# Another Epic Fail for Climate Science



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

It seems that once again climate science demonstrates that it is in fact, climate pseudoscience and gets it all wrong.

A new paper published in the PNAS draws a great big bullseye on yet another failure of climate science...this time the failure is monumental and if climate science were anything like actual science would be signal to scrap every climate model in existence and go back to the drawing board.....of course, that won't happen, but we all know that climate science isn't really anything like actual science....don't we?

The authors of this paper point out that the present crop of climate models simply assume (a recurring theme in climate science) that the worlds oceans are 100% efficient when it comes to absorbing and emitting energy on the far infrared side of the spectrum.....far infrared defined as 15 - 100 microns.  This is important because the peak absorption/emission by the killer greenhouse gas CO2 is......wait for it.......15 microns. Surprise surprise, it turns out that this is not the case at all and according to climate science, this was previously unknown.  Imagine that...unknown that the energy supposedly radiated down to the ocean from the cooler atmosphere by CO2 could not be absorbed by the oceans even if it were being radiated down to the warmer ocean.

This paper finds that water is a very poor emitter of far infrared energy and in turn is also a very poor absorber of far infrared.  Unsurprisingly, as nature would have it, poor emitters/absorbers of IR energy are very good reflectors of that same IR.

At this point, the $64 dollar question should be why was this previously "unknown" by climate science considering the well known fact that IR can only penetrate a few microns into the surface which means that all the IR from greenhouse gasses absorbed by the oceans is used up causing evaporation which has a cooling effect...not warming.

So, if we take the fact that the oceans are not absorbing IR in the wavelength of killer CO2 along with the fact that the wavelengths of incoming solar radiation can penetrate the oceans up to 100 meters, thinking people will come to the conclusion that any warming happening in the ocean is a result of changes in incoming solar radiation....not changes in a greenhouse gas that has no effect anyway....and if changes in solar radiation are the cause of changes in ocean heat content, then what else are changes in solar radiation responsible for?

The missing heat, isn't missing...it is gone...right out into space as indicated by increased outgoing LW radiation at the top of the atmosphere...it certainly is not in the oceans.

Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate

Couple this with a new paper to be published in Progress in Physics which provides quantitative evidence that emissivity of water vapor which is equal to absorption decreases with temperature increase....the opposite of a blackbody...which by the way, are what climate models assume the earth is....there is that assumption thing again.  Us skeptics have been saying for years that climate science is built upon assumption after assumption after assumption...turns out that us skeptics are right.

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-38-05.PDF


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2014)

Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science

Your first link:
*Abstract*
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. *The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K*, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a *far-IR positive feedback* for polar climate change.

*Significance*
We find that many of the Earth's climate variables, including surface temperature, outgoing longwave radiation, cooling rates, and frozen surface extent, are sensitive to far-IR surface emissivity, a largely unconstrained, temporally and spatially heterogeneous scaling factor for the blackbody radiation from the surface at wavelengths between 15 μm and 100 μm. We also describe a previously unidentified mechanism that *amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow*. This leads to a *decrease in surface emission at far-IR wavelengths, reduced cooling to space*, and warmer radiative surface temperatures. Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, but such measurements have not yet been made.

SSDD, what do you think the effect of positive feedback would be?

Why were the model results differences given as a POSITIVE 2K?

Three guesses and the first two don't count.  This article is contending that the Earth will heat up FASTER than current models show.

How did you get this stupid?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 4, 2014)

I'm wondering why he lied by claiming the paper said water was a poor absorber of IR, given how nothing in the paper suggests such a crazy thing.

SSDD, why did you attempt such a brazen lie? If you're not lying, simply shame us all by pointing out where that paper talks about IR absorption.

He's still babbling about how IR can't warm the oceans because it doesn't penetrate deeply, but now he's also claiming that IR doesn't penetrate at all. SSDD, could you settle on just a single kook theory, instead of two contradicting kook theories?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I'm wondering why he lied by claiming the paper said water was a poor absorber of IR, given how nothing in the paper suggests such a crazy thing.
> 
> SSDD, why did you attempt such a brazen lie? If you're not lying, simply shame us all by pointing out where that paper talks about IR absorption.
> 
> He's still babbling about how IR can't warm the oceans because it doesn't penetrate deeply, but now he's also claiming that IR doesn't penetrate at all. SSDD, could you settle on just a single kook theory, instead of two contradicting kook theories?



Maybe you shouldn't interrupt grownup conversations...You missed the entire point, but that's nothing new...in fact, it's probably in large part why you have fallen for the hoax....Sea water is a poor absorber of the far infrared spectrum...that being the 15 to 100 micron wavelengths....I am sure that you miss the significance of that, but it is the primary wavelength that CO2 radiates....therefore sea water can not absorb IR from CO2 even if radiation moved from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ocean...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science
> 
> Your first link:
> *Abstract*
> ...



You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment, but then being wrong is what you do best.  Guess why that is why you have fallen for the hoax.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Sea water is a poor absorber of the far infrared spectrum.



You have provided zero evidence for that insane claim.

And it's not tough to look up. The thing you want is a spectral reflectance curve for liquid water.

Search, search, search .... here's one. Liquid water has essentially zero reflectance at all wavelengths above 0.75 uM, a spot in the near IR. In the medium and far IR, water absorbs 100%. Hence, your conspiracy go boom.







Out of curiosity, is this another part of science that must be a vast global conspiracy, or were you just wrong? Remember, you have a fallback position. You can still abandon this error and do a fast retreat to your "but all the IR is absorbed in the first millimeter, so it can't cause warming!" bad science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2014)

SSo DDumb strikes out again. Totally stupid interpretation of a pretty straight up scientific paper. Damn, I would not let that fucking dummy near a machine with a set of instructions. It would never run again.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science
> 
> Your first link:
> *Abstract*
> ...



OK, just for a minute, lets pretend that you are marginally more intelligent than a bleating, insensate calf and have some small amount of critical thinking skills.  This episode is a prime example of the blatant ignorance, and stupidity of those calling themselves climate scientists and those who blindly believe what they say.

I am going to guess that you highlighted this sentence [*amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow*.]  because you find some special significance there...and I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you believe that lower far IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces will actually lead to a decrease in surface emission at far IR wavelengths.  

This is the sort of abject stupidity that is unavoidable when people with an education in the soft sciences with political agendas come up against actual science and the laws of nature.  

The idiot above, and you in turn believe that low far IR emissivity results in more warming.  I would ask why, but it is clear why you and the pseudoscientist who wrote the paper think so.  It is because you are both idiots.

Ever hear of Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Emissivity?  Of course you haven't...or if you have, you have no idea what it says...ditto for the person who wrote that a decrease in surface emission at far IR wavelengths will result in reduced cooling.  Kirchhoff's law says that emissivity of an object must equal its absorptivity at every wavelength.  Now put your thinking cap on for just a minute and think about what that means.  Emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths.  

Your idiot climate scientist, like all climate scientists and climate modelers assume that the earth is a black body and that the oceans like all other surfaces are 100% efficient absorbers and emitters.  So now they find that the oceans have low emissivity at far IR wavelengths so they immediately assume that that must equal more warming....because he, and you are still assuming 100% absorptivity....

Emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths... CO2's peak wavelength is 15 microns....far IR wavelength....oceans have poor emissivity at far IR wavelengths.....emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths...if the oceans have poor emissivity at far IR wavelengths, what does Kirchhoff's Law tell us about what the absorptivity of the oceans at the far IR wavelengths?  It tells us that the oceans are equally poor absorbers at the far IR wavelengths...and being poor absorbers at the far IR wavelengths...the primary wavelength of CO2 emissions in particular, it is an undeniable fact that CO2 in the atmosphere...no matter how much is there is not causing warming of the oceans....even if it were possible that IR could move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer oceans.

Now you have demonstrated before that you are perfectly willing to disregard physical laws in favor of your dogma...will you also disregard Kirchhoff's Law and continue to believe that the oceans absorb plenty of far IR but are poor emitters of far IR?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sea water is a poor absorber of the far infrared spectrum.
> ...



Sorry hairball, but you are wrong again.






IR emitted by CO2 can not even penetrate the ocean surface to a depth of 10 microns...and having low emissivity, must, according to Kirchhoff's Law must also have low absorptivity.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSo DDumb strikes out again. Totally stupid interpretation of a pretty straight up scientific paper. Damn, I would not let that fucking dummy near a machine with a set of instructions. It would never run again.



Seems that none of you can grasp the fact that low emissivity must also mean low absorptivity...the heat is not hiding in the oceans...it is in space as evidenced by the increasing outgoing LW at the TOA.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2014)

*Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate*

*Abstract*
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

*Far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change. *

*2 K, 10 Wm^-2, 15% after only 25 years. *

*Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.*


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.*



Positive because the idiots haven't considered Kirchhoff's law....poor emissivity equals poor absorptivity at every wavelength...clearly you aren't able to grasp the implications of that fact any more than the idiot who wrote it....  If sea water is a poor absorber in the far IR wavelengths...exactly which energy is the poor emissivity storing?  Poor emissivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2 equals poor absorptivity at the peak emitting frequency of CO2....In your own words, what does that mean to the claim that CO2 is causing the oceans to warm?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

The AGW hypothesis is dying the death of 1000 cuts and you wackos are to blind to see it


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science
> 
> Your first link:
> *Abstract*
> ...


Water vapor has been shown to be a negative forcing where CO2 is concerned. As the papers point out the emissivity of the sea water is incapable of absorption.

The question should be How Did YOU get so stupid?  To much kookaid?


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science
> ...



Wrong.  I highlighted it because it says "amplifies... warming..."



SSDD said:


> This is the sort of abject stupidity that is unavoidable when people with an education in the soft sciences with political agendas come up against actual science and the laws of nature.



That's the first time I've ever hear ocean engineering called a "soft science".



SSDD said:


> The idiot above, and you in turn believe that low far IR emissivity results in more warming.  I would ask why, but it is clear why you and the pseudoscientist who wrote the paper think so.  It is because you are both idiots.



Reduced emission means reduced radiative cooling.  Get it?


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The AGW hypothesis is dying the death of 1000 cuts and you wackos are to blind to see it



You are one profoundly stupid person.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball, but you are wrong again.



That's for _snow_, you complete imbecile. Those of 3-digit intelligence, which clearly excludes you, understand that "snow" and "water" are different things.








> IR emitted by CO2 can not even penetrate the ocean surface to a depth of 10 microns...



More than that, but close enough.



> and having low emissivity,



"Low emissivity" does not follow in any way from "Does not penetrate deeply". The two subjects are totally unrelated. You're just babbling.



> must, according to Kirchhoff's Law must also have low absorptivity.



Except it doesn't have low emissivity, hence you fail.

Let's get back to what you're running from.

We have directly measured the spectral reflectance curve of liquid water. Therefore, we know water absorbs all longwave IR.

You can babble your idiot physics all you want, but the measurements will still show how liquid water absorbs all longwave IR.

Therefore, I ask again. Do you claim those measurements are a fraud and a conspiracy?

Oh, you're getting Kirchoff's totally wrong as well, but your wrongness there is a whole other topic. Suffice it to say how we're impressed that you can fail so completely at such a wide variety of things. It takes hard work and dedication to be as wrong as you are.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> Wrong.  I highlighted it because it says "amplifies... warming..."



Again, an example of the incredible level of stupidity throughout climate science....the moron thinks it amplifies warming because he is still assuming that sea water is 100% efficient at absorbing far IR....he failed to consider Kirchhoff's law.  He failed to consider....or just didn't know that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....if sea water is a very poor absorber of far IR, exactly how do you suppose the fact that it is also a poor emitter of far IR amplifys warming?



Crick said:


> Reduced emission means reduced radiative cooling.  Get it?


  Not if reduced emission also equals reduced absorption....emission must equal absorption at all wavelengths...which part of that is so difficult to understand....reduced emission would only equal reduced radiative cooling if there were no corresponding decrease in absorption.  

Tell me crick...what does the fact that more than 70% of the earth's surface is a very poor absorber of the peak radiative frequency of CO2 do to the AGW hypothesis?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry hairball, but you are wrong again.
> ...









Can't read a chart any better than crick I see....see the purple line...now see the legend in the lower right hand corner....purple = ocean....now see the absorptivity of ocean at 15 microns....now compare that to the red line which is in fact snow...



mamooth said:


> Except it doesn't have low emissivity, hence you fail.



Sorry, but your inability to read a chart doesn't alter physical laws....if sea water has low emissivity of far IR, it must also have low absorptivity of far IR...Tell me hairball, what does the fact that more than 70% of the earth's surface has very poor absorptivity to the peak radiating wavelength of CO2 do to the AGW hypothesis...and the greenhouse effect for all of that?

And by the way, materials with poor absorptivity must have high reflectivity at every wavelength...and I guess you missed the part about little being known to date about far IR....that also applies to your claim of reflectivity.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Can't read a chart any better than crick I see....see the purple line...now see the legend in the lower right hand corner....purple = ocean....now see the absorptivity of ocean at 15 microns....now compare that to the red line which is in fact snow..



You're right, I messed up there. I should have pointed out that an emissivity plot has jack to do with reflectance. Your misunderstanding of Kirchoff's is as amusing as your misunderstanding of the Second Law.



> Sorry, but your inability to read a chart doesn't alter physical laws....if sea water has low emissivity of far IR, it must also have low absorptivity of far IR.



Yet liquid water still absorbs 100% of longwave IR. Reflectance is zero. Since the real world contradicts your claims, you might want to consider that your claims are kind of totally wrong.





Again, are you claiming the past century of science in this field is all a hoax?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Again, are you claiming the past century of science in this field is all a hoax?



No, I am saying that climate science has a nasty habit of ignoring physical laws when they cast doubt on the AGW hoax...sea water has very low emissivity of far LW...the very wavelengths that CO2 emits....low emissivity equals low absorptivity......and by the way, your chart doesn't even touch on far LW.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

You don't understand the difference between reflectivity and absorptivity, hence your humiliating failure.

Who set you up to fail like this? Was it PSI, or a different group? In any case, you should be taking them to task for leaving you twisting in the wind. That is, unless you've been instructed to protect your masters by taking all the blame yourself.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> No, I am saying that climate science has a nasty habit of ignoring physical laws when they cast doubt on the AGW hoax...sea water has very low emissivity of far LW...the very wavelengths that CO2 emits....low emissivity equals low absorptivity......and by the way, your chart doesn't even touch on far LW.



So we have two possibilities here . 

Scientists have a nasty habit of ignoring physical laws    or

SSDD has a nasty habit of not understanding what scientists say about physical laws


It's a tough one, isn't it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> It seems that once again climate science demonstrates that it is in fact, climate pseudoscience and gets it all wrong.
> 
> A new paper published in the PNAS draws a great big bullseye on yet another failure of climate science...this time the failure is monumental and if climate science were anything like actual science would be signal to scrap every climate model in existence and go back to the drawing board.....of course, that won't happen, but we all know that climate science isn't really anything like actual science....don't we?
> 
> ...


 
*Imagine that...unknown that the energy supposedly radiated down to the ocean from the cooler atmosphere by CO2*

Supposedly radiated down? LOL! Still stuck on stupid.
Now your claim is that the atmosphere only radiates up?
And during the day, it can't radiate up or down, right?
Man, you're gonna hurt yourself twisting yourself into a pretzel like you do.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

Found it. The source of SSDD's latest crankery, that is. It's Hockey Schtick.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK New paper finds a huge false physical assumption of IPCC climate models


----------



## Crick (Nov 6, 2014)

I wonder they don't see the parallel between absorption distance in air and water.  Or that the HockeySchtick authors didn't note the study's authors explicitly stating that this would lead to increased temperatures.


----------



## IanC (Nov 6, 2014)

I haven't been keeping up for the last few days. Is this paper actually stating that ocean water doesn't emit very much of the exact wavelength that comprises the CO2 greenhouse effect?

Wow!!

So 70% of the Earth's surface has a much smaller GHE than we have been led to believe? This could certainly have major repercussions.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 6, 2014)

IanC said:


> I haven't been keeping up for the last few days. Is this paper actually stating that ocean water doesn't emit very much of the exact wavelength that comprises the CO2 greenhouse effect?
> 
> Wow!!
> 
> So 70% of the Earth's surface has a much smaller GHE than we have been led to believe? This could certainly have major repercussions.


 If so, then the absorption rate is either equal to the emissivity or half of the emissivity.  Hmmm, so the ocean didn't eat the CO2?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 6, 2014)

Check it out, the stupid is spreading.

Most cultists, such as the deniers, tend to get crazier as time goes on. As reality keeps intruding into their fantasies, they have to get more detached from reality in order to maintain their faith in the cult.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, the stupid is spreading.
> 
> Most cultists, such as the deniers, tend to get crazier as time goes on. As reality keeps intruding into their fantasies, they have to get more detached from reality in order to maintain their faith in the cult.


Ant the hairball denies another physical law...let's hear it for the true deniers.


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2014)

Let's hear it for the deniers who post studies telling us the GCMs have been underestimating the warming rate.


----------



## IanC (Nov 7, 2014)

You don't seem to understand the ramifications of this. 

If ocean water is not a good emitter or absorber at 15 microns then the main CO2 pathway in the greenhouse effect is tiny at best. Apparently they are saying only land and ice are involved in far LW IR. Do the models say this? Because I have only heard that rougly 8% of surface radiation is in CO2 reactive wavelengths. This seems incompatible with the paper's measurements. Sure, this may be a positive feedback in the arctic but what does it imply for the rest of the oceans?

This reminds me of the paper that said Arctic albedo was lower but when looked at in conjunction with an unchanged worldwide albedo seemingly produced the opposite effect. Small changes in the Arctic minus much larger effects elsewhere do not add up to catastrophe. 

Also, the paper's mechanism is the opposite in Antarctica, where the latitude has a much stronger influence on incoming solar.


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2014)

I think the author understands the ramifications better than either of us, particularly since both of us are only working from the Abstract.  Do you also believe you see errors he's made?


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> I think the author understands the ramifications better than either of us, particularly since both of us are only working from the Abstract.  Do you also believe you see errors he's made?



he has made his point concerning the Arctic. unfortunately for CAGW the same point can be made away from the Arctic for the opposite result, and there is a lot ice free open ocean that apparently has little interaction with the strongest and most individual absorption band of CO2. if there is very little 15 micron IR being radiated from the oceans how can CO2 send it back to the surface to cause warming?


----------



## Crick (Nov 8, 2014)

If you believe the ocean, with 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water at an average temperature of 3.9C is at thermal equilbrium with the Earth's atmosphere which averages 14C - or with the sun - then you must be using some of that new math.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> Let's hear it for the deniers who post studies telling us the GCMs have been underestimating the warming rate.





"deniers"

Im laughing.......this term is thrown around very liberally ( no pun intended ) by the AGW climate crusaders.......as if skeptics are some group of lepor-like people!!!

But as the election this past week clearly displayed, the American public could not care less about the warming rate unless it has to do with them avoiding freezing their asses off the next 6 months!!!!

When you get chance to emerge from your bubble one of these days, you'll find that on Tuesday, environmentalists got their clocks cleaned!!!!

But don't take my word for it........   The biggest loser in this election is the climate - Vox


----------



## mamooth (Nov 8, 2014)

IanC said:


> If ocean water is not a good emitter or absorber at 15 microns



Again, you're botching the basic physics.

Reflectivity is what percentage of radiation at a given wavelength bounces off the surface of the substance.

Absorptivity is an average of how far radiation penetrates into a substance, after it has passed through the surface without being reflected.

Absorptivity is not the opposite of reflectivity, as your argument is trying to claim. Low emissivity and absorptivity does not mean high reflectivity. For liquid water, reflectively in the far IR is zero. Liquid water absorbs 100% of the far IR -- that is, the backradiation -- falling on it. End of story.

The whole ocean-atmosphere heat transfer issue is complicated. Here are some discussions on it.

moyhu Can downwelling infrared warm the ocean 

Does Back-Radiation 8220 Heat 8221 the Ocean 8211 Part One The Science of Doom

One thing to note is that, while the oceans on average are cold, the cold water is deep down. The surface of the oceans is usually warmer than the atmosphere above it, so the water usually heats the air.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Absorptivity is an average of how far radiation penetrates into a substance, after it has passed through the surface without being reflected.



Sorry, hairball, but you alas, are the one who is confused....The issue here is absorption, not reflectivity.  Absorption and emission are related....reflectivity and penetrability are related...but the two sets of relatives really don't have anything to do with each other in the context of the topic...It really doesn't matter if IR can penetrate a substance if the molecules of that substance are unable to absorb the wavelength...

According to the science dictionary...absorptivity is a measure of the ability of a material to absorb radiation....penetrating and absorbing are two entirely different things....sea water is a poor absorber of far IR...the very wavelength that CO2 primarily emits...It really wouldn't matter if the far IR could penetrate further than the 10 microns that it does,  sea water is a poor absorber of the wavelength even if it could penetrate 10 miles.



mamooth said:


> Absorptivity is not the opposite of reflectivity, as your argument is trying to claim. Low emissivity and absorptivity does not mean high reflectivity. For liquid water, reflectively in the far IR is zero. Liquid water absorbs 100% of the far IR -- that is, the backradiation -- falling on it. End of story.



Again, absorptivity and emissivity are different things from reflectivity and penetrability.  A poor emitter, which sea water is, is also a poor absorber...by the way, your chart didn't specify that it was relating to sea water, which is what the topic is about...and it didn't go into the far IR wavelengths...also what the topic is about...you have missed the mark entirely.


----------



## Crick (Nov 10, 2014)

I still fail to see where you have corrected the OP's study which concluded that warming would take place at a greater rate than previously assumed.  What fundamental mistake did you find had been made by Daniel R. Feldman, Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, William D. Collins, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, Robert Pincus, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Xianglei Huang and Xiuhong Chen both of Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Michigan (not to mention their PNAS reviewers)?  That they were unfamiliar with Kirchoff's Law?  Is that correct?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Sorry, hairball, but you alas, are the one who is confused....The issue here is absorption, not reflectivity.



Reflectivity is really the only issue. If the far IR isn't reflected, it enters the ocean. If it enters the ocean, it is absorbed, almost immediately.



> Absorption and emission are related....reflectivity and penetrability are related...but the two sets of relatives really don't have anything to do with each other in the context of the topic...



A glimmer of hope! After much painstaking effort on my part, you've absorbed that much of my teaching. So, let's keep going ...



> It really doesn't matter if IR can penetrate a substance if the molecules of that substance are unable to absorb the wavelength...



And here you wander off into more of your famous magical mystery physics. If the IR that penetrates the ocean isn't absorbed, where does it go? Conservation of energy, you're violating it. You've waved your hands and declared that the far IR which penetrated into the ocean simply disappeared without a trace.

Back in  the real world, if the far IR penetrates into the ocean, then it all gets absorbed by the ocean. It must be absorbed, because of conservation of energy. Absorptivity only defines how deep it goes before it gets absorbed.



> According to the science dictionary...absorptivity is a measure of the ability of a material to absorb radiation....



Incomplete. All matter eventually absorbs all radiation traveling through it, given enough distance and density. Absorptivity specifies the decadal attenuation factor for a given distance and molar density. In contrast, reflectivity is a dimensionless fraction



> penetrating and absorbing are two entirely different things....sea water is a poor absorber of far IR...the very wavelength that CO2 primarily emits...



Again, totally wrong. Water has a reflectivity of zero in the far IR. All of the far IR falling on seawater penetrates into it. Therefore, all of the far IR falling on seawater is absorbed.

Let's do the math concerning how deep it goes before being absorbed.

Absorptivity of water at the 10 micron wavelength is about 4x10^3 /m /molar density. Molar density of water at normal density is 1000/18 = 55/liter. So, absorptivity is 2.2x10^5 /m. That is, it takes a path length of 22 microns in water to absorb 90% of a 10 micron wavelength.

This is all basic physics that has been know for damn near forever. Quit trying to revise it.



> It really wouldn't matter if the far IR could penetrate further than the 10 microns that it does, sea water is a poor absorber of the wavelength even if it could penetrate 10 miles.



Again, that's lunatic babbling on your part, being that it so openly and proudly violates conservation of energy.



> Again, absorptivity and emissivity are different things from reflectivity and penetrability.  A poor emitter, which sea water is, is also a poor absorber...by the way,



"Poor absorber" is relative. It just means "path length of 22 microns" instead of "path length of 22 picometers."



> your chart didn't specify that it was relating to sea water, which is what the topic is about...and it didn't go into the far IR wavelengths...also what the topic is about...you have missed the mark entirely.



You're flailing blindly now. Water absorbs 100% in the far IR. You come across as a delusional cult kook for even trying to pretend otherwise. 

If your cult demands that you regularly humiliate yourself in this manner by pretending to believe such stupidity, do you really want to be associated with it?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> I still fail to see where you have corrected the OP's study which concluded that warming would take place at a greater rate than previously assumed.  What fundamental mistake did you find had been made by Daniel R. Feldman, Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, William D. Collins, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, Robert Pincus, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Xianglei Huang and Xiuhong Chen both of Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Michigan (not to mention their PNAS reviewers)?  That they were unfamiliar with Kirchoff's Law?  Is that correct?




Because, for the 3rd time doofus, if the rate of emissivity is lower then the rate of absorptivity is lower....the asshat doing the paper is still assuming that the rate of absorptivity has not changed from the 100% that the models claim....if absorptivity is lower, how does lower emissivity equal warming?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, hairball, but you alas, are the one who is confused....The issue here is absorption, not reflectivity.
> ...



In short hairball...you have yet to show any evidence to support your claim of reflectivity....your chart is not for sea water and it does not go into the far IR spectrum...fail on your part.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 10, 2014)

Fine. Here's a reflectance plot for water in the far IR, from the NASA ASTER spectral library. At 14 microns, reflectivity is 3.6%. Your Hockey Schtick conspiracy go boom.

Search mdash Spectral Library

So, what new contortions will you go into to deflect from just how badly you've pooched the basic science? Whatever you do, I'm sure it will be amusing. Perhaps you'll tell us that reflectance magically jumps to 100% at 15 microns. if you do make that claim, you might want to, you know, back it up. But only if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Fine. Here's a reflectance plot for water in the far IR, from the NASA ASTER spectral library. At 14 microns, reflectivity is 3.6%. Your Hockey Schtick conspiracy go boom.
> 
> Search mdash Spectral Library
> 
> So, what new contortions will you go into to deflect from just how badly you've pooched the basic science? Whatever you do, I'm sure it will be amusing. Perhaps you'll tell us that reflectance magically jumps to 100% at 15 microns. if you do make that claim, you might want to, you know, back it up. But only if you want to be taken seriously.


yet that isn't the topic.  See it is absorption vs emissivity.  It would help if you understood the topic.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 10, 2014)

jc, the grownups are trying to talk, so run along back to the kiddie table. Being you're so 'effin stupid, any actual science discussion is way over your head.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

JC.....remember when we went to school and the jokes about the geeky/social oddball book-smart types??!! That's what we have to deal with in here!!! The ones who stood on the fringe of the dance floor with their thumbs up their asses for 4 hours? They had to find a "cause" to matter in life. They found AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Fine. Here's a reflectance plot for water in the far IR, from the NASA ASTER spectral library. At 14 microns, reflectivity is 3.6%. Your Hockey Schtick conspiracy go boom.
> 
> Search mdash Spectral Library
> 
> So, what new contortions will you go into to deflect from just how badly you've pooched the basic science? Whatever you do, I'm sure it will be amusing. Perhaps you'll tell us that reflectance magically jumps to 100% at 15 microns. if you do make that claim, you might want to, you know, back it up. But only if you want to be taken seriously.



Sorry again hairball, but your graph still doesn't go into the far IR range....and again, you are talking about reflectivity when the topic is absorptivity and emissivity.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, the grownups are trying to talk, so run along back to the kiddie table. Being you're so 'effin stupid, any actual science discussion is way over your head.


Wow, you don't understand science at all.  I was giving you credit.  Then you post reflectivity in an absorption/ emissivity thread.  knock knock, do you know where you are?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

Off topic, but I have a question for the warmer k00ks, do you agree that the earth was once ice free?  Just asking to see where you all are at because of the sea level stuff.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Sorry again hairball, but your graph still doesn't go into the far IR range....



Pissdrinker, your evasions keep getting more pathetic. Why not admit what everyone already understands, that you pooched the science hard, again?



> and again, you are talking about reflectivity when the topic is absorptivity and emissivity.



Damn, you're stupid. But then, you're emotionally invested in being stupid. It's not possible to be both a loyal pissdrinking cultist and to be intelligent, so you actively work on being stupid.

Again, real world, anything not reflected is absorbed. Reflectivity is near zero for water in the mid and far IR, hence the oceans absorb almost all of that IR. Period.

So, once more, you're declaring the past century of physics is all wrong, all the scientists are wrong, and that only your kook blog understands the RealTruth. That's why you're considered to be a cultist laughingstock.

Skook and jc, you don't yet qualify as "laughingstock". You'll need to graduate from "buttboy" first in order to reach "laughingstock".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry again hairball, but your graph still doesn't go into the far IR range....
> ...


 
It doesn't matter because SSDD knows that warmer atmosphere doesn't radiate toward cooler water.

Don't worry, he's on the emergency list for a brain transplant.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You get more stupid and dishonest every day...must have been real frustrating not being able to support your position...childish comment but not unexpected


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 
You never did say whether infrared pictures of the sunlit side of the Earth were possible.
Why are you afraid to answer?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Got to be one of your stupidest attempts to prove your unobservable, unmeasurable, untested beliefs...why do you think you couldn't take photos of light reflected from the sun....unless the camera were hotter than the sun


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*Got to be one of your stupidest attempts to prove your unobservable, unmeasurable, untested beliefs...why do you think you couldn't take photos of light reflected from the sun....unless the camera were hotter than the sun*

Hey, snapperhead, INFRARED.
Are you going to claim that infrared satellite pictures of the Earth are possible because the Sun's infrared radiation is bouncing off the Earth?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Is infrared not light?  Whatever point you are trying to make is going to fail because energy always moves to a state of higher entropy


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Yet cool atmosphere does not make the surface warmer!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


 You're going to lose this one.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


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


They think they can get around the second law of thermodynamics


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


They think it does. ..just not as warm as the real warmer wackos....they believe in the magic. ..they just don't think the magic is as strong


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


  don't know, you put ice in a glass of liquid and it becomes cooler not warmer.  Not sure how that actually works the other way.  Haven't found one yet that does the opposite of that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 
*Yet cool atmosphere does not make the surface warmer!*

The atmosphere doesn't radiate according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*Is infrared not light?*

Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The atmosphere doesn't radiate according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?



Of course it does....the SB law describes a one way energy exchange between a warm radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that exchange being determined by the temperature differential between the radiator and its surroundings.

Your failing is that you believe in two way energy flow based on an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical model over every observation ever made.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?



You get more convoluted with every post....where do you think the energy comes from?  Do you think that because the incoming radiation from the sun changes from shortwave to long wave that the second law is somehow invalidated?  There is energy in and energy out...the form is irrelevant.  Energy moves from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state...not the other way...no matter how hard you torture the subject.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?
> ...


 
I notice you didn't answer the question.
Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



I answered your question....sorry the answer wasn't something you were able to torture into what you wanted....IR, like all energy moves from warm to cool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


* 
I answered your question....*

No you didn't, liar.

*the incoming radiation from the sun changes from shortwave to long wave*

You said it was reflected, idiot.


----------



## rdean (Nov 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science
> 
> Your first link:
> *Abstract*
> ...



Thank you.  I read it's links and couldn't figure out how these conclusions were being reached.  So I read them again.  Then I looked up the terms to make sure I understood what "blackbody" and "far-IR" actually meant.  

Sensitivity of outgoing longwave radiative flux to the global vertical distribution of ozone characterized by instantaneous radiative kernels from Aura-TES - Worden - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

I should have saved myself time and read what you wrote.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You think being converted from absorbed shortwave to emitted long wave equals reflection?


----------



## Crick (Nov 13, 2014)

You think CO2 absorbs photons and then emits them again in zero time?  That _would_ constitute a reflection, now wouldn't it.  If it takes a finite amount of time (and it does) then the CO2's temperature must increase.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*You think being converted from absorbed shortwave to emitted long wave equals reflection?*

No, that's your idiocy I'm mocking.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, that's your idiocy I'm mocking.



And still you can't find a single observed, measured example to support your belief...I would mock you for believing in magic if I thought you were worth the effort


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's your idiocy I'm mocking.
> ...


 
My belief? LOL!
Have you never seen an infrared satellite image of the day side of the Earth?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...






Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth?  IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> You think CO2 absorbs photons and then emits them again in zero time?  That _would_ constitute a reflection, now wouldn't it.  If it takes a finite amount of time (and it does) then the CO2's temperature must increase.


The CO2 molecule does not increase in temp.. it is incapable of heat transfer. IR passes right through it to space.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...
> ...



What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You think CO2 absorbs photons and then emits them again in zero time?  That _would_ constitute a reflection, now wouldn't it.  If it takes a finite amount of time (and it does) then the CO2's temperature must increase.
> ...



It does increase slightly in energy, if not heat in order to emit a photon (assuming that photons exist)...Energy is emitted at a very slightly lower wavelength than at which it were absorbed.  The energy is lost immediately of course, with the emission of the photon....no warming whatsoever.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

You two should get married.  Your offspring would be a genetic experiment of the first order.  Reverse evolution.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 14, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You think CO2 absorbs photons and then emits them again in zero time?  That _would_ constitute a reflection, now wouldn't it.  If it takes a finite amount of time (and it does) then the CO2's temperature must increase.
> ...


 Whooeeeee................  OK, Billy Boob, what else can we expect from you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
Pointing out the idiocy of your confused claims.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss.



You want to make a bet?


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...
> ...



The matter all across the surface of the Earth can discern the satellite in orbit and can perform the orbital mechanics necessary to tell where the satellite and the IR photons they were emitting (through the IR-active atmosphere) would reach the exact same location at the exact same time (both accurate to the Planck scale).  Now to accomplish this, atoms of the Earth's surface are exercising an accuracy of 0.000003193 degrees to restrict themselves to the satellite but an accuracy of better than 1e-49 degrees to achieve Planck scale accuracy at that distance. Now... since that is accuracy of greater magnitude (infinitessimalitude?) than the Planck scale itself, we have a problem.  But I'll let SSDD explain.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2014)

Crick said:


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


 
The satellite can be instructed to fire thrusters to speed up or slow down in its orbit.
And not a single photon (or wave) already on the way can miss, because it could then impact the much hotter Sun.  It truly is a miracle. Much simpler than all matter emitting all the time, according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

Praise God!


----------



## Trakar (Nov 15, 2014)

What leads anyone here to believe that the far IR absorption spectrum of seawater would dramatically impact climate warming, and by what proposed mechanism would this understanding change or alter mainstream climate science understandings?


----------



## Kosh (Nov 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Praise God!



You praise the AGW gods every time you post here, what do you get for being in the debunked AGW religion?


----------



## IanC (Nov 16, 2014)

Trakar said:


> What leads anyone here to believe that the far IR absorption spectrum of seawater would dramatically impact climate warming, and by what proposed mechanism would this understanding change or alter mainstream climate science understandings?




this is an excellent question! I am not remotely qualified to give any comprehensive answer but I will give a generalized answer on one aspect.

we have all been told that the surface emits radiation which is absorbed by CO2, which is then re-emitted in a random direction of which ~1/2 is sent to the surface. this 1/2 is then re-emitted and 1/4 comes back. etc

the sum of the series { 1+1/2 +1/4 +1/8....} = 2.   1 is the amount that must leave to balance the books. the other 1 (eg 2-1) is produced by unescaped radiation causing a temperature increase in the surface heatsink until the extra radiation caused by surface temperature increases can once again push 1 through the atmosphere into space and balance the books.

if absorption/emission of seawater is 10% less than assumed then the series is { .9 +.41 +.19 +.09....} = ~1.6
and the warming is 40% less.

not that I am saying this generalized mechanism is even remotely accurate, but it is being told to the public everywhere. parasitic losses to other pathways already wipe out most of the 'backradiation' already.  further reduction of energy to this puny CO2 greenhouse effect just makes it even more trivial.


----------



## Crick (Nov 16, 2014)

You're assuming that all absorption is taking place with the same spectrum as the water is emitting.  I think you will find that sea water absorbs visible and UV spectrum light quite handily.  Thus it is absorbing a great deal more energy in those bands than it is radiating.  The adjustment in emissivity is NOT matched by change in absorption.  The reduction in emissivity means that sea water is giving off heat at a slower rate than thought and thus will increase in temperature faster than thought.


----------



## idb (Nov 16, 2014)

This is a great discussion...I understand 0.001% of it although there's clearly a disagreement on the fundamental science before the effects can even be considered..
Nevertheless I have one question - and I'll put this out there knowing that I'm exposing my basic ignorance.
Why does it matter if the ability of seawater to absorb IR is great or not?
To put it in painfully simple terms - if there is 'more IR' hitting the water then a greater quantity will be absorbed in any case won't it?


----------



## Crick (Nov 17, 2014)

Yes.

Regarding the issue under discussion, there's a common analogy: imagine a water tank with two connections.  One is continuously putting water into the tank.  The other allows the water to drain out.  Let's start with an empty tank and begin filling it.  Because the pressure is initially low, it flows slowly out the drain line and the level of water in the tank rises.  Eventually, however, the pressure will become great enough that the flow out matches the flow in and the water level will become fixed.  This is a state of equilibrium.

Now, what happens if we make changes? If we increase the rate water comes in, the water will rise to a new, higher equilibrium depth.  This would be analogous to the sun sending us greater amounts of radiative energy.  If we lower that rate - cool off the sun - the new equilibrium level will be lower.  However, direct measurements of the sunlight hitting the Earth do not show enough change to produce the warming that's been observed.  The pattern has been a bit complicated, but over the last 35 years or so, the sun's output - it's total solar irradiance (TSI) - has gone down slightly.

So let's look at the other end.  If we increase the size of the drain line, the water level will start to drop.  That represents the suns warmth - now converted to infrared radiation - leaving the Earth at a greater rate.  If we reduce the size of the drain line - if we make it more difficult for the IR to radiate away to space - the new equilibrium level will be higher.

The greenhouse effect warms planet by restricting their heat energy from leaving to space.  Reducing the rate at which the ocean's can radiate their heat away will cause the Earth's equilibrium temperature to be higher than originally thought.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're assuming that all absorption is taking place with the same spectrum as the water is emitting.  I think you will find that sea water absorbs visible and UV spectrum light quite handily.  Thus it is absorbing a great deal more energy in those bands than it is radiating.  The adjustment in emissivity is NOT matched by change in absorption.  The reduction in emissivity means that sea water is giving off heat at a slower rate than thought and thus will increase in temperature faster than thought.




there has been no change to the physics, only our understanding of Far IR. if seawater is shedding less energy at far IR wavelengths now, it was also shedding the same smaller amount 10 or 1000 or 1000000 years ago. because absorption and emission are exactly the same for any given wavelength, that means the amount of energy going into the CO2 greenhouse effect feedback loop is LESS than we thought. less is coming out initially, less is being reabsorbed, and so forth for every iteration. 

perhaps the GCMs are already using this smaller amount but the authors of that paper state that this is a new and unexpected result.

why do you feel that the reduction in the CO2 greenhouse effect worldwide is less important than the ice effect in the Arctic?

you seem to have a double standard on these type of things. you ignored the suggestion that Antarctic sea ice has a much greater effect per unit area on albedo because the incident solar angle is less. I dont think you parse any of the information that gets released for feasibility  or magnitude of effect.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yes.
> 
> Regarding the issue under discussion, there's a common analogy: imagine a water tank with two connections.  One is continuously putting water into the tank.  The other allows the water to drain out.  Let's start with an empty tank and begin filling it.  Because the pressure is initially low, it flows slowly out the drain line and the level of water in the tank rises.  Eventually, however, the pressure will become great enough that the flow out matches the flow in and the water level will become fixed.  This is a state of equilibrium.
> 
> ...




??????????

hahahahaha. you should be in a Roadrunner cartoon. Wiley coyote doesnt fall down the cliff until he actually looks down and notices there is nothing underneath him. you think extra warming will happen because we discovered a mistake in our data, even though it was always there. and you also ignore the implications for global impact of less energy going into the CO2 greenhouse effect.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yes.
> 
> Regarding the issue under discussion, there's a common analogy: imagine a water tank with two connections.  One is continuously putting water into the tank.  The other allows the water to drain out.  Let's start with an empty tank and begin filling it.  Because the pressure is initially low, it flows slowly out the drain line and the level of water in the tank rises.  Eventually, however, the pressure will become great enough that the flow out matches the flow in and the water level will become fixed.  This is a state of equilibrium.
> 
> ...




More proof that the AGW does not have a clue about science, just AGW religious dogma..






The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



OK...lets cut to the chase, OK...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are on so answer one question for me...yes or no.

Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?

Microstate statistical mechanics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you do, then you are completely wrong and if you don't then you agree with me whether you know it or not.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Trakar said:


> What leads anyone here to believe that the far IR absorption spectrum of seawater would dramatically impact climate warming, and by what proposed mechanism would this understanding change or alter mainstream climate science understandings?


 CO2 emits in the far IR spectrum...if sea water is a poor absorber of far IR, which is what CO2 is emitting, then 3/4ths of the earths surface is a poor absorber....climate models assume that sea water is a fine absorber of far IR...  You really don't get the ramifications of sea water being a poor absorber vs the assumptions made by climate science and, in turn, the models?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're assuming that all absorption is taking place with the same spectrum as the water is emitting.  I think you will find that sea water absorbs visible and UV spectrum light quite handily.  Thus it is absorbing a great deal more energy in those bands than it is radiating.  The adjustment in emissivity is NOT matched by change in absorption.  The reduction in emissivity means that sea water is giving off heat at a slower rate than thought and thus will increase in temperature faster than thought.


But the visible and UV spectrum are not components of the AGW hypothesis and are entirely out of our control and therefore not political issues....of course the ocean is absorbing in the visible and UV....refer to "its the sun stupid"....not CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*...you have become really boring with this windmill tilting quest you are*

Yes, trying to show you your errors has been a pointless quest.

*Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?*

You think that molecules in the atmosphere, happily radiating in all directions according to SB, cannot radiate toward the ground, because the microstate of the ground "has filled up"?

Does this mean you feel the ground can't absorb more energy?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Can't manage a yes no answer...how unsurprising is that?  Again, Do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
Trying to translate from idiot to English, before I answer.

Why do you feel warmer microstates are "filled up"?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Is it radiating?


----------



## MrDVS1 (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science
> 
> Your first link:
> *Abstract*
> ...



The estimates don't seem to take into account that once all the ice is gone that the warming of the Earth will increase rapidly. The ice will be gone but the heat that melted it will still be present and without the ice reflecting that heat at all, the Earth will absorb it instead. Water will evaporate like crazy, on a positive note that will alleviate  the flooding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*Is it radiating?*

Yes, all matter above absolute zero is radiating. Even if it is next to warmer matter.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> CO2 emits in the far IR spectrum...if sea water is a poor absorber of far IR, which is what CO2 is emitting,



But since seawater is an excellent absorber in the far IR, as has been known for the past century, you're just babbling nonsense in the name of your cult.

When you figure out the very important and obvious differences between "absorptivity" and "amount of radiation absorbed", do let us know. You fail hard at understanding the basics. Until you reach at least a college freshman level of understanding, you're not qualified to be in the discussion. Don't feel too bad, though, given that Ian fails just as hard.

The root of your failure is equating "low absorptivity" with "most radiation is not absorbed". That's completely and disastrously wrong.

Reflectivity is the factor that matters. Liquid water reflects only about 3% of the far IR. 97% travels into the water. If it travels into the water, it is eventually absorbed. It has to be. Conservation of energy must hold, always, period.

Absorptivity defines an average path length before the radiation is absorbed. Since that path length is in the range of 10 microns for water with far IR, all of the penetrating far IR will be absorbed within the first millimeter. "Low absorptivity" is a relative term. It's "low" in relation to, say, a hunk of iron. It's quite high in relation to, say, air.

As I keep asking, if you disagree, explain why you think you have a waiver to violate conservation of energy. According to your theory, IR penetrates the oceans and then just vanishes. It's not reflected or absorbed; the energy apparently travels into a mystery dimension. Can you tell us how the physics of that work?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Keep thinking...you will get it...maybe I should have said is it radiating at a particular temperature?...if all the microstates are not full, then its macrostate would be at a lower temperature...activate even higher microstates which require higher frequency energy and the macrostate exhibits a higher temperature...again, do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up, or displace the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 emits in the far IR spectrum...if sea water is a poor absorber of far IR, which is what CO2 is emitting,
> ...



Keep denying hairball....you have shown graphs which you claim to support your claims but the do not even address the far IR frequencies...This graph does address the far IR and as you can see, for sea water, there is a dramatic drop in emissivity as one enters into the far IR range...that being the case, sea water must also be a poor absorber in the far IR range....unless of course, you are going to deny Kirchhoff's Law...it wouldn't be the first physical law you have denied in favor of your cult beliefs...absorption must equal emission at all frequencies...go ahead, deny it.

From the paper:



> Despite its importance in the planet’s energy budget, it’s difficult to measure a surface’s effectiveness in emitting far-infrared energy. In addition, its influence on the planet’s climate is not well represented in climate models. The models assume that all surfaces are 100 percent efficient in emitting far-infrared energy.
> 
> That’s not the case. The scientists found that open oceans are much less efficient than sea ice when it comes to emitting in the far-infrared region of the spectrum. This means that the Arctic Ocean traps much of the energy in far-infrared radiation, a previously unknown phenomenon that is likely contributing to the warming of the polar climate.



Note he acknowledges that climate models assume that all surfaces are 100% efficient in emitting far IR energy...the models also assume 100% efficiency at absorbing far IR.  Then he goes on to make his own assumption, not realizing that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths...therefore if sea water is a poor emitter, it must also be a poor absorber...

Deny some more hairball...deny physical laws....show us who the true denier is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*again, do you think that radiation from a cooler radiator with its lower frequency energy can fill up, or displace the higher energy microstates that the warmer radiator already has filled up*

Who said anything about "fill[ing] up, or displac[ing] the higher energy microstates"?
Let's try this again.
The cooler [than the ground] atmosphere will radiate in all directions (as long as it's above 0K), even toward the warmer ground.
That won't increase the temperature of the ground (as long as the ground started out warmer than the atmosphere), because the ground (also constantly radiating) is radiating faster (more).
This energy from the radiating atmosphere *will* slow the loss of energy from the ground.

If you weren't such a moron, you'd have realized this months ago.

Start thinking...you will get it...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The cooler [than the ground] atmosphere will radiate in all directions (as long as it's above 0K), even toward the warmer ground.



You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example....you are speaking about a mathematical model, not observable reality.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> This energy from the radiating atmosphere *will* slow the loss of energy from the ground.



If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?

Tell me Todster...do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time?  Assuming that photons exist, is it not true that a photon traveling at the speed of light c, experiences neither space nor time?  From a photon's "point of view" is not all spacial length infinitely contracted...meaning that from a photon's "point of view" it has no where to travel?.....and from a photon's "point of view"  is time not at a standstill because of infinite time dilation?

So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time, it really does "know" what its destination is like and therefore you can limit radiative transfer of energy is essentially the same as if there were physical contact...as is the case with conduction.

So prove me wrong.  Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...


----------



## mamooth (Nov 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Keep denying hairball....you have shown graphs which you claim to support your claims but the do not even address the far IR frequencies...



You're essentially the only person on the planet claiming seawater doesn't absorb most far IR. If you'd like anyone to believe your astounding discovery, you might want to consider showing some evidence, as crying loudly is unlikely to convince the scientific community. They all think that far IR is absorbed very effectively by water, which would be why all far IR astronomy is done either by satellite, or by the instruments on Mauna Kea which are above most of the water vapor. Be sure to let them know they're all wasting their time, and that far IR isn't absorbed by water at all.



> This graph does address the far IR and as you can see, for sea water, there is a dramatic drop in emissivity as one enters into the far IR range...that being the case, sea water must also be a poor absorber in the far IR range...



Dear god, you're stupid.

As I keep pointing out, you're equating "low absorptivity" with "never absorbs the energy, no matter how far it travels". Total physics failure on your part.

Absorptivity is a measure of the average path length a bit of radiation travels in matter before it gets absorbed.

In liquid water, that's around 10 microns. So as long as you have at least a millimeter of water, 100% of the far IR energy penetrating the water gets absorbed.

"Low" or "high" absorptivity doesn't matter in this case. Given enough distance, all matter eventually absorbs all the energy penetrating it. "Low absorptivity" in water just means the average path length is 10 microns instead of 10 nanometers.

Again, you need to explain why your kook theory gets a waiver to violate conservation of energy. According to you, the far IR penetrates the ocean and then magically vanishes without transferring any energy. You consistently refuse to address that, which makes it obvious that you're babbing cult pseudoscience. Until you explain why you're allowed to violate conservation of energy, everyone will continue to correctly define you as a babbling crank.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The cooler [than the ground] atmosphere will radiate in all directions (as long as it's above 0K), even toward the warmer ground.
> ...


 
*You keep saying that, but can't provide even one observed measured example*

I can't provide one example of matter radiating? Can you show that the Earth does not radiate toward the Sun?

*If the greenhouse effect works like that, then where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result?*

You need a hotspot to understand that an atmosphere slows the loss of energy from the surface? 
Have you noticed the Moon lately? 

*do you think photons exist inside, or outside of space and time?*

Will my answer make your errors any less ridiculous?

*So from a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel in no time,*

Of course, your magic "smart photons".

*So prove me wrong. Surely there will be a nobel in it for you...*

I'll be happy to speak at your Nobel ceremony. Your prize for showing that matter can stop radiating, while above 0K will change a lot of minds for sure.
It'll be the SSDD footnote to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


No answer.  Again, not surprising. .you claim to believe QC but apparently cherry pick what you believe...did I not accurately describe what reality is like for a photon according to QM?

And again making up my arguments to argue against only makes you dishonest...by the way...do you also believe in back conduction?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
I don't have to make up your arguments, their idiocy needs no assistance.
Have you noticed the speed that energy leaves the Moon's surface, when the Sun sets?
Is that because of a hot spot or absence of a hot spot somewhere?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't have to make up your arguments, their idiocy needs no assistance.



And yet, you keep attributing statements to me that I have never made...are you stupid or just dishonest?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that because of a hot spot or absence of a hot spot somewhere?



you are the one who chooses to believe in the magic...according to the greenhouse hypothesis as climate science describes it, a hot spot is inevitable if CO2, in fact slows heat from escaping the atmosphere.....a million radiosondes have failed to find it...either the hypothesis is wrong and CO2 doesn't slow heat from escaping the atmosphere or perhaps the hot spot is hiding wherever trenberths missing heat is hiding.

Again, do you think photons experience time and space as we do?....or do you accept what QM says about the reality of an entity that moves about at the speed of light? And do you believe in back convection and back conduction the same as you believe in back radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to make up your arguments, their idiocy needs no assistance.
> ...


 
*you are the one who chooses to believe in the magic...*

You believe that it's magic which makes temperature extremes on Earth milder than those on the Moon? LOL!
Just as you believe that matter which has been known since SB to constantly radiate, magically ceases when a warmer object approaches, despite no link or textbook backing your claim.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 18, 2014)

Pissdrinker's kook science keeps getting funnier. Now the photons no longer exist in space and time, so they "know" all of existence simultaneously. That's groovy, man.

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Denialists
The Age of Denialists
Denialists! Denialists!

So, if CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You believe that it's magic which makes temperature extremes on Earth milder than those on the Moon? LOL!




You just get further out there all the time...now you want to bring the moon into the equation?...the moon with essentially no atmosphere proves my point, not yours.  The daytime side of the moon can reach an excess of 250 F....what is our maximum daytime temp?  Clearly the atmosphere keeps us from burning up during the daytime...the night time temps can drop below -240..not so here on earth primarily because of water vapor.  Back radiation is not a factor since it does not happen.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Just as you believe that matter which has been known since SB to constantly radiate, magically ceases when a warmer object approaches, despite no link or textbook backing your claim.



Again, you are misinterpreting the SB...the SB tells us that the radiation a blackbody emits is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....set the difference to zero and P=0....and again, the SB describes a one way energy flow between a radiator and its surroundings...

You seem to be dodging Toddster....do you believe in back conduction and back convection like you believe in back radiation?.....Do you think a photon experiences time and space in the same manner as we do?....Do you visualize photons zipping around like souped up corvettes, or do you visualize photons as particles travelling at the speed of light and therefore subject to an entirely different sort of experience of time space than we know...where distance is meaningless because all spatial length is infinitely contracted and time is essentially standing still due to infinite time dilation?  And if you accept that the reality of time and space is different for a photon than it is for us, why do you try to constrict it to our reality rather than its own?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Pissdrinker's kook science keeps getting funnier. Now the photons no longer exist in space and time, so they "know" all of existence simultaneously. That's groovy, man.



So you don't accept the Lorentz relativity equations or relativity either?  You view photons as souped up corvettes zipping around experiencing time and space in the same manner as you?  Not surprising.  Do you imagine them with racing stripes or flames?





mamooth said:


> So, if CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase?



If CO2 drives the climate via its so called greenhouse gas properties, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase...during the snowball earth phase, nearly all of the CO2 was locked up...the atmospheric CO2 concentration during that time would have been small to the point of insignificance.  The warming that brought the earth out of its snowball phase would have been well underway before any appreciable amount of CO2 were released..  You just can't manage to think no matter how hard you try can you hairball?


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2014)

There is significant work that now shows that greenhouse warming has enhanced Milankovitch cycle changes on every move from cold to warm. And before you throw your bag of memes at me, that is not an endorsement of runaway warming.

An interesting point to consider: is the change in TSI brought about by the greatest Milankovitch deviation possible, sufficient to lower the Earth's temperature sufficient to produce a snowball Earth?  I think you will find that without the sequestration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (water vapor solidified and lying on the ground), that the Earth wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as cold as it did - the Milankovitch change was insufficient to have done that by itself.

Low GHG levels during snowball Earth is a validation of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> Low GHG levels during snowball Earth is a validation of the greenhouse effect.



No they aren't because if CO2 were the driver of climate on earth as the greenhouse hypothesis claims, the snowball phase could never have happened with CO2 levels as high as they were at the time....and the earth has repeatedly descended into ice ages when CO2 levels were very high....the ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 levels over 1000ppm.


----------



## IanC (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD brings up a valid point. photons do exist all along their flight path until a bit of matter 'puts them to the test' and condenses a probability wave into a discrete particle. it is very conceivable that all photons start as virtual photons.

but the evidence seems to suggest that radiative photons have their energy prepaid by matter trying to shed energy. unlike reactive photons in electric and magnetic fields that are virtual photons which probe the surroundings looking for partners to swap force with. if a virtual photon finds no partner it simply ceases to exist and no energy bill needs to be paid. while virtual photons exist for only a very short time, in the photon's reference frame it exists at all points of it's path.

there is a fundemental difference between radiative and reactive photons. the reactive photons have an extra characteristic of being either attractive or repulsive.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

You seem to believe a lot about a particle whose existence remains theoretical....and there is little acual difference at all between radiative and reactive photons since both are only theorized...

Nice of you to acknowledge that a theoretical photon would "know" about where it was going before it went and therefore would not go to a place it couldn't....much like the rock dropping because it knows that falling up is not an option.

Pointe of order....you would sound much more credible if you would preface these statements you make about theoretical particles and such with an acknowledgement that you are not speaking in terms of fact but only theory.


----------



## IanC (Nov 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> There is significant work that now shows that greenhouse warming has enhanced Milankovitch cycle changes on every move from cold to warm. And before you throw your bag of memes at me, that is not an endorsement of runaway warming.
> 
> An interesting point to consider: is the change in TSI brought about by the greatest Milankovitch deviation possible, sufficient to lower the Earth's temperature sufficient to produce a snowball Earth?  I think you will find that without the sequestration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (water vapor solidified and lying on the ground), that the Earth wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as cold as it did - the Milankovitch change was insufficient to have done that by itself.
> 
> Low GHG levels during snowball Earth is a validation of the greenhouse effect.




astrophysics claims that stars produce significantly less energy early in their lifespan and increase their output as they age. in the 3 billion years that Earth has been around it has always had liquid water. the homeostasis system we call climate has kept the Earth in a narrow temperature band despite many changes and disruptions to the system.


----------



## IanC (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> You seem to believe a lot about a particle whose existence remains theoretical....and there is little acual difference at all between radiative and reactive photons since both are only theorized...
> 
> Nice of you to acknowledge that a theoretical photon would "know" about where it was going before it went and therefore would not go to a place it couldn't....much like the rock dropping because it knows that falling up is not an option.
> 
> Pointe of order....you would sound much more credible if you would preface these statements you make about theoretical particles and such with an acknowledgement that you are not speaking in terms of fact but only theory.




everything is only a theory, so what?

you can manipulate radiative photons, reactive photons not so much. lasers yes, tractor beams no.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Positive, as in creating more warming. SSo DDumb, that is the abstract from the article you posted. That is the authors judgements as to what the effect of the far-IR surface emissivity they measured are. So, you want to interpret their results differantly than they do, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. That is how real science is done. Alternatively, flap yap with crackpot theories on an internet message board, and look the fool.*
> ...



Here is the problem,  

."A perfect black body in *thermodynamic equilibrium* absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature _T_, universal for all [b,]perfect black bodies[/b]."
*
"Kirchhoff's perfect black bodies*
Planck also noted that the perfect black bodies of Kirchhoff do not occur in physical reality. They are theoretical fictions. "

You first need to show that the oceans are suffuciently close to thermal equilibrium and a black body in order to use Kirchhoff's Law in the oversimplified and overgeneralized manner that you do.

As the ocean is neither a perfect black body or in thermodynamic equilibrium, emmissivity and absorption are not necessarily identical.

You term "Poor emissivity" is insufficiently defined.  Poor compared to what? What range of values is "poor"?  Zero?  Zero to .25?  To .5?  Below .8?  Then, why is that "poor" in context of the problem?

Physics presents a set of ideal laws that are true under ideal situations which never occur in nature.  They provide a starting point, not the solution.


----------



## IanC (Nov 19, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




the emission is always perfectly matched by the absorption.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

IanC said:


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


That paper is going to be devastating to the AGW hypothesis and they know it...ergo the attempted back pedaling by the warmer continent. .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You believe that it's magic which makes temperature extremes on Earth milder than those on the Moon? LOL!
> ...


* 
You just get further out there all the time...now you want to bring the moon into the equation?...the moon with essentially no atmosphere proves my point, not yours. The daytime side of the moon can reach an excess of 250 F....what is our maximum daytime temp? Clearly the atmosphere keeps us from burning up during the daytime...the night time temps can drop below -240..not so here on earth primarily because of water vapor. Back radiation is not a factor since it does not happen.*

Yes, I want to bring the Moon into the equation. Just more proof of the idiocy of your position.

*the night time temps can drop below -240..not so here on earth primarily because of water vapor.  *

Awesome. How does water vapor prevent our temp from dropping to -240 at night?
Spell out your mechanism.

*where distance is meaningless because all spatial length is infinitely contracted and time is essentially standing still due to infinite time dilation? *

A photon (or wave) won't be emitted from the surface of the Sun, because 70 million years from now it would impact a star that's even hotter? Is that what you're going to use now, to explain your silly one-way flow "theory"? LOL! Good luck with that. There must be plenty of papers you can link to, for us to peruse.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Awesome. How does water vapor prevent our temp from dropping to -240 at night?




Unlike CO2, water vapor can actually absorb and retain heat...and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself...which is the true "greenhouse" effect if greenhouse is what you want to call it...the ideal gas laws spell it out.
Spell out your mechanism.

*where distance is meaningless because all spatial length is infinitely contracted and time is essentially standing still due to infinite time dilation? *



Toddsterpatriot said:


> A photon (or wave) won't be emitted from the surface of the Sun, because 70 million years from now it would impact a star that's even hotter? Is that what you're going to use now, to explain your silly one-way flow "theory"? LOL! Good luck with that. There must be plenty of papers you can link to, for us to peruse.



I didn't make it up...I am just telling you what science says is...either you believe it or you don't.  If you don't then I really must question your belief in the rest of your QM net energy flow claims.  You don't get to pick and choose which you believe because they all depend on each other...either you buy the whole lot, which says that photons don't experience space or time in any way that you can possibly imagine, or you don't...in which case, two way net energy flow goes out the window with the rest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Awesome. How does water vapor prevent our temp from dropping to -240 at night?
> ...


 
*Unlike CO2, water vapor can actually absorb and retain heat*

Retain heat, forever?

*and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself.*

The atmosphere itself generates heat?

*I didn't make it up...I am just telling you what science says is...either you believe it or you don't.*

I'm still waiting for your proof that the science says a 100 K object ceases radiating when a 200 K object approaches. Because the SB doesn't say that, not even a little bit.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> So you don't accept the Lorentz relativity equations or relativity either?



Quit deflecting. The topic is your spacey religion which states that every photon understands the whole infinite cosmos.



> You view photons as souped up corvettes zipping around experiencing time and space in the same manner as you?  Not surprising.  Do you imagine them with racing stripes or flames?



I don't imagine anything. I _know_ you're babbling new-age nonsense. I await to see how healing crystals and aromatherapy will soon be added to your  theories.

By the way, have you been toking on that hippie herb? Or perhaps dropping the brown acid? That would explain much of your "science", not to mention your paranoia.



> If CO2 drives the climate via its so called greenhouse gas properties, how did the earth break out of its snowball earth phase...during the snowball earth phase, nearly all of the CO2 was locked up...the atmospheric CO2 concentration during that time would have been small to the point of insignificance.  The warming that brought the earth out of its snowball phase would have been well underway before any appreciable amount of CO2 were released..  You just can't manage to think no matter how hard you try can you hairball?



As usual, pissdrinker, you evaded the question, which concerned where the warming that brought earth out of its snowball phase came from. You just waved your hands and declared it magically happened.

Snowball earth lasted for tens of millions of years or more. Therefore, we know Milankovitch cycles didn't make a dent in it, because it persisted through hundreds of such cycles. So, where did the heat that melted snowball earth come from? If you say it's because solar output has slowly increased, then why wasn't earth frozen before the snowball earth phase, when the sun was even cooler?

It's good to be part of the rational crowd, because the answer is very obvious. A snowbound earth had no CO2 sinks, so CO2 emitted from volcanoes built up over millions of years, eventually producing enough greenhouse gas warming to melt the earth. It's impossible to explain paleoclimate history unless you include greenhouse gases.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Pissdrinker's kook science keeps getting funnier. Now the photons no longer exist in space and time, so they "know" all of existence simultaneously. That's groovy, man.
> 
> When the moon is in the Seventh House
> And Jupiter aligns with Mars
> ...


 It wasn't due to CO2 bub!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't accept the Lorentz relativity equations or relativity either?
> ...


 The Sun you fool, the sun that big ball in the sky that's on fire, that's what warmed the earth.  What a boob!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Retain heat, forever?




Why must it retain heat forever...is the sun not coming up in 12 hours?....and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere..




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The atmosphere itself generates heat?



Ideal gas laws?....PV = nRT?....ever hear of it?  Have any idea what it means?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm still waiting for your proof that the science says a 100 K object ceases radiating when a 200 K object approaches. Because the SB doesn't say that, not even a little bit.



Since I never claimed such a thing...you may be waiting for some time....lying about my position is getting to be a regular thing for you...are you really that dishonest?

The SB says that energy flows from warm to cold...one way with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the difference between the warm radiator and its cooler surroundings...I have never said anything more than that regarding the SB law...you, on the other hand make all sorts of claims that the SB law doesn't..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Quit deflecting. The topic is your spacey religion which states that every photon understands the whole infinite cosmos.



Interesting how you wackos feel the need to manufacture an argument to rail against....to bad it isn't my argument since I never said any such thing...a photon doesn't know to go from warm to cool any more than a rock knows to fall down when dropped...both are doing the only thing they can do.



mamooth said:


> I don't imagine anything. I _know_ you're babbling new-age nonsense. I await to see how healing crystals and aromatherapy will soon be added to your  theories.



Relativity and special relativity are new age nonsense?  Interesting that you think such a thing.



mamooth said:


> By the way, have you been toking on that hippie herb? Or perhaps dropping the brown acid? That would explain much of your "science", not to mention your paranoia.



Stating what reality is like for a photon according to the theory of relativity and special relativity is the result of doing drugs?  Again, interesting.



mamooth said:


> As usual, pissdrinker, you evaded the question, which concerned where the warming that brought earth out of its snowball phase came from. You just waved your hands and declared it magically happened.



The cause was that big ball of fire in the sky....I do know that it wasn't due to CO2 because in a snowball earth phase, the CO2 was locked up tight.



mamooth said:


> Snowball earth lasted for tens of millions of years or more. Therefore, we know Milankovitch cycles didn't make a dent in it, because it persisted through hundreds of such cycles. So, where did the heat that melted snowball earth come from? If you say it's because solar output has slowly increased, then why wasn't earth frozen before the snowball earth phase, when the sun was even cooler?



And we know that CO2 didn't make a dent in it either because the CO2 was locked up tight till the warming was well on its way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Retain heat, forever?
> ...


 
*Why must it retain heat forever...is the sun not coming up in 12 hours?....*

How long does it retain heat? Does it ever release that heat? If so, how?

*Ideal gas laws?....PV = nRT?....ever hear of it?* 

I have. You feel that means that the atmosphere itself generates heat?

*Since I never claimed such a thing...you may be waiting for some time*

Then let's get you on the record.
Does a 100 K object sitting all by itself radiate?

*The SB says that energy flows from warm to cold*

It gives you the equation to calculate how fast energy will move from warm to cold.
I've never seen any reference to a one way flow and I've never seen you produce one.
Do you have one you've been saving?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And we know that CO2 didn't make a dent in it either because the CO2 was locked up tight till the warming was well on its way.



Another fail on your part, since the CO2 preceeded the warming. Is there any topic you don't get completely wrong? You're a renaissance man of stupid.

And again, you failed to explain why, if the sun was the cause, the earth didn't freeze in eras before snowball earth when the sun was even cooler. Your stupid theory is, as is usual, contradicted by the observed evidence in multiple ways. But that's never stopped you before, so don't start looking at reality now.

You should expand more on your new-age relativity religion. It's just as dumb as your paleoclimate failures, but much more amusing. You really need to publish it, revolutionize physics and collect your Nobel prize.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How long does it retain heat? Does it ever release that heat? If so, how?




Are you really this uninformed?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I have. You feel that means that the atmosphere itself generates heat?



You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat?   Any idea what the T in the ideal gas laws stands for?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does a 100 K object sitting all by itself radiate?



Already been through this...no matter how many times I state my position, you invariably go back to a twisted version of your own manufacture...if you can't even keep my position straight in your mind, what is the point of even talking to you?  Are you dishonest or are you really not able to remember what someone says more than a couple of minutes even if it is written down for you?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> It gives you the equation to calculate how fast energy will move from warm to cold.
> I've never seen any reference to a one way flow and I've never seen you produce one.
> Do you have one you've been saving?



been through that as well....it isn't my fault that you are so poor in math that you don't recognize an equation that describes a one way energy flow...you have been provided with an example equation that does describe two way energy flow, but alas, that is not how the SB equation is written.....sorry.  

You keep going over the same losing argument over and over...you can't provide observed examples of the energy transfer you claim...you can't recognize an equation describing one way energy flow...and on and on and somehow you think that the next time it will turn out differently.  The second law, the SB equation, and every observation ever made support my position and to date, you have nothing but an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model to support yours.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat?



Of course it doesn't. Nobody except cult loons will say it does.

According to your deranged theory here, the fire extinguisher in my kitchen should be generating heat. Dammit, why am I using a furnace, when I could just get a couple more fire extinugishers? Basketball players should all be saying "ow!" as they touch the ball, because the compressed air inside would be constantly generating heat.

What's more, you could hook up such heat sources to a Stirling engine, and get free work out of it, forever. Perpetual motion, baby! Forget conservation of energy. Your cult's religion says energy can magically be created or destroyed whenever it's convenient for the cult.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How long does it retain heat? Does it ever release that heat? If so, how?
> ...


 

*Are you really this uninformed?*

I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
Hasn't happened yet.

*You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat?*

I'd like you to explain how it does.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

*Already been through this...*

I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.

*....it isn't my fault that you are so poor in math that you don't recognize an equation that describes a one way energy flow*

If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.

*The second law, the SB equation, and every observation ever made support my position*

I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.
You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".
If they agree, I'll be happy to apologize for mocking your idiocy.


----------



## IanC (Nov 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




actually the atmosphere does store energy from daytime solar input. as the atmosphere warms up it also 'puffs' up, storing potential energy which is later given up during night.

of course SSDD has never given an answer to me as to whether potential energy is incorporated into his 'theory' that states photons only radiate to cooler objects. microstates and degrees of freedom anyone?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You don't think a gas under pressure generates heat?
> ...




Hey, the hairball rejects another physical law....second law of thermodynamics, Kirchhoffs law, and now the ideal gas laws.  

The problem with your fire extinguisher hypothesis, is that the column of air in a fire extinguisher is static....as has been pointed out to you already, no such state of equilibrium could ever be reached in an open, dynamic atmosphere....for example, the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus, arguably the coldest place in the solar system is warmer than here on earth....pressure, hairball, pressure.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
> Hasn't happened yet.



Yet another non answer.  Getting more boring by the second.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'd like you to explain how it does.
> Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
> Show all your work.



PV = nRT  mathematically over your head?  Why are we even talking?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.



I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....if you can't argue against what I said, rather than your twisted interpretation of what I said, again, why are we even talking?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you had any references that backed up your claim that the SB Law described a one way flow, you'd have produced them already.



You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2?  Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math?  You have been shown a 2 way equation compared to a 1 way equation...sorry again that it was over your head.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I provided a link to a textbook and a link to a Science article that both described a two way flow.



Yeah, I can too.  Here are a few of them:

These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:





Radiative Heat Transfer by Modes
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

Note these are hard classical physics texts for students pursuing a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Here are a few that describe a two way energy flow and present it using this equation:






A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen

Note these are all texts used in courses teaching manmade climate change.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're free to contact the publishers and explain your feelings about their "errors".



Perhaps you should contact the publisher of your reference and ask why their version of the SB law does not jibe with those teaching physics for the hard sciences.


----------



## IanC (Nov 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I know. Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out. Because your claims are wrong.
> ...



SSDD- you have stated on many occasions that a cooler object cannot radiate towards a warmer one. what does that mean then if not the radiation stopped?

and you still havent addressed the conservation of momentum aspect between two objects if the total amount of radiation is reduced in some way.


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2014)

IanC said:


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



Despite their different spectra?


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'd like you to explain how it does.
> Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
> Show all your work.





SSDD said:


> PV = nRT  mathematically over your head?  Why are we even talking?



Because that equation doesn't show any heat being generated.


----------



## IanC (Nov 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




for any molecule in a defined condition the absorption MUST equal the emission and vice versa. how could it not? I am not saying the coefficient of emissivity is the same for all wavelengths, etc. I am saying for any particular wavelength, etc that it describes both the absorbtivity and and emission equally.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
> ...


 
*PV = nRT mathematically over your head? Why are we even talking?*

We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.

You have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.

Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.

*I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....*

Excellent, an object above 0K continues to radiate, even if a warmer object is nearby.
I'm glad I was able to help you realize your earlier stupidity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
> ...


 
*You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math?* 

Funny you should mention algebra.











Algebraically, how are these formulas different?

*These textbooks describe the SB law as a one way flow of energy using this equation:*

The formula itself doesn't show a one way flow.
Thanks for the names of the the textbooks, what about a link to where they say one way flow?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


 so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
> ...


 
*You need references to prove that 1 +1 = 2? Sorry guy, when you get to a certain level of math, it is simply assumed that you can grasp what the equations mean....Ever take a physics course? Did the instructor go through all the algebraic properties, etc to make sure you understood the equation or was it assumed that since you were in that class, you already had a handle on the elementary math?*

Funny you should mention algebra.











Algebraicly, how are these formulas different?


SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm waiting for you to show you are informed.
> ...


 

*I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close. *

Then how does energy not flow from the cooler to the warmer?
Run through your mechanism. 600 C object, happily radiating. 800 C object placed nearby. Go!

*It simply doesn't radiate in that direction. Do you find it equally strange that if you shoot two hoses toward each other and one has more pressure that the water from the weaker hose diverts....it still comes out of the hose, but can't spray in the direction the higher pressure is coming from...same with air...same with solid objects. Why do you think theoretical photons are exempt from the forces of nature that every other object in the universe are subject to?* 

Physicist Offers 10 000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*I never said that and if you repeat that lie one more time, you go on ignore....*


*It simply doesn't radiate in that direction.*

Hmmmmm.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


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


 
Do you know what absolute zero means?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Hey, the hairball rejects another physical law....second law of thermodynamics, Kirchhoffs law, and now the ideal gas laws.



Pissdrinker, is there anybody left in your new-age religious cult besides yourself and buttboy? It's probably better that way. If you have a private kook universe, you can redefine physical laws at your leisure, and nobody will be around you to disagree.



> The problem with your fire extinguisher hypothesis, is that the column of air in a fire extinguisher is static....as has been pointed out to you already, no such state of equilibrium could ever be reached in an open, dynamic atmosphere



And you squeal and run, abandoning your "a compressed gas generates heat!" theory. Good to know even you could understand how stupid that theory was.



> ....for example, the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus, arguably the coldest place in the solar system is warmer than here on earth....



So you're saying the coldest place in the universe is warmer than earth. Damn, that's stupid.

Oh, Uranus ... internal radioactive decay, Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, and an atmosphere that inhibits convection.



> pressure, hairball, pressure.



Now you've revised your conspiracy to claim a static column of gas with a pressure gradient generates heat forever. Sadly for you, it's still a wild violation of conservation of energy, not to mention it's contradicted by observation, meaning it's a kook theory that only a screwball cultist could embrace.

This isn't rocket science. There is no free energy. _Compressing_ a gas generates heat, because work is being done on it. A gas sitting there in an unchanging compressed state does not generate heat.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


 has anyone reached absolute zero?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


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


 
*has anyone reached absolute zero?*

SSDD's IQ.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD- you have stated on many occasions that a cooler object cannot radiate towards a warmer one. what does that mean then if not the radiation stopped?



Been through this before Ian, before I can answer the question....is heat a form of radiation, or is heat the fingerprint of radiation moving from one place to another.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
> Are you so bad at math you can't show me? Try again.



Who would have thought that the T in PV=nRT was superfluous?  Here I was believing that if you know what P,V,n, & R were, you could calculate T (average).  Maybe you should call science and tell them that the T is an error and P,V,n & R are all that is necessary in the ideal gas law...T is not truly part of the equation.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Previous times through it you claimed an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby, now you're trying to squirm out.



never said anything like that...you are repeating your interpretation of what I said...ie you are a liar who apparently can't read words, absorb them, and repeat them without making some sort of change to them.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Algebraically, how are these formulas different?



Algebraically, they are not different...we aren't discussing algebra though, we are discussing physics.  Equations are the language of physics....equations describe physical processes...  The first equation describes a one way energy flow with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the difference between T and Tc.  The second equation describes a two way net flow with the magnitude of the net being determined by the difference between A(sigma T4)and A(sigma T4c)....the two equations describe different processes...in physics, if you are going to apply an algaebraic property to an equation describing a physical process, you must first justify the application of the property.  Can you show in your textbook, or any of those I listed a justification for applying the distributive property to the SB equation....for that matter, if the equation didn't specifically describe a one way energy flow, why not just use the SB equation and claim that it describes a two way energy flow?  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks for the names of the the textbooks, what about a link to where they say one way flow?



You are under the impression that textbooks are published in their entirety on the internet?  And again, if   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  did not describe a one way energy flow as I have been pointing out to you for all this time, why rewrite it this way  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  in the textbooks claiming two way energy flow?  Why not simply write it as originally written and claim a two way flow as you do?  Answer:  because people who have some clue will point out that the actual equation describes a one way energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?



What he is saying is that he believes in magic.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Pissdrinker, is there anybody left in your new-age religious cult besides yourself and buttboy? It's probably better that way. If you have a private kook universe, you can redefine physical laws at your leisure, and nobody will be around you to disagree.



Sorry hairball, it is you who is redefining physical laws...so far, the second law of thermodynamics, the SB law, Kirchhoffs law, and the ideal gas law.  Any more?



mamooth said:


> And you squeal and run, abandoning your "a compressed gas generates heat!" theory. Good to know even you could understand how stupid that theory was.



Sorry, hairball, it is you who is squealing and redefining physical laws.  I doubt that Maxwell will sway your tenacious grasp on your dogma, but here is what he had to say...



> =Maxwell]
> Maxwell discussed convective equilibrium in his book Theory of Heat, 1888, pp. 330-331:
> ”The second result of our theory relates to the thermal equilibrium of a vertical column. We find that if a vertical column of a gas were left to itself, till by the conduction of heat it had attained a condition of thermal equilibrium, the temperature would be the same throughout [i.e. isothermal"], or, in other words, gravity produces no effect in making the bottom of the column hotter or colder than the top. This result is important in the theory of thermodynamics, for it proves that gravity has no influence in altering the conditions of thermal equilibrium in any substance, whether gaseous or not. For if two vertical columns of different substances stand on the same perfectly conducting horizontal plate, the temperature of the bottom of each column will be the same ; and if each column is in thermal equilibrium of itself, the temperatures at all equal heights must be the same. In fact, if the temperatures of the tops of the two columns were different, we might drive an engine with this difference of temperature, and the refuse heat would pass down the colder column, through the conducting plate, and up the warmer column; and this would go on till all the heat was converted into work, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. But we know that if one of the columns is gaseous, its temperature is uniform. Hence that of the other must be uniform, whatever its material.”
> 
> ...







mamooth said:


> So you're saying the coldest place in the universe is warmer than earth. Damn, that's stupid.



So you can't read, comprehend, and repeat what you read either....are you stupid or so dishonest that you have no choice...  I said that Uranus is arguably the coldest place in the solar system....simple statement, sorry you are so stupid that you can't read such a statement and repeat it.  And I said that the bottom of the troposphere is warmer than earth.  Afraid that you are the stupid one here.



mamooth said:


> Oh, Uranus ... internal radioactive decay, Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, and an atmosphere that inhibits convection.



Sorry again, hairball....you might make such a connection to a degree with saturn and jupiter as they radiate more energy than they absorb from the sun...not so with uranus. Dogma only carries you so far, then it will trip you up so that you fall flat on your stupid face.



mamooth said:


> Now you've revised your conspiracy to claim a static column of gas with a pressure gradient generates heat forever. Sadly for you, it's still a wild violation of conservation of energy, not to mention it's contradicted by observation, meaning it's a kook theory that only a screwball cultist could embrace.



Argue with Maxwell.



mamooth said:


> This isn't rocket science. There is no free energy. _Compressing_ a gas generates heat, because work is being done on it. A gas sitting there in an unchanging compressed  does not generate heat.


[/quote]

So now the atmosphere is sitting there in an unchanging static state?  Good one hairball.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > We're talking because you made another idiotic claim. This one was that the atmosphere itself generates heat.
> ...


 
*Who would have thought that the T in PV=nRT was superfluous?* 

Only a moron would think that.

*Maybe you should call science and tell them that the T is an error and P,V,n & R are all that is necessary in the ideal gas law...T is not truly part of the equation.*

That would be a stupid thing to do.
In the mean time, I'm waiting for you to show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"
You have the ideal gas law, so prove your claim.

Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
Show all your work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Algebraically, how are these formulas different?
> ...


* 
  Can you show in your textbook, or any of those I listed a justification for applying the distributive property to the SB equation....*

Absolutely. All matter above 0K radiates. 
Still waiting for you to disprove this, it's the only thing that could help your claim.

*You are under the impression that textbooks are published in their entirety on the internet?*

I'm under the impression that if there was only a one way flow of energy, you'd be able to find at least 2 references for your claim. So far, you've shown none.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so, are you saying that a warm object absorbs from a cooler one? Or, does the cooler object absorb from the warmer object? Or, are you saying they absorb equally?
> ...


 
Yes. The magic that says when you place a 600K object next to a 400K object,
the 400K object * "simply doesn't radiate in the direction"* of the hotter object. Magic!

Oh, wait, that was your claim.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


 So again, does the 600K object become warmer due to the radiated energy from the 400K object? Or is it the 400K object that becomes warmer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


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


 
Since the 600K object radiates more/faster toward the 400K object than the 400K object radiates toward the 600K object, the 600K object cools and the 400K object warms.
But, the 600K object will cool more slowly than if the 400K object were not nearby.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In the mean time, I'm waiting for you to show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"
> You have the ideal gas law, so prove your claim.




You don't think pressure on a gas generates heat?  Like I said, you should call science and tell them the T is not necessary.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?
> Show all your work.



Tell you what....you show how the greenhouse effect produces 33degrees of heat and show all your work....Be sure to include all the feedbacks, both negative and positive....and show precisely how energy moves through the system...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Absolutely. All matter above 0K radiates.




You don't think SB knew that all matter above 0K radiates?...and yet, the law is written as a one way energy movement.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm under the impression that if there was only a one way flow of energy, you'd be able to find at least 2 references for your claim. So far, you've shown none.



As if the second law of thermodynamics weren't enough....at this point toddster, I am only talking to you to see how much further out there you can get.



			
				Second Law of Thermodynamics 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. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object*.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > In the mean time, I'm waiting for you to show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"
> ...


* 
You don't think pressure on a gas generates heat?* 

Why are you changing the subject?
Show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"
Use the Ideal Gas Law if you think it helps your claim.
Start here, you have 2 liters of N2 at 12 atm, how much heat does it generate?

Or admit your idiotic claim is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


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




Well now, that's where the magic comes in.  The second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from cool to warm without doing some work to make it happen...see above...but Toddster et al seem to believe that the second law doesn't actually mean what it says...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why are you changing the subject?
> Show how "the atmosphere itself generates heat"



Sorry, it is you who is changing the subject...you don't think the weight of the atmosphere creates pressure?  Strange....I always thought that it did.  Maybe you should call science and tell them that it doesn't...tell them that according to your magic, the weight of the atmosphere itself doesn't result in atmospheric pressure.

You are obviously grabbing at straws now Toddster...you are looking pathetic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely. All matter above 0K radiates.
> ...


 
*You don't think SB knew that all matter above 0K radiates?...*

I think they did. And that you are wrong when you claim an object simply stops radiating toward a warmer object.

*and yet, the law is written as a one way energy movement.*

And yet, it isn't.

*As if the second law of thermodynamics weren't enough....*

You'll have to show where the 2nd Law says energy only flows one way.

*at this point toddster, I am only talking to you to see how much further out there you can get.*

I'm only talking to you to point out your many errors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you changing the subject?
> ...


 
*and then there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere itself.*

Still funny.
How much heat is generated by 10kg of atmosphere?
Is twice as much generated by 20kg?

Why does a 400K object cease radiating toward a 600K object?
Why have I never seen such a claim, except from you?
Why would both objects cease radiating, when they reach equilibrium?
Why have I never seen such a claim, except from you?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And yet, it isn't.




Sorry, but the equation does describe a one way energy flow....if you can't even catch up to that point,even when you have been shown what an equation describing two way flow looks like,  we really don't have anything else to talk about.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You'll have to show where the 2nd Law says energy only flows one way.



Can't read?  
*not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body *without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

Pretty straight forward statement describing heat flow in one direction.

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

Again, pretty straight forward statement describing energy flow in one direction....if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm only talking to you to point out your many errors



And yet it seems that it is you who has failed at every turn to prove your point while the statements of the physical laws support me 100%....hell you don't seem to be able to get past a direct statement that neither heat nor energy move from cold to warm...if you can't get past that, you can't even really get in the conversation.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, it isn't.
> ...


 
*Sorry, but the equation does describe a one way energy flow....*

The equation shows net flow.

*not possible for **heat** to flow from a colder body to a warmer body *

You're still using heat instead of energy.

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

SB says that source is incorrect.

All objects above 0K spontaneously emit constantly, even if a warmer object is nearby.
Of course the low temperature object will receive more energy from the warmer object than it will emit toward the warmer object (net flow) .

*Again, pretty straight forward statement describing energy flow in one direction....if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.*

That's funny.

*One approach to the definition of temperature is to consider three objects, say blocks of copper, iron and alumninum which are in contact such that they come to **thermal equilibrium**. By equilibrium we mean that they are no longer transferring any net energy to each other. We would then say that they are at the same temperature, and we would say that temperature is a property of these objects which implies that they will no longer transfer net energy to one another.*

Hmmmm...Georgia State mentioning net flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*Again, how much pressure.* 

Changing your claim from mass to pressure?


----------



## Saigon (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> .if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.



It's good to know they are reliable. 

ATLANTA — Georgia State University will use a recently awarded $499,950 grant from NASA to help improve learning about global climate change for high schoolers, undergraduates and teachers in training, in addition to purchasing a unique urban carbon dioxide monitor to further research and teaching in the field.

“Education about global climate change is essential for everyone in today’s world, and doing it in the compelling context of NASA research motivates learning in science, math and reading,” said Cherilynn Morrow, professor of physics and astronomy and leader of the Georgia State initiative.

Georgia State University News Events


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.
> ...


Well here's hoping they do the experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures.   I think they could do it with those funds.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Changing your claim from mass to pressure?



You don't think the two are connected?  You stuck your foot in your mouth and now are trying to save some face.  If you don't think mass and pressure are related, explain how that might work.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The equation shows net flow.




So you keep saying but alas it isn't true.  If we can't get past that point, we can go nowhere.  Even when shown what a two way net flow equation looks like, you can't get it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> SB says that source is incorrect.



No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P?  You are guilty of misinterpreting several physical laws....they are quite clear and literal...the literal statements don't support your belief so you interpret them incorrectly in an effort to support your belief.  Neither energy nor heat move from cool to warm...so sayeth the physical laws.  Believe what you want...I will stick with the physical laws as they are supported by every observation ever made.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hmmmm...Georgia State mentioning net flow.



Again, faulty interpretation...net flow as an implication...not fact as you seem to believe.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .if you have a problem with the statement take it up with the physics department at the Georgia State University.
> ...




And still they state that neither energy nor heat move from cool to warm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The equation shows net flow.
> ...


 
One may imagine a small homogeneous spherical material body labeled _X_ at a temperature _TX_, lying in a radiation field within a large cavity with walls of material labeled _Y_ at a temperature _TY_. *The body X emits its own thermal radiation.* At a particular frequency _ν_, *the radiation emitted from a particular cross-section through the centre of X in one sense in a direction normal to that cross-section may be denoted Iν, X (TX),* characteristically for the material of _X_. *At that frequency ν, the radiative power from the walls* into that cross-section in the opposite sense in that direction may be denoted _Iν, Y_ (_TY_), for the wall temperature _TY_. For the material of _X_, defining the absorptivity _αν, X,Y_ (_TX, TY_) as* the fraction of that incident radiation absorbed by X*, that incident energy is absorbed at a rate _αν, X,Y_ (_TX_, _TY_) _Iν, Y_ (_TY_).
The rate _q_(_ν, TX, TY_) of accumulation of energy in one sense into the cross-section of the body can then be expressed






Kirchhoff joins the list of people mocking your idiocy.

* a **corollary** of Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.*

Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

To all my peer reviewers, I have a new link for you all to look at:


Here, someone is actually looking into this garbage ...link:

Artical belongs to--
Tom Luongo
Proud Member of the _Cold Truth Initiative_

Thanks Tom and John Casey!!!! read and weep warmists!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.



Can't stop making up a position for me I see.  Are you just a common liar or do you really have reading comprehension issues?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Emitting and absorbing? Wow, I remember you saying that bodies in equilibrium stopped radiating.
> ...


 
*No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P?* 

I made up this position for you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> To all my peer reviewers, I have a new link for you all to look at:
> 
> 
> Here, someone is actually looking into this garbage ...link:
> ...



Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee............................................................

Bet you have a whole bunch of little tin hats, there, JC. Another shit for brains fruitloop conspiracy theory with zero to back it up. Right up there with Frankie Boys hollow moon.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Giving me credit now for writing physical laws?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > To all my peer reviewers, I have a new link for you all to look at:
> ...


 And yet..................no experiment!!! I fear sir that it is you who is crazy.  Why not provide evidence that supports your claim then?  See you all keep asking and I keep providing my side.  herr Koch 1901,  hypothesis blowed up sir!!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


* 
Giving me credit now for writing physical laws?*

I'm giving you credit for hilariously misinterpreting physical laws.

*No, SB says that the magnitude of P is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....set the difference to zero....what does that make P?*

Define P and answer your own question.


----------



## IanC (Nov 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


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





No, we are giving you credit for a bizarre interpretation of physical laws.

when you first joined this message board I tried to get you to discuss the radiative properties of two objects in thermal equilibrium (eg the same temp) and you refused. in a way it is the most important case because it is simplified by having no heat or net energy exchanged at a macroscopic scale.

your major mistake is applying physical properties of matter to light (photons). two streams of water meet somewhere in the middle and disipate because two bits of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time. light does not have the same restriction. two bits of light (photons) simply pass through each other unaffected.

you also confuse the net macroscopic transfer of heat with the underlying mechanism by which radiation transfers energy. all objects radiate in all directions at all times but just because there is radiation happening that does not mean there is NET energy transfer. two equal temperature objects give and receive the same amount energy from each other, therefore there is no net transfer of energy unless you count the small amount of momentum that accounts for increased entropy. your version of no radiation would actually lessen entropy.

you say we have no concrete examples. this is because we cannot measure atomic scale interactions without distorting the outcome. on numerous occasions I have shown you Planck curves for objects at different temperatures.






this is a pictorial description of _P_ = _AC_s (_*T*_14- _*T*_24 ). only the area between the two curves is available to transfer heat. the entire lower curve is matched on a one-to-one basis for no net transfer. obviously two objects at the same temp would still produce radiation but there would be none unmatched and unaccounted for, and no transfer of net energy.

SSDD- I have not heard anyone else come to the conclusion that radiation between two objects only goes in one direction. heat only goes in one direction but that is a different subject altogether and significantly more complex.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm giving you credit for hilariously misinterpreting physical laws.



I am afraid that it is you who is interpreting....I am taking the physical law literally.






   In this equation, P equals the magnitude of the EM field emitting from the radiator.  What determines P?  Emissivity...The size of the radiator....and the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings.  Given those constraints, what misinterpretation do you think I am making?

Define P and answer your own question.[/QUOTE]

P is the power radiated by the black body at all frequencies.  What's your point?  The answer is still the magnitude of the EM field radiated by the black body is regulated by the difference in the temperature of the black body itself and the temperature of its surroundings.

There is no misinterpretation on my part...if you think the equation means something else, then I am afraid that it is you who is misinterpreting.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2014)

IanC said:


> No, we are giving you credit for a bizarre interpretation of physical laws.



Sorry Ian, but I am not interpreting....I am taking the equation literally as it was written by SB.

If you look at this equation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and see anything other than an equation that states that the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a black body is determined by one of 3 variables, those being its emissivity, its size, and the temperature difference between itself and its surroundings, then it is you who is misinterpreting as you are adding things that are not there.




IanC said:


> SSDD- I have not heard anyone else come to the conclusion that radiation between two objects only goes in one direction. heat only goes in one direction but that is a different subject altogether and significantly more complex.



And we are back again....is heat a form of energy or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another?  The answer to that question is critical to your claim and as far as I can tell, today, 15 years into the 21st century, science remains divided on the answer to that very basic question.


----------



## IanC (Nov 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No, we are giving you credit for a bizarre interpretation of physical laws.
> ...





you are simply muddying the waters by claiming the complex exchange of heat in solids, liquids and gasses by convection, conduction, advection and latent heat is applicable to the fairly simple case of energy loss by radiation. 

tell us whether you believe radiation, in a vacuum, between two objects, achieves a net result via a simple addition of both directions of radiation. or conversely (and perversely) by the reduction of radiation from the lower temperature object. be specific, because you seem to be moving away from your original position.

actually, according to your position as originally stated, both objects would have to reduce their radiation to allow for only 'net' radiation. is that true according to your philosophy?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2014)

IanC said:


> tell us whether you believe radiation, in a vacuum, between two objects, achieves a net result via a simple addition of both directions of radiation. or conversely (and perversely) by the reduction of radiation from the lower temperature object. be specific, because you seem to be moving away from your original position.



I don't operate on any belief Ian.  The second law says that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.  Every observation ever made supports that statement.  Belief kicks in when you think that something else is happening....like energy moving from cool to warm.

The SB law says that the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a blackbody is determined by its emmisivity, its size, and the temperature difference between it and its surroundings.  Set the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings to the same temperature and what does that make P?  Again, not belief...just confidence in the physical laws and the fact that every observation ever made supports them...again, it is only belief if you think something else is happening.  You are the one who believes that something is happening other than what the law states.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > tell us whether you believe radiation, in a vacuum, between two objects, achieves a net result via a simple addition of both directions of radiation. or conversely (and perversely) by the reduction of radiation from the lower temperature object. be specific, because you seem to be moving away from your original position.
> ...





I realize I am wasting my time but.....

if object T1 and object T2 have the same temperature then the power is zero. answer me this, do they stop radiating or not?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2014)

IanC said:


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



Is heat energy, or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2014)

Tell you what, SSo DDumb, why don't you write an article for WUWT. After all, you are representative of the intellectual level of WUWT.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Tell you what, SSo DDumb, why don't you write an article for WUWT. After all, you are representative of the intellectual level of WUWT.



Nothing to say huh....how unsurprising is that?


----------

