the temperature of the radiator and what do you know...measurments of discrete wavelengths..  Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So as the amount of CO2 increased...the amount of radiation that could be measured with COOLED instruments increased..that is, the amount of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument increased...while the amount of back radiation that could be measured with uncooled instruments remains zero...what is your point?...other than perhaps, how easy it is to fool you.
> ...


too flippin funny, signal to noise.  it's called doctoring the instrument to read a signal.  and nothing more.  cool won't flow to an ambient instrument.  The mere fact you make the statement you make is exactly the reason why you can't win this debate.  Loser.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I truly enjoy when the likes like you post shit that proves my point and not yours.  still waiting on that flow from cold to warm.  tick tock general.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



What part proved your "point" that matter only radiates to cooler matter?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


the parts I quoted for you.  No need to repeat it.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The instruments are cooled so that energy will move to them...you don't even get a degraded energy signature when the instrument is warmer than the radiator...cool the instrument to just a degree below the temperature of the radiator and what do you know...measurments of discrete wavelengths.. Why do you suppose that is?



Cool the instrument to just a degree below the radiator and you get a very noisy signal that degrades the measurement.

At 80 F,  for an instrument at 1 degree below the radiator the signal to noise ratio would be

(300 +1) / 300.

For an instrument at 1 degree above the radiator the SNR would be

(300 -1) / 300

Both cases would have an SNR of almost 1 to 1. That is why the instrument is cooled.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The instruments are cooled so that energy will move to them...you don't even get a degraded energy signature when the instrument is warmer than the radiator...cool the instrument to just a degree below the temperature of the radiator and what do you know...measurments of discrete wavelengths.. Why do you suppose that is?
> ...


hly fk!!  the stories you tell.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The instruments are cooled so that energy will move to them...you don't even get a degraded energy signature when the instrument is warmer than the radiator...



Of course you get such a signature. Again, cheap IR cameras work uncooled. Observed reality says you're totally cuckoobananas.

Assume the camera's photoreceptors are at 20C. Explain to us, in detail what happens as the camera looks at a 21C background, and then that background cools to 19C.

Best I can tell, your theory states that all of the 21C radiation is absorbed by the camera, but as it passes below 20C, none of it is absorbed. So, your mission is to give us the specific energy equations for the photoreceptor both above and below 20C. In both cases, break it down to how much energy is being absorbed, and how much energy is being radiated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Nothing you quoted supports the claim that photons only move from warm matter to cooler matter.

_"Black-body radiation has a characteristic, continuous __frequency spectrum_ _that depends only on the body's temperature,_ _called the Planck spectrum or __Planck's law
.
The spectrum is peaked at a characteristic frequency that shifts to higher frequencies with increasing temperature, and at _​_room temperature __most of the emission is in the __infrared_ _region of the __electromagnetic spectrum"_


Not even a little bit.
The portion I underlined refutes your silly claim.
Note the phrase "depends only on the body's temperature".

No mention of surroundings or any other restriction.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


dude, too fking funny, it says right in your post with increasing temperature and at room temperature, i.e., surroundings, just like I said.  sorry bubba.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yes, increasing the temperature shifts the frequency higher.
Yes, room temperature emissions are infrared.
Still no help for your moronic claim.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it's all my claim, it's called surroundings, and the temperature of the surrounding changes how an object radiates.  It's exactly what I fking said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*the temperature of the surrounding changes how an object radiates. *

The link doesn't say anything close to your claim.
I realize your brain injury was serious, and I'm sorry about your Alzheimer's


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure it does. Again, I gave you examples, so no need to repeat.  your continued washing is acknowledged.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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






Further down the page, another refutation of your silly claim.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


more laundry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


dude, you think that what, embarrasses me?  naw, it's all you got.  you can't back your claim that cold moves toward warm spontaneously and I've proved your link backs me.  if your laundry is so important that you need to continually wash it in here, I ain't gonna rinse for you.  you lost the battle and looks like the war. not one of you all has posted observed measured evidence, and look at the count in the thread. I'll take my bow now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*you think that what, embarrasses me?*

No, your idiocy doesn't embarrass you.

*you can't back your claim that cold moves warm spontaneously and I've proved your link backs me.*

Well, it's clear you didn't understand the link.

*I'll take my bow now.*

Don't bump your head again, you can't afford another concussion.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


and yet still no observed measured evidence.  checkmate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yeah, all the evidence is on my side.
Don't you worry, SSDD will find some evidence to help you...….any day now.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


still none, thanks for the vote of confidence in your stupidity. any day now you'll post something observed to back your claim.  you're melting


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Dude.....


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Dude, I don’t do laundry


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Or science.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The instruments are cooled so that energy will move to them...you don't even get a degraded energy signature when the instrument is warmer than the radiator...cool the instrument to just a degree below the temperature of the radiator and what do you know...measurments of discrete wavelengths.. Why do you suppose that is?
> ...



You don't seem to grasp the concept of no signal at all...you can't measure any discrete wavelength of energy with an instrument that is warmer than the radiator...  That is because there is no energy moving from the radiator to a warmer instrument...A degraded signal would at least be a signal.....there is none.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Of course you get such a signature. Again, cheap IR cameras work uncooled. Observed reality says you're totally cuckoobananas.



Been through that already...and gave you the specs on the cameras....sorry you are to stupid to understand....they aren't receiving energy from the cooler object...they are measuring the amount, and rate of energy loss from the sensor to the cooler object...



mamooth said:


> Assume the camera's photoreceptors are at 20C. Explain to us, in detail what happens as the camera looks at a 21C background, and then that background cools to 19C.



Already have...over and over since you go to the same flawed understanding over and over...the instrument only measures the rate of change and amount of change in the sensor array...if it is warming, it is receiving energy from the object it is pointed at...if it is cooling, it is losing energy to the object it is pointed at...cooling doesn't happen as rapidly as warming, therefore the image of a cooler object isn't as sharp as that of a warmer object...which is why the high end instruments are cooled...to get a sharper image across a wider range of temperatures.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 9, 2019)

We are currently dealing with a few so called 'scientists' from NOAA who are challenging our findings and we are jointly recreating one series of experiments to prove them wrong. These people are serious about disproving what we found but so far they are batting 0 for 150.. Were done recreating the experiment and they have nothing.. Monday they were speechless when we looked at the automated tracking and found no warming in 38 sensors after 36 hours. 3 times as long as the original experiment and no warming of the gases... The output monitor and the target pad monitored the pass through energy, showing no power loss during the test. They were unhappy about that bit of information.

Yesterday they wanted us to move the target pad into the tube, We had to remind them the whole point was to remove conduction and convection from the problem and isolate the atmospheric gases.  These people are dense, attempting to insert every item we did to isolate the gases in an effort to get a warming result..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You don't seem to grasp the concept of no signal at all...you can't measure any discrete wavelength of energy with an instrument that is warmer than the radiator... That is because there is no energy moving from the radiator to a warmer instrument...A degraded signal would at least be a signal.....there is none.


Back to your smart photons again.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to grasp the concept of no signal at all...you can't measure any discrete wavelength of energy with an instrument that is warmer than the radiator... That is because there is no energy moving from the radiator to a warmer instrument...A degraded signal would at least be a signal.....there is none.
> ...


well you can't measure with a warm instrument.  he's spot fking on.  you lose every time on this one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 10, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Obviously, if you can't measure photons hitting your sensor....it's because cold photons are repelled.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2019)

I am waiting to hear from SSDD about a hollow red hot sphere. The inside would have red hot walls too, but he thinks they would be pitch black because everything is at the same equilibrium red hot temperature, so there would be no radiation flow.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to grasp the concept of no signal at all...you can't measure any discrete wavelength of energy with an instrument that is warmer than the radiator... That is because there is no energy moving from the radiator to a warmer instrument...A degraded signal would at least be a signal.....there is none.
> ...




The energy is just obeying the laws of physics....it is funny that you feel that it must be intelligent in order to do so...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I am waiting to hear from SSDD about a hollow red hot sphere. The inside would have red hot walls too, but he thinks they would be pitch black because everything is at the same equilibrium red hot temperature, so there would be no radiation flow.



I told you...there is no point in playing "what if" games when the atmosphere, and the energy moving through it are readily, observable, and measurable...if your beliefs were true, then it would be easy to measure and present the evidence rather than having to play mind experiment in an effort to make what you believe to be happening seem possible...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it means they aren't there.  intelligent folks like SSDD, Billy, Bri, Polar and I understand that.  It also tells me you don't really understand how they actually flow. It's ok though, you keep bringing your laundry in.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*it means they aren't there.*

CMB photons weren't there and then, one day, suddenly, they were? Wow!

What changed?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope they weren't there.  If they were there, the warm instrument would have measured them.  Dude, it is really simple.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*nope they weren't there.*

Penzias and Wilson measured something that wasn't ever there? How'd they do that?

*If they were there, the warm instrument would have measured them. *

Have you ever seen what their radio antenna looked like?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I know it was cooled, I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk egypt.  And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.  

BTW, when I have no cell service on my phone, are the waves really there and the phone just is saying nope ain't letting those in?  too funny.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I know it was cooled,*

They cooled the entire antenna? Are you sure?

*I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk Egypt*

New Jersey.

* And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.  *​
It's gigantic, how'd they cool it?​


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Cosmic Background Radiation - Engineering and Technology History Wiki

"The CMB was discovered and measured in 1965 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who had been studying the “sky temperature.” Sky temperature describes the level of noise at different radio frequencies. It is required in the planning of satellite and other wireless communication systems because it enters receiving antennas along with communication signals. The measurement system devised by Penzias and Wilson consisted of antennas designed to minimize the radiation picked up from the ground, a traveling-wave maser amplifier, *and helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."*


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The energy is just obeying the laws of physics....it is funny that you feel that it must be intelligent in order to do so...


Nope.  Violates QM. You have given no reason why a photon is prohibited a certain direction. Thus they are your smart photons.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The energy is just obeying the laws of physics....it is funny that you feel that it must be intelligent in order to do so...
> ...


sure he gave you a reason.  you brush it aside like a fly from a piece of poop.  your strategy fails.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I told you...there is no point in playing "what if" games when the atmosphere, and the energy moving through it are readily, observable, and measurable...if your beliefs were true, then it would be easy to measure and present the evidence rather than having to play mind experiment in an effort to make what you believe to be happening seem possible...



Much science including relativity was discovered playing what-if games. Science already knows that the inside of a hollow red hot sphere is red hot too. Since your hypothesis is that the current laws of physics are invalid, it's up to you to prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*The measurement system devised by Penzias and Wilson consisted of antennas designed to minimize the radiation picked up from the ground, *

This doesn't say the antenna was cooled. Were you lying?
Or are you ignorant of how an antenna works?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I told you...there is no point in playing "what if" games when the atmosphere, and the energy moving through it are readily, observable, and measurable...if your beliefs were true, then it would be easy to measure and present the evidence rather than having to play mind experiment in an effort to make what you believe to be happening seem possible...
> ...


yes it was and is.  The difference between your mind games and science is that hypothesis' are tested, observed and confirmed.  You fail the later two.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sorry laundry mat,  I highlighted it for you.  but go fking figure where you went.

, *and helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You're confused about the difference between an antenna and a measurement system? Hilarious!





Which part is the antenna?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


don't insult me.  but hey, you're that guy.  the guy that does his laundry on an internet.  wash rinse repeat fella.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*don't insult me.*

Don't avoid the question .
Is it the big horn on the right, or the small shed on the left?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


"The measurement system devised by Penzias and Wilson consisted of* antennas d*esigned to minimize the radiation picked up from the ground, a traveling-wave maser amplifier, and helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Still think the enormous antenna was cooled?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


not that one, nope. the receiver terminations were though. Said so in the write up I posted.  again, you don't read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*not that one, nope. the receiver terminations were though*

Excellent!

*Said so in the write up I posted.  again, you don't read.*

But I do read. I read this....
Todd "Obviously, if you can't measure photons hitting your sensor....it's because cold photons are repelled"
JC "it means they aren't there"

LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

How did the photons that "aren't there" manage to hit the uncooled antenna?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


 you don't know that they did, now do you?  you know that the receiver termination cooled received a signal.  that's all.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The energy is just obeying the laws of physics....it is funny that you feel that it must be intelligent in order to do so...
> ...




Maybe you didn't hear...the second law of thermodynamics is a physical law...there has never been an observed deviation from its statement...QM is still theoretical, and hypothetical...maybe someday, physical laws will come out of it...but not today...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Maybe you didn't hear...the second law of thermodynamics is a physical law...there has never been an observed deviation from its statement...QM is still theoretical, and hypothetical...maybe someday, physical laws will come out of it...but not today...



Well if you don't believe QM which has been around for 100 years, you are hopelessly behind the times. Entropy says nothing can prevent equilibrium radiation exchange. Many say radiation can hit sources at any temperature. No violation was ever found.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you didn't hear...the second law of thermodynamics is a physical law...there has never been an observed deviation from its statement...QM is still theoretical, and hypothetical...maybe someday, physical laws will come out of it...but not today...
> ...


so you don't believe in the physical law of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?  warm only moves to cold.  ONLY ONE WAY.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you didn't hear...the second law of thermodynamics is a physical law...there has never been an observed deviation from its statement...QM is still theoretical, and hypothetical...maybe someday, physical laws will come out of it...but not today...
> ...



Like I said...I will wait for the observed, measured evidence....

And since no measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm has ever been made, your claim is bullshit.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Like I said...I will wait for the observed, measured evidence....
> 
> And since no measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm has ever been made, your claim is bullshit.


We gave you many examples of radiation moving from a cold source to warmer objects.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said...I will wait for the observed, measured evidence....
> ...


sureeeeee you did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*you don't know that they did, now do you?*

I don't know that the photons hit the warm antenna?
I'll refer back to my earlier questions, 

_Were you lying?
Or are you ignorant of how an antenna works? _


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


dude, the receiver is cooled.  there is no other reason to cool it but to pull wavelengths that are cooler than a receiver termination at ambient temperature.  without cooling it, you wouldn't see anything.  sorry, that's just a fact.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*dude, the receiver is cooled*





Dude, is the receiver in the big horn or in the little shed?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


dude, the receiver is cooled.  i give two shits anything beyond that.  without that, they read zip.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*dude, the receiver is cooled.*

And the antenna is warm.
Don't tell SSDD you've realized his error.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver.  Cause it was cooled!!!! it's ok dude.  I get your confusion.

you still have nothing showing cold moving to warm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver*

The receiver? You mean the thing in the shed that read the photons that hit the warm antenna?

Yeah, that was awesome!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said...I will wait for the observed, measured evidence....
> ...



No....you gave examples of how easily you are fooled...nothing more.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna that I posted you the statement of.  did you forget that already?  that is a sign of dementia you know?

sensors with" helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna*

You betcha. The signal bounces off the warm antenna into the cooled receiver in the shed. Shhh...don't tell.

*that is a sign of dementia you know?*

You have dementia? Is it related to your brain injury or in addition to your brain injury?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yes sir warm to cold flow just as I said.  Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Yup, those cold photons hitting that warm antenna...exactly your point. You're welcome.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


only point the warm photons hit was the cold sensor.  but thanks for playing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You know that the "warm photons" in this case are still "colder" than the giant antenna sitting out there.

You knew that, right?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


The only reason you say that is because you don't believe nor understand physics of the past 100 years. The people on this forum proved you wrong time and again.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


Correct:

Thy were getting interference in known reflective bands, at specific wavelengths, which are in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order  wave length reflections. They used helium cooled instruments to remove these reflections causing noise.

You get a GOLD STAR!


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

The ANTENNAS WAS NOT COOLED and, as stated, the terminations were cooled to reduce noise, not to pass 2.7K photons.  SSDD would claim that the CMB photons could not hit the antenna and thus would never get to the terminations, cooled or not.  Looking at resonant frequencies is irrelevant in this argument as they have the same 2.7K origin.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You really don't know much about EM wave propagation, do you?
EM as a photon needs to be directed. Only the receiver need be cooled, the wave is collected and directed to the receiver by the horn.. Any emissions from the horns radiative output are easily identified and discarded.  You have obviously never dealt with microwaves..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> How long ago did you decide for yourself that you have it all figured out and decided to stop trying to learn anything new?
> 
> From: *William Happer* Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
> To: David Burton
> ...



I decided to drop this post here as the information in it was used to form the basic tents of our experiment. What we observed was a firm affirmation of Dr Happer's work.  I want to thank SSDD for posting it up!

Dr Happer shows why LWIR can not warm the atmosphere absent water vapor. Our experiment confirmed his findings.


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

Dr Happer is not a well respected scientist in the field of climate change.  From his Wikipedia article:

*Climate change*
Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that “Some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas”, but argues that “most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes.”[9] Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are “simply not true” and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures.[10] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[11] A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.[12]

In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life."[13] It was described by Ryan Chittum in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the editorial page.[14]

In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer asked for the fee from this work to be donated to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by Greenpeace. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[15]

Billy Boy, when the report of your experiment has been accepted for publication in a refereed science journal, you may have some evidence.  Not before.

And, of course, you calling up a quote from Happer is an appeal to authority.  Why you think quoting one scientist is more authoritative than quoting several hundred is beyond me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



You're not going to tell SSDD that the "colder" CMB photons hit the warmer antenna, are you?

He'll be heart broken.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> Dr Happer is not a well respected scientist in the field of climate change.  From his Wikipedia article:
> 
> *Climate change*
> Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that “Some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas”, but argues that “most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes.”[9] Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are “simply not true” and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures.[10] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[11] A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.[12]
> ...


Too Funny; You have no idea what Happer was saying and you are acting like an authority on something you have no grasp of... Priceless..


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Too Funny; You have no idea what Happer was saying and you are acting like an authority on something you have no grasp of... Priceless..



Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't he say "*IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY.
*
It seems that Dr Happer believes CO2 will warm the atmosphere, something you and SSDD and JC456 have been denying.  Do you agree with him?  He is, after all, your authority.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> I decided to drop this post here as the information in it was used to form the basic tents of our experiment. What we observed was a firm affirmation of Dr Happer's work.  I want to thank SSDD for posting it up!
> 
> Dr Happer shows why LWIR can not warm the atmosphere absent water vapor. Our experiment confirmed his findings.




"
If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY
"
That quote disputes your claim. Why don't you post up one that you thinks supports your claim?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Assume the camera's photoreceptors are at 20C. Explain to us, in detail what happens as the camera looks at a 21C background, and then that background cools to 19C.
> ...



No, you haven't, not even once. I asked for the precise equations. You're refusing to give them, as you always do. Your theory is just unsubstantiated handwaving. If you want that Nobel Prize, you're going to need to quantify things exactly. And we need to pin you down to a single solid claim, so that we can argue against it.



> since you go to the same flawed understanding over and over...the instrument only measures the rate of change and amount of change in the sensor array...if it is warming, it is receiving energy from the object it is pointed at...if it is cooling, it is losing energy to the object it is pointed at...cooling doesn't happen as rapidly as warming, therefore the image of a cooler object isn't as sharp as that of a warmer object...which is why the high end instruments are cooled...to get a sharper image across a wider range of temperatures.



Let's make it simpler for you, to make it harder for you to run. Forget about the specifics of the matter, as it doesn't matter what the matter is.

We have a speck of matter at 20C.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 19.999C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 20.001C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

For the sane people, it's easy. In both cases, the equation is A * sigma * T2^4 - A * sigma * T1^4. First term is  heat absorbed from environment, second term is heat radiated out.

Now you do it. As you say the speck behaves differently in the each environment, you'll have to have separate equations for each case.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


They definitely hit the cold probe, that’s all!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



They didn't hit the warm antenna first?


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


> They definitely hit the cold probe, that’s all!



Then what was the purpose of having an antenna?  Why does anyone need an antenna?  Why do astronomers build those gigantic dishes and dish arrays?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Is it cold?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > They definitely hit the cold probe, that’s all!
> ...


Looking for particular waves!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Warmer than the CMB.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Radio waves


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Radio waves*





Electromagnetic Spectrum - Introduction

Yup.
Those cold photons hitting that warm antenna.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 13, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I decided to drop this post here as the information in it was used to form the basic tents of our experiment. What we observed was a firm affirmation of Dr Happer's work.  I want to thank SSDD for posting it up!
> ...


Tell me Ian, if almost all absorbed LWIR is relieved by collision then there is no LWIR to be emitted fromCO2... how is your GHG atmosphere going to work now?


----------



## IanC (Jan 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me Ian, if almost all absorbed LWIR is relieved by collision then there is no LWIR to be emitted fromCO2... how is your GHG atmosphere going to work now?



Why are you so stupid? Why don't you understand any basic Physics? Are you asking me to explain it yet again? Two dozen times wasn't enough, why would one more iteration finally educate you?

It seems to be news to you that surface radiation energy is absorbed by CO2 and almost immediately transformed into a different form of energy that is stored in the atmosphere. I don't care that you ignored it dozens of times when I told you in the past. How has this new information changed your thinking today?

Where does this stored energy go? CO2 is already getting rid of as much energy as it can, high up where it is cold. Likewise with the other GHGs. So where does this captured surface radiation energy  go? Does it just keep collecting in the atmosphere, causing higher and higher temperatures?  Or does most of it return to the surface?


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

I'm a bit confused about something.  SSDD, Billy Bob and their acolytes, for the past few weeks, have been claiming that CO2 can not warm anything because it instantaneously re-emits any photons it absorbs.  Now we learn from the eminent Dr Spencer that it is a billion times more likely to lose that energy in a collision than through photon emisison.  Which is it?


----------



## IanC (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'm a bit confused about something.  SSDD, Billy Bob and their acolytes, for the past few weeks, have been claiming that CO2 can not warm anything because it instantaneously re-emits any photons it absorbs.  Now we learn from the eminent Dr Spencer that it is a billion times more likely to lose that energy in a collision than through photon emisison.  Which is it?



That's a great question! 

There are a few parts to it. What is happening in a small local area (The equipartition theory). What happens to radiation energy that enters a small local area when it is more (or less) than the equilibrium produced amount. What difference  (If any) does the temperature make on absorbing photons, and on emitting photons.

Cover all of those areas and you will have a strong basic understanding.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'm a bit confused about something.  SSDD, Billy Bob and their acolytes, for the past few weeks, have been claiming that CO2 can not warm anything because it instantaneously re-emits any photons it absorbs.  Now we learn from the eminent Dr Spencer that it is a billion times more likely to lose that energy in a collision than through photon emisison.  Which is it?



Relaxation time for CO2 vibration 6 microSec. In other words CO2 holds on to it's vibration state for 6 microSec, on an average.

Mean time between collisions 0.2 nsec.  In other words a CO2 molecule is hit ever fraction of a nanosecond which is much sooner than a CO2 can release it's energy.

That leads to a probability of CO2 emission: = 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So absorption of energy of CO2 is 30,000 times higher than re-emission. This is different than what Spencer or Happer says, but the point is that it must be large.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 13, 2019)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit confused about something.  SSDD, Billy Bob and their acolytes, for the past few weeks, have been claiming that CO2 can not warm anything because it instantaneously re-emits any photons it absorbs.  Now we learn from the eminent Dr Spencer that it is a billion times more likely to lose that energy in a collision than through photon emisison.  Which is it?
> ...


And yet there is absolutely zero evidence that IR warms the air. You all failed


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2019)

IanC said:


> That's a great question!
> 
> There are a few parts to it. What is happening in a small local area (The equipartition theory). What happens to radiation energy that enters a small local area when it is more (or less) than the equilibrium produced amount. What difference (If any) does the temperature make on absorbing photons, and on emitting photons.
> 
> Cover all of those areas and you will have a strong basic understanding.



I have been working on that problem. This is what I have so far:

The following computation finds the radiating energy of CO2 in a cubic meter of air. It is in an isolated box under equilibrium. No input nor output energy is considered. The air is at ambient temperature and pressure. The basis is that the equipartition principle says 2/9 of the energy in the air will be in a vibratory mode that corresponds to 15 micron LWIR.

# of air molecules 2.53 10*²⁵* / m³

# of CO2 molecules per m³ @ 400ppm = 0.0004 x 2.53 10*²⁵* = 1.01 10*²²* /m*³*

The following comes from the equipartition principle.
# Degrees of freedom of CO2: 3 translation, 2 rotation, 4 vibration = 9
Two of the vibration modes are bending modes.
Probability CO2 is in a 15 micron bending mode = 2 / 9​# of CO2 molecules in a vibration bending mode = 2/9 x 1.01 10*²²* = *2.2 10**²¹*

Pr = Probability CO2 will radiate energy (by escaping collision)
Relaxation time for CO2 vibration 6 microSec = *6 10**⁻⁶* sec
Mean time between collisions 0.2 nsec
Pr = 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = *1 / 30,000*​
# of CO2 molecules radiating 15 microns every *6 microSec*:
= (# vibrating) x (radiating probability) x (energy releases per sec)
= 2.2 10*²¹* x 1/30,000 / (6 10*⁻⁶* ) / sec = *1.22 x 10**²⁵* sec*⁻¹*​
Photon energy at 15 microns = *1.3 10⁻²⁰* joules

Total power of 15 micron radiation per cubic meter
= (number of CO2 molecules radiating) x ( energy per CO2 photon released)
= (*1.22 x 10²⁵ sec-1 *) x (*1.3 10⁻²⁰ joules*) = 1.59 10*⁵* joules sec*⁻¹* = *159 W*​
That rough estimate is a large swarm of energy considering that most of the energy is transferred via the much more probable collision mode. The 159 W involves only the vibration energy of CO2 caused by the just having CO2 in the atmosphere. Any radiation input to the atmosphere would add to this.

Again, this is for a one cubic meter "box" of energy with no external energy in or out. When it comes to the open atmosphere, you have to consider an upward higher density of radiation from below entering the "box" and the "box" downward exchange radiation to the higher density atmosphere. Meanwhile the “box” will be radiating upward to a thinner density atmosphere.

That radiation exchange computation is a doable but messy integral over the spectrum of radiation paths which spans a few hundred meters. The computation is only for the radiation contribution to the atmospheric energy flow and of course ignores more important convection etc.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

mamooth said:


> No, you haven't, not even once. I asked for the precise equations. You're refusing to give them, as you always do. Your theory is just unsubstantiated handwaving. If you want that Nobel Prize, you're going to need to quantify things exactly. And we need to pin you down to a single solid claim, so that we can argue against it.



As if you could read an equation...laughing in your face...and all you need do is a simple search of the term IR camera with my name and you will get all the places it has been explained to you hairball...




mamooth said:


> Let's make it simpler for you, to make it harder for you to run. Forget about the specifics of the matter, as it doesn't matter what the matter is.



Its all simple hairball...which just shows how stupid you must be that you are unable to understand




mamooth said:


> We have a speck of matter at 20C.
> 
> Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 19.999C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.



You left out some pretty important numbers  (understandable since this is all over your head) so I will have to make some assumptions about the nature of your "speck" of matter.

First, we need to know what its emissivity is...for the sake of simplicity, lets make it an ideal radiator, so its emissivity will be 1.  

Second, you didn't say how large your "speck" of matter is...if you want to know how much energy it is radiating, you need to know how large it is.  Again, for the sake of simplicity, lets make it a square meter...If we get much smaller than that, the radiation output of the radiator becomes vanishingly small.







0.00571 = emissivity times S-B constant times (temperature of the radiator to the 4th power minus the temperature of the surroundings to the 4th power)

If we made the radiator larger, or increased the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings, the wattage would increase.



mamooth said:


> Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 20.001C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.



Again..you left out some necessary information so I will have to fill in the blanks myself...First, I am going to suppose that by "surroundings" you mean something with an area such as a box...We can't apply the S-B equation to a gas as there is no area.. Again, lets make the box an ideal radiator and lets make the area of the inside of the box 6 square meters






Same as before except now the inside of the box is warmer by .001K and the inside of the box is considerably larger than the object inside...  The inside of the box is radiating 0.05142W/m^2.



mamooth said:


> For the sane people, it's easy. In both cases, the equation is A * sigma * T2^4 - A * sigma * T1^4. First term is  heat absorbed from environment, second term is heat radiated out.



What sort of sane S-B formula uses the SB constant twice?  The proper form of the SB equation in which a radiator is radiating to cooler surroundings is: The c in Tc represents cooler as there is a basic assumption in the S-B law that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc.








mamooth said:


> Now you do it. As you say the speck behaves differently in the each environment, you'll have to have separate equations for each case.



Clearly you don't have a clue...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You left out some pretty important numbers (understandable since this is all over your head) so I will have to make some assumptions about the nature of your "speck" of matter.



This is your equation for a "speck" of one meter area, slightly warmer than a surround:





This is your equation for a "speck" of one meter area, slightly cooler than a surround of 6 meters.





Here is the SB equation you used:




You forgot the area, A, in your calculations.
In the first calculation the area of the "speck" was one meter, so it's OK.

In your second calculation the area should be 6 meters because A is the emitter area.

If you include the proper area you get a ludicrous result. So your whole method of using the SB equation is flawed. You get a D minus grade for your homework problem. (You get partial credit for stating the right formula. )

.


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


> And yet there is absolutely zero evidence that IR warms the air. You all failed




You haven't been following the conversation, have you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You left out some pretty important numbers (understandable since this is all over your head) so I will have to make some assumptions about the nature of your "speck" of matter.
> ...



Moron...the 2nd result is 6 meters...I merely forgot to change the figure for area in the equation generator.  P is calculated for 6 square meters.  What do you think is rediculous about that result?

As if you could possibly grade me...you fail as you didn't even recognize that P in the first equation was a smaller number than P in the second equation...nor did you recognize that P in the second equation was calculated for a radiator having an area of 6 square meters...so you caught me making an error in grammar...whoop tee do.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet there is absolutely zero evidence that IR warms the air. You all failed
> ...



Of course he has...there is no evidence that IR can, or does warm air.


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days.  The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward.  Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions.  Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed. 

Your assertion makes no sense.  As I stated to you earlier, you have been saying in effect that  "CO2 cannot warm the air because it is so rapidly warming the air."


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Moron...the 2nd result is 6 meters...I merely forgot to change the figure for area in the equation generator. P is calculated for 6 square meters. What do you think is rediculous about that result?







That is the equation for the 1 m^2 speck emitting radiation





That is your equation for the 6 m^2 box radiating

First you have a typo and are missing a leading zero. Second, you forgot to multiply your second equation by the area of 6 m^2. If you did your answer would be

 6 x 0.00571 W/m^2 = .03082 W/m^2

That is what is ridiculous. You are misusing your favorite equation. 



.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days.  The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward.  Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions.  Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed.
> 
> Your assertion makes no sense.  As I stated to you earlier, you have been saying in effect that  "CO2 cannot warm the air because it is so rapidly warming the air."


yes exactly, CO2 does not warm the air.  Still waiting on observed data to change my mind anyway.


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

You and your sources have repeatedly stated that CO2 loses absorbed energy via collisions.  What do you think it is having collisions with?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> You and your sources have repeatedly stated that CO2 loses absorbed energy via collisions.  What do you think it is having collisions with?


If my memory serves me correctly, in the posts of the past, it has been mentioned that CO2 collides with N2 molecules.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You and your sources have repeatedly stated that CO2 loses absorbed energy via collisions.  What do you think it is having collisions with?
> ...



*If my memory serves me correctly, in the posts of the past, it has been mentioned that CO2 collides with N2 molecules.*

When an excited CO2 molecule hits an N2 molecule, the N2 gets the energy and is heated.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days.  The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward.  Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions.  Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed.
> 
> Your assertion makes no sense.  As I stated to you earlier, you have been saying in effect that  "CO2 cannot warm the air because it is so rapidly warming the air."


Makes no sense to you because you’re an idiot. The warming is due to conduction not radiation. Therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere it is conduction that warms the air.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Moron...the 2nd result is 6 meters...I merely forgot to change the figure for area in the equation generator. P is calculated for 6 square meters. What do you think is rediculous about that result?
> ...


You are correct...I miscalculated...so now you have proven both my point...and that the hair ball doesn’t have a clue...congratulations...you finally got something right...and showed energy moving in one direction from the warmer container to the speck of cooler matter...

If I had known that a simple math error would have been sufficient to drive you to demonstrate the one way energy movement that equation describes, I would have done it months ago


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You and your sources have repeatedly stated that CO2 loses absorbed energy via collisions.  What do you think it is having collisions with?
> ...


And O2 molecules and H2O molecules..and any other molecule and particle in the air...it is called conduction and is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere.  A radiative greenhouse affect cannot exist in a troposphere so completely dominated by conduction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days.  The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward.  Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions.  Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed.
> ...



*The warming is due to conduction not radiation.*

The IR warmed GHGs conduct that warmth to the rest of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



IR never warms anything but water vapor...CO2 can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the CO2 molecule, it is just energy...not IR...if it emits the energy, it emits it in the form of IR...if it loses the energy via collision, then it loses the energy via conduction...The energy it loses via collision is not IR...and it really doesn't matter how it came to have the energy in the first place...hell, it may have gained the energy via a collision with another molecule rather than by absorbing IR...considering the mean time between collisions, it is probably more likely that a CO2 molecule in possession of a bit of energy got it via collision than via absorbing IR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*CO2 can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the CO2 molecule, it is just energy...not IR...*

H2O can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the H2O molecule, it is just energy...not IR...

*IR never warms anything but water vapor...*

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

*CO2 can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the CO2 molecule, it is just energy...not IR..*

Correct, radiation absorbed by matter is no longer radiation.
Who claimed otherwise? Where?

*if it emits the energy, it emits it in the form of IR.*

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

*if it loses the energy via collision, then it loses the energy via conduction...*

Yes. Matter warmed by IR can transfer that warmth via collision.

*The energy it loses via collision is not IR..*

Of course not. Energy lost/gained via collision is kinetic, not IR.
Who claimed otherwise? Where?

*and it really doesn't matter how it came to have the energy in the first place...hell, it may have gained the energy via a collision with another molecule rather than by absorbing IR...*

Yes. Who claimed otherwise? Where?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?



Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.



No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?
> ...



*Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F,*

Why are you talking about equilibrium? The moment a photon hits and is absorbed by CO2, the CO2 is warmer.

*as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature.*

AFAIK, all matter emits trying to reach 0K. 
You have anything that shows CO2 only tries to get to -80F and then, for some reason, stops emitting?

*No..it only moves towards cooler areas.*

Link showing photons are restricted as you claim?

*refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area*

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:
			
		

> Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.



What do you mean by "the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F"?  CO2's triple point is -56.57C.  It's critical point is 31.03C.  Neither is a point that CO2 is "trying to reach".


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You are correct...I miscalculated...so now you have proven both my point...and that the hair ball doesn’t have a clue...congratulations...you finally got something right...and showed energy moving in one direction from the warmer container to the speck of cooler matter.



It is more than just a miscalculation. It is another total failure of yours.

According to your interpretation of the SB formula, if the surround was not just 6m² , but was a huge box of 1000 m² your formula would give a whopping
1000 x 0.00571 W/m² = *5.71 W/m²* out of a mere temperature difference of *0.001C*.  

Why does your formula heat a speck of matter ever more strongly as the size of the enclosing box gets larger? Maybe you should trash your understanding of the SB law and go along with the textbooks on the subject. Eh?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


SSDD, you have gone down to the deep end of loony.


----------



## IanC (Jan 14, 2019)

If you were going to use SSDDs S-B equation for the Earth's surface radiating into the atmosphere, what value would you put in for emissivity? How would it affect _P_?

Do you use surface emissivity which is nearly a perfect blackbody at infrared frequencies?  Or do you use the atmospheric emissivity that is high or low depending on the exact wavelength ?

How do we count the radiation lost to space that simply transits the atmosphere without reacting with it?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What sort of sane S-B formula uses the SB constant twice?



One being clear about what's physically happening. No need to discuss that further, as your well-documented cult retardation there is only interesting in an abnormal-psychology kind of way.



> Clearly you don't have a clue...



I asked for you to set up the different equations for each of the between the hotter background and cooler background cases. You didn't even try. And why didn't you try? Because you couldn't. You clearly have no idea of how your kook theory is supposed to work in practice.

Care to give it another shot? Don't put in the numbers, just show the formulas in each case, and explain what each term means in a physical way.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It is more than just a miscalculation. It is another total failure of yours.
> 
> According to your interpretation of the SB formula, if the surround was not just 6m² , but was a huge box of 1000 m² your formula would give a whopping
> 1000 x 0.00571 W/m² = *5.71 W/m²* out of a mere temperature difference of *0.001C*.



Newsflash...I didn't derive that equation...it is the physical law.  And I guess you didn't know that the total amount radiated is calculated based on the area of the radiator...Change the area, change the amount of radiation. Are you saying that the equation is wrong?  Got any evidence to support that claim.

You know, there are SB calculators online in which you can plug those numbers and get the same answer...again...are you saying the SB equation is incorrect and therefore the SB law is wrong?




Wuwei said:


> Why does your formula heat a speck of matter ever more strongly as the size of the enclosing box gets larger? Maybe you should trash your understanding of the SB law and go along with the textbooks on the subject. Eh?








See that capital A in the equation...increase that number and you increase P.  Since the enclosing box is the radiator, it is what is emitting...Do you really not know this?  Again...you think the SB equation is wrong?  You think the SB law is incorrect?  Because the number derived is based on the SB equation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

IanC said:


> If you were going to use SSDDs S-B equation for the Earth's surface radiating into the atmosphere, what value would you put in for emissivity? How would it affect _P_?
> 
> Do you use surface emissivity which is nearly a perfect blackbody at infrared frequencies?  Or do you use the atmospheric emissivity that is high or low depending on the exact wavelength ?
> 
> How do we count the radiation lost to space that simply transits the atmosphere without reacting with it?



You can't apply the SB equation to a gas ian...yet another reason climate models are failures.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

mamooth said:


> One being clear about what's physically happening. No need to discuss that further, as your well-documented cult retardation there is only interesting in an abnormal-psychology kind of way.



Sorry hairball...any equation in which you must use the SB constant twice would allow you to set T to a temperature lower than that of Tc...that violates the SB law...sorry



mamooth said:


> I asked for you to set up the different equations for each of the between the hotter background and cooler background cases. You didn't even try. And why didn't you try? Because you couldn't. You clearly have no idea of how your kook theory is supposed to work in practice.


]

Of course you did...if you knew the first thing about the SB law, you would have phrased the question differently...the SB law assumes that T is always warmer than Tc...(the c is for cold)  The background must be cooler than the radiator...when you made the box warmer than the speck of material housed inside, you made the box the radiator...emitting energy to the cooler speck..

As I pointed out, we had to make the surroundings a box because if it were just warm air which has no area, the SB equation would not be applicable..



mamooth said:


> Care to give it another shot? Don't put in the numbers, just show the formulas in each case, and explain what each term means in a physical way.



Other than a typo, what I did was correct...feel free to plug the numbers into the equation yourself... bottom of the page.  By the way...your equation is for an object emitting into a vacuum...not an object in the presence of other matter..

Stefan-Boltzmann Law


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?
> ...



*refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area*

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?


----------



## IanC (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Yup. Every temperature differential was caused by something. 

Once warmed, everything tries to cool down to absolute zero. The problem is finding some other 'everything' to take the energy.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Newsflash...I didn't derive that equation.



You totally did not understand the example Mamooth set up. Here is his question again.



mamooth said:


> We have a speck of matter at 20C.
> 
> Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 19.999C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.
> 
> Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 20.001C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.



Your first use of the equation correctly shows the heat flow from the "speck".
Your second equation shows absolutely nothing about that heat flow of the speck. But you change the subject to the heat flow of the enclosing box. It is a simple legitimate question, but you miserably failed to understand it and tried a distraction by focusing on the surround instead of the object in question .

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash...I didn't derive that equation.
> ...


well again, as SSDD already said about one hundred times in here,  T is always greater than Tc and the 'c' is for cold.  so explain how, in the box scenario, he got it wrong?  the box would radiate since it is warmer than the speck.  That is the 2nd law.  why would the box know to violate that law?


----------



## Crick (Jan 15, 2019)

Wow...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> Wow...


wow squared.


----------



## Crick (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F



Still wondering what the F this statement is supposed to mean.  Can ANYONE here explain to me what an "equilbrium temperature" might be?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course you did...if you knew the first thing about the SB law, you would have phrased the question differently...the SB law assumes that T is always warmer than Tc...(the c is for cold)



You and your lackey here are the only humans that I've ever seen who claim such a crazy thing. Here's how the normal people say it works.

Net energy out = A*e*sigma *T1^4  -  A*e*sigma T2^4.

The first term is heat radiated out, the second is heat absorbed from the environment. It holds for all combinations of T1 (object temp) and T2 (enviro temp).

Now, since you won't explain your theory in detail, I'm going to take my best attempt at it, based on what you've told us.

If T1 < T2, you say the equation is the same.

If T1 > T2, you say this is the new equation:

Net energy out = A*e*sigma (T1^4 - T2^4) - 0

Where again the first term is energy out, and the second term (the zero) is energy in. It reduces to the same thing as the first equation, but the physical working of the terms is quite different. In your magical system, as soon as the environment temp drops below the object temp, the radiation of the object changes from

A*e*sigma *T1^4

to

A*e*sigma (T1^4 - T2^4)

That is, not only does the environment somehow know not to radiated towards the object, but the object itself makes a very abrupt jump in the way it radiates to the environment, instantly going from radiating strongly to hardly radiating at all.

So, what physical process causes the matter in both the object and in the environment to make such an abrupt change in how they radiate?

Can you think of an experiment to prove your theory is correct? Can you think of an experiment that would disprove it?

Occam's razor says the simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely to be correct. While you've twisted reality around so that your theory sort of explains the observed data, you version is a far more complicated theory than the mainstream theory. Do you advocate ignoring the razor only in this case?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash...I didn't derive that equation.
> ...



That is because there is no heat flow from the speck...The SB law assumes that T is warmer than Tc (here is a clue...the c in Tc is for cold)...If you are going to use the SB equation, to look at energy flow between objects of different temperature, then you are obliged to show energy moving in one direction from a warm object to a cold object...sorry...it doesn't work any other way.

The miserable misunderstanding belongs to you and the hairball...thinking that you can get a two way energy flow out of that equation...the hairball tried doing it with the equation reserved for a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you try to make Tc warmer than T...you really can't read an equation, can you?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you did...if you knew the first thing about the SB law, you would have phrased the question differently...the SB law assumes that T is always warmer than Tc...(the c is for cold)
> ...



There is no "net" energy...and you can't derive it from the SB equation...

Here are the proper forms of the equations related to the SB law:

The thermal energy radiated by a black body radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by






(MY NOTE)  This equation describes a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...in other words...a model that doesn't exist)


For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:





where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

(MY NOTE)  The author states net radiation loss...but there is no expression within that equation, or any of the equations from which net may be derived...it is an opinion, not expressed in either the law, or the associated equations.





The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is also related to the energy density in the radiation in a given volume of space.

*The first term is heat radiated out, the second is heat absorbed from the environment. It holds for all combinations of T1 (object temp) and T2 (enviro temp).
*
*(MY NOTE)  The statement above is what I have been trying to explain to you goops....T is the radiator...Tc is the cooler background...There is no expression within the equation wherein the cooler back ground radiates anything...and you note that they don't use the goofy bastardized equation used by alarmist cultist nuts which allows Tc to be set to a higher temperature than T)*



mamooth said:


> Now, since you won't explain your theory in detail, I'm going to take my best attempt at it, based on what you've told us.



I have no theory...I only have the physical law, and the proper use of the equations....you have some nut ball idea that you can somehow set the temperature of Tc to a higher temperature than T and by magic, make energy flow spontaneously in two directions in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics...

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 do keep in mind that the SB law is just talking about energy flows...Wuwei likes to pretend that heat is somehow not energy...but with the SB law, heat is not a consideration..it only deals with energy flows...and as the second law says, ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERARAURE OBJECT.

That fact is the reason the SB law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc...  The c is for (cool) and unlike you cultists...S-B respect the second law of thermodynamics and never suggest that energy can flow spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?
> ...



*refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area*

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> That is because there is no heat flow from the speck...


Totally wrong. 


SSDD said:


> The SB law assumes that T is warmer than Tc


Totally wrong.


SSDD said:


> If you are going to use the SB equation, to look at energy flow between objects of different temperature, then you are obliged to show energy moving in one direction from a warm object to a cold object.


Totally wrong.


SSDD said:


> The miserable misunderstanding belongs to you and the hairball.


You are essentially saying every physicist has a miserable understanding. You are alone in your fake science . 

When I say you are totally wrong. I mean you disagree with every physicist and text book and you promote the violation of many physical laws and observations and experiments. We have been through this many times but you prefer to remain a troll. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


maybe you should ask it.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That is because there is no heat flow from the speck...
> ...


every physicist?  you asked them all?  read them all, even know them all.  your exaggerations are spectacular.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> There is no "net" energy...and you can't derive it from the SB equation.



Totally wrong as usual. This is is a typical derivation understood by everyone but you.








SSDD said:


> (MY NOTE) This equation describes a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...in other words...a model that doesn't exist)


That is your wishful thinking. A hot object radiates everywhere. You have no scientific source that says otherwise.


SSDD said:


> I have no theory...I only have the physical law, and the proper use of the equations...


Total BS. You don't understand thermodynamics. Period.


SSDD said:


> That fact is the reason the SB law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc.


Nope. Wrong again. See the Dartmouth paper.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "net" energy...and you can't derive it from the SB equation.
> ...


explain in your words the equation you just posted.  why don't you ever explain it?  please enlighten us to your point of that picture.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2019)

JC, Note the second line in the second portion - beneath the dividing bar.  What does that equation begin with?  Rnet=.  This was in response to SSDD's statement that "There is no "net" energy.  You cannot derive it from the SB equation."


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> JC, Note the second line in the second portion - beneath the dividing bar.  What does that equation begin with?  Rnet=.  This was in response to SSDD's statement that "There is no "net" energy.  You cannot derive it from the SB equation."


there is no net.  it is P.  the outcome of the equation is to look for P.  power.  it isn't for Rnet.  SB equation has been posted in nausea in here.  The equation looks for P.   T is the radiator and Tc the cooler object.  the second law says that cold can not move toward warm without work.  The SB equation can't be used for CO2, since there is no area of CO2.  You folks are truly brainwashed fks.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2019)

Shakes head


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> Shakes head


keep earplugs in, don't want what brain you have to slide out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It would give a more intelligent answer than you're capable of...…..


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


go for it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I just talked to some of SSDD's smart photons. They agree you're a moron.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


thank you.  I appreciate that you spoke to those photons.  so now you admit they are smart photons.  As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Totally wrong.



And yet...every observation and measurement ever made agrees with me...



Wuwei said:


> Totally wrong.



So you can't read an equation...how unsurprising is that?



SSDD said:


> You are essentially saying every physicist has a miserable understanding. You are alone in your fake science .



I am just stating what the physical laws, and the equations associated with them say...if the physical laws are wrong, then get them changed..



Wuwei said:


> When I say you are totally wrong. I mean you disagree with every physicist and text book and you promote the violation of many physical laws and observations and experiments. We have been through this many times but you prefer to remain a troll.



Actually, you don't have a clue and the only thing I disagree with is your incessant always wrong interpretation...

The equations I provided above say what they say...a mathematical equation is not open to interpretation...it is an explicit statement and has an explicit meaning...sorry you can't read it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> JC, Note the second line in the second portion - beneath the dividing bar.  What does that equation begin with?  Rnet=.  This was in response to SSDD's statement that "There is no "net" energy.  You cannot derive it from the SB equation."



Got any observed, measured instance of spontaneous net energy flow?  Didn't think so..   We can certainly measure energy moving from warm objects to cool objects, but can't measure energy moving in the other direction...Net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...it doesn't exist in reality.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


>


Since you are cross posting your same crap. I will cross post my reply. 

Tell me why you think the standard derivation of that form of the SB equation in textbooks is wrong.

Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "_II. Uber die Bestimmung ......._"
This is the translation of the first two sentences

_The absolute magnitude of the heat emitted by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of heat radiated by the body over the warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment._​
At the bottom of page 411, he writes,
_We choose the law of radiation as the formula of the fourth powers of the absolute temperature thus_
_H_₁ _= A _T₁⁴_ . . . H_₂ _= A _T₂⁴​_in which A is largely dependent on the surface of the body. _[Later called emissivity.]
_The cooling rate for the bare thermometer bulb is determined by_
w₁ = 3A/r₁cs (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​
The Dartmouth excerpt even uses the same notation of temperatures T₁⁴ and T₂⁴. Stefan refers to heat with an H, for the German Hitze.
None of the hundreds of thousands of scientists since then have disagreed with Stefan. In essence you are calling the understanding of Stefan and thousands and thousands of scientists since then *bullshit*.

Au contraire, what you are saying is *total bullshit*.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I appreciate that you spoke to those photons. *

No problem. It's nice to speak to something smarter than you.

*As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.*

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature*

they don't need one, the physical law will ensure they flow correctly warm to cold.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have no theory...



On that, everyone agrees. Even when pressed, you can't even state what your theory supposedly says.

I asked you for an experiment that could prove or disprove your version of reality. You're unable to come up with one. As your theory is not disprovable, it therefore falls in the category of a religion or pseudoscience.

Let me help you out, by designing such an experiment.

Take 2 large and thin metal plates, placed in parallel close together. Put thermocouples on them, put them in a near-vacuum and isolate them from the environment. Let them come to thermal equilibrium at the same temperature.

Then, using a small distributed heating element inside the right plate, increase its temperature just a bit, so that it's now warmer than the left plate.

According to the sane theory, that will have almost no effect on the temperature of the left plate. The increase in radiation out of the right plate will be tiny, so there will be only a tiny increase in temperature of the left plate.

According to your cuckoobananas theory, the left plate will be now be unable to radiate rightwards at the warmer right plate, so the molecules on the right surface of the left plate will be forced to radiate leftwards back into itself, so the left plate will warm strongly.

Needless to say, that won't happen. The system will behave as the sane physics predicts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Tell me why you think the standard derivation of that form of the SB equation in textbooks is wrong.



First...that isn't the "standard" deviation...it is used in a few textbooks, primarily used in teaching the soft science of climatology....



Wuwei said:


> Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
> http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf



And it is sweet how you believe you saw your "standard derivation" in Stefan's work...it isn't there...and there isn't a single instance in the entire paper in which the temperature of T is greater than Tc..not one...




Wuwei said:


> At the bottom of page 411, he writes,
> _We choose the law of radiation as the formula of the fourth powers of the absolute temperature thus_
> _H_₁ _= A _T₁⁴_ . . . H_₂ _= A _T₂⁴​_in which A is largely dependent on the surface of the body. _[Later called emissivity.]
> _The cooling rate for the bare thermometer bulb is determined by_
> w₁ = 3A/r₁cs (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​




Newsflash...he is only telling you about how much energy the radiator is losing...In which part of that equation do you believe you believe you see T at a lower temperature thanTc?  That equation only gives you information about how much energy the radiator is losing...​


Wuwei said:


> The Dartmouth excerpt even uses the same notation of temperatures T₁⁴ and T₂⁴. Stefan refers to heat with an H, for the German Hitze.



No...your Dartmouth piece of crap is set up in such a fashion to allow Tc to be warmer than T...therein lies the error...Stefan assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc...one way energy flow...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

mamooth said:


> On that, everyone agrees. Even when pressed, you can't even state what your theory supposedly says.



My statement is that of the physical law...without alteration...without interpretation...without change...your claims are not.



mamooth said:


> I asked you for an experiment that could prove or disprove your version of reality. You're unable to come up with one. As your theory is not disprovable, it therefore falls in the category of a religion or pseudoscience.



Every experiment on spontaneous energy movement ever done shows one thing...one way movement from warm to cool...precisely as the physical law states...if you believe some experiment has shown spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm, by all means post it up.



mamooth said:


> Let me help you out, by designing such an experiment.



Thought experiments from a hairball who can't read an equation...that's rich.  Rather than make up a thought experiment...just show me something done in the real world...energy movement is easily measured in the 21st century...no need to make something up...show me a real experiment that demonstrate spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warm object.


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2019)

You have been shown multiple statements of physical law, including by their very originators, that show your interpretation to be completely incorrect.  You simply pretend you never heard or saw such things. You've become really tiresome.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> First...that isn't the "standard" deviation...it is used in a few textbooks, primarily used in teaching the soft science of climatology....


You are totally wrong. It occurs in all textbooks that demonstrate the derivation. You have no source that says otherwise.



SSDD said:


> Every experiment on spontaneous energy movement ever done shows one thing...one way movement from warm to cool...precisely as the physical law states...if you believe some experiment has shown spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm, by all means post it up.


All experiments show one way movement of *heat* from warm to cool. Here are the experiments or observations that show spontaneous movement of photons from cooler temperature to a warmer temperature.
Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​


SSDD said:


> Newsflash...he is only telling you about how much energy the radiator is losing.


Stefan showed the derivation of his equation in the same form as the Dartmouth derivation.



SSDD said:


> No...your Dartmouth piece of crap is set up in such a fashion to allow Tc to be warmer than T...therein lies the error...Stefan assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc...one way energy flow...


Liar. Stefan showed no such thing. But yes we know you  believe thermodynamics is a piece of crap.

You can't say anything about science unless you lie, or say proven science is crap.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have been shown multiple statements of physical law, including by their very originators, that show your interpretation to be completely incorrect.  You simply pretend you never heard or saw such things. You've become really tiresome.



No...none of those statements ever said anything about net energy flow...they all describe one way energy movement from warm to cool...the interpretations you guys indulged in talked about net...but the laws themselves...not so much.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You are totally wrong. It occurs in all textbooks that demonstrate the derivation. You have no source that says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2019)

Man, are you stretching.  

Wuwei has posted multiple derivations of heat transfer work that indicate two way flow and the second law satisfied by net energy transfer.  You have shown us ZILCH.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



How else would they warm the atmosphere?


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?
> ...



You're not answering his question JC.  Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface?  Yes or No?


----------



## IanC (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


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



Stop bullying our mentally challenged SSDD sycophant. You know he doesn't actually  understand any of this.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2019)

Crick said:


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


nothing radiates to the warmer surface.


----------



## IanC (Jan 18, 2019)

Every gas molecule that has the necessary internal conditions will emit a photon in a random direction. Whether it is travelling in the direction of space or the surface is just a matter of chance.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Man, are you stretching.
> 
> Wuwei has posted multiple derivations of heat transfer work that indicate two way flow and the second law satisfied by net energy transfer.  You have shown us ZILCH.




Sorry...he has posted no such thing...what he has posted was bullshit but by your own admission...it is good enough to fool you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Crick said:


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



No...energy only moves from warm to cool...but a molecule has no temperature..is there any trick you won't pull in an attempt to fool someone?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


He isn’t fooling me. He still hasn’t answered your initial questions. Deflection is all he’s posted


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me Ian, if almost all absorbed LWIR is relieved by collision then there is no LWIR to be emitted fromCO2... how is your GHG atmosphere going to work now?
> ...


LOL...

How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?


----------



## IanC (Jan 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?



You are a moron. Define your questions so that they can be understood without making assumptions to fill in your gaps.

What LWIR ?

What does the hot spot have to do with this? It is a function of H2O phase change and its reduced presence is an indicator that the 3x feedback is in error, not the instigating 1C/2xCO2.

What dataset are you using to show zero warming of the oceans? That runs counter to what I have seen.

I reiterate- you are an idiot who simply spews whatever idea comes into your head, no matter how ridiculous it is. 

As an actual skeptic with a nuanced and supportable viewpoint on climate science, it makes me nauseous that I am lumped into the same nominal group as crazy ignoramuses like you. You do more damage than good.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?
> ...


No back radiation . I’m correct. You can’t prove otherwise


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?
> ...


LOL..

YOUR premise is that black body radiation from the earth is getting trapped somewhere in the system making the planet warm.  Point to it Ian.. Where is it?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Man, are you stretching.
> ...


Nope. You are the one who posts bullshit and you know it.


----------



## IanC (Jan 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I have explained in detail many times in the past.

Do you agree that an atmosphere that had no GHGs would still warm the surface?

If your answer is yes then I can describe how the addition of greenhouse gases will enhance that effect.

If we are still in agreement after that, then I can describe the mechanism by which adding more of the same GHGs probably adds more warming.

So the first step is for you to write a short synopsis of how an atmosphere warms the surface, ie how energy is stored and released.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Do you understand conduction convection?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

IanC said:


> probably adds


LOL

For which you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF!


----------



## IanC (Jan 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Do you understand conduction convection?



Hahahahaha. 

What three things are necessary for convection to take place?


----------



## IanC (Jan 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > probably adds
> ...



Not willing to discuss the undeniable warming effect of an atmosphere, or the obvious effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere?

Instead you want to argue about the feeble difference caused by adding more of a GHG that is already 'saturated'?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


SO now you agree that CO2 is saturated and has no more power in our atmosphere at current levels?


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> YOUR premise is that black body radiation from the earth is getting trapped somewhere in the system making the planet warm. Point to it Ian.. Where is it?



For a change you are actually close to getting it.

Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.

The energy to warm the atmosphere and surface is simply borrowed from the amount that would have escaped to space if the insulation was not retarding it.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



No.

Increasing CO2 is a warming influence. Whether warming actually happens depends on the total of all the individual influences.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.



CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere....it doesn't reduce the ability of the atmosphere to shed energy...it increases it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No...increasing CO2 is a cooling influence...it increases the emissivity of the atmosphere.

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is trending towards zero according to the studies...zero or less is where it will end up.  Then perhaps you will come to see how terribly flawed your ideas about how energy moves through the atmosphere were.....or not.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.
> ...


Correct;

This is exactly what we found in our experiment.


----------



## IanC (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.
> ...




Without CO2 all the surface produced 15 micron radiation directly escapes to space at the speed of light. Maximum efficiency.

But you think the meagre portion that atmospheric CO2  finally released to space from high altitude and ~-50C is more than the surface 15 micron radiation produced at 15C which is totally absorbed within a few metres.

I suppose you need to believe the unbelievable to keep your bizarre theory of physics working.


----------



## IanC (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Climate sensitivity estimates are trending towards 1.xC per doubling of CO2. 

If it were trending towards zero then close to one half of all estimates would be negative.

I don't know of any climate sensitivity  estimates that are negative. Do you?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

IanC said:


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



Climate sensitivity is trending towards zero...it may be at 1C now...but the inexorable trend is to zero or less.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand conduction convection?
> ...


the sun, the surface and the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2019)

QUOTE="SSDD, post: 21663211, member: 40906"]





IanC said:


> Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.



CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere....it doesn't reduce the ability of the atmosphere to shed energy...it increases it.[/QUOTE]


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^DING, DING, DING, DING^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2019)

Crick said:


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




IF it does, whats is the effect of a low energy piece of matter vibrating at much lower frequency going to do?  Will the more energetic matter adsorb it or will it reflect it?  Please show your work.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2019)

IanC said:


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


I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Billy,  I did an experiment using two cups of hot coffee, one cup had ice above it and the other cooled into the open air. I benchmarked the temps of both cups to the same temperature to start off with, poured from the same pot.  I expected the coffee in the cup with the two ice cubes above it to cool faster based on what the warmers state.  It didn't.  They both cooled at the same rate. again, I had thermometers in each cup.  All that happened was the two ice cubes melted away above that coffee in the cup.  Imagine that.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Wrong. Try again.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> QUOTE="SSDD, post: 21663211, member: 40906"]
> 
> 
> 
> ...




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^DING, DING, DING, DING^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/QUOTE]

Wrong again. 15 micron radiation would escape to space at the speed of light without CO2 to absorb it. While the atmosphere does finally emit a small amount of 15 micron radiation close to the TOA, it is a much smaller amount than the radiation absorbed from the warmer surface.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..



Why are you interested in logarithms in base 10 rather than natural logarithms? Why do you capitalize it as LOG?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..
> ...


Probably because he fails to understand why LOG functions exist.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Partially replacing the 20C background with 0C ice cubes would make the coffee cool faster.

Because radiation is only roughly a few percent of the efficiency of conduction or convection, you would have to measure the temperature loss of the cups very carefully.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2019)

IanC said:


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


No sun no lwir


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Partially replacing the 20C background with 0C ice cubes would make the coffee cool faster.


But you said that adding anything that can radiate would make it cool slower?  I'm confused by your double talk..  So are the less energetic photons cooling the hotter coffee?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > and can only Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I understand it quite well... What you alarmists fail to understand in a LOG function there is always a corresponding trade off.. In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time. As you add more and more of a substance that can not warm to the atmosphere it will displace items that can warm allowing faster cooling. 

You folks are having a hard time with first year physics concepts...


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




You're getting colder. Try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*You folks are having a hard time with first year physics concepts.*

That reminds me.....were magnetic photons a lie or just stupidity?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


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


so you think there is LWIR without sunlight?  oh, ok.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


that reminds me, you still haven't proven back radiation.  why?


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Partially replacing the 20C background with 0C ice cubes would make the coffee cool faster.
> ...



You were confused for a long time before I came along and started to give you simple explanations.

All things radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. That radiation would result in maximum cooling if the object was in deep space receiving no outside radiation in return.

Here on earth, an object is always receiving radiation energy from the environment. A little from cold things, a lot from warm things.

Here is the simple point that you guys seem incapable of understanding. The object always radiates the same amount of energy! Only the rate of cooling is affected by the incoming radiation from the environment. 

A cup of coffee cools fastest in a freezer, a little less quickly in a fridge, slower still sitting on the counter, and very little cooling would happen if it was sitting under a heat lamp.

But at all times, regardless of the outside conditions, the object radiates according to its temperature and emissivity.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


but ice over coffee doesn't slow it's rate of cooling.  You, and I'm confident here, stated that cold will slow the rate of warming.  Yes or no?


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You specifically asked me about conduction and convection. I then asked you to state the three main conditions necessary for convection. You failed miserably and are now mewling about long wave infrared radiation.

A car engine sheds internally produced heat by pumping water through the engine and out to the radiator.

Can you identify the main parts of that system? Can you then identify the analogs in our environment ?

Edit- I am trying to get you to think. It is the only way to learn anything. Just hearing an answer or explanation does nothing until it makes sense.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.



Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> but ice over coffee doesn't slow it's rate of cooling. You, and I'm confident here, stated that cold will slow the rate of warming. Yes or no?



What part of this reply are you having problems with?


Here is the simple point that you guys seem incapable of understanding. The object always radiates the same amount of energy! Only the rate of cooling is affected by the incoming radiation from the environment.

A cup of coffee cools fastest in a freezer, a little less quickly in a fridge, slower still sitting on the counter, and very little cooling would happen if it was sitting under a heat lamp.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.
> ...



The point is that the radiative greenhouse effect upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are not possible because conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement though the troposphere...the only hypothesis that will work is one in which conduction is the key player...like the gravito thermal effect.. Say, for instance, the molar version of the ideal gas law...which predicts the temperature without need for ad hoc fudge factors and accurately predicts the temperatures everywhere there is an atmosphere of at least 10kPa


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You keep making a fuss over convection and conduction while totally ignoring the elephant in the room. Energy only leaves the Earth system by radiation.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > but ice over coffee doesn't slow it's rate of cooling. You, and I'm confident here, stated that cold will slow the rate of warming. Yes or no?
> ...


so you agree that cold does not slow down the rate of cooling on a hot object.  therefore, the surface cooling isn't affected by the cooler atmosphere.  Ok, I agree with you.  And the more CO2 in the atmosphere does nothing to the rate of cooling.  wow, that's a mile marker today.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


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


he never said it didn't.  wow.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


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



You are the one ignoring the elephant...the greenhouse effect..and the enhanced greenhouse effect which is supposed to represent man made global warming are tropospheric phenomena...the fact that energy leaves the atmosphere via radiation happens in the stratosphere where the greenhouse effect is irrelevant...

Here...have a look at this...yet more predictive failures of both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618305030

Again..in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a new hypothesis which doesn't produce predictive failures?

In pseudoscience, failures are fine so long as the funding keeps coming in...you have fallen for pseudoscience...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> A cup of coffee cools fastest in a freezer, a little less quickly in a fridge, slower still sitting on the counter, and very little cooling would happen if it was sitting under a heat lamp.


I thought your colder atmosphere warmed things?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.
> ...


Thank you for making my point for me...

"That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time."

This means that the energy absorbed by CO2 near surface is spent in collision with other molecules, water vapor being the primary one.  Only 3/1,000,000,000 of the photons are re-radiated and less than half of that is RE-RADIATED TOWARDS THE EARTH. This makes CO2 an insignificant player in the near earth atmosphere as conduction and convection have a 1,000,000,000/3 ratio of energy transfer..

This is why back-radiation is almost wholly a fantasy..


----------



## jc456 (Jan 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I agree with this accept that nothing is re-radiated back toward the surface.  It is radiated toward the colder vacuum of space.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


QM theroy states "all mater radiates, at its black body temperature, in all directions, above absolute zero kelvin."

While this is a mathematical construct and not proven, its the theroy, which does not interfere with the second law of energy movement. The reason it doesn't is how a more organized/energetic body reacts to less organized/lower energy photon.

When a lower energy photon (matter) hits a warmer  body it must warm the photon matter. In doing so it consumes energy cooling the bigger mass. This is one of the hotly debated actions of a photon, is it energy or mass.. It acts like mass cooling the larger object according to empirical experiment..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*When a lower energy photon (matter) hits a warmer body it must warm the photon matter. In doing so it consumes energy cooling the bigger mass. *

I didn't think I'd see anything dumber than your "magnetic photon" claim, but you've out done yourself!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The point is that the radiative greenhouse effect upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are not possible because conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement though the troposphere...the only hypothesis that will work is one in which conduction is the key player...like the gravito thermal effect.. Say, for instance, the molar version of the ideal gas law...which predicts the temperature without need for ad hoc fudge factors and accurately predicts the temperatures everywhere there is an atmosphere of at least 10kPa



The mean free path of surface IR is 2 or 3 meters at the absorption frequencies of GHGs. Absorption is almost complete around a few dozen meters That energy is transfered by molecular collision to the air. That heats the air near the surface. Conduction and mostly convection carry the heat to higher altitudes and follow the lapse rate.

There is more to it than just the molar version of the IGL. Otherwise the earth atmosphere would have the same surface temperature whether it has the same orbit of Mercury or Pluto.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The mean free path of surface IR is 2 or 3 meters at the absorption frequencies of GHGs. Absorption is almost complete around a few dozen meters That energy is transfered by molecular collision to the air. That heats the air near the surface. Conduction and mostly convection carry the heat to higher altitudes and follow the lapse rate.
> 
> There is more to it than just the molar version of the IGL. Otherwise the earth atmosphere would have the same surface temperature whether it has the same orbit of Mercury or Pluto.
> 
> .




The "mean free path" is meaningless....The energy absorbed by CO2 is lost in centimeters from the surface if not millimeters...if not fractions of millimeters...and conducted and convected on to the top of the troposphere...radiation is an insignificant meaningless afterthought in the transport of energy through the troposphere...there is no radiative greenhouse effect..and no AGW....the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less...

But do feel free to provide some observed, measured evidence to support your inevitable claims.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The "mean free path" is meaningless....The energy absorbed by CO2 is lost in centimeters from the surface if not millimeters...if not fractions of millimeters.


I already looked up the mean free path and kept notes:
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
mean free-path length is quite short (and at 15 microns, is very close to *3 meters*)....

CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view
The mean free path of a surface 15 micron IR photon is less than *2 metres,* the *extinction height is roughly 10 metres*.

Other references:
typically within *a few meters*, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations

 very short (a* few metres *at sea level)

I would call that a radiative greenhouse effect.



SSDD said:


> and conducted and convected on to the top of the troposphere.


Conduction is very small - fractions of a milliWatt. I would think convection is much stronger.

*Temperature flow via conduction*
Thermal conductivity in air 26 mW / m K
Lapse rate 9.8 C/km. = .0098 C/m Temperature drop per meter
Thermal Conductivity = 26 mW x 0.0098 K = 0.255 mW per meter

It doesn't matter what carries the surface heat to the TOA. The lapse rate does not depend on anything but gravity and specific heat.

*Lapse rate = gravitational acceleration / specific heat*

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The "mean free path" is meaningless....The energy absorbed by CO2 is lost in centimeters from the surface if not millimeters...if not fractions of millimeters.
> ...




LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Those who believe that there is are dupes...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


SO you have proof that the debate about a photon being matter or energy was complete?  lINK


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SO you have proof that the debate about a photon being matter or energy was complete?  lINK



Ian figured he had learned everything there was to know decades ago so he saw no need to keep abreast of what is going on in the world...He hasn't learned anything new since....  Clearly, the topic of whether or not photons are matter has never even been a blip on his radar..  The blinders he wears must make Elton John's most "fashionable" sunglasses look minuscule in comparison.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Those who believe that there is are dupes...



There is nothing in the molar form of the IGL that uses solar input energy. Using the molar form of the IGL do you think the earth surface temperature would be the same whether it has the orbit of Mercury or Pluto? If not, how does solar energy fit into the IGL?

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Those who believe that there is are dupes...
> ...




This discussion has taken place at least a couple of times...feel free to refer to either of those if you must relive your defeats over and over.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Nope you could never answer that question. Someone else asked you that too. So you ran and hid as you are doing now. Block your eyes. Run and hide.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> [
> 
> Nope you could never answer that question. Someone else asked you that too. So you ran and hid as you are doing now. Block your eyes. Run and hide.



It was answered repeatedly....sorry you aren't bright enough to remember...it is baked in since the atmospheric parameters would vary should the solar insolation change...as is clearly evident by the fact that it works everywhere...not just here as with the greenhouse effect, and requires no ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



If you have any links that back up your claim that photons are magnetic or that photons are matter, post 'em.
If you have any that back up your claim that low energy photons cool matter because the "photon matter needs to be warmed up, which consumes energy" show me.

Because your claims are starting to make SSDDs idiocy seem logical, by comparison.


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2019)

_


SSDD said:



			But do feel free to provide some observed, measured evidence to support your inevitable claims.
		
Click to expand...



Abstract:_

Through the application of astrophysical formulas, the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide and its total emissivity are calculated. *The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 meters*. Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide — which is ~4 milliseconds (ms).

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> This is one of the hotly debated actions of a photon, is it energy or mass.. It acts like mass cooling the larger object according to empirical experiment..



Photons exhibit wave/particle duality because despite have a measurable wave nature, either their position or their momentum may be calculated.  They have no mass.  They are not matter.  Period.


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2019)

Crick said:


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




What an odd choice for a warmer to link to.


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because your claims are starting to make SSDDs idiocy seem logical, by comparison



I agree that BillyBoob has gone off the deep end.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> It was answered repeatedly....sorry you aren't bright enough to remember...it is baked in since the atmospheric parameters would vary should the solar insolation change...as is clearly evident by the fact that it works everywhere...not just here as with the greenhouse effect, and requires no ad hoc fudge factor.



Ah yes, now I remember. The new physics term "baked in". If you can't explain it simply call it "baked in".  I also remember that the author had an article that only said atmospheric gases in planets follow the IGL. But he didn't compute anything of merit about planetary atmospherics. I also remember that you didn't understand analytic geometry.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2019)

Crick said:


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




Here is the conclusion to the paper that Crick posted-



> _Conclusions_
> The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.
> At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 _s_, i.e. 2.45 _cs_ (_centiseconds_). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 _s_) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 _s_), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
> The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.
> ...



I don't think that was the point Crick was trying to make. It reminds me of every time SSDD has put up a link.

Nahle is deceptive rather than just outright wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > _
> ...



The fact is that CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world...it doesn't warm the atmosphere...it doesn't cause warming..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It was answered repeatedly....sorry you aren't bright enough to remember...it is baked in since the atmospheric parameters would vary should the solar insolation change...as is clearly evident by the fact that it works everywhere...not just here as with the greenhouse effect, and requires no ad hoc fudge factor.
> ...



As usual...your memory is either terribly flawed, or you interpreted it so grossly that you can't remember what was posted...he provided the work for all his claims...  this is another tedious thing about you...constantly correcting your flawed memory and your incessant interpretation of everything in an effort to either make it agree with you, or discredit it.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The fact is that CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world...it doesn't warm the atmosphere...it doesn't cause warming..



After all these years I am still surprised when you put unrelated ideas together and call it proof.

CO2 does not change phase at terrestrial temperatures and pressures. What mechanism are you alluding to?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world...it doesn't warm the atmosphere...it doesn't cause warming..
> ...



The ideas are not unrelated...the disconnect exists between your ears.  Tell me ian, why is CO2 the most widely used industrial coolant?


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

Cryogenic cooling with CO2 utilizes a special case of phase change. Because of its chemical properties, it has no liquid state below 75 psi.  It is said to have a triple point instead, where it can simultaneously exist in all three states, liquid, gas and solid.  Most elements or chemical compounds have a triple point at some combination of pressure and temperature ( for example water has a triple point at .088 atmospheres and 0.01 Degrees C.)  For CO2 the triple point happens in the range releasing to atmosphere CO2 of normal tank temperatures and pressures.  What this means for cooling purposes is that when liquid CO2 is precisely introduced to the system and the pressure is dropped dramatically such as at the nozzle of a spray gun or cooling injector tube on a temperature chamber or thermal platform (coldplate), the liquid quickly turns to dry ice _snow_, solid state CO2. As the dry ice warms up, the resulting phase change is the direct change from solid to gas, called sublimation.  There is a great release of the latent heat as the CO2sublimates.

How Cooling With CO2 works - TotalTemp Technologies


CO2 is economically advantageous for applications above -50C.  Below that, other gases are more widely used.  In the range of domestic refrigerators and freezers, of course, freon is the refrigerant of choice.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 26, 2019)

Cant wait to see the ice cover in two weeks after this monster polar vortex settles in. But for sure I'll be laughing my balls off ( if they haven't already fallen off in the cold.  )


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> Cryogenic cooling with CO2 utilizes a special case of phase change. Because of its chemical properties, it has no liquid state below 75 psi.  It is said to have a triple point instead, where it can simultaneously exist in all three states, liquid, gas and solid.  Most elements or chemical compounds have a triple point at some combination of pressure and temperature ( for example water has a triple point at .088 atmospheres and 0.01 Degrees C.)  For CO2 the triple point happens in the range releasing to atmosphere CO2 of normal tank temperatures and pressures.  What this means for cooling purposes is that when liquid CO2 is precisely introduced to the system and the pressure is dropped dramatically such as at the nozzle of a spray gun or cooling injector tube on a temperature chamber or thermal platform (coldplate), the liquid quickly turns to dry ice _snow_, solid state CO2. As the dry ice warms up, the resulting phase change is the direct change from solid to gas, called sublimation.  There is a great release of the latent heat as the CO2sublimates.
> 
> How Cooling With CO2 works - TotalTemp Technologies
> 
> ...



Really now s0n? Is that so? And just how many Americans give a shit about CO2 phase changes and latent heat in a refrigerator?

I will tell you.....about 37!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 26, 2019)

JC.....Billy.....you know what? Sometimes I hit the SUBMIT button and I'm laughing so hard I'm tearing up and almost shitting my pants!!!

When I joined up in here 10 years ago, I could never have imagined I'd have so many laughs at others expense. Place can be such a hoot!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Tell me, Are you ignorant of the positive and negative charges in all matter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Still can't find a source, eh?


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

pho·ton
*Dictionary result for photon*
/ˈfōtän/
_noun_
PHYSICS
plural noun: *photons*

a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
Feedback
*Web results*
*Photon - Wikipedia*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
The photon is a type of elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force (even when static via virtual particles). The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum.

*Photon*, also called *light quantum*, minute energy packet of electromagnetic radiation. The concept originated (1905) in Albert Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect, in which he proposed the existence of discrete energy packets during the transmission of light. Earlier (1900), the German physicist Max Planck had prepared the way for the concept by explaining that heat radiation is emitted and absorbed in distinct units, or quanta. The concept came into general use after the U.S. physicist Arthur H. Compton demonstrated (1923) the corpuscular nature of X-rays. The term _photon_(from Greek _phōs_, _phōtos_, “light”), however, was not used until 1926. The energy of a photon depends on radiation frequency; there are photons of all energies from high-energy gamma- and X-rays, through visible light, to low-energy infrared and radio waves. All photons travel at the speed of light. Considered among the subatomic particles, photons are bosons, having no electric charge or rest mass and one unit of spin; they are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Your definition forgot to mention that photons are theoretical...

theoretical - Of, relating to, or based on theory. Restricted to theory; not practical.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

Welcome to the natural sciences

Be that as it may, the points noted about photons are empirical observations


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Welcome to the natural sciences
> 
> Be that as it may, the points noted about photons are empirical observations



Sorry skidmark...the behavior of light is an empirical observation....photons are a theoretical explanation for that behavior...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to the natural sciences
> ...



You gonna help your buddy out and show proof they're matter or hehe, magnetic?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 27, 2019)

Sometimes, depending on who you read in here, youd think this is the SCIENCE forum. It is not....it is the ENVIRONMENT forum. Nobody cares about the science gobblygoop except the climate obsessed. How many folks are sitting home this weekend kicking around photon theory? Maybe 11 people?

Most progressives think they sway people with an omnipotent display of scientific processes. But a vast majority have zero interest.....they look out the window. That's what the research shows conclusively. Perceptions will never be moved by some jughead posting about force carriers of electromagnetic forces. C'mon now!!!!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


Nope. How I interpreted the paper last time and now are the same. The paper was meaningless.  He only had NASA values of P, V and T and showed that they followed the IGL. Nothing new there.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


And your incapable of finding the definitive action stating what a photon is..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


And your ignorant of basic physics...

Tell Me, Do all molecules posses a charge?  DO All molecules have orbitals?

Your an idiot!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2019)

#755 and still no evidence of warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 28, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Were you lying when you claimed photons were magnetic?
Or were you just woefully ignorant?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 28, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Tell Me, Do all molecules posses a charge?  *

Are photons molecules now?
Or are molecules photons?

All your tap dancing can't disguise your idiocy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




I tire of your silly ass games. SO lets put somethings in context..

*Matter and Energy in the Universe*

"Another place we encounter words of this type is in the history and properties of the cosmos as a whole. We read about matter, radiation, dark matter, and dark energy. The use of the words by cosmologists is quite different from what you might expect — and *it actually involves two or three different meanings, and depends strongly on context.*"

"Energy exists as a wave. A wave has momentum. Either that momentum is dedicated to travelling through space at some fraction of the speed of light, or it is turned in on itself as a standing wave to stay in one place as “mass.” Even as mass, it is still a wave. That wave is still energy, it’s just energy that stays in one place rather than travelling through space."

Is a photon energy or matter?   "Photons are particles just as electrons are particles; they both are ripples in a corresponding field, and they both have energy."

With some basic context lets throw you under the short bus.. Please tell us Todd, how a photon, which is a particle and has mass, affects a warmer body than its radiated temperature.

I'll wait for this. I wonder what it is you will now have to concoct to show how a colder mass warms a warmer one. Be sure and show your work..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 30, 2019)

The reason we found that nothing in the cylinder warmed, with specific LWIR, in the specific band of 12-16um, was because the mass passing through, could not affect the atmospheric gases or cause them to warm.

The empirical experiment proved that LWIR is incapable of warming our atmosphere without water vapor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*I tire of your silly ass games.*

So end the game. Post some back up for your moronic claims.

*Please tell us Todd, how a photon, which is a particle and has mass,*

Mass? LOL!

* affects a warmer body than its radiated temperature.*

Right after you post proof that photons are magnetic. 

*I wonder what it is you will now have to concoct to show how a colder mass warms a warmer one.*

Why would I try to show that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The reason we found that nothing in the cylinder warmed, with specific LWIR, in the specific band of 12-16um, was because the mass passing through, could not affect the atmospheric gases or cause them to warm.
> 
> The empirical experiment proved that LWIR is incapable of warming our atmosphere without water vapor.





You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The reason we found that nothing in the cylinder warmed, with specific LWIR, in the specific band of 12-16um, was because the mass passing through, could not affect the atmospheric gases or cause them to warm.
> ...


You're channeling Circk now..

Come on Todd.  Post up how a Photon, which is a particle (mass) within a field/wave is capable of warming matter that is warmer than the radiating temperature of the particle.  

This ought to be good for one hell of a laugh...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Post up how a Photon, which is a particle (mass) *

You said they had mass and were magnetic (and could be warmed up).
Prove it.

*is capable of warming matter that is warmer than the radiating temperature of the particle.  *

Are you saying a photon is allowed to hit matter warmer than the matter that emitted it?

Be careful, SSDD will kick you out of his club.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 5, 2019)

Well, it appears my experiment was not the first and many knew that it could not warm the atmosphere..

Crick posted up what he thought was a crowning paper only when I read through it, it did not say what Crick thought..

1. Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second.. LOL It should, as it is in the down-welling band from the sun and not the upwelling band from the earth.

2. Wattages used are the equivalent of 1356w/m^2, 10 times that of what the earth receives on its surface. Another logic fail...

3. Pure CO2 was used.. 100% atmosphere of CO2...

Funnier still is standard atmosphere shows no warming in their tube even with these exaggerated powers and bands...







Crick just proved my experiment correct and he is totally ignorant of it. Priceless.. Even in their own experiments using the standard atmosphere, at ground level, it shows no ability for LWIR to warm anything with in it.

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

Beyond being funny is the problem now that they knew it did not yet went on with the Global Warming scam...  This means it is intentional fraud and deception on the alarmists part...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Well, it appears my experiment was not the first and many knew that it could not warm the atmosphere..
> 
> Crick posted up what he thought was a crowning paper only when I read through it, it did not say what Crick thought..
> 
> ...



When is your "magic, energy destroying tube" research getting published?


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

The caption to that picture says "The tubes were exposed to infrared light for two minutes".  UV light was not used.

Then Billy Boy says  "Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second"

Billy, ultraviolet and infrared do not have a boundary betwixt 'em.  Visible light fills the spectrum between them.  There is no near-IR UV or near-UV IR.  There is no UV in the IR spectrum. This is another for my Billy Boy Quotes collection.

Billy, don't EVER assume that anyone in mainstream science is already aware of what you think you know about physics.

The demonstration I posted there was just that.  It quite obviously was not an attempt to recreate terrestrial conditions.  Again, this is presented to contend with the demonstrably false claim that CO2 will not warm from exposure to IR radiation.


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> 1. Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second.. LOL It should, as it is in the down-welling band from the sun and not the upwelling band from the earth.



How do you come up with this nonsense?


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.



What wavelength is that temperature associated with?


----------



## Crick (Feb 7, 2019)

Just a skosh under 5 microns I'd say


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

What say you BillyBoob?  I don't get the same answer as Crick but then we never did figure out what yo meant by the temperature of a frequency.  Because you ran away. Are you still running?


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> 1. Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second..



How come you never explain your words of wisdom any more? Surely you want to educate us to the TRUTH.

You have been on the board scads of times but there seems to be a lot of threads that you are ignoring.


----------



## Crick (Feb 9, 2019)

I'd like to know where he finds UV in the IR spectrum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'd like to know where he finds UV in the IR spectrum.



Maybe his magic, energy destroying tube turns IR into UV?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. How I interpreted the paper last time and now are the same. The paper was meaningless.  He only had NASA values of P, V and T and showed that they followed the IGL. Nothing new there.



The key word being interpreted...the paper needed no interpretation...all the information necessary was there...refer to the last time you lost on this point...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> The caption to that picture says "The tubes were exposed to infrared light for two minutes".  UV light was not used.
> 
> Then Billy Boy says  "Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second"
> 
> ...




I believe he meant to say near IR as opposed to far IR which is where CO2 absorbs...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2019)

IanC said:


> What say you BillyBoob?  I don't get the same answer as Crick but then we never did figure out what yo meant by the temperature of a frequency.  Because you ran away. Are you still running?


Tell Me, when a black body emits a photon, what is the radiated temperature of that particle?  

Before you call people names you really should have science and understanding of the particle within the wave. The frequency is directly related to the power (energy in joules) the particle holds.. A warmer body radiates at a smaller wave and holds greater energy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The caption to that picture says "The tubes were exposed to infrared light for two minutes".  UV light was not used.
> ...


Correct;

That is the area where solar down-welling energy and up-welling black body overlap.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. How I interpreted the paper last time and now are the same. The paper was meaningless.  He only had NASA values of P, V and T and showed that they followed the IGL. Nothing new there.
> ...



Right. The key word is interpreted, and you interpreted the paper to mean something useful. 

"*all the information necessary was there*" ??? Like his all encompassing phrase, "baked in"? That was a laugh. You lost the point again as usual. Is that going to be your new meme? Any science you can't prove, nor understand is "baked in". 


.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > What say you BillyBoob?  I don't get the same answer as Crick but then we never did figure out what yo meant by the temperature of a frequency.  Because you ran away. Are you still running?
> ...



Okay...

The energy carried by a photon is directly proportional to its frequency.  Agreed, I never said it wasn't.

Photons as particles within a wave. I believe photons are probability waves that condense into an actual value when 'put to the test' by matter. We may not be as far apart as I think, as long as you drop the photons have mass thing.

But photons emitted by a blackbody are not limited to a single frequency,  they are a wide range. Increasing the temperature widens the range by adding higher energy  frequencies but all the lower ones remain. Any single photon from an object will give you a minimum high temperature possible but not the actual temperature.


----------

