# Northern nations warming faster than global average



## Crick (Apr 2, 2019)

Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
and
https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/


The observed warming of Canadian temperatures are due to "human influence."
There has been more rain than snowfall in Canada since 1948, a trend that looks to continue over the 21st century.
Temperature extremes have changed in Canada, meaning extreme warm temperatures are getting hotter and extreme cold is becoming less cold.
Extreme hot temperatures will become more frequent and intense.
Over the last 30 years, the amount of snow-covered land has decreased in Canada.
Flooding is expected to increase in Canada because of sea-level rise.
Freshwater shortages in the summer are expected because warmer summers will increase the evaporation of surface water.
We've known that the Arctic had been warmed more than the rest of the planet by a significant margin.  It should come as no surprise, then, that countries on the Arctic margin should share in that elevated warming: Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Finland and Russia are all likely to experience accelerated warming particularly on their northern boundaries.


----------



## TNHarley (Apr 2, 2019)

_Are due to human influence_. No evidence. Nothing to discount natural variability. Just words.
Stop your damn fear mongering already


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2019)

Those weren't my words, they were the words of the authors of the published study at my second link.

I guarantee you that natural variability has been taken in to account by the climate science community.  In the resource I often recommend: "The Physical Science Basis", by my scan, the phrase "natural variability" occurs 310 times.


----------



## TNHarley (Apr 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Those weren't my words, they were the words of the authors of the published study at my second link.
> 
> I guarantee you that natural variability has been taken in to account by the climate science community.  In the resource I often recommend: "The Physical Science Basis", by my scan, the phrase "natural variability" occurs 310 times.


All you have to do it hit reply. You want to shove fear mongering down our throats and dont even know how to forum?
You passed it on. You took responsibility for it.
Your guarantees mean absolutely nothing.
Stop your fear mongering. You are scaring the children.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Apr 2, 2019)




----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> All you have to do it hit reply. You want to shove fear mongering down our throats and dont even know how to forum?



Are they related?  Should we assume that because you are good at "forum"-ing you are also good at shoving fear mongering down your reader's throats?



TNHarley said:


> You passed it on. You took responsibility for it.



What is "it"?



TNHarley said:


> Your guarantees mean absolutely nothing.



My guarantee that natural variability has been taken into account?  If you don't trust me, look for yourself.



TNHarley said:


> Stop your fear mongering. You are scaring the children.



They need to be scared.  We all need to be scared.

Did you have any comment about the high rate of warming at northern latitudes?  You suggested that they were within natural variability.  I am quite willing to debate that topic if you'd care to do so.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2019)

Dang I really hope it finds it's way to New York because this is sucking. Oh Can Ada!!!!!!!!!

Cant wait for Polar Bear on this thread!

Oh by the way.....note the OP used CNN as a source. And ps.....there is zero correlation with flooding and sea level rise. That's just more loose analogy gheyness we get from climate crusader-types.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...


Let me guess... Your infilled modes, that fail every predicative test tell you its true.

You fucking alarmists and your psuedo-crap-science....  Keep crying wolf idiot... Your lies have been exposed..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 2, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Dang I really hope it finds it's way to New York because this is sucking. Oh Can Ada!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Cant wait for Polar Bear on this thread!
> 
> Oh by the way.....note the OP used CNN as a source. And ps.....there is zero correlation with flooding and sea level rise. That's just more loose analogy gheyness we get from climate crusader-types.



I was wondering when the model card was going to be used again as the US-CRN shows us -1.2 deg C below average this year.. I knew they were desperate..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> My guarantee that natural variability has been taken into account? If you don't trust me, look for yourself.


Nope... It hasn't...

They upped the input (infill) variables by 2.1 deg C.

All they did is change the garbage in values to get the desired garbage out..


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Dang I really hope it finds it's way to New York because this is sucking. Oh Can Ada!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Cant wait for Polar Bear on this thread!
> 
> Oh by the way.....note the OP used CNN as a source. And ps.....there is zero correlation with flooding and sea level rise. That's just more loose analogy gheyness we get from climate crusader-types.


I can't wait for it to find Chicago.  We are actually south of Canada.  funny how they're getting all the warming.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Dang I really hope it finds it's way to New York because this is sucking. Oh Can Ada!!!!!!!!!
> ...



Thanks for pointing out this is based on a computer model. Ghey.....the level of fake in here recently is off the hook. I think this is why so few progressives come into this forum.....they dont want to look like total dicks.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...



Don't you and CNN know the difference between local weather and global weather?


.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 2, 2019)

I don't know if anyone watched 60 Minutes this weekend, but they did a segment on it called Pleistocene Park, and it was talking about what some scientist in Siberia discovered.  Seems that the permafrost is melting at a high rate of speed, and when it melts, it releases a lot of carbon and methane into the atmosphere.

A bold plan to slow the melt of Arctic permafrost could help reverse global warming

*Russian scientists Sergey Zimov and Nikita Zimov — they're a father-son duo — believe they can slow the thawing of the Siberian permafrost by bringing back grazing animals to a swath of land called Pleistocene Park.

Siberia’s melting permafrost has enormous implications for the Earth’s climate.

In some areas of Siberia, permafrost extends 5,000 feet below the surface. It contains vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. The top 3 feet alone is estimated to contain twice as much carbon as what’s already in the Earth’s atmosphere. As the carbon and methane are released over the coming decades, scientists say it could spell climate disaster.*


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> *Northern nations warming faster than global average*



Yet, latest research from Los Alamos shows that in the weeks after the Chicxulub impact, more greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere than man produces at his current rate in a THREE-THOUSAND YEAR (3,000 years or 300 centuries) PERIOD, and yet...

...here we are.  Better off than ever.  The Earth is an amazing thing.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> ...


no such thing as a global temperature.  we don't monitor the entire globe.  and, the algorithm to look at the data would need to be manipulated.  hence there is no such thing as it.  Not sure why we need to see the temperature outside our local area or an area we might be traveling to.  I know if someone is going skiing, it would be nice to know it's cold enough and snow packed.  but who travels the entire globe that needs to know the temperature of earth?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



We don't monitor the entire globe?  Really?  Then why are all those satellites up in orbit doing the very thing you claim isn't happening?

Interactive: How satellites are used to monitor climate change | Carbon Brief

*Since the launch of the first weather satellite in 1959, Earth observation satellites have proven to be vital tools for climate research. In 1984, the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite provided an early insight into how human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, affect the planet’s radiation balance, and helped discover the hole in the ozone layer. Two decades later, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission gave us the first global maps of carbon dioxide concentration around the world (see gallery below). 


The latest addition to this network of global satellites is the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Sentinel-3A, launched on Tuesday evening from Russia’s Plesetsk Cosmodrome. The new satellite is designed to help fill in gaps in the data on sea-surface temperature and map the extent and topography of ice, among other purposes.*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


We don’t monitor temperatures, they monitor wavelength. How was the global temperature was taken prior to the satellite?  Would the data look the same to be on one trending graph?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Guess you totally skipped over the last paragraph that was bolded.  It clearly states that Sentinel-3A (recently launched), is designed to check on temperatures of the sea surface and map ice topography.


----------



## Likkmee (Apr 2, 2019)

Not for long. In 20 years palms in Minnesota and snowboards in Nicaragua / Pole shift ? Who knows. Answer. NOBODY


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2019)

Likkmee said:


> Not for long. In 20 years palms in Minnesota and snowboards in Nicaragua / Pole shift ? Who knows. Answer. NOBODY



lol...….the climate crusaders say the pole shift is due to climate change! Almost as good as the one that climate change caused the Japanese tsunami in 2011.

Im only in here because Im a bit ocd about making fun of mental cases...…..been like that my whole life.

About 20 years ago, I was placed on special assignment on 10 North of the local university hospital.....one of my clients had suffered a nervous breakdown. They had a guy up there that thought he was Jesus.....spittin' image of him too! Said the CIA had put him there......had the time of my life fucking with him too! It was everything to do to keep a straight face when I told him I had been placed there by the KGB but was safe while the CIA was conducting bumpy cucumber insertions to get info!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 2, 2019)

You know, part of the reason that the north is warming faster is because of the melting permafrost.  60 Minutes did a story on it this weekend.  Seems that there is a Russian scientist and his son who have been monitoring an area in Siberia.  Just a few years ago, the permafrost was frozen to the point where you couldn't get a shovel into the ground during winter, because the ground was frozen solid.

Now?  He's digging around 6 feet down and is finding that the permafrost has a lot more carbon dioxide and methane in it than previously thought, and it is those greenhouse gases that are contributing significantly to global warming. 

Google Pleistocene Park sometime and see what his research has found.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, part of the reason that the north is warming faster is because of the melting permafrost.  60 Minutes did a story on it this weekend.  Seems that there is a Russian scientist and his son who have been monitoring an area in Siberia.  Just a few years ago, the permafrost was frozen to the point where you couldn't get a shovel into the ground during winter, because the ground was frozen solid.
> 
> Now?  He's digging around 6 feet down and is finding that the permafrost has a lot more carbon dioxide and methane in it than previously thought, and it is those greenhouse gases that are contributing significantly to global warming.
> 
> Google Pleistocene Park sometime and see what his research has found.


seems natural!!! right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...


Is this due to gyrations in


Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...



Due to gyrations in magnetic field or is northern hemisphere CO2 stronger, more macho???


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, part of the reason that the north is warming faster is because of the melting permafrost.  60 Minutes did a story on it this weekend.  Seems that there is a Russian scientist and his son who have been monitoring an area in Siberia.  Just a few years ago, the permafrost was frozen to the point where you couldn't get a shovel into the ground during winter, because the ground was frozen solid.
> 
> Now?  He's digging around 6 feet down and is finding that the permafrost has a lot more carbon dioxide and methane in it than previously thought, and it is those greenhouse gases that are contributing significantly to global warming.
> 
> Google Pleistocene Park sometime and see what his research has found.



Well let's hope the scientists are right about this coming little ice age.

But either way, cant get hysterical about this stuff because there isnt dick we can do about it anyway!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2019)

The most fascinating thing about this forum is seeing people who really do believe human beings can flip some switch and put controls on the environment. It's as nutty as me thinking I can do a swan dive off a 1,000 foot cliff and be caught by an angel!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!

Where do people come up with this shit?


----------



## Jitss617 (Apr 2, 2019)

Says who? A left wing nut job?


----------



## PredFan (Apr 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...



So what? The planet has been warming and cooling for millennia.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 2, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, part of the reason that the north is warming faster is because of the melting permafrost.  60 Minutes did a story on it this weekend.  Seems that there is a Russian scientist and his son who have been monitoring an area in Siberia.  Just a few years ago, the permafrost was frozen to the point where you couldn't get a shovel into the ground during winter, because the ground was frozen solid.
> ...



Reading comprehension ain't your strong suit, is it?  I stated that this Russian scientist has noticed Siberia (you know, that really cold place), is having it's permafrost melting.  That is the exact opposite of a coming ice age.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Nah I get it....but I just posted the other day of Russian scientists ( not affiliated with Trump btw) predicting a coming ice ice for the next 100 years.

Either way....no way to reverse global warming anyway so who cares?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 2, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Actually, in his research, the area he is in used to be grasslands because the mammoths kept stomping down the trees.  When they went extinct because of being hunted by man, trees started to grow in the area, and it's because of the trees that it's getting warmer up there, as trees hold heat better than open grassland.  He thinks that if he can get the place returned to grassland, the winters will start freezing the permafrost again, and will stop greenhouse gases from being released into the atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 2, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Your paper has been discredited several years ago when they did bore hole samples and found the methane is only 1/400th of what that paper assumed. Your estimations are exaggerated by a factor of 400..


----------



## Shrimpbox (Apr 2, 2019)

Snow, snow go away: Ottawa breaks record for snowiest January


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 2, 2019)

Boston is freezing! You people are nuts.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Apr 3, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Nah I get it....but I just posted the other day of Russian scientists ( not affiliated with Trump btw) predicting a coming ice ice for the next 100 years.
> 
> Either way....no way to reverse global warming anyway so who cares?








I can cool the earths atmosphere down by a few degrees, if given the equipment and authority to do so, and you get beautiful sunrises and sunsets for a decade or two as a side effect...... Just don't ask me to try heating it back up again.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## wamose (Apr 3, 2019)

It must be the cows and cars causing this. So what are you going to do now?


----------



## sparky (Apr 3, 2019)

and the beat goes on.....

~S~


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2019)

Here are 9 stations scattered across Canada...the data don't support the claims.  More sky is falling hysterics from dumbed down cult dupes..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> I don't know if anyone watched 60 Minutes this weekend, but they did a segment on it called Pleistocene Park, and it was talking about what some scientist in Siberia discovered.  Seems that the permafrost is melting at a high rate of speed, and when it melts, it releases a lot of carbon and methane into the atmosphere.
> 
> A bold plan to slow the melt of Arctic permafrost could help reverse global warming
> 
> ...



*Seems that the permafrost is melting at a high rate of speed, and when it melts, it releases a lot of carbon and methane into the atmosphere.*

The last time it melted, we all died.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 4, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Boston is freezing! You people are nuts.



Amarillo was in the mid 70's today, and is gonna be 89 on Tuesday.  Sucks that you have to freeze.

Already had to mow my lawn once, and I'm gonna have to do it again in the next couple of days.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Boston is freezing! You people are nuts.
> ...



Its Texas s0n!. Of course its h0t.....doy.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 4, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



Amarillo is all the way north in the Panhandle, and yes, while it can get warm, these temperatures are kinda unusual.  Same thing with the trees, at the beginning of March, my neighbors weeping willow was already budding.

And 89 for the beginning of April is kinda unusual as well.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 5, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Oh what we'd give to be at 90 in New York. I'd be on the ocean today s0n with tens of thousands of others loving the global warming!


----------



## SweetSue92 (Apr 5, 2019)

And here we've been cursing Canada for years because all we seem to get are Polar Vortexes and springs that never come until Mid May. 

So I call BS on this entire thing


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 5, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



It’s 33 in Boston. And it’s baseball season. Has not even sniffed 70 and is not supposed to anytime soon. Global Warming my @$$


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Boston is freezing! You people are nuts.
> ...


is that abnormal?  when did you first cut your lawn last year?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 5, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Same here in NY.  But but but the deep oceans!! 2,000m is wermererererer


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...



WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO CRICK?Tell us how we can survive. Oh my god the devastation and suffering is more than I can bear. I’m afraid, please tell me what to do!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2019)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> ...



Windmills!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



Actually, yes, that is a bit on the unusual side.  I usually don't have to start thinking about mowing the lawn until the end of April or beginning of May around here.  Having already mowed it at the end of March is pretty abnormal.

So is the fact that the weeping willow tree across the street started to bud and turn green at the end of Feb.  It usually doesn't start to bud until the end of March, beginning of April.


----------



## night_son (Apr 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


All of my trees are in full bud and we’ve been so cold for the entire year. Trees bud


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



In MA I have to start mowing at the end of April too. So far zero 70 degree days in MA. So much for warming...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Amarillo had temperatures in the 70’s in February last year. It isn’t uncommon. Do you all ever look up statistics for your areas? I bet people were cutting grass this early last year. Why do people like you feel the need to lie? I don’t get it. There are records?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Dude, he’s in fking Texas. And saying his temps are the same as ours. He thinks we’re stupid


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Bullshit.  I told you that this year it got warmer much earlier than it usually does.  Never said anything about being the same temp as you guys, you're in the north and still bitching about being cold.


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 5, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Yet, latest research from Los Alamos shows that in the weeks after the Chicxulub impact, more greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere than man produces at his current rate in a THREE-THOUSAND YEAR *(3,000 years or 300 centuries)* PERIOD, and yet...
> 
> ...here we are.  Better off than ever.  The Earth is an amazing thing.



SMH.


----------



## harmonica (Apr 5, 2019)

I don't care


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


I proved you wrong, in another thread.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 5, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Yet, latest research from Los Alamos shows that in the weeks after the Chicxulub impact, more greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere than man produces at his current rate in a THREE-THOUSAND YEAR *(3,000 years or 300 centuries)* PERIOD, and yet...
> ...




BFB.  You should be more concerned about the POINT and PURPORT of these scientists conclusions than my simple math error.  Climate hoax swallowed hook line and sinker by the EU.  They invented it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 5, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



Lmao......s0n....we wear nut sack warmers in New York from October through April every fucking year. It sucks dog balls....we are absolutely dying for global warming around here. Even summers at the beach suck in recent years.

So yeah.....I'm pissed Al Gore got it so wrong.


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 6, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



The BFD is you are too lazy and sloppy to check what you're spouting so as to get it right.

So, no one knows whether the unlinked "research" is any better than your math, or whether it exists at all.  Your understanding of the impact and its consequences is most assuredly non-existent.  That much we do know.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...








The "research" that has these warmy types all worked up about is fictional.  It is entirely based on computer models.  That means it ain't real.  A person who can critically think realizes this and simply doesn't care what the models produce.  They are crap.  Their predictive ability is less than zero.


----------



## wamose (Apr 6, 2019)

Yesterday all the heavy hitters who are vying for the Democratic presidential nomination took the day off from wailing about climate change and the 12 years we have left on earth. And what was so important? Well, it turns out that Al Sharpton, one of the greatest racists ever, had some kind of reparations rally that they all felt compelled to attend and heap praise on their great friend and mentor. It truly was despicable when you think about all the evil Sharpton has done in this country. These monkey see monkey do Democrats seem to have everything wrong these days.


----------



## justoffal (Apr 6, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> _Are due to human influence_. No evidence. Nothing to discount natural variability. Just words.
> Stop your damn fear mongering already


 I hope it's true! Need relief from heating bills in North East


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 6, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...




Sorry, OE, my "sloppy" research comes from the Los Alamos National Laboratory with their using the Q Machine super computer to generate the numbers by taking the KNOWN facts and working backwards to what it would take to create them.  Sorry if my math was a bit off, I was half asleep when I wrote it not sleeping too well having just recently gotten out of the hospital.  Does it make you feel better if I say Chicxulub produced as much GHG in a couple of weeks as man produces in THIRTY CENTURIES?  That's roughly 18X all what man has produced since we were even able to affect the environment from the beginnings of the industrial age dumped on the planet in an instant.

Fact remains:

CLAIM 1:  Man is producing 100X more than nature:  FALSE.
The Earth has endured far more than man can imagine producing, been rocked to the precipice of total devastation and STILL came back and righted itself to what we have today!

So whatever man does, whatever disturbance we add to, is meager, and once our technology outgrows our need for greenhouse fossil fuels, the Earth will carry on.

ITMT, the BEST thing we can do, is get control of global population.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 6, 2019)

wamose said:


> Yesterday all the heavy hitters who are vying for the Democratic presidential nomination took the day off from wailing about climate change and the 12 years we have left on earth. And what was so important? Well, it turns out that Al Sharpton, one of the greatest racists ever, had some kind of reparations rally that they all felt compelled to attend and heap praise on their great friend and mentor. It truly was despicable when you think about all the evil Sharpton has done in this country. These monkey see monkey do Democrats seem to have everything wrong these days.



Oy....white voters will love that!!


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 6, 2019)

toobfreak said:


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



So, still no link, and I am not going to take your word for anything.  Not that I need one anyway.  No one knows with any certainty the size of the impactor, no one knows with any certainty the geological situation at the impact site, no one knows with any precision what kind of events ensued thereafter, and thus these formidable calculations could be off by orders of magnitude.

It doesn't matter anyway, since the earth is warming, and we are in all likelihood going to encounter climates that are detrimental to life as we know it.  Whatever happened 65 million years ago does not change that in any way, shape or form.  The funny thing about all that non-argument is that the impact generated a mass extinction that eliminated most of the species then living.  We are currently generating another mass extinction event.  That doesn't get any better because it happened, for other reasons, before.

"We" (humankind) may have to get control of global population.  That is still falling way short of what we (in the West) have to do to avert the worst of climate change.  For if we don't stop it before the carbon content in the permafrost regions of the northern hemisphere starts to evaporate in earnest, we (humankind) might just as well call it a day.  That's why the speed of warming in this region is such devastating news.

No one this side of complete and utter insanity has ever claimed, "Man is producing 100X more than nature."  That's the mother of red herrings.

Oh, and get better soon!


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 6, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...





> So, still no link,


So, too stupid to simply type in my string of words I gave you and get 10 pages of hits for yourself?  Typical liberal used to not thinking for himself expecting everything done for him.  Need me to wipe your ass for you too?



> and I am not going to take your word for anything.


So then by your very admission, there is no point is there?  You're not interested in the facts, you couldn't bother going to the thread where I originally talked about all of this in detail.  You're going to believe what you WANT to believe.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



\When they have nothing...they will complain about whatever they can think of to complain about rather than acknowledge that they have nothing....Lucky he wasn't correcting punctuation also...they can't actually debate the topic so they go about picking the fly shit out of pepper and feel like they have accomplished something.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


If the earth didn’t warm, would we exist?  Sun causes warm. Read about how that works


----------



## Zorro! (Apr 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...


Yes, it seems many are warming at "twice the global average!"

A FREE SPEECH WIN DOWNUNDER: Critical academic’s sacking was ‘unlawful’, court finds.


> A Federal Court judge has ruled James Cook University acted unlawfully when it sacked physics professor Peter Ridd after he publicly criticised the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the global warming impact on the Great Barrier Reef.
> 
> Professor Ridd last night welcomed the decision and called on the university’s council, its governing body, to make vice-chancellor Sandra Harding accountable for the legal defeat.
> 
> ...


The left always tries to silence its critics, because it can’t answer them. “Code of conduct,” my ass.


----------



## Pilot1 (Apr 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> Those weren't my words, they were the words of the authors of the published study at my second link.
> 
> I guarantee you that natural variability has been taken in to account by the climate science community.  In the resource I often recommend: "The Physical Science Basis", by my scan, the phrase "natural variability" occurs 310 times.



How can "Natural Variability" be accurately measured and taken into account when it has and does swing WILDLY over time to such extremes over such a long amount of time?

You are an obsessed KOOK.  Stop.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 17, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



I don't understand your point. Yes, Chicxulb was an 12 Km asteroid impact 66 million years ago that left a crater 200 Km across.  It is presumed that it killed off the dinosaurs, but yes, man survived.

I have no doubt that man will survive if the climate scientist's worst predictions of current global warming runs their worst-case course. After perhaps a catastrophic hiatus man will continue an upward climb of civilization. 

Is that supposed to give solace, that our species will survive. I am not a CAGW person, but I am sure they are more concerned with a much shorter term catastrophe that involves their young kids and future grand kids, and not the eventual survival of mankind a few hundred years from now. 


.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > All you have to do it hit reply. You want to shove fear mongering down our throats and dont even know how to forum?
> ...



What are you going to do about it?

Get off your computer made from plastics derived from fossil fuels.

Stop using electricity that was likely produced by fossil fuels.  

Stop driving or taking the bus anywhere.

Don't eat any food that was produced by using fossil fuels in any way.

Turn off the heat in your home and use only cold water for everything!  In fact, stop using water filtered and processed by electricity derived from fossil fuels.

Now, since you are going to die anyway, why not shut up and let the rest of us die slowly from global warming?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 17, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Trees absorb more CO2 than grass, so the trees are better.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 17, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Boston is freezing! You people are nuts.
> ...



Speaking of lawns, it has been so cool ths Spring that I actually had to wait until last Saturday to cut my grass for the first time in 2019.  I can remember cutting it in late February before!  Also, thanks to my Facebook memories, last year on April 16th, it snowed!  BTW, the high this weekend will be in the 50s after it has already been up to 80!

Bring on gullible warming!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 17, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



You didn't see his research.  He said that the reason the permafrost was melting was because of the trees.  While you might think that trees would be beneficial up there, they aren't.  Why?  Because bare ground freezes better than tree covered ground.  Trees hold in the heat, causing the permafrost to melt,


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2019)

westwall said:


> The "research" that has these warmy types all worked up about is fictional.



So, these crazy people actually think the temperature record is a model.

And the dishonest people are actually claiming the models haven't been excellent.

They're really off in their own magical world.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What are you going to do about it?



If you want to live in a cave and hug trees, have a ball. Just don't try to drag us with you. We like modern technology.

Have I ever mentioned how much denier hippies disgust me?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 17, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Bullshit!  Trees shade the ground preventing the sun from heating the ground and thawing it!  You obviously never played football in the winter and fell on ground that was in the shade!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...




Based on what observed, measured evidence?




Crick said:


> has been more rain than snowfall in Canada since 1948, a trend that looks to continue over the 21st century.



And that is different from long term natural variability how?





Crick said:


> Temperature extremes have changed in Canada, meaning extreme warm temperatures are getting hotter and extreme cold is becoming less cold.






Crick said:


> > And that is different from long term natural variability how?
> >
> >
> >
> > ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > What are you going to do about it?
> ...



Conservative hippies?  Projecting again hairball....you really think you fool anyone claiming that skeptics behave like you?


----------



## fncceo (Apr 18, 2019)

Crick said:


> *Northern nations warming faster than global average*




Sounds like great news..


----------



## westwall (Apr 18, 2019)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The "research" that has these warmy types all worked up about is fictional.
> ...








What do your hero's do with the raw data, dude?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2019)

westwall said:


> What do your hero's do with the raw data, dude?



Correct the known errors in it, because it would be an act of fraud to not correct those known errors.

Naturally, you always advocate for that kind of fraud.

Of course, as the raw data shows _more_ warming, your cult conspiracy theory there makes no sense at all. According to your conspiracy theory, the scientists are adjusting the data to show less warming, in order to prove there's more warming. "Logic" like that is why nobody pays attention to you.


----------



## westwall (Apr 19, 2019)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What do your hero's do with the raw data, dude?
> ...








And don't forget they run them through CGCM's.  Now, what are those again?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 20, 2019)

The Northern Hemisphere has been cooling since 2004. The OP is full of crap.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What do your hero's do with the raw data, dude?
> ...



Really?  Describe the "known errors" from data 30 50, 70, and even 100 years ago and more...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2019)

westwall said:


> And don't forget they run them through CGCM's.  Now, what are those again?



The corrections to the temperature record have zilch to do with climate models. You clearly no idea of what you're babbling about, so you should stop annoying the grownups and go back to the kiddie table.

And after that lame deflection is laughed at, the corrections to the temperature record still make the warming look _smaller_, so your conspiracy theory still looks retarded.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Really?  Describe the "known errors" from data 30 50, 70, and even 100 years ago and more...



Little troll, you need to get off your lazy ass and do it yourself. The links have been posted before. You want me to spend more time educating you, you'll have to pay ahead.

You won't do it, obviously, because you're completely ignorant of topic. You're only here to troll and disrupt adult conversations.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Describe the "known errors" from data 30 50, 70, and even 100 years ago and more...
> ...


Deflect, deflect, deflect....  Try answering the question shity kitty...

What are the CREDIBLE and SCIENTIFIC driven reasons for altering the climatic record.


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And don't forget they run them through CGCM's.  Now, what are those again?
> ...









It's the other way round, sweet cheeks, it is you who know what they are doing, but don't care.  They send every bit of raw data through their precious CGCM's.  I wonder why?


----------



## fncceo (Apr 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Known errors are equivalent to any data that doesn't support my confirmation bias.


----------



## harmonica (Apr 23, 2019)

I don't care ..I'm fine --I don't live there


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Describe the "known errors" from data 30 50, 70, and even 100 years ago and more...
> ...



I didn't expect an answer from you hairball...and you didn't dissappoint.  There are no rational, or scientifically valid reasons for altering temperatures of 30, 50,70 and even 100 years or more ago...the only reason is to support a fraudulent narrative...and look how easily you have been fooled...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 24, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


so you're saying it has to be cold? ewwwwwww


----------



## jc456 (Apr 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What do your hero's do with the raw data, dude?
> ...


again, it has not been explained on why someone needs to correct raw data?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Describe the "known errors" from data 30 50, 70, and even 100 years ago and more...
> ...


that remains your answer after six years?  still no actual information.  mumbo jumbo.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Yep.  What else would you expect from a place that is located in Siberia, above the Arctic Circle?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 24, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


well yeah, but why can't it be warm?  what is it you have against warmer weather around that area?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Because the warmer weather up there is melting the permafrost, and when the permafrost melts it releases a whole bunch of CO2 and methane into the air.   Those are 2 things that contribute a great deal to climate change.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 24, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


prove it.  Like what? offer up what it would cause.  climate change is vague and doesn't mean jack.  climate is always changing. you sir are in fear of CO2, why? have any observed empirical evidence to back your fear?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



got any actual observed measured evidence that CO2 causes warming?  Any at all?  If so, I would dearly love to see it because as far as I can tell, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Guess you missed the part about methane being released as well, and methane is a greenhouse gas too.

As far as why is CO2 a greenhouse gas?  Here ya go...................

Carbon Dioxide Is Warming the Planet (Here's How)


* The physics of greenhouse gases*
*Carbon dioxide is no dark-horse candidate for the warming of the atmosphere. In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius (who would later win the first-ever Nobel Prize for Chemistry) published a paper in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science that laid out the basics of what's now known as "the greenhouse effect."


 The effect is a result of how energy interacts with the atmosphere. Sunlight enters the atmosphere as ultraviolet and visible light; some of this solar energy is then radiated back toward space as infrared energy, or heat. The atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen, which are both gases made up of molecules containing two atoms. These tightly bound pairs don't absorb much heat.


 But the greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane, each have at least three atoms in their molecules. These loosely bound structures are efficient absorbers of the long-wave radiation (also known as heat) bouncing back from the planet's surface. When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.


Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface. You really dont know the physics involved and you like to remain ignorant..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.
> ...



*Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface.*

Why not?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


As 99.9% of LWIR is absorbed and then transmitted via conduction in the atmosphere, once the energy reaches about 3 meters up it will never again see the surface of the earth. Mathematically the odds are 1/100,000,000,000,000,000., also known as slim and none.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


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



So which part of that do you think is observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

And are you aware that Arrhenius' ideas were debunked?  No less than Clausius ( the guy who provided us with the second law of thermodynamics..a German physicist and mathematician and is considered one of the central founders of the science of thermodynamics), Maxwell, the guy who formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon, and Carnot, a French military scientist and physicist, often described as the "father of thermodynamics"  all said that Arrhenius's hypothesis had no merit and was foolishness.  

So as I said, there is no observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....there are models galore...and everyone seems to "know" that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere...but there isn't the first piece of real evidence to support the claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.

Billy is quite wrong with his numbers. Back radiation at 3 meters is not attenuated by 1 / 10¹⁷. It would be attenuated by roughly 1/2. However, at above 100 meters, the exponentially drop-off will make it quite small, and for practical purposes, negligible.

Here is the way I look at it.
*Above a 100 meters*, the CO2 part of the atmosphere is swarming with CO2 in vibration states which are at equilibrium because of the Equipartition of energy. At that altitude the CO2 obtains it's vibration energy from thermal collisions, and has long “forgotten” what was happening nearer the earth surface. At those higher altitudes 15 micron radiation is minimal because collisions are the major energy transfer mechanism. But above the stratosphere, it's a different story when collisions are rare and radiation is the only way for the earth's energy to escape.

However *near the earth surface* (less than a few dozen meters) the capturing of radiation by GHGs increases the population of the vibration part of the thermal energy, which means that the energy is not equally partitioned anymore, but has an abundance of energy in the vibration mode. In the natural tendency to achieve equilibrium at lower altitudes the excess vibration energy is naturally transferred to kinetic energy of N2 and O2, and other traces gases. The atmosphere near earth thereby heats up. Vibration energy of GHGs near the surface will never be in equilibrium because of Earth's constant radiation outflux. Back radiation also occurs.


.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So as I said, there is no observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


You forgot about Foote's experiment which was an observation  and measurement of warming due to CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.



No...Billy is pointing out that radiation is a bit player and that any energy that is absorbed is most often lost to the molecule via collision and the energy is then consigned to be conducted through the atmosphere till it reaches the top of the atmosphere where it is radiated on....there is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the ground except in rare temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So as I said, there is no observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> ...



No...I remember perfectly how easily you were fooled...funny that you keep bringing up your gullibility as if it were evidence of anything other than that you lack critical thinking skills.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.
> ...



You misread Billy who said it was a bit player away from the surface a few meters. It is not a bit player in the first several dozen meters.

As far as no back radiation, there is not physical concept that prevents back radiation. We already went through this.

.


SSDD said:


> No...I remember perfectly how easily you were fooled...funny that you keep bringing up your gullibility as if it were evidence of anything other than that you lack critical thinking skills.



So, ad hominem is your only reply against the observed measured experiment.


.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


Wrong on several counts..

1. The majority of LWIR is absorbed and conducted upward. 99.9% of it. That will not see the surface f the earth again.

2. The remaining amount that might get re-radiated can not pass 3 meters without being reabsorbed. Given the items in 1 where 99.9% of that radiation is swept away by convection and conduction. The minute amount that does get lucky enough be re-emitted towards the earth is again absorbed by the atmosphere and swept away.  

This is why there is no hot spot in our atmosphere and why the AGW meme fails emperical review.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.
> ...



*there is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the ground except in rare temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the atmosphere. *

Smart emitters are awesome!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



* The remaining amount that might get re-radiated can not pass 3 meters without being reabsorbed.*

Don't tell SSDD that photons can travel from cool air toward the warmer surface.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> 1. The majority of LWIR is absorbed and conducted upward. 99.9% of it. That will not see the surface f the earth again.


You really have to be more clear. Your sentence says LWIR is both absorbed and conducted. Exactly what is conducted? Certainly not the radiation itself.



Billy_Bob said:


> 2. The remaining amount that might get re-radiated can not pass 3 meters without being reabsorbed. Given the items in 1 where 99.9% of that radiation is swept away by convection and conduction. The minute amount that does get lucky enough be re-emitted towards the earth is again absorbed by the atmosphere and swept away.



Again you say radiation is swept away by convection and conduction. How can radiation be “swept”?

Furthermore, why is surface radiation that reaches one meter, for example, impeded from back radiation through that same one meter. There is a reciprocity in the LWIR absorption in both directions.



.


----------



## IanC (Apr 25, 2019)

Todd asked me to respond to BillyBoob's statement. 

First off, it is imprecise in important areas and is falsely overprecise in other areas.

He does not define which wavelengths of LWIR he is discussing. A significant fraction of surface emitted radiation simply leaves at tje speed of light without interacting with the atmosphere .

I presume he is describing 15 micron radiation which is emitted by the surface as part of the blackbody radiation. This has a mean free path of two meters at STP. Therefore it is attenuated by roughly 75% at 3 metres going up, and would be attenuated the same amount  going down from emitting CO2 molecules. Other GHGs have different mean free paths but act in the same way.

The energy absorbed near the surface remains in the atmosphere until it returns to the surface, or until it migrates high into air to a point whete it can be emitted to spacr without being reabsorbed . These are the only choices. 

While this energy is contained by the atmosphere it can be measured as temperature and density. The amount of energy stored is related to the amount gained from the warm surface minus the amount lost at the cold emission height. The warmer atmosphere causes the surface to warm by altering the equilibria of various pathways, until the surface is putting out enough radiation through the Atmospheric Window to make up for the radiation captured by the GHGs.

These main points should be simple enough for just about anyone to understand. Unfortunately phase change by H2O throws a monkey wrench into the works. While it does not alter the radiation aspect very much, it does alter heat transport.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.
> ...



Dude, you are quoting the article that I posted written by a scientist.  I'm not the one that made the claims, I just posted what the scientists had to say about it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



He's working an a PhD or something. And he can build an energy destroying tube.
Never dispute his physics.


----------



## justoffal (Apr 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > My guarantee that natural variability has been taken into account? If you don't trust me, look for yourself.
> ...



I hate polar bears....the sooner they're all gone the better.

Jo


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


but how do you explain this?

As 99.9% of LWIR is absorbed and then *transmitted via conduction* in the atmosphere, once the energy reaches about 3 meters up.  that is not IR any longer


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Once an IR photon is absorbed, there are no more IR photons....ever?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



He can build an "energy destroying tube"?  Really?  Wonder if he ever heard of the First Law of Thermodynamics?

*The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. ... In other words, energy* cannot be *created* or *destroyed*.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


correct.  it's absorbed and handed over through collision. It is not IR.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I didn't expect an answer from you hairball...and you didn't dissappoint.



Busted! You didn't know the answer to your own BS question, the same way you never know the answer to any of the weepy troll questions you ask.

We've all learned how to deal with Stalinist trolls like you. All we need to do is tell you to answer your own troll questions, and then laugh as you melt down and run.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't expect an answer from you hairball...and you didn't dissappoint.
> ...


that is not an answer however!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



*He can build an "energy destroying tube"? Really?*

Really. A paper is in the works.

*Wonder if he ever heard of the First Law of Thermodynamics?*

Based on some of his comments, it doesn't always apply.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



That would mean that energy never leaves the atmosphere.
Perhaps you's like to rethink your claim?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> but how do you explain this?
> 
> As 99.9% of LWIR is absorbed and then *transmitted via conduction* in the atmosphere, once the energy reaches about 3 meters up. that is not IR any longer



Energy can't just disappear, so what do you suppose happens to that IR energy from the earth surface beyond 3 meters. (BTW those numbers are wrong but that is a different issue.)


.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



It is a bit player from fractions of millimeters above the ground...the concentrations of molecules that so called greenhouse gasses lose their energy to via collision are greater the closer you get to the surface so the likelyhood of losing energy via collision increases even more as you get closer to the ground.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


Billy says 3 meters. You say fractions of a millimeter. You are going to have to argue it out with Billy. You will need to give him references for your number.


.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


It isn't as if it matters...in either event, it rules out the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the troposphere...


----------



## Flash (Apr 25, 2019)

Man made global warming is a scam.

How do we know it is a scam?

1.  The principle scientists have been caught re handed fabricating data.

2.  None of the predictions have ever came true.


Earth Day: Not a Single Environmental Prediction of the Last 50 Years Has Come True

*Earth Day: Not a Single Environmental Prediction of the Last 50 Years Has Come True*


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> It isn't as if it matters...in either event, it rules out the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the troposphere...


Absorption of CO2 at very low altitudes does not rule out the radiative greenhouse effect.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no thanks,


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > but how do you explain this?
> ...


it is absorbed,  then collides and hands off its energy.

Energy transfer upon collision of selectively excited CO2 molecules: State-to-state cross sections and probabilities for modeling of atmospheres an...  - PubMed - NCBI

"*Abstract*
Carbon dioxide molecules can store and release tens of kcal/mol upon collisions, and such an energy transfer strongly influences the energy disposal and the chemical processes in gases under the extreme conditions typical of plasmas and hypersonic flows. Moreover, the energy transfer involving CO2 characterizes the global dynamics of the Earth-atmosphere system and the energy balance of other planetary atmospheres. Contemporary developments in kinetic modeling of gaseous mixtures are connected to progress in the description of the energy transfer, and, in particular, the attempts to include non-equilibrium effects require to consider state-specific energy exchanges. A systematic study of the state-to-state vibrational energy transfer in CO2 + CO2 collisions is the focus of the present work, aided by a theoretical and computational tool based on quasiclassical trajectory simulations and an accurate full-dimension model of the intermolecular interactions. In this model, the accuracy of the description of the intermolecular forces (that determine the probability of energy transfer in molecular collisions) is enhanced by explicit account of the specific effects of the distortion of the CO2 structure due to vibrations. Results show that these effects are important for the energy transfer probabilities. Moreover, the role of rotational and vibrational degrees of freedom is found to be dominant in the energy exchange, while the average contribution of translations, under the temperature and energy conditions considered, is negligible. Remarkable is the fact that the intramolecular energy transfer only involves stretching and bending, unless one of the colliding molecules has an initial symmetric stretching quantum number greater than a threshold value estimated to be equal to 7.
"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't as if it matters...in either event, it rules out the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the troposphere...
> ...


well it does when it collides and hands its energy off.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't as if it matters...in either event, it rules out the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the troposphere...
> ...



The amount of energy lost via collision and resulting conduction to the top of the troposphere does...the amount of radiation happening in the troposphere isn't enough to produce any sort of radiative greenhouse effect...as observations clearly prove.

Been through this all before..if you want to see why you lost the first time, refer to any of the previous incarnations of this exact discussion.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


enough will never be enough for them.  they have their jim jonesing information and will not relinquish that fantasy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*The amount of energy lost via collision *

Energy isn't lost via collision.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Where?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Sure it is. What do you think it is? It’s kinetic energy derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Sure it is. *

You're not real clear on conservation of energy.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


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





SSDD said:


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



*The amount of energy lost via collision and resulting conduction to the top of the troposphere does.*

That is a very ambiguous sentence. Energy is never lost. So it must be transformed.  You previously said that absorption of IR by CO2 does not heat the atmosphere. If that is what you believe, just what do you think is conducted to the top of the troposphere? 

.


----------



## james bond (Apr 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
> Thanks for clearing that up.



If it means 2x GW for Canadians vs the US and the rest of the world, then their libs are not practicing what they preach.  That said, more Canadian taxes will solve everything.


----------



## Dick Foster (Apr 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...



If you don't know any better than to quote CNN as a legitimate source by now, there's little hope for you. DUH!


----------



## IanC (Apr 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



You won't get a straight answer from him.

Energy stored in the atmosphere has only two directions in which to escape. Outwards to space. Or inwards back to the surface.

Only radiation escapes to space. Thete are multiple pathways back to the surface.

The energy being recycled from the atmosphere to the surface allows the surface to radiate at 400w even though the Sun only delivers 240w. Of the 400w given off by the surface, only 240w actually leaves the system. Equilibrium.  The surface can be at a temperature that gives off 240w or 480w, as long as the IR leaving is the same amount as the SW coming in from the Sun.

(This is why SSDDs gravity/pressure predictions work. They always mirror the temperature present by circular reasoning. But the actual temperature can be anything in a fairly large range of possibilities)


----------



## IanC (Apr 26, 2019)

Dick Foster said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> ...



Water temperatures are rising more slowly than land temperatures.  Therefore most land temps will be rising faster than the global average (made up of land and ocean).


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2019)

IanC said:


> The energy being recycled from the atmosphere to the surface allows the surface to radiate at 400w even though the Sun only delivers 240w.



As you know, he will never admit to understanding that.
I have also asked him countless times where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go? He always deflects the question.



IanC said:


> (This is why SSDDs gravity/pressure predictions work. They always mirror the temperature present by circular reasoning. But the actual temperature can be anything in a fairly large range of possibilities)



From fundamental principles the lapse rate can be derived by a surprisingly simple equation for any well behaved planetary atmosphere.
Lapse rate = gravitational acceleration / specific heat

What he doesn't understand is that the lapse rate is only a slope. To define the  linear temperature profile, you also need an x intercept in this case, the surface temperature. Once you know the surface temperature, the rest is easy. But he doesn't understand that the mean surface temperature must come from some other physics and is not intrinsic to every planet.


.


----------



## IanC (Apr 26, 2019)

SSDD knows it is very dangerous to be explicit in his posts. That is why he only spouts generalities that seldom match the topic being discussed.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That is a very ambiguous sentence.



Reduced to picking fly shit out of the pepper now are you?  You know perfectly well that I was speaking to energy lost by so called greenhouse gas molecules to any other molecule they happen to collide with which then proceeds to conduct on up to the top of the atmosphere...  But if picking fly shit out of pepper gives you a thrill...help yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2019)

IanC said:


> You won't get a straight answer from him.
> 
> Energy stored in the atmosphere has only two directions in which to escape. Outwards to space. Or inwards back to the surface.



There is only one direction energy may travel...and that is to cooler pastures.  Energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> As you know, he will never admit to understanding that.
> I have also asked him countless times where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go? He always deflects the question.



What a liar you are.  I answered you after you finally admitted that the SB equation for a radiator in the presence of other matter describes a gross one way energy movement.  The fact that you either didn't understand the answer, or didn't like it is irrelevant.

But I will provide it again just to prove that you are a liar.

temperature is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas.

Convection occurs in any atmosphere when the pressure is greater than 10kPa.

Convection (and the action of auto-compression) causes potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy in the 50% of gas that is descending in the Venusian atmosphere.

This occurs in accord with the following equation;
   H = PV + U 

Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

50% of the huge mass of the Venusian atmosphere holds a LOT of potential energy, hence the 16,000W/m2 at surface.

Like it or not, it explains the 16,000W/m2 at the surface of Venus...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD knows it is very dangerous to be explicit in his posts. That is why he only spouts generalities that seldom match the topic being discussed.



I am as explicit as necessary to get my point across...  Generally, it takes little more than asking you model believers if you have a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...the answer is almost always silence since you can't bring yourselves to admit that you have no evidence....you have unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models....


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Reduced to picking fly shit out of the pepper now are you? You know perfectly well that I was speaking to energy lost by so called greenhouse gas molecules to any other molecule they happen to collide with which then proceeds to conduct on up to the top of the atmosphere... But if picking fly shit out of pepper gives you a thrill...help yourself.



Reduced to ad hominem again I see. 

*energy lost by so called greenhouse gas molecules to any other molecule they happen to collide with which then proceeds to conduct on up to the top of the atmosphere.*

The word "which" is a relative pronoun referring to an antecedent. I presume your "which" refers to "energy" which I presume is in the form of heat. Yet you have said many times that IR can't heat the atmosphere. Therefore your comment is still ambiguous.

Is this what you mean?
*energy lost by so called greenhouse gas molecules to any other molecule they happen to collide with causes atmospheric heat which then proceeds to conduct on up to the top of the atmosphere.*

.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > As you know, he will never admit to understanding that.
> ...



I never admitted that the SB equation for a radiator describes a gross one way energy movement.  Absolutely never! It describes two-way radiation exchange.

You copied and pasted some irrelevant equations you found on the web and end with this:
..*.it explains the 16,000W/m2 at the surface of Venus*.

Look at my post you are quoting and you will see my question is:
*...where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go*?

I didn't ask where you think it came from. I asked where does it go!

As I said in post #153,


Wuwei said:


> He always deflects the question.


You are deflecting again!

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You won't get a straight answer from him.
> ...



*There is only one direction energy may travel...and that is to cooler pastures.*

Which is why the Sun's surface can't radiate toward the corona and why the Earth's 
surface can't radiate toward the thermosphere. DURR.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Sure I am! Are you gonna do wash, rinse repeat?  Never a counter argument on something you read. Dude you’re always the dick! I.... already know.


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature. 

Any thin slice of the atmosphere is doing this except for near the surface, and near the emission escape height. The atmosphere is warming near the surface due to excess radiation from a warmer source. High up the atmosphere is cooling by sending radiation to space. Both are happening,  ypu can't have just one or the other.

The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit? *

Exactly! That energy can never leave the atmosphere....ever.

You've discovered the secret!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Sure I am! *

That's why you said lost....because you know it isn't.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You didn’t answer. Gotcha huh? Never a counter point dick


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Wash, rinse repeat again yahoo


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2019)

IanC said:


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


Where’s that IR coming from towards the surface? CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time. So, which gas sends it back to the surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Answer what? You said CO2 can't re-emit.

Were you wrong? Were you lying?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 27, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time.* 

Is CO2 only allowed to lose energy when it collides?
Does CO2 ever gain energy when it collides?


----------



## whitehall (Apr 27, 2019)

The cold fronts associated with late spring weather usually drop out of Canada. This year we see the usual or maybe moderately colder weather in the northern U.S. states in late spring with wet snow a week before May. The question arises about how the hell the weather can be getting warmer (less cold) in Canada while being colder in the U.S. The only logical conclusion is that the theory of MMGW has become a religion to the left. The crazy left believes the propaganda despite evidence that they can feel and touch for themselves that would disprove the theory.


----------



## beautress (Apr 27, 2019)

*Coronal hole faces Earth*
Saturday, 20 April 2019 - 18:02 UTC






Space weather has been very quiet lately with not much interesting to report on. There haven't been any sunspot regions or solar eruptions worth mentioning and also here on Earth we've been having quiet geomagnetic conditions. This could however change in the near future as we have a southern hemisphere coronal hole facing our planet today. Those of you who follow us on Twitter or have the SpaceWeatherLive iOS/Android app have likely seen the automated coronal hole detection alert.

*A southern hemisphere coronal hole is facing Earth. Enhanced solar wind could arrive in ~3 days.* Follow live on Coronal holes pic.twitter.com/NslDIERINe

— SpaceWeatherLive (@_SpaceWeather_) April 20, 2019
This is a familiar coronal hole that faced our planet last rotation as well but it did not change much during the past 4 weeks. It perhaps slightly increased in size but nothing to write home about. Solar wind flowing from this coronal hole could arrive at our planet on Tuesday which would be 23 April. We do not expect a lot of geomagnetic unrest from this solar wind stream due to the limited size of this coronal hole but high latitude sky watchers who have dark enough skies should be alert for possible aurora displays but anything beyond Kp3 is unlikely.​
This article is here and has some suggestions for following solar flares and things outside of the earth that could hugely diminish the thought that it's all mankind's fault:    Coronal hole faces Earth

There is a how to interpret this article at the bottom of the page if the implications are obscure after reading the article. I recommend it. Please consider that mankind may have little to do with what the sun is cooking up.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which is why the Sun's surface can't radiate toward the corona and why the Earth's
> surface can't radiate toward the thermosphere. DURR.



As has been pointed out numerous times to you....science is working on the explanation for why the corona is warmer than the surface...they don't think it is because energy is spontaneously moving from cool to warm though...you seem to be the only one who thinks that energy is moving spontaneously from the cooler surface to the warmer corona...

And I guess you didn't know that you would freeze to death in seconds in the thermosphere...while the individual gas molecules may be very hot, they are so far apart that you would probably never even encounter one.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2019)

IanC said:


> The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.



Except that temperature gradients have been observed, and measured in columns of air. And by "same condition" does that mean differences in pressure, differences in composition, etc?  Does that account for energy being lost by one molecule to another via collision, or is it speaking to radiation only?
.


IanC said:


> The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.



Nothing is being "returned to the surface" except in cases of temperature inversion...the rest of the energy reaching the surface is either coming from the sun, or from below the surface.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Exactly. SSDD somehow believes one side of the coin exists but the other side does not. 

jc is too stupid to understand their is a coin.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.
> ...








When you transect a cone, are the resultant faces equal? 

The Equipartition Theorum needs less assumptions than the Ideal Gas Law. Do you believe in one of them, both, or neither?

One of the assumptions of the IDL is that all collisions are perfectly elastic. Obviously they are not because molecules can be vibrationally excited or relaxed by collision. 


As far as the surface temp...there is not enough solar insolation and/or geothermal heat available to produce the existing condition. Without energy returning from the atmosphere it simply cannot be that warm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why the Sun's surface can't radiate toward the corona and why the Earth's
> ...



*science is working on the explanation for why the corona is warmer than the surface..*

Nobody gives a shit.
It _is_ funny that your claim is so easily disproven.

*you seem to be the only one who thinks that energy is moving spontaneously from the cooler surface to the warmer corona...*

You're free to explain why it isn't.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Of course it does...but then that energy is immediately lost via collision and the conduction of the energy through the troposphere continues..there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.....a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure and convection.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2019)

IanC said:


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Of course it does...but then that energy is immediately lost via collision and the conduction of the energy through the troposphere continues.*

So you agree with jc456, CO2 absorbs IR and never ever emits IR.

*a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure and convection.*

A greenhouse prevents energy from escaping, just as you and jc456 claimed CO2 does.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *science is working on the explanation for why the corona is warmer than the surface..*
> 
> Nobody gives a shit.
> It _is_ funny that your claim is so easily disproven.



Funny that you think the corona disproves my claim...Funny that you seem to be the only one who thinks that energy is moving spontaneously from cool too warm..
*
*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *you seem to be the only one who thinks that energy is moving spontaneously from the cooler surface to the warmer corona...*
> 
> You're free to explain why it isn't.



Refer to the second law of thermodynamics...My bold on the applicable phrase don't seem to be able to determine which one applies.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Of course it does...but then that energy is immediately lost via collision and the conduction of the energy through the troposphere continues.*
> 
> So you agree with jc456, CO2 absorbs IR and never ever emits IR.



About 1 in a billion CO2 molecules that have absorbed IR actually get to emit it because the time between collisions of molecules is so much shorter than the time it takes a molecule to actually emit a photon.

* a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure and convection.*



Toddsterpatriot said:


> A greenhouse prevents energy from escaping, just as you and jc456 claimed CO2 does.



So you think there is a huge glass pane up in the sky now?  And what sort of mental gyrations and gymnastics do you have to do in order to misunderstand so badly that you think I have claimed that CO2 prevents energy from escaping?  The fact is that what small amount of energy CO2 actually radiates moves out of the atmosphere at the speed of light...CO2 that actually holds on to energy long enough to emit it via radiation moves energy out of the atmosphere far more efficiently than the process of conduction.

Are you just another bald faced liar...or are your reading and comprehension skills really that bad?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *science is working on the explanation for why the corona is warmer than the surface..*
> ...



*Funny that you seem to be the only one who thinks that energy is moving spontaneously from cool too warm..*

Funny that you can't explain why it's not.

*Refer to the second law of thermodynamics...*

Refer to the Sun's corona.

* 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. *

And? Don't stop there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Of course it does...but then that energy is immediately lost via collision and the conduction of the energy through the troposphere continues.*
> ...



*About 1 in a billion CO2 molecules that have absorbed IR actually get to emit it because the time between collisions of molecules is so much shorter than the time it takes a molecule to actually emit a photon.*

And how many can emit.....later, when they gain energy from a collision?

*So you think there is a huge glass pane up in the sky now?*

Nope. I think there is CO2 up in the sky that you, and jc, think absorbs and never, ever emits.

*And what sort of mental gyrations and gymnastics do you have to do in order to misunderstand so badly that you think I have claimed that CO2 prevents energy from escaping? *

I'm willing to listen to your explanation of how CO2 can conduct energy out into space.

*The fact is that what small amount of energy CO2 actually radiates moves out of the atmosphere at the speed of light..*

Right. 1 in a billion. Unless that one also gets absorbed by a GHG molecule before leaving the atmosphere.

*CO2 that actually holds on to energy long enough to emit it via radiation *​
Absorbs at the surface.....waits until it reaches TOA to emit? Sounds like another smart emitter fantasy.
Why doesn't it emit at 10 meters? At 100 meters? At 1000 meters?​​*moves energy out of the atmosphere far more efficiently than the process of conduction.*​
Well, shit. It couldn't move energy out of the atmosphere less efficiently than conduction, eh?
Since conduction moves exactly ZERO energy out into space.​


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, never said that.  you're a liar.  wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


If it has already absorbed, yes, it will only lose the energy it absorbed at collision.
No, CO2 does not gain energy during collision if already vibrating when colliding with other gas molecules, it hands off what it absorbed.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

IanC said:


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


I'm so much smarter than you.  you believe CO2 can warm the planet more than the sun.  yeah ok poindexter.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


never said that liar.  it's all you got. weak ass shit from wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you're free to prove me wrong.  post up the experiment that says I'm wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


do you know if there is any work in relationship with the corona and the surface?  It is my experience, that our scientists haven't answered that very scenario.  So you think, perhaps that message board posters will?  Derp!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

IanC said:


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


yeah, yeah, yeah, it's always what you have.  now post up some observed empirical data that confirms all your modeling what ifs!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*You're free to explain why it isn't.*

he did.  you chose to ignore it and do your spectacular wash, rinse, repeat act.  never ever do you offer a counter point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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










Northern nations warming faster than global average


After IR is absorbed by CO2, can CO2 ever emit IR?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure, as long as it isn't colliding with other molecules.  And when it does, it emits to space the colder area off of the surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*sure, as long as it isn't colliding with other molecules.*

Only CO2 that doesn't collide is allowed to emit? Link?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


A CO2 molecule vibrating is only allowed to emit.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You're contradicting your previous claims. First you said they never emit again, now you say they do.
Were you wrong at first or are you wrong now?


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure and convection



This is one of your talking points that you never get around to explaining, even after pointed questioning. 

How does convection or conduction stop CO2 from absorbing surface produced 15 micron radiation? 

Without CO2 that radiation would totally ignore the atmosphere and escape at the speed of light. Yet you are arguing that convection and conduction are superior even though they cannot even move the energy to space.

CO2 absorbs near the surface and emits to space high above. In between it equally absorbs and emits according to its temperature, regardless of molecular collisions.


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



To paraphrase Heisenberg, jc is not even smart enough to be wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope, I never made such a claim, ol wash, rinse, repeat liar dude.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2019)

IanC said:


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


and still smarter than you!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*I never made such a claim, *









Northern nations warming faster than global average

Liar.


----------



## Dick Foster (Apr 29, 2019)

PredFan said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> ...


Actually the climate has been in a constant state of change since earth was a planet. It was change that created the climate to begin with. When it stops changing, then you can worry because we'll be in real trouble. However all you'll likely be able to do is worry about before it takes us all out. Maybe we'll have time to bend over and kiss our asses good by.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*



These three statements of the second law of thermodynamics are in lecture notes from a thermodynamics course at MIT.
5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law

No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law]
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]
The entropy change of any system and its surroundings, considered together, is positive and approaches zero for any process which approaches reversibility.
MIT and many other science sites state that all three expressions are correct statements of the second law. Do you agree?


.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *
> 
> And? Don't stop there.



Which part of that do you not understand?  Are you saying that the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect?  Any actual evidence of that claim that doesn't involve a complete misunderstanding of what you are seeing?...like the suns corona which is not an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> How does convection or conduction stop CO2 from absorbing surface produced 15 micron radiation?



Who ever said that it stops it from absorbing anything?  The fact that energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by convection doesn't mean that CO2 can't absorb energy...it just means that the amount it radiates is so small as to be inconsequential...

Models of the radiative greenhouse effect assume that all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are busy absorbing IR and emitting IR...that simply is not true...  About 1 in a million CO2 molecules actually emits the energy it absorbs....the rest lose that energy via a collision.  Now take the amount of energy that the models assume CO2 to be radiating and reduce it so that rather than all of the CO2 molecules are radiating IR, only 1 in a billion are radiating IR...

How much IR does that leave CO2 to be radiating about the troposphere?



Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*
> ...



Been through it all before...if you must relive your losses...refer to any of the past incarnations of this discussion...I won't promote any further tedium on this board by rehashing the same material with you over and over ad nauseam.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *
> ...



*Which part of that do you not understand?*

The part where work is done that allows energy to more from surface to corona and surface to thermosphere.
Point out the work.....for once.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Au contraire, you are the one promoting tedium by your bold faced, ". *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. *Which you have posted and misinterpreted ad nausium countless times. 

You have a lose-lose situation if you try to answer my post. So I understand why you want to deflect. It will show you painted yourself in a corner. 

Again I don't take your insults personally because you are insulting all scientists who you essentially believe "relive their losses." 

So, again do you agree that all three expressions of the SLOT are correct statements of the second law. 
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How does convection or conduction stop CO2 from absorbing surface produced 15 micron radiation?
> ...



CO2 at ground level absorbs energy and releases it via collision. The minute amount re-radiated by CO2 will not reach earths surface from about three meters up due to this. This small  amount of depth is sufficient to stop that 1 in a billion that is actually re-radiated by CO2. This however does not stop other sources of radiation.

Our alarmist friends cant grasp this simple concept.


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Who ever said that it stops it from absorbing anything? The fact that energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by convection doesn't mean that CO2 can't absorb energy...it just means that the amount it radiates is so small as to be inconsequential...



GHG warming is caused by intercepting surface radiation, stopping that amount of cooling. It is partially offset by GHG radiation to space at much higher altitude. 

The method by which the fraction of surface energy input reaches the area where energy output happens is trivial.

Energy only leaves the Earth by radiation. Period. Why do you think that radiation is unimportant even though it is responsible for 100% of energy loss? Why do you think convection and conduction is so important even though all it does is make radiation heat loss more efficient?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> Energy only leaves the Earth by radiation. Period. Why do you think that radiation is unimportant even though it is responsible for 100% of energy loss? Why do you think convection and conduction is so important even though all it does is make radiation heat loss more efficient?


IT is the process from BB radiation near surface --> conversion to atmospheric convection and conduction--> renunciation of water vapor and release at TOA, that you do not understand.  It is also the reason there is no atmospheric hot spot and build up which is the foundation of AGW.

The main problem with the AGW hypothesis is, they think it is radiative in the primary area of the atmosphere, however in this region it is not. In the narrow band that CO2 can affect the primary route of release is convection and conduction. Only in very narrow regions such as deserts and the poles is the primary method radiative due to very low atmospheric water content.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> GHG warming is caused by intercepting surface radiation, stopping that amount of cooling. It is partially offset by GHG radiation to space at much higher altitude.


Studies show that the rate of convection and conduction increases proportional to the temperature rise. The temperature rise will be local, not global, and be short lived. This is a primary driver of Hadley cell speeds which control the rate of convection.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> GHG warming is caused by intercepting surface radiation, stopping that amount of cooling. It is partially offset by GHG radiation to space at much higher altitude.



It isn't so called GHG that are intercepting the radiation. If they were able to absorb and emit their energy, it would move out of the atmosphere at the speed of light. It is the non radiative gasses that make up the bulk of the atmosphere that are doing the intercepting. They collide with so called greenhouse gasses that have absorbed some IR and the so called greenhouse gas loses that energy to the non radiative gas. Then rather than moving out of the atmosphere at the speed of light, the energy is conducted through the troposphere....a much slower process than radiating through the troposphere.



IanC said:


> The method by which the fraction of surface energy input reaches the area where energy output happens is trivial.



That is perhaps the stupidest thing you have ever said. Compare the speed at which energy could radiate through the troposphere to the top of the atmosphere vs the speed at which it conducts through the troposphere and then radiates out when conduction is no longer possible because of the distance between molecules.



IanC said:


> Energy only leaves the Earth by radiation. Period.



And all gas molecules radiate...an O2 or N2 molecule can radiate energy that they acquired via collision with another molecule when the molecules become so rarified that energy movement via conduction is no longer possible.



IanC said:


> Why do you think that radiation is unimportant even though it is responsible for 100% of energy loss?



Because radiation is only important in the upper atmosphere...climate happens in the troposphere and there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the trosposphere...conduction and pressure completely dominate the troposphere...



IanC said:


> Why do you think convection and conduction is so important even though all it does is make radiation heat loss more efficient?



Conduction is in no way a more efficient means of moving energy than radiation...where the hell do you get such stupid ideas? Radiation is a very cumbersome means of moving energy compared to radiation. How exactly do you think that a CO2 molecule which could radiate its bit of energy on out of the atmosphere at the speed of light is made more efficient by losing that bit of energy to an O2 or N2 molecule and than having that energy conducted to the top of the atmosphere where it is then radiated out to space. Which part of that seems more efficient to you? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > GHG warming is caused by intercepting surface radiation, stopping that amount of cooling. It is partially offset by GHG radiation to space at much higher altitude.
> ...



How does your comment rebut my statement? 

Do you understand that phase change by water is not part of the radiative ghg effect? Only a complication?

I have no problem discussing other aspects of atmospheric physics with you. But we need to reach some sort of understanding on the simple case of CO2. You can't invoke the hotspot against CO2 because it is a whole other mechanism.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


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


It rebuts your statement because it shows your energy release path as one of fiction over about 96% of the earth.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit.  I gave a scenario of when it isn't emitting, but never did I say it didn't ever emit.  You're confused as always.


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> It rebuts your statement because it shows your energy release path as one of fiction over about 96% of the earth.



My energy relese path? CO2 absorbing surface emitted 15 micron radiation in the first few metres, then emitting a fraction of that to space much higher up?

Why don't you describe where the 4% resides so that I can guess at your thoughts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > It rebuts your statement because it shows your energy release path as one of fiction over about 96% of the earth.
> ...


What you fail to see is water cools as it rises. This means the wave length of the energy obtained at surface level will be a much longer wave length at TOA.


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And all gas molecules radiate...an O2 or N2 molecule can radiate energy that they acquired via collision with another molecule when the molecules become so rarified that energy movement via conduction is no longer possible.



You are starting to sound like BillyBoob. 

What wavelengths are O2 and N2 radiating away energy? Why does radiation start at cold temperatures high up? What could possibly stop it lower down?

An aside to illustrate the concept...

CO2 has three vibrational states but only the 15 micron band is important to atmospheric physics. Why? Because common atmospheric temperatures are too cold to produce the other two vibration states. CO2 would happily accept the higher energy photons but they would have to come from a high temperature source.


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Total gobbledygook. 

Why didnt you describe the 4%?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Models of the radiative greenhouse effect assume that all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are busy absorbing IR and emitting IR...that simply is not true... About 1 in a million CO2 molecules actually emits the energy it absorbs....the rest lose that energy via a collision. Now take the amount of energy that the models assume CO2 to be radiating and reduce it so that rather than all of the CO2 molecules are radiating IR, only 1 in a billion are radiating IR...



CO2 in the first dozen meters are busy absorbing CO2 from the earth. The CO2 in that region and above radiate at a rate of 1/30,000, not 1 in a billion.

2/9 of all CO2 molecules are always in a bending mode of vibration and capable of radiating with a 1/30,000 probability.



SSDD said:


> And all gas molecules radiate...an O2 or N2 molecule can radiate energy that they acquired via collision with another molecule when the molecules become so rarified that energy movement via conduction is no longer possible.



O2 and N2 don't radiate in the IR region. CO2 and a few other trace gases are able to radiate at the TOA. H2O has precipitated out long before.


.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And all gas molecules radiate...an O2 or N2 molecule can radiate energy that they acquired via collision with another molecule when the molecules become so rarified that energy movement via conduction is no longer possible.
> ...


Your having a real hard time with this, aren't you.. Its Basic Physics Ian...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Models of the radiative greenhouse effect assume that all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are busy absorbing IR and emitting IR...that simply is not true... About 1 in a million CO2 molecules actually emits the energy it absorbs....the rest lose that energy via a collision. Now take the amount of energy that the models assume CO2 to be radiating and reduce it so that rather than all of the CO2 molecules are radiating IR, only 1 in a billion are radiating IR...
> ...



So you can show us in a lab all this heat generate by an extra wisp of CO2?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


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


Yep... Your having serious problems with basic physics...

Tell me Ian, what regulates the wave length of emitted radiation?





This is where your 4% is and more..


----------



## jc456 (Apr 30, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


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


from everything I've read in here 20 PPM is more lethal than 380 PPM


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Apr 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...


The crazy Climatephobes are fun to watch


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Conduction is in no way a more efficient means of moving energy than radiation...where the hell do you get such stupid ideas? Radiation is a very cumbersome means of moving energy compared to radiation.



Conduction and convection are matter mediated forms of energy transport. This is both a strength and a weakness. Radiation needs no intermediary but it is slow to move energy.

Put your hand an inch to the side of a red hot electric element. Then put your hand an inch above the element. Now touch the element. Still think all paths are the same?


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Please...show me where and why I am wrong.

Unlike you, I wont run away or change the subject.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


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






As the energy rises the molecule cools and the wave length elongates. This is where your 4% of missing energy is going. And its in Conduction and Convection where the process terminates in water vapor re-nucleation at TOA where the energy is emitted at 20-70um..


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me Ian, what regulates the wave length of emitted radiation?



Emissivity and temperature.  And phase.


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> As the energy rises the molecule cools and the wave length elongates. This is where your 4% is going.



Higher energy means cooling? Have you been drinking already?


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> It rebuts your statement because it shows your energy release path as one of fiction over about 96% of the earth



Are you now saying that it is not 96% of the Earth but 96% of the time? 

Why are you always making mistakes and misrepresentations?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > It rebuts your statement because it shows your energy release path as one of fiction over about 96% of the earth
> ...


Roughly 96% OF THE EARTH IS WATER VAPOR DEPENDENT. Only 4% of the earth is radiative dependent.

ETA: I misunderstood what you wrote earlier. The 4% of energy that is supposed to be creating warming is gone and the reason there can not be a hot spot in our atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > As the energy rises the molecule cools and the wave length elongates. This is where your 4% is going.
> ...


You cant read the graphing can you. Cooling results in LESS energy.

Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Roughly 96% OF THE EARTH IS WATER VAPOR DEPENDENT. Only 4% of the earth is radiative dependent



WTF are you talking about? All energy LOSS is radiative. Shuffling energy around can be done by many pathways.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Roughly 96% OF THE EARTH IS WATER VAPOR DEPENDENT. Only 4% of the earth is radiative dependent
> ...


You simply can not grasp the concept. Your so fixated on CO2 that you cant see the forest through the trees...


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Why did you state "as energy rises the molecule cools". (Quoted above)

What did you want me take away from that link? It doesn't  make any claims that CO2 is radiating any wavelengths other than 15 microns.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2019)

Does any of this explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean down to 2,000M?


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You simply can not grasp the concept. Your so fixated on CO2 that you cant see the forest through the trees...



You're an idiot who can't figure out cause and effect. You cannot seem to focus on CO2 long enough to reach any conclusions


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


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


Obviously you failed at reading the absorptive and emitted properties sections.


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Does any of this explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean down to 2,000M?



CO2 does not directly heat the ocean.


----------



## IanC (Apr 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Copy and paste the section and explain in your own words why it is important.

Edit- I spent at least a minute scanning that paper. Nothing interesting or unusual popped out. Except maybe that your chart is totally derived by model. Im okay with that because atmospheric models are typically very close to measured data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > GHG warming is caused by intercepting surface radiation, stopping that amount of cooling. It is partially offset by GHG radiation to space at much higher altitude.
> ...



*It isn't so called GHG that are intercepting the radiation. If they were able to absorb and emit their energy, it would move out of the atmosphere at the speed of light. It is the non radiative gasses that make up the bulk of the atmosphere that are doing the intercepting. They collide with so called greenhouse gasses that have absorbed some IR and the so called greenhouse gas loses that energy to the non radiative gas. Then rather than moving out of the atmosphere at the speed of light, the energy is conducted through the troposphere....a much slower process than radiating through the troposphere.*

You've discovered the mechanism of GHGs warming the atmosphere. Congrats!
Don't tell SSDD, he thinks it doesn't happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit.*






So when you said here, "how does CO2 reemit?" you were saying it does?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Yes, congrats. He seems to have turned around. For once I mostly agree with what he says, although it's rather awkwardly stated. 


.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Does any of this explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean down to 2,000M?
> ...



Can't be! Peer reviewed IPCC said so


----------



## jc456 (Apr 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well yeah when you add the rest of the sentence I wrote.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Clear up the confusion. 
Can CO2 ever "re-emit" or is it one and done?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Admit you lied


----------



## MarathonMike (Apr 30, 2019)

WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You've discovered the mechanism of GHGs warming the atmosphere. Congrats!
> Don't tell SSDD, he thinks it doesn't happen.



I can only suppose that you believe saying incredibly stupid stuff is somehow cute...sorry, it's just incredibly stupid...

Tell you what sparky, how about you go out on the internet and bring back a description of the greenhouse effect that points out that conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere....and how only one in a billion greenhouse gas molecules actually gets to emit a photon and the rest lose the energy they have absorbed via collisions with other molecules.

And do make sure they explain how the overwhelming dominance of conduction and convection in the troposphere equal a radiative greenhouse effect.

You might get wuwei to help you out since he seems to think that convection and conduction equal a radiative greenhouse effect as well.

I look forward to watching your abject failure...and just can't wait to see the excuses you put forward for not bringing any such description of the radiative greenhouse effect forward.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction.  Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?



Great job...multiply any number by zero and you end up with zero.  Move to the head of the class....and take bonus points for knowing that there is no man made global warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?
> ...



But once you add the warming 2,000m deep in the oceans


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



One of the mysteries of their religion...how does CO2 manage to warm the deep oceans?  It is part of gaia's plan and not for us mere mortals to know.


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction. Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.



As you know, the radiative greenhouse effect has it's largest influence near the surface. Much less so above a few dozen meters. 


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?


You would get the same number if you doubled your IQ.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Where?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You've discovered the mechanism of GHGs warming the atmosphere. Congrats!
> ...



*I can only suppose that you believe saying incredibly stupid stuff is somehow cute*

Yes, I think mocking your stupidity is cute.

Now, tell me more about your claim that IR can't heat the atmosphere. LOL!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



First publication of peer reviewed (and now completely discredited) IPCC 5 said the oceans absorbed 93% of the imaginary warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction. Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.
> ...



Really? So how does it warm the ocean 2,000m deep?


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2019)

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean. 


.


----------



## IanC (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You've discovered the mechanism of GHGs warming the atmosphere. Congrats!
> ...



SSDD makes a very strong point here.

Why does the media screw up so badly describing the GHE, and why do climate scientists go along with it?

Even if most laymen have difficulty understanding the nuance of atmospheric physics,  the various levels of explanations should be available.


----------



## IanC (May 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction. Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.
> ...



I wish you had been around half a dozen years ago when I was describing the GHE as a surface bottleneck with a secondary one at the cloudtops.

All I got was quizzical looks or scorn for my trouble.

An interesting thought to consider is what would happen if H2O phase change was absent or weaker.

What do YOU think would happen to surface temperatures? Temp profile in general?


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2019)

IanC said:


> I wish you had been around half a dozen years ago when I was describing the GHE as a surface bottleneck with a secondary one at the cloudtops.
> 
> All I got was quizzical looks or scorn for my trouble.
> 
> ...



Ah yes, the cloud tops. Where would they be without a phase change. The solubility of water (vapor) is much more temperature dependent than CO2. Initially the physics wouldn't be too different at the surface, but water would join CO2 in the stratosphere and beyond. The lapse rate would probably loose the kink at the top of the troposphere. Radiation to space would be at a lower warmer altitude and the earth would heat up. More water would evaporate, and there would be a run-away effect sort of like Venus.

I'm assuming that there still is a liquid to vapor phase change, but not a solid state within ambient conditions.

Edit. If there was a liquid to vapor phase change there would still be rain, but not snow. There are two stable phases changes with water. Are you talking about both? 


.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


in your post, derp


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface?  instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction?  yeah, I'm good.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.
> 
> 
> .



So AGW is NOT heating the oceans. That's what we've been saying


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Which post? derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface?*

You're lying.

*instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction?*

IR radiation warms GHGs and they conduct to non-GHGs thereby warming the atmosphere?
Are you sure? SSDD says IR doesn't lead to warming. IR "can't warm the atmosphere" he has claimed.

Now, back to your stance. 

After CO2 absorbs IR and conducts energy away, can CO2 ever regain energy from Non-GHGs and radiate? Or does it never, ever radiate?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


the one with the lie


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


CO2 can radiate after it absorbs IR and hasn't collided to hand off the energy it has absorbed.

And IR doesn't heat anything in the atmosphere.  IR is converted to kinetic energy in the CO2 molecule and then handed off  99% of the time.


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.
> ...



GHGs alone are not a source of heat.
The sun heats the oceans and land. 
GHGs keep the surface heat from escaping too rapidly from the oceans and land.
If there were no GHGs too much heat would escape and the oceans would freeze.
The GHGs keep the ocean from freezing; they don't heat the ocean. 
That's what we've been saying.
You were told this many times by many people.

You must have seen the blanket analogy many times.
A blanket is not a source of heat.
Your body is.
The blanket retains your body heat.

It can't be made simpler than that. 


.


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


dude remarkable.  The blanket keeps the cold off my body.  it's a physical barrier.  how is it the heavier the blanket the warmer one gets?  too special indeed.

And how does conduction warm the water exactly? Cause that's what you just implied.  tell us how it penetrates the water.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You're flailing and failing and I'm not surprised.  You tend to make up "facts" on the fly especially you've pwned yourself so effectively.  Your "explanations" are nothing short of fucking moronic to boot.  The funniest thing is that you think you're lecturing me! You completely contradict yourself in 2 consecutive posts and you think you're smart, not like everyone says, like dumb!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



If I lied, tell me the post....unless you're lying......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*CO2 can radiate after it absorbs IR and hasn't collided to hand off the energy it has absorbed.*

What if it gets energy handed back? Can it emit then?

*And IR doesn't heat anything in the atmosphere.  IR is converted to kinetic energy in the CO2 molecule and then handed off  99% of the time.*

Step one, absorb IR. Step two, handoff energy resulting in a heated atmosphere.
Am I missing one of your steps that causes the IR absorption to not heat the atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*The blanket keeps the cold off my body. it's a physical barrier.  *

The cold is a physical thing trying to get at you?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you can't follow along with your own posts eh?  sad!!!


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yep, it affects my skin.  and wind chill is worse than temperature on my skin, but doesn't impact anything else.  just my skin.  hmmmmm.  derp much?


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*What if it gets energy handed back? Can it emit then?*

Sure it can.  why couldn't it?  but it won't emit until it is in a vibrating state and still can loose that energy on another collision. 

*Am I missing one of your steps that causes the IR absorption to not heat the atmosphere*
Well sure you are...IR is converted to kinetic energy.  no longer IR. It's handed to another gas molecule that isn't the same molecular structure as it is.

What is it you think happens?  seems you always avoid letting the class know what you think happens.


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You're flailing and failing and I'm not surprised. You tend to make up "facts" on the fly especially you've pwned yourself so effectively. Your "explanations" are nothing short of fucking moronic to boot. The funniest thing is that you think you're lecturing me! You completely contradict yourself in 2 consecutive posts and you think you're smart, not like everyone says, like dumb!



Where do you think I contradict myself? Where exactly do you think I failed? What facts do you think are made up? If you want to make a point you need to give more information. Otherwise it's just an empty ad hominem.


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I can't follow your imaginary claims about my actual posts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Sure it can. why couldn't it?*

Excellent! And when it emits, it can send that photon in any direction, even toward the ground.

*but it won't emit until it is in a vibrating state and still can loose that energy on another collision. *

Yup. Sometimes it emits, sometimes it collides. 

*Well sure you are...IR is converted to kinetic energy.  no longer IR. *

Yes, the IR doesn't heat the atmosphere until it is absorbed.

*It's handed to another gas molecule that isn't the same molecular structure as it is.*

It's not restricted as far as the molecule it hits, but yes, that's how IR heats the atmosphere. 

*What is it you think happens? *

The IR heats the atmosphere. SSDD was wrong. You too (*And IR doesn't heat anything in the atmosphere)*


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sucks to be you


----------



## jc456 (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Excellent! And when it emits, it can send that photon in any direction, even toward the ground.*

If the surface is cooler than it sure?  why not?

*Yes, the IR doesn't heat the atmosphere until it is absorbed.
It's not restricted as far as the molecule it hits, but yes, that's how IR heats the atmosphere.*
nope, it is no longer IR after it is absorbed.

*The IR heats the atmosphere. SSDD was wrong. You too*

Nope!! Kinetic Energy through conduction.  If IR was what did it, there would be no need to specify conduction, now would there?

Conduction isn't emit, last I looked.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*If the surface is cooler than it sure? why not?*

Why does the surface have to be cooler?

*nope, it is no longer IR after it is absorbed.*

After it's absorbed, it's "heat".
​*Nope!! Kinetic Energy through conduction.  *​​If it's heat after the CO2 conducts it, it's heat before CO2 conducts it.​​*If IR was what did it, there would be no need to specify conduction, now would there?*​
You've discovered the 2 step process. Don't tell SSDD.​


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction. Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.
> ...


As I know, there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



So you can’t find any description of a radiative greenhouse effect that acknowledges that the dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere is conduction and convection?

Not surprising.  Since there are none.

And if you believe than IR heats the atmosphere, feel free to provide some observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere..

Or don’t and lose yet again...


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why does the surface have to be cooler?



Refer to the second law of thermodynamics...energy doesn’t move spontaneously from cool to warm.

And feel free to provide a credible source that claims that energy is moving spontaneously from the surface of the sun to its corona...or don’t and lose yet again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



​*So you can’t find any description of a radiative greenhouse effect*​
I don't need to defend any definition of greenhouse effect.

*And if you believe than IR heats the atmosphere,*

As you've said, IR is absorbed by GHGs which then transfer that energy via collision.
If that added energy doesn't "heat the atmosphere", what does it do?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why does the surface have to be cooler?
> ...



*Refer to the second law of thermodynamics...*

What part of the 2nd Law dictates the direction of photons? 
AFAIK, photons are never mentioned in any version of the 2nd Law. 
If you found such a version, post a link.

*And feel free to provide a credible source that claims that energy is moving spontaneously from the surface of the sun to its corona...*

Does the corona somehow restrict the flow of photons from the Sun's surface?


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Then where does the 400 W/m² from the earth surface go?
and where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

You never answered that question. You only evade it.


.


----------



## PredFan (May 1, 2019)

Dick Foster said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Maybe I should have said eons instead of millennia. But that's what I meant.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Why does the surface have to be cooler*?

You missed that in physics 

*
If it's heat after the CO2 conducts it, it's heat before CO2 conducts it.*

It’s not IR.

*You've discovered the 2 step process. Don't tell SSDD*

What we’ve known is IR doesn’t warm shit


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


* don't need to defend any definition of greenhouse effect*.

Nope not at all. Neither do I or anyone else have to take your crap on anything. Derp


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


He’s answered you every time you ignore his answer


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So you can’t find any description of a radiative greenhouse effect*​
> I don't need to defend any definition of greenhouse effect.



Spoken like someone who can't defend the definition with observations.  Want to tell me about computer models.  Don't sweat it...I didn't expect you to even try and you didn't disappoint.  Since there is no radiative greenhouse effect...and the description of said fantasy effect put forward by climate science does't speak to the fact that convection and conduction are the dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere, there is little you can say....other than a mammoth type defense which is no defense of your position at all.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> As you've said, IR is absorbed by GHGs which then transfer that energy via collision.
> If that added energy doesn't "heat the atmosphere", what does it do?



Here is a newsflash for you...energy transfer via collision is not IR...and the means by which conduction, convection, and pressure warm the atmosphere is not the means described by the radiative greenhouse effect.  Engage in all the mental masturbation you like...get a solid 10.0 for your mental gymnastics routine, but heating due to conduction and convection are not IR.  So as I said....IR does not, and can not warm the air.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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


Already provided the answer for you...Sorry you didn't like it.  Refer to any of the other instances of this conversation if you must relive your losses.  I won't promote your brand of tedium on the board.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*You missed that in physics *

Because I took real physics.

*It’s not IR.*

It's random kinetic energy now (heat).

*What we’ve known is IR doesn’t warm shit*

Except for GHGs and anything they collide with.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *So you can’t find any description of a radiative greenhouse effect*​
> ...



*Spoken like someone who can't defend the definition with observations.  *

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

*Here is a newsflash for you...energy transfer via collision is not IR.*

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

*but heating due to conduction and convection are not IR. *

But it's due to absorbed IR.

*So as I said....IR does not, and can not warm the air.*

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
> I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.



Of course you don't....you never did.  You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
> IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.



Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.  Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.  That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> But it's due to absorbed IR.



And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?  The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.



And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong.  Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?  May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
> ...



* You hold a belief not supported by observations...*

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

*Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.*

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere. 
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

*refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.*

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

*the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?*

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface? 
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

* Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?*

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs*.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?  nope.  so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law.  As do I.  you, hmmm you're just derp!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?*

Yes. From SSDD's own source.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nothing observed eh?  so no evidence.

And mr. wash, rinse, repeat, he's explained to you what that is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Handbook of Modern Sensors. Versus you two idiots.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yeah, and again, your lack of understanding of how that sensor actually works is on you!  but I digress.  you still got nothing.  2nd law,  go for it, and again tell me it's wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




You should contact the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors.
Tell them their diagram is wrong. Explain your "reasoning".
Please post their response.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I don’t have to, I’m confident they understand how their design works. You should tell them you believe cold warms something hot


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I don’t have to, I’m confident they understand how their design works*

You're right. They know, as the diagram shows, radiation is exchanged. 

Let me know if you find a source that supports SSDD's claim. He needs your help.
Every source he posts ends up refuting his claims.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.



Only all the laws of thermodynamics...and every observation ever made...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
> That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
> Call that whatever you want.



Mental masturbation...and an infantile need to not be wrong.  Sorry guy, IR does not warm the air...the air is warmed by the exchange of energy between molecules via conduction...not IR.....and water vapor is the reason that we don't freeze to death..delete the wisp of CO2 from the atmosphere and the difference in temperature wouldn't be measurable..

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...No less than Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that Arrhenius was way off track with his radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?



You got that right...you aren't defending jack...but you still believe...and without the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
> What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?



So since the incoming UV is changed to IR, you accept that the emission from the earth is not UV but IR...but even though the energy that is captured via collision and is responsible for the temperature of the atmosphere is not IR, you still claim that IR is what warms the atmosphere?  Funny that you can't see the flaw in your thinking...but then, you never could.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You think a line drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model is proof of what exactly?  Do tell.


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I wish you had been around half a dozen years ago when I was describing the GHE as a surface bottleneck with a secondary one at the cloudtops.
> ...



I should have been more specific but I still like your answer.

Without phase change for H2O at normal range temperatures there would be very little  convection. That would increase the lapse rate, causing a larger differential between high and low altitudes. I was mostly interested in losing the freight elevator that moves a large amount of energy upwards and the smoothing out of temps. Convection is a huge cooling agent, obviously. The GHE would be more noticeable without it.

You mentioned Venus. Venus has a much lower temperature differential between pole and equator, between daytime and nighttime. The complexities just escalate.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Let me know if you find a source that supports SSDD's claim. He needs your help.
> Every source he posts ends up refuting his claims.



So do quote the physical law that states that energy exchange is a two way proposition.  This should be good.  The second law says that energy can only move spontaneously from warm too cool...the SB law describes a one way energy flow...there is no derivation of the Planck law that describes two way energy flow...so lets see it...lets see the physical law that states that energy flows spontaneously in two directions...from warm to cool and from cool to warm...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (May 2, 2019)

Check out the weather in Boston. Feels like early December not early May. Not a 70 degree day in sight. Global Warming? I don’t see it.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Check out the weather in Boston. Feels like early December not early May. Not a 70 degree day in sight. Global Warming? I don’t see it.


43 in Chicago


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

IanC said:


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



There is no GHE...are you aware that Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that Arrhenius's radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis was nonsense?  Are you aware that there isn't a single measurement of a radiative greenhouse effect...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You mentioned Venus. Venus has a much lower temperature differential between pole and equator, between daytime and nighttime. The complexities just escalate.



And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus either....


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


2nd law backs us. Wash, rinse, repeat


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.
> ...



*and every observation ever made...*

You're lying. Not a single source backs up your claim that photons only flow one way.

*Sorry guy, IR does not warm the air...the air is warmed by the exchange of energy between molecules via conduction...not IR*

After IR is absorbed by GHGs, it's conducted to other molecules in the atmosphere.
There would be a lot less energy to conduct without GHGs.

*You got that right...you aren't defending jack*

I don't need to defend any portion of the AGW idiocy in order to notice, and mock, your errors.

*So since the incoming UV is changed to IR, you accept that the emission from the earth is not UV but IR*

You got one right. Did someone hijack your account?

*but even though the energy that is captured via collision*

Get that hijacker back! LOL!

The IR energy is captured when a GHG molecule absorbs the IR photon.

*you still claim that IR is what warms the atmosphere?*

Only because the IR is absorbed by GHGs before it can flash away into space at the speed of light.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



The Handbook of Modern Sensors doesn't know how to test their sensors? DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Let me know if you find a source that supports SSDD's claim. He needs your help.
> ...



_*Stefan*-*Boltzmann law*, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. …_ 

No exception given for dialing back emitted energy due to nearby matter or matter a billion light years away.

Maybe if you had a source that supports your dimmer switch theory you'd be taken more seriously?


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> There is no radiative greenhouse effect...No less than Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that Arrhenius was way off track with his radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...



Another one of your crazy talking points. You have repeated it a few times now. 

How could they disagree with a person not even born yet? (Yah yah, slight overlap with Maxwell)

Will you continue to make your claim in the future?


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



_ It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. _

The Sun's work is what allows the cooler surface to radiate toward the hotter corona?


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t know


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2019)

Heat continuously tries to diffuse in all directions. By conduction and radiation. Convection is a different process.

If you are looking at a small parcel of air embedded in a local area of the atmosphere, you will find that in every direction the amount of kinetic energy coming in is the same as the amount going ouy. Likewise with the internally generated radiation. 

Warming that parcel of air would necessitate that more energy entered than left. This could happen by contact with warmer air, or excess radiation  capable of being absorbed.

The GHE works by absorbing surface radiation that would otherwise simply escape to space. Warming near the surface, a smaller amount of cooling at altitude. Net energy increase for every wavelength that the GHGs absorb.


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t




For any spontaneous reaction to occur, something had to reduce entropy (add order) between two areas in the first place.

Earth systems are 'powered' by the entropy increase when highly ordered sunlight comes in but disordered infrared leaves. The same amount of energy goes in both directions.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t
> ...


The ask was the corona and science doesn’t know why the corona is warmer than the surface


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer.

We care about SSDD's moronic claim that photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter.
Do you agree with his moronic claim?
If you do, explain why cooler matter on the Sun's surface can radiate toward the hotter corona.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer*
Dude, you bring it up almost monthly over the last two years


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Of  course cooler objects can’t heat hot objects. You keep posting that they can. Still waiting on that observed experiment


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



And still no answer for why it doesn't violate SSDD's one way photon idiocy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Of course cooler objects can’t heat hot objects. *

I didn't claim they did. I said, "cooler matter on the Sun's surface can radiate toward the hotter corona"


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *.*
> 
> You're lying. Not a single source backs up your claim that photons only flow one way.



So do provide a single observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange between objects of different temperatures.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *. *After IR is absorbed by GHGs, it's conducted to other molecules in the atmosphere.
> There would be a lot less energy to conduct without GHGs.



And the IR is emitted after the surface of the earth is warmed by short wave radiation...but it isn't short wave that is being emitted by the surface...just like it isn't IR that is warming the air...mental masturbation is never going to get IR to warm the air...you need conduction to make that happen and where the energy comes from is completely irrelevant...when it is warming the air...it isn't IR...just like when it is emitting from the surface of the earth, it isn't short wave any longer.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *. *I don't need to defend any portion of the AGW idiocy in order to notice, and mock, your errors.



Translates as you can't, so you will toss out an ad hom or two in an attempt to deflect from the fact that you can't..



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *. *You got one right. Did someone hijack your account?[p/quote]
> 
> And by the same logic, the energy that is warming the air is no longer IR...which excludes the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no radiative greenhouse effect...No less than Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that Arrhenius was way off track with his radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...
> ...



I suppose I should have said that Maxwell, Clausius and Carnot said that the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities.

Guess I should have figured someone would start picking the fly shit out of the pepper...


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



I doubt that S-B would have been aware of the rules that science would later apply to photons...I didn't make them up, I just pointed them out and what the ramifications of those rules are.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

IanC said:


> Heat continuously tries to diffuse in all directions. By conduction and radiation. Convection is a different process.



So now you are going to try and claim back conduction as well?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *.*
> ...



*So do provide a single observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange between objects of different temperatures.*

Your source agreed with me, what more do you want?

Now how about your source that says, explicitly, one way only......
Should be easy for you.​
*just like it isn't IR that is warming the air*

just like it is IR that is warming the air

*you need conduction to make that happen*

Nah. The CO2, or other GHG, when it absorbs IR is heated.
Whether it conducts the heat away or not. 


*And the IR is emitted after the surface of the earth is warmed by short wave radiation*

Damn right.

*but it isn't short wave that is being emitted by the surface..*

Nobody said it was. Photons converted into kinetic energy, heat, just like IR heating the GHGs.

*Translates as you can't*

Translates into, I don't have to defend the fraud that is AGW in order to point out your many, many errors.

*the energy that is warming the air is no longer IR..*

Who ever claimed that a photon after it's absorbed is still a photon?
Is it jc? DURR.

*No...the energy captured is not IR...*

What is it, UV? Xrays? Radio waves?

*It might have been when it was captured,*

Thanks for playing. Here's your participation trophy.

*but once it was captured, it was no longer IR...the energy it lost due to collision was just energy...not IR...*

Yup. What was IR is now heat. Welcome to the party, pal.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t
> ...




Energy only moves from warm to cool...perhaps you could petition to get the second law of thermodynamics rewritten so that it agrees with you.  Let me know how that works out for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*I didn't make them up, I just pointed them out and what the ramifications of those rules are. *

When you claimed that matter won't emit a photon if the target of the photon, a billion light years away, is warmer than the emitter.....you did make them up.

You can still redeem yourself with a real source that agrees with your "one way only photons", "dimmer switch emitters" and "no radiating at all at equilibrium", but you never ever do. Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Energy only moves from warm to cool...*

Except when it moves from cool to warm (cough...sun's surface to corona...cough)


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your source agreed with me, what more do you want?



Exactly what I said I wanted...an observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange between objects of different temperatures...not a line drawing depicting an unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical model.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Now how about your source that says, explicitly, one way only......
> Should be easy for you.



No problem...the best source there is...the second law of thermodynamics...the mother of all physical laws.  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.

Which part of that do you think suggests that it is possible for energy to move spontaneously in two directions?​


Toddsterpatriot said:


> just like it is IR that is warming the air



Got a source that says that when a thing is being heated by conduction, that IR is doing the heating?  Didn't think so...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nah. The CO2, or other GHG, when it absorbs IR is heated.
> Whether it conducts the heat away or not.



Got a single observed measurement that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Didn't think so.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who ever claimed that a photon after it's absorbed is still a photon?
> Is it jc? DURR.



You are the one claiming that IR warms the air...now you are saying that it doesn't?  Which is it?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup. What was IR is now heat. Welcome to the party, pal.



What a spectacular failure of logic...but it was damned funny to watch...and predictable as midnight...


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When you claimed that matter won't emit a photon if the target of the photon, a billion light years away, is warmer than the emitter.....you did make them up.



What do you think it means when science says that a photon exists simultaneously along every point of its path?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You can still redeem yourself with a real source that agrees with your "one way only photons", "dimmer switch emitters" and "no radiating at all at equilibrium", but you never ever do. Weird.



Which part of this statement do you think suggests that energy can flow spontaneously in two directions between two objects of different temperatures?

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




*Sorry that you aren't bright enough to grasp the concept of spontaneity.* 

Educate me. Speak slowly. Explain precisely why cooler matter on the Sun's surface is allowed
to emit toward the hotter corona, unlike every other bit of cooler matter in the universe that you said is not allowed to emit toward hotter targets.

Tell me why those emitted solar photons are not spontaneous.

You can do it.....unless you're gonna run away instead?????


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When you claimed that matter won't emit a photon if the target of the photon, a billion light years away, is warmer than the emitter.....you did make them up.
> ...



*What do you think it means when science says that a photon exists simultaneously along every point of its path?*

Does it mean a photon knows where every bit of matter will be across the universe in a billion years?
Does it mean a photon knows the temperature of every bit of matter across the universe in a billion years?

*Which part of this statement do you think suggests that energy can flow spontaneously in two directions between two objects of different temperatures?*

Which part of this Law says..."unless there is warmer matter somewhere in the Universe"?


_*Stefan*-*Boltzmann law*, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. ... The *law* applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation._

*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. *

What kinds of work would allow cold to warm flow? Post a list.


----------



## MisterBeale (May 2, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> View attachment 253589


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Heat continuously tries to diffuse in all directions. By conduction and radiation. Convection is a different process.
> ...




In a gas? Of course there is.

The speed and direction of molecules in a cohort of gas is random. Any chosen slice through the gas will see molecules passing in both directions, travelling at different speeds.

Your twisted version of thermodynamics would stop a fast moving molecule migrating from the cooler side to the warmer side. By some unknown mechanism, controlled by some unknown entity.


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



It was rewritten a hundred years ago. Here s the first google description-
"The *second law of thermodynamics* states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in *thermodynamic*equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process"

I didnt look very hard but I didn't even see your definition. Could you provide a link?


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

IanC said:


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



Got any observed, measured evidence?  Actual evidence I mean...that would be observations and measurements made with an instrument at ambient temperature?

Didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

IanC said:


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



And still doesn't suggest that energy exchange is a two way process...entropy is the process of energy rolling down hill...and all natural processes are irreversible.

Second Law of Thermodynamics


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



He brings it up because for some reason he believes the fact that the corona is hotter than the surface that it is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler region to a warmer region.  There is no suggestion anywhere that that is the case, but it is what he believes...like he believes that the thermosphere of the earth is a warmer region than the surface of the earth even though you would freeze to death there in moments...sure the individual molecules are very warm, but they are so far apart that you would freeze before you even encounter one of them.

He likes to claim that others have nutty ideas, but those two are off of the top shelf of the nutty ideas store...and then there is the fact that no physical law says that he is correct while the mother of all physical laws, the second law of thermodynamics supports what he calls my nutty idea.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Your link has four areas covered by the SLoT. Your definition goes to the refrigeration section which then states-



> It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object



Why do your links always end up as evidence for my position?


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Got any observed, measured evidence? Actual evidence I mean...that would be observations and measurements made with an instrument at ambient temperature?
> 
> Didn't think so.



Evaporation. You say energy will never move to an already 'warm' particle but evaporation is the end result of random collisions that impart sufficient speed to an H2O molecule so that it can break free from the liquid, taking its energy with it.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Be definitive.  Are you saying that yes, the corona stops some photons from being emitted from the surface. But that the corona is too rarified to cast much of a shadow because the remaining radiation slips through the gaps.

Be specific for a change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*He brings it up because for some reason he believes the fact that the corona is hotter than the surface that it is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler region to a warmer region.*

You could explain why it isn't spontaneous. Or you could run away......again.


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *He brings it up because for some reason he believes the fact that the corona is hotter than the surface that it is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler region to a warmer region.*
> 
> You could explain why it isn't spontaneous. Or you could run away......again.


He once said something to the effect that no process is spontaneous if it involved prior work or if it were man-made. He also said that the sun is not spontaneous, but involves work. 

In essence, that would mean nothing is spontaneous. I challenged him once to name a spontaneous process that involved no prior work and he ran away. 


.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


when the experts figure it out.  name one scientist that says it's spontaneous.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

IanC said:


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








says heat transfer.... Restricts the direction of!!!!


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And still doesn't suggest that energy exchange is a two way process.


Entropy allows the exchange of radiation as long as entropy increases between the initial and final state of a system. It doesn't disallow radiation exchange.



SSDD said:


> .entropy is the process of energy rolling down hill......
> 
> Second Law of Thermodynamics


Rolling down hill? Your reference shows nothing of the sort.  Are you referring to the picture of a waterfall flowing down? You need to read what you cited.

.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And still doesn't suggest that energy exchange is a two way process.
> ...


show us that example.  you know, that observed piece.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

IanC said:


> Your link has four areas covered by the SLoT. Your definition goes to the refrigeration section which then states-



You think that there are special physics at work that only apply to refrigerators?



> It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object



I note that that statement is a footnote....it isn't found in the statement of the second law that they provide...it is an opinion, not supported by observed measured evidence...if it were, then it would be within the statement of the second law.



IanC said:


> Why do your links always end up as evidence for my position?



They don't....it is your willingness to reinterpret what is said to whatever it needs to say to support you that gives you that impression.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Got any observed, measured evidence? Actual evidence I mean...that would be observations and measurements made with an instrument at ambient temperature?
> ...



And is the area that it has broken free from warmer or cooler than region it has moved to?  Obviously the air is cooler...energy only moves from warmer regions to cooler regions.  Sorry ian...evaporation is not an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warmer region.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

IanC said:


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



I am saying that science, in no way ever suggested that the corona is an example of energy moving from a cooler region to a warmer region...Toddster holds up the same argument regarding the thermosphere on earth...suggesting that energy from the surface moving through the thermosphere is an example of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler surface to a warmer thermosphere...he is ignorant of the fact that you would freeze to death in the thermosphere should you find yourself there with out protective gear because the molecules are so far apart, that there isn't really any heat there in spite of the fact that individual molecules may be very "hot".  

I am simply pointing out that science isn't making the claim that the corona of the sun is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region as he believes.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *He brings it up because for some reason he believes the fact that the corona is hotter than the surface that it is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler region to a warmer region.*
> ...




Spontaneous process is defined as a process that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

I never ran from you as much as you would like to believe it to be so...I merely tired of the tedium of trying to explain that simple definition to you in even simpler terms.  If any energy input from the surroundings assist a process...it is not spontaneous...sorry that the definition gets in the way of what you choose to believe.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



They want and need so badly for energy to move spontaneously in both directions....There is a reason that minds such as Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that the temperature of the atmosphere is due to pressure, atmospheric mass, and conduction rather than radiation...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The Sun shining isn't spontaneous?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I don't see the word "photon" in that diagram......


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


is it?


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


nope it doesn't.  It concerns heat and transfer of it.  you wish to prove photons move, show observed two way flow. I'm all game here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*I am simply pointing out that science isn't making the claim that the corona of the sun is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region*

Still running away...….


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You don't know? Ask SSDD.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*you wish to prove photons move, *

Photons don't move?


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I am simply pointing out that science isn't making the claim that the corona of the sun is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region as he believes.




You are the one who said photons cannot be emitted in the direction towards a warmer object. Repeatedly.

Why is the Sun's surface visible if it cannot radiate outwards towards the corona? That is Todd's question, although it has been repeated so often that it is meaningless.  If you ever gave him a cogent answer, I must have missed it.

Why does the Sun's surface emit towards the hotter corona, contradicting your bizarroland interpretation of the second law? Be specific.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



I see three branches; heat, heat transfer, and entropy. None of them mentions energy let alone photons.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you implied you knew when science doesn't.  so what is it?


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


do they?  post up the observed photon movement


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I know the Sun's surface shines toward the hotter corona.
That seems to contradict SSDD's claims about the 2nd Law.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am simply pointing out that science isn't making the claim that the corona of the sun is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region as he believes.
> ...


no, the question is what is the corona doing.  again, unless you've visited it and sampled it, do you know what it is actually doing?  science doesn't, but I see now you and todd do.  wow outstanding, got that Nobel prize yet?


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Your link has four areas covered by the SLoT. Your definition goes to the refrigeration section which then states-
> ...




Only SSDD would consider a specific warning not to make a faulty assumption, on a physics website, to be just 'an opinion ' to be ignored. Why did he link to it if he thought it was wrong?


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


naw, you're just making that up, we know.  you derps know all about how the corona works when science doesn't.

How the Sun's Corona Gets So Hot | DiscoverMagazine.com

"The solar corona, our sun’s energetic atmosphere, has long baffled scientists who don’t understand how it gets all that energy. “We call it the coronal heating problem,” says Jonathan Cirtain, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Marshall Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. “Why is the surface of the sun 6,000 Kelvin while the corona is 7 million Kelvin?” Cirtain and a team of researchers have helped solve the mystery using the highest-resolution images ever taken of the corona."

you should call NASA and let em know you figured it out.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Are you arguing that SSDD didnt repeatedly claim that photons cannot be emitted at warmer objects than the temperature of the emitter? 

No one gives a shit about the corona other than it is yet another discrepancy in SSDDs vetsion of physics.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

IanC said:


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


I think he spoke of energy moving from cold to warm.

or you could post the # he did that.  that would be white of you


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*you derps know all about how the corona works when science doesn't.*

For at least the 30th time, my point has nothing to do with why the corona is so hot.

My point is that SSDD said matter won't emit photons toward warmer matter.
If you agree that the Sun's surface does in fact emit toward the hotter corona, you'd see his error.

*you should call NASA *

You should call NASA and see what they think of SSDD's claims. Post their response here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*I think he spoke of energy moving from cold to warm.*

Now photons are allowed to move from cold to warm as long as no energy moves? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*For at least the 30th time, my point has nothing to do with why the corona is so hot.*

for the 30th time, sure you are.  otherwise you wouldn't mention 30 times.  you're obsessed with the sun and its corona.  OBSESSED


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well dude, you could just show the observed empirical evidence that proves your magic photons. why won't you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



It is an easy illustration of SSDD's error.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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








No magic needed.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


again, so you know what the science doesn't know.   got your nobel prize there bubba?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



"Except for GHGs and anything they collide with."

Wrong again...

Is the wavelength correct?  The diepole moment correct? Can the molecule actually warm?

As with 98% of all atmospheric gases the answers are no 99.9% f the time.  The atmosphere, absent water vapor, can not warm by LWIR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Science doesn't know that the Sun's surface radiates through the hotter corona?

You're lying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Can the molecule actually warm?*​
Yes, the IR that is absorbed by the atmosphere warms the atmosphere.

*The atmosphere, absent water vapor, can not warm by LWIR.*

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmer after the absorption than before? Link?


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.


Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process? Didn't think so.



SSDD said:


> Entropy is described as time's arrow...entropy is a one way process. It is only your wild interpretation that suggests that entropy is a two way street... Been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat...refer to any of the previous incarnations of this discussion.


I would rather refer to the science literature rather than your incantations. Jeez you don't understand entropy. You are confusing entropy with radiation exchange. They are different. You are just picking scientific words and putting them in sentences that don't make sense. 



SSDD said:


> Still picking fly shit out of the pepper in an attempt gain some sense of winning a point? Rolling downhill is a figure of speech...sorry it went over your head...


You must know by now that your posts are so far off the wall that it is not possible to figure out if you are attempting to talk science or not. Your thinking that radiation exchange means entropy is a "two way street" is one example of your misplaced science.


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Spontaneous process is defined as a process that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.



Like phosphorescence after all the lights are out. That after glow would be spontaneous because of no input energy.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Prove they do


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.
> ...



*Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process*

Heat moving to cold


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The picture I posted shows photons from the Sun's surface radiated through the corona.

Post your proof they don't.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You have no idea if that’s spontaneous or not! As I continue to factually state over and over! So, until you get that Nobel prize on the sun corona post it up


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Scientists don’t have a clue , why would I know? Let’s see that Nobel prize bubba


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*You have no idea if that’s spontaneous or not!*

Don't you?


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Why would I when scientists don’t know. Just you and Ian bubba


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Scientists don’t have a clue , why would I know? *

Scientists don't have a clue that photons move from the surface, through the hotter corona to the Earth?

You started drinking early today, didn't you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



SSDD doesn't know?


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Spontaneously? Nope again it must be you with the cocktail


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Not my job


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Spontaneously?*

Non-Spontaneously? Ok.


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


> *Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process*
> 
> Heat moving to cold



I agree, but the question was for SSDD who does not agree with you or me. His reason is that prior work went into causing the object to be hot. That prior work means that it is not spontaneous. Don't talk to him about it because he said many times that the discussion is tedious. 


.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Spontaneously?


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > *Can you give an example of what you think is a spontaneous process*
> ...


Naw, isn’t what he said


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You said it wasn't. Changed your mind?


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Spontaneously?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



SSDD says it isn't.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2019)

this just reported in Illinois


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2019)

bear513 said:


> this just reported in Illinois



Davenport


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


He did? Post #


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



#368

Northern nations warming faster than global average


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


What was wrong with his statement? Again, you have the opportunity to post up the science that disagrees!


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You still do not understand the process...  And you remain ignorant...


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

IanC said:


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


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

IanC said:


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


Is an H20 particle energy ian?  Or was your "example" nothing more than an attempt at sleight of hand?  Does it feel good to you that I didn't recognize it as sleight of hand immediately?  So tell me, how does the movement of particles prove anything about the movement of energy itself?


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

IanC said:


> You are the one who said photons cannot be emitted in the direction towards a warmer object. Repeatedly.['/quote]
> 
> Altering my argument again...that alone highlights the weakness of your position.  I am the one who has said repeatedly that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool region to a warm region.  You, like toddster like to leave out the word spontaneous...is it because you don't understand the word or because you can't really argue against me if you recognize the word and try to argue against it in context?
> 
> And like toddster, I can only assume that you are unaware that the molecules in the sun's corona are so far apart as to make the region a vacuum for all practical purposes.  What is the temperature of a vacuum?


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

IanC said:


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



Like I said...they expect at least a 3rd grade education...do you believe that the second law of thermodynamics applies to radiation?  Is radiation anything other than photons?  Does science have to be explained with crayons and stickers or is it fair that they expect that you have at lest some basic knowledge?  Is a scientist who writes a paper on the movement of energy via radiation obliged to take time to explain that when he talks about energy in the form of radiation that he is talking about photons or is it reasonable the he would expect his audience to at least know that much?

And is heat a form of energy?  Imagine how long every scientific paper would be if they had to describe in detail precisely what every term means to counter those buffoons who are looking to pick the fly shit out of the pepper in an attempt to prove that their belief is correct even when physical laws say that it isn't?


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

IanC said:


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



Since it is not stated in the law..and is offered up as a footnote..it is, opinion..not supported by anything more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...if you have observed, measured evidence by all means lets see it...and not sleight of hand if you don't mind...for someone who claims to appreciate science, such trickery only reduces you to the level of the skidmark and the hairball.  Is that the company you want to keep?


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

IanC said:


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


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




Note how they always leave out the word spontaneously when they say what I have said about energy movement.  In toddsters case, he leaves it out because he doesn't grasp the difference between saying that energy can't move from cool to warm and saying that energy can't spontaneously move from cool too warm.  One statement says flatly that energy can not move from cool to warm..the other says that energy can't move from cool to warm without some work being done to make the movement happen.

In ian's case, he knows what the word spontaneously means, and when he leaves it out when saying what I have said about energy movement, it is a deliberate deception.


----------



## gtopa1 (May 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...


Extreme warm...in Canada??? 





> *Highest temperatures ever recorded in Canada[edit]*
> *Date Recorded* *Location* *Temperature*
> July 5, 1937 Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan 45.0 °C
> July 11, 1936 St. Albans, Manitoba 44.4 °C
> ...



wtf you talking about??? Did someone leave the oven on overnight????

Greg


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.
> ...



The decay of diamond into graphite is a spontaneous process...the rust that forms on iron pyrite is a spontaneous process.  Been through all this before...if you must relive your defeat, refer to any of the previous incarnations of this exact discussion.



SSDD said:


> They are different. You are just picking scientific words and putting them in sentences that don't make sense.



Entropy, as it applies to energy exchange is the movement of energy from a more ordered state (warm, high frequency, etc.etc) to a less ordered state (cool, lower frequency, etc etc)...the movement from more ordered to less ordered happens in one direction only...energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state..

Been through it all before...if you must relive your defeat, refer to any previous incarnation of this discussion.


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Spontaneous process is defined as a process that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.
> ...



Had the lights never been on (energy input from the surroundings) phosphorescence would never happen.  Clearly this simple concept is far to complex for you to understand...it has all been described and explained to you before..refer to any of the other times you failed to grasp this simple concept...the fact that you had to say "after" the lights are out indicates that the glow happens because there was previously an input of energy from the surroundings...this is easy stuff...are you really this stupid?


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings.  He thinks that phosphorescence (like the glowing numbers on your watch) is a spontaneous process.... He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process.  He can't get it through his head that the fact that he has to add "AFTER" means that the lights being on in the first place was an input of energy from the surroundings.  Make the phosphorescent paint on your watch in complete darkness, and store the watch in complete darkness and it will never glow...it requires being exposed to light (input of energy from the surroundings) in order to glow when the lights are off.  This simple concept is so far over his head that he has been arguing against it for more than a year now...

He wants the second law of thermodynamics to be wrong so bad that it has turned him into a complete batshit idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Do you agree with him? Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Here's you chance to educate me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*no, the question is what is the corona doing.*

No, the question is what is the surface is doing.

*Leaving out the word spontaneously again. *

Explain why the photons from the surface are non-spontaneous. Or run away, for the 100th time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings.*

That means everything that takes place on the Earth's surface and in the atmosphere is not spontaneous.

The cooler atmosphere is free to radiate toward the warmer surface, because there is an "input of energy from the surroundings".

"Back radiation", as you've just shown, is allowed.


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Stupidity on parade..congratulations...do describe the work being done to make such energy movement possible...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*do describe the work being done to make such energy movement possible...* 

The same work that allows the Sun's surface to radiate toward the hotter corona. 
Or did you forget already?

There is an "input of energy from the surroundings".


----------



## Wuwei (May 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The decay of diamond into graphite is a spontaneous process...the rust that forms on iron pyrite is a spontaneous process. Been through all this before...if you must relive your defeat, refer to any of the previous incarnations of this exact discussion.



They certainly are spontaneous. You shot yourself in the foot again.

What if you made the iron pyrite in a lab where you used refined chemicals. It's easy enough to do. That would be man-made and it would use a bit of energy or work. The oxidation of the man-made iron pyrite or "fool's gold" should be spontaneous too. It seems the fool's gold proves you are the fool.

Wouldn't you think the decay of synthetic diamonds would be spontaneous too. Even though they have been made under high temperature and pressure. (Lots of work.)

Please explain why you think your examples are any more spontaneous than the afterglow from a phosphor. And please explain why you think man-made systems are never spontaneous. In doing so please *use the scientific definition of terms*, not your colloquial substitutions.



SSDD said:


> Entropy, as it applies to energy exchange is the movement of energy from a more ordered state (warm, high frequency, etc.etc) to a less ordered state (cool, lower frequency, etc etc)...the movement from more ordered to less ordered happens in one direction only...energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state..



In two-way radiation exchange between two objects at different temperatures, entropy is continually increasing. You can't deny that.

Here is the  problem. You are inventing your own definitions of well established science definitions and terms. When you do that you develop all sorts of self-inconsistencies, and you will never understand science that way.

.


----------



## Wuwei (May 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Yes. This is the point where you substitute ad hominem for reason. You don't understand the science definition of spontaneous as used in thermodynamics. Again you are trying to make it personal with your insults, but you are not insulting me, you are insulting the whole body of physicists. You are in essence saying all scientists fail to grasp your idiocy, and they are really stupid. I know you are trying to impress your sock puppets, but it doesn't work on me and yes you are getting tiresome. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am simply showing others that you are a bad tempered loser. 


.


----------



## Meister (May 4, 2019)

*Stop with the insults  *


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2019)

So you 


Toddsterpatriot said:


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


can’t answer?


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So again, you’re saying you know more than every scientist. Interesting, Nobel prize


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> So you
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're his buddy, do you agree with him?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*So again, you’re saying you know more than every scientist. *

Knowing more than SSDD (really low bar) isn't knowing more than every scientist.

Now, are you saying the Earth's atmosphere doesn't have an "input of energy from the surroundings"?


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So you
> ...


Can’t answer the question eh?


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


When you getting that Nobel prize ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



He's right, back radiation is real.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Ssdd is every scientist? Hmm you’re fked up. Derp


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


In your head, I believe that


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*Ssdd is every scientist?*

Ssdd is an idiot.
Just because I know more than him doesn't mean I "know more than every scientist"

Your brain injury acting up again? You seem more confused than usual.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



_Spontaneous process is defined as a process that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own._

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Is he right?

_ If any energy input from the surroundings assist a process...it is not spontaneous..._

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Is he right?​


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well again, I'm unaware of any scientist that understands the flow of heat from the sun to the corona and back to the surface.  Feel free to post one name and I'll check it out.  But until then, you and only you is claiming to know the flow of the heat between the two areas of the sun.  And why my response about every scientist.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure,  post up something that says differently.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* I'm unaware of any scientist that understands the flow of heat from the sun to the corona and back to the surface.  *

Can photons from the surface move toward the hotter corona? Yes or no?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Why would I post something different when he just explained why back-radiation can happen?


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure,  why not if there is energy forcing it there.  Never said there wasn't.  What I said was spontaneously.  you know, that one word you seem to have difficulty with.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help.  no one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*What I said was spontaneously. you know, that one word you seem to have difficulty with. *

I don't have any difficulty with the word.
Just waiting for SSDD and you to pin yourself down.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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




*no one ever said it wasn't possible for cold to flow toward heat with help.  no one.*

That must explain why SSDD, with your agreement, has claimed for years, even a few days ago, that back radiation can't happen. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


spontaneous, again, a word you have issues with.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope. We know that 99% of CO2 hands off the energy, which means that 99% isn't emitting anything during that process.  So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



I have no issue with the refutation of SSDD's one-way flow of photons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*not the way the AGW crowd promotes it, nope. *

LOL!

*So, not sure where the radiation is coming from.*

You're not sure where back-radiation comes from?


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


what back radiation?


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I care why?


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction. Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.
> ...


How does this "radiative greenhouse effect" work, exactly? Show how it does not reject the laws of thermodynamics nor the stefan boltzmann law...


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


So this "GHG" blanket of yours is a magickal one way blanket??


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Wuwei is correct about a blanket not being a source of "heat" (when he says "heat" here, he means thermal energy itself, rather than the transfer of thermal energy, which is what heat actually is). These types like to equivocate the meaning of the word 'heat'. Anyway, he's also correct that one's body is the source of "heat" (again, he means thermal energy itself, not the transfer of it).  Although, I think he misses the reason why this is, though... What happens is the blanket reduces heat (heat meaning the transfer of thermal energy)... In other words, it reduces the coupling between one's body and the outside air. One's body requires much less energy output to stay warm. This also explains why one gets warmer with a heavier blanket. A heavier blanket even further reduces the coupling between one's body and the outside air compared to a lighter blanket. 

What these types like Wuwei also do is they like to equivocate a closed convective system with an open convective system...


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> A spontaneous process is one that takes place with no input of energy from the surroundings. He thinks that phosphorescence (like the glowing numbers on your watch) is a spontaneous process.... He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process. He can't get it through his head that the fact that he has to add "AFTER" means that the lights being on in the first place was an input of energy from the surroundings.



*He even says that the glow that happens "AFTER" you turn off the lights is a spontaneous process.*

The key word "AFTER" is the essence of the scientific definition of spontaneous. It seems you understand the science definition but choose to defy it.

This definition has more clarity.
_A spontaneous process occurs without the need for a continual input of energy from some external source, while a nonspontaneous process requires such._​
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map:_General_Chemistry_(Petrucci_et_al.)/19:_Spontaneous_Change:_Entropy_and_Gibbs_Energy/19.1:_Spontaneity:_The_Meaning_of_Spontaneous_Change

Here are some well known examples. I hope they help in your understanding of spontaneous.​
Charging a battery is not spontaneous. The discharging through a conductor is spontaneous.
Illuminating a mineral phosphor is not spontaneous. The delayed release of light is spontaneous.
Refining iron ore is not spontaneous. Oxidation is. 



.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 6, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


cute


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Wuwei is correct about a blanket not being a source of "heat" (when he says "heat" here, he means thermal energy itself, rather than the transfer of thermal energy, which is what heat actually is). These types like to equivocate the meaning of the word 'heat'. Anyway, he's also correct that one's body is the source of "heat" (again, he means thermal energy itself, not the transfer of it). Although, I think he misses the reason why this is, though... What happens is the blanket reduces heat (heat meaning the transfer of thermal energy)... In other words, it reduces the coupling between one's body and the outside air. One's body requires much less energy output to stay warm. This also explains why one gets warmer with a heavier blanket. A heavier blanket even further reduces the coupling between one's body and the outside air compared to a lighter blanket.



What is HEAT? definition of HEAT (Science Dictionary)
_Energy in the process of transfer between a system and its surroundings as a result of temperature differences. However, the term is still used also to refer to the energy contained in a sample of matter._ ...​
To a physicist the definition of heat should be obvious from the context. However, I don't think JC would appreciate the subtleties of the two definitions of heat anyway. I'm from the old school and find that "heat" is one syllable and is much easier to type than the 5 syllable "thermal energy" or the 8 syllable "transfer of thermal energy".

The blanket analogy shouldn't be taken too seriously as an explanation of complex thermal processes near the earth surface.



gfm7175 said:


> What these types like Wuwei also do is they like to equivocate a closed convective system with an open convective system...


Can you elaborate on what you think the "equivocation" is, and how it relates to radiation physics in my post that you referenced?


.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2019)

Sunlight charges the 'battery ' in daytime, which then partially discharges at night.

The surface warms up and cools down faster than the atmosphere because they have different emissivities.

There is a huge amount of energy already stored in the atmosphere.  That is why the surface is much warmer (on average) than it would be with just solar insolation. 

What is the source of all that stored energy? Radiation that did not escape to space. If the Sun stopped shining all that energy would be released as the planet cooled.


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2019)

IanC said:


> The surface warms up and cools down faster than the atmosphere because they have different emissivities.



It is easy to say the earth is a black body. Even though the surface is heterogeneous, the emissivity is very close to 1, land, sea, or forest etc. 

If the atmosphere is a black body the Stefan-Boltzmann equation can apply. However, defining air as a black body is more problematic for several reasons. 

It is a heterogeneous mixture but only a small percentage of it actively absorbing and emitting LWIR. 
The emissivity curve is a discontinuous superposition of the vibrational atomic spectra of GHG molecules in the mixture.
Finally, air has a large optical depth. 

It seems the emissivity can only be defined in the case of a slab of air with a thickness that provides full absorption; and resignation to the fact that the emissivity curve is "ragged".

Is this the way you see it?


.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2019)

Yes. The surface emits in a continuous band (at least for IR), of which some escapes directly and some is absorbed by the atmosphere. 

In the specific case of CO2 and 15 micron radiation from the surface; half of that radiation is absorbed by the time it gets to the 2 metre mean free path height and it is basically extinct 10 metres above the surface. The question is...what happens to the energy?

If there were no alternative pathways then the excited CO2 molecules would simply re-emit the photon in a random direction with roughly half going up and half going back down to the surface.

The mean free path in the upwards direction is longer at 2 metres than it was at the surface. The mean free path continues to lengthen until the CO2 molecules are so rarified that the radiation escapes altogether. According to this mechanism half of the surface 15 micron energy would eventually escape after being scattered the same amount of times as there are mean free path lengths until the emission to space height.

This mechanism is similar for the radiative influence of all GHGs. Half out, half back. 

There are other pathways that complicate this.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> Yes. The surface emits in a continuous band (at least for IR), of which some escapes directly and some is absorbed by the atmosphere.
> 
> In the specific case of CO2 and 15 micron radiation from the surface; half of that radiation is absorbed by the time it gets to the 2 metre mean free path height and it is basically extinct 10 metres above the surface. The question is...what happens to the energy?
> 
> ...


even in this analogy, the earth is round,  once in the atmosphere most all would still go away from the surface.  the edge of the planet is not flat.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


> even in this analogy, the earth is round, once in the atmosphere most all would still go away from the surface. the edge of the planet is not flat.




Here is a good time to flesh out your thinking. What is the angle under the tangent for a circle with radius of 4000 miles? How about another 10 miles up (r=4010), higher than the emission height of the GHGs?

Without doing any of the calculations I would guesstimate that excess sideways escape area at the surface is less than 1%. And less than 5% 10 miles up. What are your initial guesses? Are you willing to find the actual numbers?


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Meaurement  made with an instrument cooled to approximately -80 degrees.  All that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...place an identical instrument next to that one...don't cool it and you won't measure any back radiation at all.  Funny for you to call anyone an idiot when you are so easily fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > even in this analogy, the earth is round, once in the atmosphere most all would still go away from the surface. the edge of the planet is not flat.
> ...




Your mental model is fatally flawed...as are most of your mental models.  It assumes that radiation is the primary mode of energy transport to the top of the troposphere...it isn't.  Radiation is such a small bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere that it is irrelevant.

Here...chew on this model for a minute or two and lets see if you are willing to find the actual numbers.  If only one in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to hold on to energy in the form of IR that it absorbs long enough to actually radiate it, of what importance is either your circle, or your sideways escape area?  And where is upper tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable, and inescapable result of your model if radiation were the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere?  

Try building your model on the true premise that the vast bulk of energy below your circle is just conducting and convecting right through it and that in reality, your circle is nothing but a symbol of a false premise.

Alas, living in the world of atmospheric models, when there is abundant observable, measurable, testable phenomenon going on in the atmosphere around you disconnects you from the stark reality that your models are wrong because they are based on false assumptions.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> The surface warms up and cools down faster than the atmosphere because they have different emissivities.



And CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...and yet, you believe that somehow raising its emissivity results in warming.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Still waiting for you to describe the work that makes it possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.  Energy can move from cool to warm, but work must be done to make it happen.  What work is being done to make radiation move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface...describe the mechanism in some detail.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Yet another failed mental model.....you do live in a fantasy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Still waiting for you to describe the work that makes it possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.*

Still waiting for you to describe the work that makes it possible for energy to move from the cooler surface toward the warmer corona.


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Energy can move from cool to warm, but work must be done to make it happen.


That is true for thermal energy but not always for any type of energy. Of course the two primary examples are black body radiation, which can move anywhere and radiation from spontaneous energy sources such as phosphorescence and other types of "cold radiation" sources. It's in science text books. Google _luminescence_ for more information.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Energy can move from cool to warm, but work must be done to make it happen.
> ...



That is true for any type of energy from the short wave to the infrared bands.  For those outside of those bands, then frequency becomes the more important factor.  Energy can't move spontaneously from a low frequency source to a higher frequency source...which also holds true for energy in the infrared bands except we express that energy in terms of temperature rather than frequency.

And phosphorescence is not a spontaneous energy movement...as it requires an energy input from the environment...it is tragic that you are so f'ing stupid that you can't get such a simple fact through your head...  Refer to the numerous times you have lost this point if you must continue to relive it...it isn't necessary that you expose us to the tedium of it.


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If only one in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to hold on to energy in the form of IR that it absorbs long enough to actually radiate it, of what importance is either your circle, or your sideways escape area?



There are 2.53 10²⁵ molecules of air per m³. If CO2 is 400 ppm, that would mean there are roughly 10²² CO2 molecules per m³. 

If only 1 billionth can radiate, that would mean 10¹³ CO2 molecules are radiating a photon every 26 microseconds.  (26us is the mean vibration relaxation time.)

In one second 10¹³ / 26*10⁻⁶ = 3.8 10¹⁷ molecules are radiating. 

Planck's law gives the energy of one 15 micron photon as 1.32 10⁻²⁰ Joules

The total radiation per cubic meter is 3.8 10¹⁷ x 1.32 10⁻²⁰ = 5 10⁻³ Joules/sec or 5 x 10⁻³ Watts. It's small but much larger than convection.


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> That is true for any type of energy from the short wave to the infrared bands. For those outside of those bands, then frequency becomes the more important factor. Energy can't move spontaneously from a low frequency source to a higher frequency source...which also holds true for energy in the infrared bands except we express that energy in terms of temperature rather than frequency.



That makes no sense. You are conflating temperature with frequency. You are saying the physics is different at different temperatures for no given reason. I have seen no physics source that makes those claims. Do you have any links?


.


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If only one in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to hold on to energy in the form of IR that it absorbs long enough to actually radiate it, of what importance is either your circle, or your sideways escape area?
> ...


or..

Carbon Dioxide 400 ppm Atmospheric Concentration Diagrams | UCAR Center for Science Education






The black dots represent the volume of CO2 in our atmosphere.  And only 1 in a billion is radiating.  holy fking shit!!!!!  that will knock the snot out of cold air I tell you!! I love it.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And where is upper tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable, and inescapable result of your model if radiation were the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere?




You keep chanting about inevitable hot spot. Please give a simple explanation how radiation directly causes this. What is the mechanism? 

The discussions about it that I have read say that it would be formed by excess evaporation which would convect and release latent energy.  

It is the change of temperature at the surface,  for any reason,  that would cause the hot spot higher up. Or presumably a cold spot if the surface was cooling.

But you obviously have more and better information on how the hotspot should  inevitably and inescapably form. Please share your wisdom, oh great swami.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Try building your model on the true premise that the vast bulk of energy below your circle is just conducting and convecting right through it and that in reality, your circle is nothing but a symbol of a false premise.




My premise? jc claimed that 'most all' radiation would escape to space because the earth is curved. 

While the curvature of the Earth does make a slight difference,  it is vanishingly small at the surface and tiny at 10 miles. 

You guys always make unsupported claims and then disappear when called out to explain yourselves.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Except the instrument used to take those readings wasn't cooled to -80C.


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


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


link!!


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The surface warms up and cools down faster than the atmosphere because they have different emissivities.
> ...



Another misleading statement that you refuse to elaborate on. 

The initial addition of CO2  to the atmosphere makes a huge difference  because it does increase the emissivity by adding absorption bands that were not previously there.

Increasing the concentration of CO2 further does 'widen the wings' near the surface but the emission height is defined by the concentration of CO2 that is low enough to let 15 micron radiation escape. So you are exactly wrong. More outbound surface radiation is captured (in a smaller volume) while the emission height increases to a cooler area of the atmosphere where less 15 micron radiation is produced due to colder temperature. 

Please explain your bizarroland version of physics where some how cooling takes place.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



The graph is from a Science of Doom article. It also had a photograph of the instrument with model type. At the time I linked manufacturers documentation and a paper comparing it to other instruments like it, showing the response and accuracy.

You guys didnt listen then, why would you listen now? If you are so interested, just search the archives. I think it was about 3-6 years ago but I am not certain.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If only one in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to hold on to energy in the form of IR that it absorbs long enough to actually radiate it, of what importance is either your circle, or your sideways escape area?
> ...








A diagram showing absorption by GHGs. 15 micron radiation has a wavenumber of 667. The actual amount escaping is far less than the red line which gives the amount produced at the surface.


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


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


well, that may have been some time ago, I don't recall, but I went to science of doom saw all of the back radiation articles, but nothing about the measuring device.  oh well.


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


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


BTW, since the last time you may have spoke into this, I learned that 99% of the CO2 that absorbs IR, loses it during collisions with N and O molecules.  how, if that is indeed the case as I have read, is it possible to radiate and to be read by a meter?


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

The white area under the red line is the amount of energy returning to the surface. It is about 1/3 (remember the black sawtooth is half white, half escaping blue). 

Solar insolation is 340w, 100w is reflected, which leaves 240w. The surface radiates at 390w, less 240w IR escaping, leaves 150w being recycled. 

Decent back of the envelope first estimates.

Ask our resident deniers how the surface can remain hot enough to radiate at 390w with only 240w coming in from the Sun.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Bullshit.


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


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


just provide the name of the instrument.  hmmm, avoidance is curious.


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> Ask our resident deniers how the surface can remain hot enough to radiate at 390w with only 240w coming in from the Sun.


Are you joking? I have asked that question many times to the major denier and he would always run away or deflect. The question about where the 1600 watts from the surface of Venus goes is an even more embarrassing question. 


.


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ask our resident deniers how the surface can remain hot enough to radiate at 390w with only 240w coming in from the Sun.
> ...


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



Schulze-Dake radiometer. As you would have known if you had put in 30 seconds of looking. The article does a pretty good job of destroying SSDDs bizarroland version of the SLoT as well.


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


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


Solar and Terrestrial Radiation

All I could find online, and in it it states...Nitrogen used on the sensor head.  hmmmmm that's cooling it.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2019)

a picture of instrumentation. I googled Schulze-Dake and found this paper on comparisons of the available machines circa 1992. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426(1992)009<0762:EINRCA>2.0.CO;2

the page numbered 765 gives details on this particular instrument, which appears to be superior. you should read the PDF to find out more about the design and performance of these radiometers. in particular you will note that none of them are cooled, and that the response at different temperatures is analyzed. as are many other factors and calibrations.

those interested in Backradiation, both the theory and the measured data, could do worse than checking out this three part article. The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three

Copied from a previous thread. Thanks go to Todd for looking it up.


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> those interested in Backradiation, both the theory and the measured data, could do worse than checking out this three part article. The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three
> 
> Copied from a previous thread. Thanks go to Todd for looking it up.


Thank you. I read the three articles. Very interesting; I didn't know there were so many measurements of the DLR. And despite what the science nihilists say, the DLR is very significant. 

One interesting slant on the "smart photons" gimmick is in the third article: photons from colder objects simply reflect off a warmer surface rather than giving energy to it. Whereas the nihilists here say the smart photons simply shy away from the warmer surface. 


.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ask our resident deniers how the surface can remain hot enough to radiate at 390w with only 240w coming in from the Sun.
> ...



Playing with averages as if that were the truth on a planet whose average daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200 degrees?  Your belief in models has made you stupid...You actually believe that the earth receives a uniform 240w across its surface and emits a uniform 390w?  You don't think that perhaps the oceans absorb and hold a great deal more radiation than the rocky surface?

You wack jobs are mistaken about everything because you believe in fatally flawed models more than you believe in reality.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2019)

IanC said:


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



Tell me ian...which discrete frequencies of radiation does a Schulze-Drake radiometer measure?  Do you have any idea what it measures?  Sorry guy...this is just another example of you being fooled by instrumentation...take your time and learn what it actually does, before you believe what people tell you it is measuring.

Here is a clue..it is measuring the temperature changes of an internal thermopile...then applying those changes to an equation that assumes that back radiation is real...you could just as easily reconfigure it to use those temperature changes to tell you how much fairy dust is in the air...there is no back radiation...energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...your belief in models over reality makes you a dupe and willing to be fooled by instruments...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*.it is measuring the temperature changes of an internal thermopile...then applying those changes to an equation that assumes that back radiation is real.*

If only someone could prove back radiation is fake, they'd win a Nobel.....easy.
It must be hard being the only guy in the world who knows the truth.

*there is no back radiation...energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...*

That reminds me, energy moves from the atmosphere toward the surface, non-spontaneously (your definition), for precisely the same reason it can move non-spontaneously (your definition) from the Sun's surface toward the corona. 

Love that non-spontaneous (your definition) back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


still with the corona eh?  your statement, who cares about the corona?  hahaha  dude you're such a hypocrite.  again, let's see the evidence that the energy between the corona and the surface is spontaneous.  I know I've been waiting for your revelation that no other scientist has.  Come mr. nobel man!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*let's see the evidence that the energy between the corona and the surface is spontaneous.  *

It's non-spontaneous from the surface toward the corona. SSDD says so.

Is he wrong?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


damn, wash, rinse, repeat, you sure like laundry eh?  It is his belief!  not sure what that has to do with my post?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* It is his belief!  *

Yup. Is he right or wrong?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


scientists haven't determined what causes the exchange.  I'll wait until that is known.  You?  you know more than the scientists?


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



I see you are ill-tempered and deflecting, as usual, when you have no response. Where has anyone ever said that atmospheric temperatures are always uniform or constant? You are reading things into my discussion that aren't there and then criticizing me for that - strawman. Let me rephrase the statement I made to satisfy what you call picking pepper out of fly shit:

_The question about where the *9200 to 27500  W/m² * from the surface of Venus goes is an even more embarrassing question._

I don't expect an answer.


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*scientists haven't determined what causes the exchange.  *

Scientists don't know why the Sun's surface emits photons?

Wow. You must only talk to the idiot scientists.


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wow. You must only talk to the idiot scientists.


Well, he is a mentor of SSDD.

Edit: oops I meant SSDD is his mentor. Or is it the other way around? Who knows.



.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


exactly,  if they did, they'd know why the corona is hotter than the surface.  again, you write in for the nobel prize for knowing why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*exactly, if they did, they'd know why the corona is hotter than the surface*

Knowing why the Sun's surface emits photons has fuck-all to do with the corona.

You should get that head injury looked at....you're getting dumber the longer you post.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so I'm waiting, why is the corona hotter than the surface jack? Nobel is in your future!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*why is the corona hotter than the surface jack?*

I don't give a shit.

SSDD said the surface is allowed to radiate toward the corona because that radiation is non-spontaneous.
Was he lying?

Maybe answer after your emergency room visit...….


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Toddsterpatriot  the guy writing about the thing he doesn't give a shit about.  hmmmm that's very strange.  why is the corona hotter?  i'm waiting jack!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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


*the guy writing about the thing he doesn't give a shit about.  *

You're right. I don't give a shit about why the corona is so hot.

Just chuckling at your fear of my questions.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


fear?  I fear a bullet at my head,  I laugh at you.  you have strange definitions of activity on a message board.  And, avoidance of answering a question.  you be chicken!!! again, why is the corona hotter than the surface.  You must answer that to get to the answer to your question.  Cause it is unknown.  scientists don't know.  but you?  yeah you got it all down jack!!, so post the answer nobel baby.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* I fear a bullet at my head,*

Why? That would cause you less damage than anywhere else.
You might not even notice.

*again, why is the corona hotter than the surface. *

Again, for the discussion of SSDD's moronic claims, it doesn't matter.

* scientists don't know.  but you?  yeah you got it all down*

Nope. I don't know. Never said I knew. And I don't care. Never said I cared.

Now, about those pesky "cool photons" radiating toward the hotter corona...…….DURR


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Now, about those pesky "cool photons" radiating toward the hotter corona.*..

what about them,  let's see how they flow?  show the observed measurements of their movements?  wait, you've been asked over a hundred times, and still nothing?  what is it you fear jack?  being wrong?  don't worry, it's already known you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*what about them, let's see how they flow? show the observed measurements of their movements?*

You haven't seen photons from the Sun's surface?
Were you blind before your brain trauma?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Unfortunate to be as stupid as you...I guess that you are unaware that the sun's corona, like the earths' thermosphere is mostly empty space.  The molecules in the earth's thermosphere are very hot, but you would freeze to death should you find yourself there with no protection because the molecules are so far apart that you likely would not even encounter one...the sun's corona is much the same...mostly empty space..in fact, very nearly a hard vacuum...while the molecules are very hot, the surface area that they block from normal radiation is almost nil...

I wondered if you would ever even begin to figure it out but I guess you wouldn't...not in a hundred years.  You have your belief and weren't about to go looking for anything like reality that might call it into question.

Rather than wonder, you were perfectly willing to go on believing that the sun's surface was radiating through a solid sheet of million degree plasma...weren't you?  Go ahead and admit idiot...you never once even considered the possibility that the molecules in the corona were so far apart that they essentially weren't even there...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You are aware that the sun does emit DOWNWARD LWIR, don't you?  this is not upward as your trying to claim.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2019)

IanC said:


> The white area under the red line is the amount of energy returning to the surface. It is about 1/3 (remember the black sawtooth is half white, half escaping blue).
> 
> Solar insolation is 340w, 100w is reflected, which leaves 240w. The surface radiates at 390w, less 240w IR escaping, leaves 150w being recycled.
> 
> ...


Why are you using the DOWN WELLING SPECTRUM to claim that the heat is being retained?  Just wow.  You really don't have a clue what your spewing..

ETA:  The red line is measurement at TOA the black line, with infill, is the measurement at the surface. The difference is what is lost in the atmosphere or reflected. Get a clue..


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no, I have not ever seen a photon leave the surface of the sun.  you're saying you have?


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2019)

Sunsettommy- why would you publicly agree with one of BillyBoob's more asinine comments?


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Unfortunate to be as stupid as you...I guess that you are unaware that the sun's corona, like the earths' thermosphere is mostly empty space.
> ....
> Go ahead and admit idiot...you never once even considered the possibility that the molecules in the corona were so far apart that they essentially weren't even there...



I have an idea for an amendment to your idea of second law that will squelch Tod's objection concerning the corona. The bold faced added text should be penciled into all your text books.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object *unless the higher temperature object has a density less than 2 mg/m³*.

It is also important to realize that your amendment is important because it has been observed and measured. Once you add exceptions to your law, there are probably others you might consider too, such as radiation.
.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*while the molecules are very hot, the surface area that they block from normal radiation is almost nil...*

What radiation does the corona block? Why?

*I wondered if you would ever even begin to figure it out but I guess you wouldn't...not in a hundred years.  *

I'll never figure our your bizarre, solo interpretation of physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*You are aware that the sun does emit DOWNWARD LWIR, don't you?  *

How much?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You need more meds.
Push the call button....the nice nurse will be right with you.


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Unfortunate to be as stupid as you...I guess that you are unaware that the sun's corona, like the earths' thermosphere is mostly empty space. The molecules in the earth's thermosphere are very hot, but you would freeze to death should you find yourself there with no protection because the molecules are so far apart that you likely would not even encounter one...the sun's corona is much the same...mostly empty space..in fact, very nearly a hard vacuum...while the molecules are very hot, the surface area that they block from normal radiation is almost nil...



And yet you dont consider it stupid to believe that the gas on the Sun's surface can decide which photons will 'hit' the million degree fast ions in the corona, and then proceed to stop the emission of said photons. Who or what does all the calculations of speed and direction? And what is the mechanism by which the internal conditions are thwarted from expelling a photon?

Most people think objects simply radiate according to their temperature in a random direction. But you seem to think you know better. Who taught you this new understanding that eluded all physicists up to this time?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you stare at the sun and think I need a nurse.


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




I did the calculation for polar bear once. 15 micron radiation has a ten thousandth of the intensity of the maximum wavelength (falls in the visible band). So...roughly 340w/10000. Less than a watt at the top of the atmosphere, and none makes it through the atmosphere to the surface unless it is in the same band as tha atmospheric window.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



You think I need to stare at the Sun to know that the surface emits photons?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunate to be as stupid as you...I guess that you are unaware that the sun's corona, like the earths' thermosphere is mostly empty space. The molecules in the earth's thermosphere are very hot, but you would freeze to death should you find yourself there with no protection because the molecules are so far apart that you likely would not even encounter one...the sun's corona is much the same...mostly empty space..in fact, very nearly a hard vacuum...while the molecules are very hot, the surface area that they block from normal radiation is almost nil...
> ...




It never fails to give me a chuckle when you wackos suggest that photons "decide" anything.  There is no deciding any more than a rock "decides" to fall downward when dropped...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*It never fails to give me a chuckle when you wackos suggest that photons "decide" anything.*

Photons can predict the future and measure temperatures across the universe.
All that but they aren't able to decide where to go?
If they can't decide, why do they need their god-like powers?


----------



## Blackrook (May 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says  - CNN
> and
> Canada’s Changing Climate Report
> 
> ...


If Canada warms up, it will free up millions of square miles for people to live there, because it's too cold to live there now.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunate to be as stupid as you...I guess that you are unaware that the sun's corona, like the earths' thermosphere is mostly empty space.
> ...



So you learn something about the sun's corona and now you think you can use that to get around the second law of thermodynamics?  Show me in the law where the concentration of anything might be a determining factor in how energy might move?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*So you learn something about the sun's corona and now you think you can use that to get around the second law of thermodynamics?*

The Sun's corona can prevent non-spontaneous radiation from the Sun's surface? DURR!


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



No, it is you who are trying to get around the second law. You are the one who said that energy from the cooler part of the sun can move toward the hotter corona because "_the molecules in the corona were so far apart._" You are giving an exception to your own (false) idea that photons from black body radiation can't move from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. The corona density is about 2 mg/m³. So you in essence are amending your version of the law. I have simply written your version of the law in a more formal way. It's sarcasm. 

Furthermore, you should consider this statement superfluous:  "_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_". Because your (false) definition of spontaneous leads you to the result that no process is spontaneous. 

I'm just showing you that there are lots of inconsistencies in your theories of thermodynamics. 


.


----------



## IanC (May 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Furthermore, you should consider this statement superfluous: "_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_". Because your (false) definition of spontaneous leads you to the result that no process is spontaneous.
> 
> I'm just showing you that there are lots of inconsistencies in your theories of thermodynamics




I like it! A much more succinct way of saying he ignores entropy so his interpretation is useless. It no longer matters whether he is right or wrong because it doesn't apply to any real world situations.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, you should consider this statement superfluous: "_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_". Because your (false) definition of spontaneous leads you to the result that no process is spontaneous.
> ...


except ones you can't show as observations of cold flowing to warm.


----------



## IanC (May 10, 2019)

jc456 said:


> except ones you can't show as observations of cold flowing to warm




Is that sentence supposed to mean something? Could you translate it into english?


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > except ones you can't show as observations of cold flowing to warm
> ...


it says you're still full of shit!  it's real simple to read.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Photons can predict the future and measure temperatures across the universe.
> All that but they aren't able to decide where to go?
> If they can't decide, why do they need their god-like powers?



Future and across are meaningless terms when referencing an entity that moves at the speed of light...yet another concept that you don't seem to be able to understand.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



You really are a moron aren't you...energy from the sun moves through the area of the corona because it is mostly empty space...just as radiation from the surface of the earth goes through the thermosphere because it is mostly empty space...you really do have problems with the simplest of concepts...

And since the second law of thermodynamics says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm, it isn't a false idea...all ground that has been covered before...if you must relive your defeat, refer to any of the previous versions of this conversation.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, you should consider this statement superfluous: "_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_". Because your (false) definition of spontaneous leads you to the result that no process is spontaneous.
> ...



Entropy describes the movement of energy from a more organized state to a less organized state...it doesn't go from less organized to more organized on its own...ever...cool is less organized than warm..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Photons can predict the future and measure temperatures across the universe.
> ...



*Future and across are meaningless terms when referencing an entity that moves at the speed of light.*

Of course, that's why a photon won't travel a billion light years and hit a target warmer than the atom that emitted it. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*energy from the sun moves through the area of the corona because it is mostly empty space..*

Energy from the Sun is spontaneous? You're disagreeing with yourself again.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


hmmm interesting that the subject wasn't mentioned, yet you said it was.  odd person wash, rinse repeat!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 10, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*hmmm interesting that the subject wasn't mentioned*

SSDD's amusement at the idea that "photons from the Sun are spontaneous" has been mentioned 
multiple times in this thread. Short term memory failing you again? Ring the nurse.


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You really are a moron aren't you...energy from the sun moves through the area of the corona because it is mostly empty space...just as radiation from the surface of the earth goes through the thermosphere because it is mostly empty space...you really do have problems with the simplest of concepts...
> 
> And since the second law of thermodynamics says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm, it isn't a false idea...all ground that has been covered before...if you must relive your defeat, refer to any of the previous versions of this conversation.



Jeeze. More ill-tempered ad hominem. Everyone would agree that a very low density of matter in a vacuum has little influence on radiation or anything else. Physics is a hard science. Let's drop playing games and look at the physics involved.

You have stated that, _Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_ and use that to say radiation can't move from cool to warm. The corona is a case like that. The density of the corona is 2 mg/m³.

If you are going to impose an exception by saying the density is too low, you have to come up with a density threshold that says anything below that specific density will allow radiation to pass through under all circumstances. Above that threshold would be your usual departure from textbook thermodynamics.

So what is that threshold? You already gave a limit based on the sun. So what density is too low? 10 mg/m³? 500 mg/m³? I know you can't and won't come up with a density threshold number, but it is to show that you are just doing ad hoc arguments in the field of physics, and you change your rules as your failures are challenged.


.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


she's been in your head for quite some time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 10, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



SSDD is a chick?


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Jeeze. More ill-tempered ad hominem. Everyone would agree that a very low density of matter in a vacuum has little influence on radiation or anything else. Physics is a hard science. Let's drop playing games and look at the physics involved.



Were you less stupid, I would be more patient...but after all this time, you are still just as stupid and dishonest as you ever were...perhaps more of both.



Wuwei said:


> You have stated that, _Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_ and use that to say radiation can't move from cool to warm.



No...the second law of thermodynamics has stated that...I simply provided the law for you..and the quantity of matter present is not a factor in whether energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm..just more bullshit from you...same as it ever was.

And all I have to do is quote the second law of thermodynamics and watch you squirm and come up with stupidity upon stupidity in an attempt to get around it...the tedium never ends with you...


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Jeeze. More ill-tempered ad hominem. Everyone would agree that a very low density of matter in a vacuum has little influence on radiation or anything else. Physics is a hard science. Let's drop playing games and look at the physics involved.
> ...



I see you are deflecting from the major point. You can't come up with a rational process for deciding at what specific density a hot gas must have to allow colder radiation to penetrate.  Remember you clearly stated that the rays from the photosphere could penetrate the much hotter corona because the gas in the corona is too thin. You are violating your own interpretation of the second law. Now you are saying the quantity of matter present is not a factor. That is an amazing flip flop.

Again, you have absolutely no understanding of the second law. You have not given any rational on why you think black body radiation fails near a hotter substance.

I can see why you are ill-tempered. I keep reminding you what the science is that is understood by all physics textbooks, lectures and scientists. And you disagree with all of it.

Again, you can't insult me. You are continually flip flopping and insulting the entire body of science.


.


----------



## IanC (May 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Your bizarroland version of the SLoT says objects throttle back emissions if there are nearby objects. 

All objects emit in accordance to their temperatures, all the time. They are attempting to increase their entropy by expelling energy. If two objects are facing each other, they both radiate at each other. Every time a photon is created, it has a small amount of momentum in its direction of movement. The particle that created it receives the exact opposite momentum.

According to you, two objects at the same temperature would stop radiating towards each other. The momentum created on the opposite side would push thr objects together. According to me, the inside faces would get two sets of momentum,  one from emitting and one from receiving, and would therefore be pushed apart.

.


----------



## IanC (May 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I see you are deflecting from the major point. You can't come up with a rational process for deciding at what specific density a hot gas must have to allow colder radiation to penetrate.



You wont get a straight answer out of him. He knows that any attempt to address your question will simply add to the already large list of contradictions associated with his personalized version of physics.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I see you are deflecting from the major point. You can't come up with a rational process for deciding at what specific density a hot gas must have to allow colder radiation to penetrate.
> ...



Right, I'm just exploring bizarroland. We have heard many times one small failure in a theory will break the theory. So far the bizarre theory of one way radiation has been broken quite a few times. 

.


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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




Hahahahaha.  Exactly. SSDD doesn't even agree with Stefan's original experiment but he takes umbrage with the S-B equation being subject to distributive law of mathematics.  Wasnt it you that posted up one of their original papers?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2019)

IanC said:


> Hahahahaha. Exactly. SSDD doesn't even agree with Stefan's original experiment but he takes umbrage with the S-B equation being subject to distributive law of mathematics. Wasnt it you that posted up one of their original papers?



Yes. I posted an excerpt where Stefan distinguished between heat inflow and outflow. He had amazing patience to conduct the experiment with no modern instrumentation. And he had amazing insight in interpreting the results.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

IanC said:


> All objects emit in accordance to their temperatures, all the time.
> 
> .



No they don't...they only emit in accordance to their temperatures if they are in a vacuum...I provided emails from several top shelf physicists who stated exactly that.  The fact that you prefer to believe in your misunderstanding says volumes...  If objects emitted in accordance to their temperatures all the time, there would only be a need for one version of the SB law since nothing would change if the object were in the presence of other objects...


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

I love watching you warmers stroke each other's delicate egos and assure each other that you are right and mean old SSDD is wrong...even if you can't provide any actual evidence that supports your beliefs...

Care to provide some more instances of being fooled by instrumentation...or falling for quaint 18th or 19th century hobby science experiments and thinking that they prove the existence of a non existent greenhouse effect?  Those are my favorites...


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahahaha. Exactly. SSDD doesn't even agree with Stefan's original experiment but he takes umbrage with the S-B equation being subject to distributive law of mathematics. Wasnt it you that posted up one of their original papers?
> ...



You can't even measure heat inflow and outflow with modern instruments...again...willingness to be duped so long as it is in accord with your beliefs...what a laugh...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > All objects emit in accordance to their temperatures, all the time.
> ...



*I provided emails from several top shelf physicists who stated exactly that.*

Any emails that back up your one-way only claims?
Or your "no emissions at equilibrium" claim?

* If objects emitted in accordance to their temperatures all the time, there would only be a need for one version of the SB law since nothing would change if the object were in the presence of other objects...*

And there is your confusion. Emission doesn't change in the presence of other objects.
But since energy is being absorbed from the other objects, net energy loss is lower (or negative even).


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You can't even measure heat inflow and outflow with modern instruments...again...willingness to be duped so long as it is in accord with your beliefs...what a laugh...



Stefan wasn't duped.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can't even measure heat inflow and outflow with modern instruments...again...willingness to be duped so long as it is in accord with your beliefs...what a laugh...
> ...



He didn't measure spontaneous two way energy movement since there is no such thing...you are a true blue top shelf dupe...


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> He didn't measure spontaneous two way energy movement since there is no such thing...you are a true blue top shelf dupe...



Again you are essentially calling all scientists top shelf dupes. 

Black body radiation is exchanged between any two objects in proximity at any temperatures. If you don't believe that you don't believe quantum mechanics. 


.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't measure spontaneous two way energy movement since there is no such thing...you are a true blue top shelf dupe...
> ...



I believe evidence...since there is none, you have placed your faith in an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality in which no such spontaneous energy movement has ever been observed or measured...You have faith..I have every observation and measurement ever made...


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I believe evidence...since there is none, you have placed your faith in an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality in which no such spontaneous energy movement has ever been observed or measured...You have faith..I have every observation and measurement ever made...


You were given several types of experimental evidence that radiation from a cold object is unaffected by a hotter object, but you choose to disbelieve basic physics, and refer to all scientists as dupes. 


.


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > All objects emit in accordance to their temperatures, all the time.
> ...



You didn't ask those physicists if the temperature of the radiation bath stopped or slowed the internal production of radiation in the object. You didnt ask whether the change in energy for the object was the net result of output minus input.

Why don't you put up all of the replies? Not just the ambiguous one you showed us?


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Physics already has a pretty good handle on how radiation is produced and transfered.

You want them to find some esoteric means by which the temperature of a distant object controls the internal atomic scale conditions of the near object. It's not going to happen  because it's absurd and no one is looking for it. Why would they?


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Stefan's equation  is perfect but Stefan was duped by his instrumentation.  How does that make sense even in your bizarroland of physics?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If objects emitted in accordance to their temperatures all the time, there would only be a need for one version of the SB law since nothing would change if the object were in the presence of other objects.



There is only one version of the SB law.

Use Google to look up stefan boltzmann law. It is faster to simply click on images. You will see many images like this. Go to the sites if you want. They won't say that it only refers to vacuum.

















I know you don't believe that is the general form of the SB law but scientists do. What this shows is simply that you don't believe the science. 


.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If objects emitted in accordance to their temperatures all the time, there would only be a need for one version of the SB law since nothing would change if the object were in the presence of other objects.
> ...




Picking fly shit out of pepper in an attempt to make yourself feel good?  You know full well...or maybe you don't ...that the equation above is for a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a theoretical empty vacuum...there are other forms of the equation that apply when there is other matter present...

You are pathetic and laughable..


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

IanC said:


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



I didn't make up the rules by which photons supposedly exist...but if you believe in them, then the rules have implications...and one of the implications is that the photon exists simultaneously along every point of its trajectory...another is that terms like near, far, and distant are irrelevant...


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I believe evidence...since there is none, you have placed your faith in an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality in which no such spontaneous energy movement has ever been observed or measured...You have faith..I have every observation and measurement ever made...
> ...



Like your belief that a f'ing flashlight is a spontaneous process?  Laughing in your face.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

IanC said:


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



I asked if  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 applied only to theoretical perfect black bodies radiating into theoretical empty vacuum because you were making the claim that the equation applied equally to everything...and you were wrong...that equation applies only to a perfect radiator all alone in a perfect vacuum...

Since I am perfectly capable of reading an equation, there was no need to ask what 





 says...it is written right there ...the radiation being emitted by a radiator, that is not a perfect black body and that is not in an empty vacuum equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference to the 4th power of its own temperarue and the temperature of its surroundings.  It is a straight forward equation , easily read and completely unambiguous...


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Bullshit. 

Unlike the actual measurement of the speed of light etc, the theoretical frame of reference for light is only supposition that has no physical evidence.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

IanC said:


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



And yet, that is the reality in which they claim photons exist...


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Why are you OK with the area being transferred to the left side in your first equation? I thought it was corrupt to make changes?

And please expand upon your understanding about what the term for area means.

In your explanation of the Sun's surface to corona question  (sorry, my guess at what you would say if you ever answered the question) you say that only the radiation that is directly aimed at where the ion will be, will be prohibited.

While it is common to take the angle into consideration you have brought a whole new order of complexity by scaling it down to individual atomic particles.


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Who is they? Is that they the same one that you call dupes? Why do you believe the hypothetical guess about the luminal reference frame and ignore the measurements done in our own reality?


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2019)

IanC said:


> Why are you OK with the area being transferred to the left side in your first equation? I thought it was corrupt to make changes?



So now you are so desperate that you have sunk to picking flyshit out of pepper also?  Funny.



IanC said:


> And please expand upon your understanding about what the term for area means.



You don't know what area means?  WOW!!!!  You really don't know what radiating area means?   



IanC said:


> In your explanation of the Sun's surface to corona question  (sorry, my guess at what you would say if you ever answered the question) you say that only the radiation that is directly aimed at where the ion will be, will be prohibited.



Energy does not move spontaneously from cool areas to warmer areas...pretty unambiguous statement...the interpretations you guys put on it are endlessly entertaining.



IanC said:


> While it is common to take the angle into consideration you have brought a whole new order of complexity by scaling it down to individual atomic particles.



Is a molecule an individual atomic particle?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Picking fly shit out of pepper in an attempt to make yourself feel good? You know full well...or maybe you don't ...that the equation above is for a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a theoretical empty vacuum...there are other forms of the equation that apply when there is other matter present...
> 
> You are pathetic and laughable..



You are always testy when you are wrong. 
The basic SB equation certainly works for a black body radiating to a perfect vacuum, but it also works for a BB radiating to anything else. You have not found a references that says that form of the equation fails if there is another radiating body nearby. 

You know full well that the equation P = ɛ ỼAT⁴ has no constraints.
Yet you still insist on saying all scientists are "Picking fly shit out of pepper in an attempt to feel good? 

And you still insist on saying all scientists "are pathetic and laughable.."

Yes, we all know that you are not interested in science and playing a game, trying to win at all costs. But you are really degrading yourself and your disdain for basic physics is really bizarre. 


.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You are always testy when you are wrong.
> The basic SB equation certainly works for a black body radiating to a perfect vacuum, but it also works for a BB radiating to anything else. You have not found a references that says that form of the equation fails if there is another radiating body nearby.



Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios.  One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios. One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.


Nope you are dead wrong. Read up on it.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios. One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.
> ...



I have...and I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums....the other equation I commonly provide is for less than perfect radiators in the presence of other matter.

I know how badly you want to be right...try being a bit skeptical and do some reading...if you are willing to give up your belief in models over reality, you to can support your position with actual evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



* I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums..*

Conveniently forgetting to ask them if matter dials down its radiating in the presence of other matter.
You should contact them again, to put this issue to rest once and for all.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


No need...if you can read an equation..  it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*No need..*

Don't be scared.....you can do it.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have...and I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums....the other equation I commonly provide is for less than perfect radiators in the presence of other matter.
> 
> I know how badly you want to be right...try being a bit skeptical and do some reading...if you are willing to give up your belief in models over reality, you to can support your position with actual evidence.



Of course the equation applies in a vacuum. Everyone agrees. But the crucial question is if objects radiate the same when there is a warmer object nearby? Your top shelf physicists would have said yes.

There is no evidence that black body radiation fails near a warmer object. You will not be able to find any.

How badly I want to be right?...  I and all physicists already know I'm right. 


.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> But the crucial question is if objects radiate the same when there is a warmer object nearby?



If there were no change, there would be no need for a different equation when other objects are near by...what is it like to be so blinded by your wish to be right that you can't even see the blatantly obvious?



JoeB131 said:


> There is no evidence that black body radiation fails near a warmer object. You will not be able to find any.



Since there are no observations, or measurements of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...but any number of observations and measurements of energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool the evidence is overwhelming...sorry you can't see that...


----------



## IanC (May 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No need...if you can read an equation.. it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.




Although I have brought this up before, I will repeat myself.

The two object S-B equation must be calculated for each object if you want to know what type of radiation is being transferred,  instead of just the amount. 

Under SSDDs regime there is no radiation produced by two objects at the same temperature,  the temperature doesn't matter. 10C, 100C, 1000C all give the same answer.

But what happens if you measure the radiation between 10C and 10+C, the smallest temperature difference that still makes a radiation flow. What wavelengths  are the photons? How about for 100+C, and 1000+C? The warmer temperatures will produce more energetic photons even if the amount of radiation is the same in all three cases.

The normal interpretation of S-B easily gives the information,  SSDDs bizarroland interpretation cannot supply the information.  Yet another contradiction to add to his pile.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No need...if you can read an equation.. it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.
> ...



Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...

Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for?  Hint:  cooler


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...
> 
> Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler



Only your cherry picked equation is for a colder example, but that is not the general case. Where did you get that equation anyway? 

We went through this tedium many times before. This is the general case Read the last paragraph 10 times until you get it. This derivation is what *all scientists* accept.


----------



## IanC (May 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




I could care less which direction you want the transfer of energy to go in. Either way is fine with me.

What I am pointing out is that bizarroland  one way gross flow does not give any indication as to what range of wavelengths will make that transfer. Whereas my two direction net flow does give that information. 

I could go on and on, but you won't listen and nobody really cares anyways. Wuwei's description of input and output for a single object is very good because it makes many of the practical complexities moot.


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2019)

IanC said:


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



Energy does not move spontaneously between objects emitting at different frequencies.  Entropy does not allow energy to become more organized.  If you wan't to make it about frequency rather than temperature, it remains the same...low frequency energy does not spontaneously become high frequency energy and move to higher frequency sources.


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely not true....but I have no doubt in my mind that you believe the statement and are perfectly willing to completely ignore the fundamental assumption with the SB law that the temperature of Tc is lower than the temperature of T...
> ...



GIGO...you can tell an equation to say anything...lets see the observations and measurements of energy spontaneously moving in two directions between radiators of different temperatures...been through this all before...you lost...if you must relive your losses, revisit previous incarnations of this discussion rather than foisting your tedium on the rest of us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*lets see the observations and measurements of energy spontaneously moving in two directions between radiators of different temperatures..*

I prefer the observations and measurements of energy non-spontaneously moving in two directions between radiators of different temperatures.


----------



## Wuwei (May 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> you can tell an equation to say anything.



Oh no you can't. You got it backwards. Years of background science measurements, and observations in many fields went into making the mathematics of thermodynamics. The mathematical expressions of the laws must have the context of the background science. You are throwing away that context and inventing your own interpretations contrary to virtually everyone else, and contrary to every university textbook or lecture.



SSDD said:


> .you lost...if you must relive your losses, revisit previous incarnations of this discussion rather than foisting your tedium on the rest of us.



I "lost"? Really? You are treating science as a win-lose game! That is hardly the way to look at science!  Since you don't believe 150 years of science and "read" equations to serve your biases, you have turned it into a game. Shame on you. It's your gamesmanship which guides you; not science.


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler


In post #602 I asked where did you get this equation and you didn't answer yet.


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler
> ...




Hahahahaha.  Are you trying to pin him down to an origin of that equation?  Knowing full well that it will be found to be in disagreement with SSDDs bizarroland  physics?

Carry on, I like it.


----------



## Wuwei (May 13, 2019)

IanC said:


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


 You gave away my secret. Now he won't tell me.

.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you can tell an equation to say anything.
> ...



Of course you can...Apply the distributive property to the equation...ignore the fundamental assumption of the SB law that says that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc and you have fake back radiation...of course, you can't find any such spontaneous two way energy movement in the real world...but your equation says that it is real...and if you are prone to believing unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models over reality, then you are ripe to be fooled.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me ian...what do you think the c is for? Hint: cooler
> ...



I have provided you with the source multiple times.....what's the matter?  Failing memory?

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

*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





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





The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is also related to the energy density in the radiation in a given volume of space.


And yes...I see the word net...but the equation has no expression from which to derive net...net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unbearable, untestable model.


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2019)

In your reference to the Hyperphysics site, nowhere is it mentioned that the first form radiates into a vacuum as you always claim.

In the phrase you quoted, "*net radiation loss rate*" there is a link. Click on it.

At that link they repeat the net form of the SB law and say this"
_While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying *net radiative transfer* to the object._​
They specifically agree with the Dartmouth site where the second fourth power term can be greater or less than the first term.

As far as the spontaneity of energy flow the same hyperphysics site says this:
_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to *net transfer of energy*. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the* net transfer* will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​
What they are saying is that radiant energy can transfer either way as long as "_net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process."_

Again, they specifically agree with the Dartmouth site. You are saying both the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites are wrong. The hyperphysics site refers to *net* four times. It is no mistake. Net is NOT an assumption. It comes from a derivation at the Dartmouth site.



SSDD said:


> And yes...I see the word net...but the equation has no expression from which to derive net...net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unbearable, untestable model.



Net radiation exchange is the only concept that does not violate other laws of physics. The second form of the SB equation is a model that is well founded, and you want to substitute it for a model that leads to all sorts of contradictions in several other areas of physics.

Yet you always denigrate models, but that's what basic physics is - models that are consistent with experiments.

Your idea of the SB equation is contrary to science going all the way back to Stefan's conclusions of his own experiment.

Your reference to support your idea of the SB law was poorly chosen for your purposes.


.


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2019)

And there you have it. SSDDs reference site explicitly backs up our version of events while suspiciously failing to mention any of SSDDs bizarroland talking points.

How often does that happen?  I would like to say every time but occasionally his links miss the topic altogether.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2019)

The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived...I will stick with the equation...you model believers can believe the opinion...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived...I will stick with the equation...you model believers can believe the opinion...



*The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived*

An opinion shared by every source, even the ones you occasionally link.
Weird, you never link to a real source that backs your one way only flow.

But we're the model believers.

You never provide a source for your "no radiation at equilibrium" either. Weird.
I could find dozens that agree that at equilibrium absorption equals emission.

You can't find any that agree with your "unobservable, unbearable, untestable" model. Not one. Weird.


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2019)

SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship.  There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship.  There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.





IanC said:


> SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship.  There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.



Read for comprehension...  
 If the hot object is radiating energy to its* cooler *surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form






and again...net is an assumption since net anything can not be derived from that equation.


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived...I will stick with the equation...you model believers can believe the opinion...




I believe many physics students have had to use the 'corrupt' version of the S-B net power equation to obtain the correct answer for a missing variable.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The opinion of net radiation with an equation from which net can not be derived...I will stick with the equation...you model believers can believe the opinion...
> ...



What do you believe could be derived from an unreduced equation that could not be derived from the reduced equation?


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDDs link also describes the 'energy density' of a region of space that is in thermal equilibrium with itself. Oddly enough it is not zero as SSDD has constantly claimed but also follows the same T^4 relationship.  There is no throttling down of radiation as the net exchange goes to zero.
> ...



We showed you this many times. This is the derivation from the basic SB form.
Equation 1 radiation output
Equation 2 radiation input
Equation 3 Net. The net is a subtraction of the input from the output. Then an arithmetic collection of terms. The middle two terms define the net. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Fine. You want to disagree with science, but something as basic as this is grade school arithmetic.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2019)

Yep...seen your bogus equation...seen the assumption tacked to the end of it...

It was bogus the first few times you posted it..its' still bogus...it ignores the fundamental assumption in the SB law that the temperature of T is greater than the temperature of Tc.


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Yep...seen your bogus equation...seen the assumption tacked to the end of it...
> 
> It was bogus the first few times you posted it..its' still bogus...it ignores the fundamental assumption in the SB law that the temperature of T is greater than the temperature of Tc.



Of course you are wrong, as you no doubt already know, but I thought I would take this opportunity to point out that you disagree with almost all the basic tenets of thermodynamics, and most of other modern science. 

Although defiance of science is what everyone expects from you, what is quite really off the charts is that your statements concerning what you think the science should be is full of self-contradictions. When it comes to your self-contradictions they are not just flaws in science thinking. They are flaws in the much more fundamental field of logic.

I will chat with you from time to time in depth about your flaws and self-contradictions as you continue to bring them up and I'm sure the others on this forum who do understand science will do the same.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yep...seen your bogus equation...seen the assumption tacked to the end of it...
> ...



Nice attempt to appear intelligent...failed but nice attempt...  The fact remains that you can't produce any actual evidence to support your belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

And in case you haven't noticed..."modern science" is in a reproducibility crisis pretty much across the board..

And maybe you haven't noticed that some real heavyweights in physics, Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose have begun to state in no uncertain terms that quantum mechanics is wrong....and don't be surprised if even more stop playing the "if you believe it it will be true" game...  The reproducibility crisis that science is experiencing now has its beginnings in quantum mechanics.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The fact remains that you can't produce any actual evidence to support your belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.


Many examples of evidence were given to you many times by many people.



SSDD said:


> And maybe you haven't noticed that some real heavyweights in physics, Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose have begun to state in no uncertain terms that quantum mechanics is wrong....and don't be surprised if even more stop playing the "if you believe it it will be true" game... The reproducibility crisis that science is experiencing now has its beginnings in quantum mechanics.



It is obvious you don't know enough about QM to be in a position to critique it. Searching the web with key words is not good enough. You have done this before but I will answer you again anyway.

Modern physics theory is accurately predicted by every experiment to parts per billion or trillion. You don't need string theory, multiverses, quantum gravity and many similar hypotheses to deal with atmospheric physics. QM will still predict the experiments to the same accuracy no matter what underlying hypotheses are changed.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains that you can't produce any actual evidence to support your belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.
> ...



Like all the believers in models...all you were able to produce was what was good enough to fool you...unfortunate, but laughably true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



And yet, still no sources to back you up. Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Like all the believers in models...all you were able to produce was what was good enough to fool you...unfortunate, but laughably true.



Yes we all know that you laugh at science and call it foolish so you can wallow in your own self-contradictions. You don't need to keep reminding us of that. 

.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2019)

And the wait continues for anything at all that demonstrates your point...we grow tired watching you prove over and over how easily you are fooled.


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And the wait continues for anything at all that demonstrates your point...we grow tired watching you prove over and over how easily you are fooled.


Are you referring to the point I made that you don't believe in current science? You said that yourself.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And the wait continues for anything at all that demonstrates your point...we grow tired watching you prove over and over how easily you are fooled.
> ...



You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?



The SB law.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You claim that the laws of science say that back radiation is real...which law of science says that spontaneous energy transfer between objects of different temperatures happens?
> ...




Wrong yet again...do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you roll.  The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there...and your bogus equation certainly doesn't prove anything since it ignores a fundamental assumption of the SB law that the temperature of T is always higher than the temperature of Tc...

Tc designates the cooler background...

Been through it all before...your argument failed then...it is the same argument and doomed to fail again...if you must relive your defeats, revisit any of the previous incarnations of this same discussion and save us the tedium of reliving it with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*The statement of the SB law is that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.*

Exactly!

*Nothing whatsoever about back radiation there..*

Nothing whatsoever about dialing down radiation there..


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



What would restrict it...the SB law is addressing a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretical perfect vacuum....that is the statement of the SB law..nothing more nothing less...assumptions don't make the belief in back radiation true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*What would restrict it*

Exactly.

The unknowable temperature of a nearby body can't restrict the emission of a body.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sorry that this is all so difficult for you.  There are different equations to use the SB law when a radiator is not a perfect black body and not in a perfect vacuum...those equations show that the output of a radiator varies with the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...You have been provided with the equation over and over and simply don't seem to be able to grasp it...unfortunate, but not everyone has the math skills to read very simple algebraic equations...those who don't are left simply making up stories about what they believe the equation means...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Sorry that this is all so difficult for you.*

Not difficult at all. Take 2 grey bodies of different temperatures.
Put them near each other. They both radiate. Their radiation is proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature.

*those equations show that the output of a radiator varies with the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...*

Nope. You don't have a single source that says the radiation is dialed down based on the unknowable temperature of nearby objects.

*You have been provided with the equation over and over and simply don't seem to be able to grasp it...*

I grasp your solo misinterpretation just fine.

*unfortunate, but not everyone has the math skills to read very simple algebraic equations..*

Or to understand basic physics. But we keep trying. You keep failing.


----------



## Wuwei (May 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



You are lying again. You know what the science is, but you keep lying about it. There is no restriction on the second temperature term in the derived form, and you know it. You have absolutely no proof that the Dartmouth article is wrong.

If you think radiation is inhibited by nearby objects at higher temperatures you are contrary to many observations and experiments. Also you are breaking at least four laws of physics:

Accelerating charges must radiate.
The derived form of the SB law.
Black body radiation law.
The second law of thermodynamics.

.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 19, 2019)

See the "Official Thread for for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics" in the sticky section of the Enviro forum for why this thread was closed...


----------

