# Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.

The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.

The IPCC hypothesis has many problems to deal with. The first is the fact that global CO2 levels have been in excess of 7,000ppm for millions of years while earths temperatures have never deviated from its 12 deg C range. This leads to the obvious question, why?  Why didn't these levels of CO2 reach a tipping point and the earths temp runaway?  The answer is simple,  WATER in its various forms.

Water acts as a negative forcing in direct conflict to the IPCC hypothesis.  Recent papers have shown that the base LOG forcing of CO2 is being blunted by water in our atmosphere. Where we should have seen 2 deg C in warming, due to CO2 alone, we have seen less than 0.6 deg C.

When we look at the lower troposphere and how the energy exchange actually works we find out why the 'hot spot' does not exist.







Graph Source

This graph above shows where the hot spot should have manifested itself. Between the ground and cloud top.  CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface. But its not occurring how they imagined it. They imagined that the energy would be absorbed by the surface and then re-emited to the water and CO2 in the atmosphere, which would again force it back towards the surface Creating a endless loop of sustaining heat.

The problem comes when water/water vapor absorbs the energy. Unlike CO2 which almost instantaneously re-emits its energy without energy loss, water absorbs the energy and heats itself using some of the energy. Water holds its energy significantly longer than CO2 and the water cools as it rises. The water emits its energy in a much longer wavelength (12-36um) that CO2 is helpless to absorb and is then lost to space. 

The AGW energy loop is smashed to bits in the first 150 feet above the ground.

More on how this works tomorrow....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

Others have used this graph to "prove" the AGW hypothesis but it is simply the BANDPASS of the wavelengths through gases in our atmosphere. In one of the next posts I will explain why this graph is important and why it does not prove AGW.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2016)

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models  (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

*From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot
> 
> The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.
> 
> ...


I got the bull shit from you... many times... but how about some real science for a change?  OR cant you think for yourself?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2016)

Carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of thermal infrared energy with wavelengths longer than 12-13 micrometers, which means that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide partially “close” the atmospheric window. In other words, wavelengths of outgoing thermal infrared energy that our atmosphere’s most abundant greenhouse gas—water vapor—would have let escape to space are instead absorbed by carbon dioxide.





All atmospheric gases have a unique pattern of energy absorption: they absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in wavelengths (12-15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the “window” through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration adapted from Robert Rohde.)

The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.

When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.
Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

*More real scientists.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2016)

GWP values are calculated as a ratio of the combined effect of these factors if 1 kg of the gas in question is injected into the atmosphere compared to the effect if 1 kg of kilogram of CO2 is injected. CO2 is assigned a value of unity, so the resulting ratio is the GWP. GWPs for a few selected gases are given in the table. To interpret GWPs, consider, for example, the 20 year GWP of 72 for CH4. This means that injecting 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere today would have 72 times more atmospheric warming effect over the next 20 years than injecting 1 kg of CO2. However, since the amount of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude greater than for these other gases, radiative forcing by CO2still exceeds their combined effect on atmospheric warming.

    GWP time horizon
Gas Lifetime, yr 20 yr 100 yr 500 yr
Carbon Dioxide, CO2 see text 1 1 1
Methane, CH4 12 72 25 7.6
Nitrous Oxide, N2O 114 289 298 153
CFC-12, CCl2F2 100 11,000 10,900 5,200
HFC-23, CHF3 270 12,000 14,800 12,200
HFC-134a, CH2FCF3 14 3,830 1,430 435
Sulfur Hexafluoride, SF6 3,200 16,300 22,800 32,600

Note that no lifetime is given for CO2 in the atmosphere. The sources and sinks for CO2 involve the complex interplay of CO2 among the hydrosphere (temperature dependent dissolution and release), the biosphere (respiration and photosynthesis), and the lithosphere (weathering and deposition), all of which complicate its rate of disappearance. About half of a CO2 sample emitted today will be gone in a century, but a portion of the rest will persist for 1000s of years.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

*An understanding of the various GHGs is essential to understanding AGW. The American Chemical Society is a trusted source for those.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

Note the Downward energy paths and the Upwards energy paths..





The wave length is important because the longer the wave, the less energy it contains. As the water in the atmosphere cools its wavelength is longer.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

Now lets identify the magical CO2 that is supposed to cause a runaway earth temp.  (In red - 12-16um)..




The Water Vapor in blue shows that it is the dominant factor in our atmosphere. Note also the width of the spectrum that water absorbs and emits. Water is far greater than CO2 in all aspects and as it cools, the wavelength it emits is much longer and outside of the spectrum for CO2 to have any effect.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

Water Vapor is absorbing the CO2 emitted energy, warming itself sightly, rising in the atmosphere through convection and conduction cooling, and then re-emitting the energy left at a wavelength that CO2 can not inhibit or slow its loss.

Water is acting as a negative forcing and not acting as the IPCC envisioned, as a self reinforcing energy loop.  The missing heat that Trenberth is still looking for can be found in space... Not on earth. The shear weight and mass of water in our atmosphere makes CO2 a non issue even above 7,000ppm..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot
> 
> The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.
> 
> ...



LOL..

Trenbreth...  Are you helping him with his math too?  Did you find his missing heat?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> GWP values are calculated as a ratio of the combined effect of these factors if 1 kg of the gas in question is injected into the atmosphere compared to the effect if 1 kg of kilogram of CO2 is injected. CO2 is assigned a value of unity, so the resulting ratio is the GWP. GWPs for a few selected gases are given in the table. To interpret GWPs, consider, for example, the 20 year GWP of 72 for CH4. This means that injecting 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere today would have 72 times more atmospheric warming effect over the next 20 years than injecting 1 kg of CO2. However, since the amount of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude greater than for these other gases, radiative forcing by CO2still exceeds their combined effect on atmospheric warming.
> 
> GWP time horizon
> Gas Lifetime, yr 20 yr 100 yr 500 yr
> ...



WOW...  another math failure.. Boy you are sure picking some real winners...

Tell me again where that magical heat is ?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy*



Real scientists?....unemployed cartoonists are real scientists in your mind?....laughing OUT LOUD at you rocks...you get more pathetic every day and when the funding is cut off for the hoax...and real science becomes the path, once again to funding...what will you do then?......get yourself a sandwich board proclaiming that the end is near and go about on the streets trying to frighten children?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2016)

I added a transport path that was missed in the theoretical energy loss path. The point of water nucleation and LWIR release in the 16-36um bandwidth.  The absorption of energy near earth in water carries the heat away and the energy loss makes the bandwidth where it is emitted to long for CO2 to have further effect..

When water becomes vapor it cools the atmosphere directly as farmers who use CO2 ground enhancement to create more robust plants have discovered.

The so called IPCC "energy loop" never happened and the empirical evidence lays it waste. The missing heat is in space...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy*
> ...


He wouldn't know a real scientist even if it hit him up side the head..


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ...  CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....



as usual Billy Bob is totally confused and is just spouting bafflegab a la Cliff Clavin






CO2 absorbs and emits at 4 and 15 microns. the 4 micron band is ignored because there is little of that radiation incoming from solar input or outgoing from surface output. the 15 micron band is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in ~10 meters. that energy is mostly transferred to the total energy of the atmosphere because the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to re-emit the photon is more than ten times as long as the average time between molecular collisions at near surface conditions.

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot
> 
> The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.
> 
> ...



as usual with SkS, you have to keep track of the pea under the thimble.

the evidence for an increased hotspot is simply not there. the papers that claim that there is are contorted by using highly manipulated datasets or bizarre proxy replacement of temperatures with wind shear.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ...  CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....
> ...


lol...

IF energy going up changes paths, and empirical evidence shows that it does, then the hot spot is totally a myth.  But then you like to call bull shit on others while burying your head in the sand with Old Rocks..


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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




Was I not direct enough? You said CO2 emits at 12-16 microns. It doesn't.

Why do you bullshit all the time?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.



Why are you dragging CO2 into the post...he didn't say a thing about CO2...do you believe that radiation only happens in the very narrow CO2 wavelengths?  Are you expanding the magical and mystic powers of CO2 now?

The only bullshit is that associated with the claim that  CO2 in any way beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere affects the global climate.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.
> ...






IanC said:


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




edit. in this post I said 12-16 microns. an obvious mistake. it should be 6-12 microns as both BB and myself referenced above.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.
> ...




Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.

We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.



So what...water does which was the topic of his comment.



IanC said:


> We are still waiting for you to make the case for CO2 only influencing atmospheric and surface temperatures by its mass contribution. Is your explanation coming anytime soon?



Observation supports me...what else do you need?


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy Bob dragged CO2 into the post. CO2 does not react in the 6-12 micron band. I called him on his bullshit. He can defend his statement or not.
> ...




So show us these observations. Prove it.

as far as Billy Bob goes, I called him out on a bullshit statement. Prove him right, or prove me wrong. Now you are just saying that it doesn't matter. Of course lies matter.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> So show us these observations. Prove it.
> 
> as far as Billy Bob goes, I called him out on a bullshit statement. Prove him right, or prove me wrong. Now you are just saying that it doesn't matter. Of course lies matter.



Geez ian...you are becoming as dense and obtuse as crick, rocks, and the hairball...look around...pause going on what?....20+ years now...steadily increasing CO2...wake up...smell the reality...CO2 follows climate around like a puppy but has no effect on it beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So show us these observations. Prove it.
> ...




I don't like saying things like this because it only encourages the warmers. Solar activity is down from the grand maximum of the end of the last century. A drop in temps would seem to be more reasonable than just a hiatus. The warmers cannot make a point of it because they are too invested in declaring solar as a non factor. To me though, it is disturbing.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2016)

Incorrect. We've always  point out solar has an effect, being that temperature tracked solar activity until about 1970.

And then, something changed.

AGW theory is the only theory that successfully explains what that something was, hence it is the accepted theory. If deniers want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data as well as AGW theory does. That's how science works. You don't get credibility just by nitpicking someone else.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Incorrect. We've always  point out solar has an effect, being that temperature tracked solar activity until about 1970.
> 
> And then, something changed.
> 
> AGW theory is the only theory that successfully explains what that something was, hence it is the accepted theory. If deniers want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data as well as AGW theory does. That's how science works. You don't get credibility just by nitpicking someone else.


You mean besides that they change the data or lower their estimates because their models aren't accurate?

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."






"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

_So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming._

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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





IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ...  CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....
> ...





IanC said:


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



After going back and looking Ian is right. I miss stated the areas of emission and absorption in the OP post, but I was clearly correct in most (if not all the others) and in the graphing. 

Sue me...

The base point I am making remains. Water vapor is very poorly understood and what we are finding out today as we study the earth empirically and document the evidence, throws the AGW theroy out the window as garbage.

The shear mass of the earths atmosphere and make up will not allow us to reach a "tipping point".  The "Hot Spot" does not exist and can not due to conduction and convection enabled by water vapor.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect. We've always  point out solar has an effect, being that temperature tracked solar activity until about 1970.
> ...



An upper troposphere hot spot is highly unlikely simply due to the lack of water vapor and mass. The thermal gradient barrier, at the top of the Troposphere, does not work as well as it does in much heaver mass of water. Most out bound energy is above 16um in wave length at this point and its loss is not inhibited.

We keep looking where physics tells us it can not reside....


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Water vapor is very poorly understood and what we are finding out today as we study the earth empirically and document the evidence, throws the AGW theroy out the window as garbage.



This is absolutely correct.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Water vapor is very poorly understood and what we are finding out today as we study the earth empirically and document the evidence, throws the AGW theroy out the window as garbage.
> ...



Dr Spencer hit the nail on the head with this statement:

"The trouble is that radiosonde (weather balloons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, * upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed.*..."

This is an EXPECTED result with water vapor release of energy in the UT at the same gradient or some what less than that of the surface warming.  The fact that it is not holding onto heat tells us there is nothing with the power, at the radiated energy wave length being emitted, to retard heat/energy loss.

BOOM... No hot spot... AGW game over!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Incorrect. We've always  point out solar has an effect, being that temperature tracked solar activity until about 1970.
> 
> And then, something changed.
> 
> AGW theory is the only theory that successfully explains what that something was, hence it is the accepted theory. If deniers want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data as well as AGW theory does. That's how science works. You don't get credibility just by nitpicking someone else.


The only thing that changed was making up data to fit an agenda..


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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




I agree. the influence of CO2 is dwarfed by the uncertainty in our understanding of the water cycle. pointing out and focussing on clouds etc is a much better skeptical strategy than insane denial of CO2 having any effect at all


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Most out bound energy is above 16um in wave length at this point and its loss is not inhibited.



Bullshit






Outbound energy peaks at about 12 microns.  Most is NOT above 16.  The bulk of out bound is NOT picked up by H2O but IS picked up by the 12-16 micron band of CO2.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Most out bound energy is above 16um in wave length at this point and its loss is not inhibited.
> ...




lol.. Show me this magical link in empirical evidence.. IF it were true, a hot spot must manifest itself.  I have shown that CO2 does not uptake that heat and water does by empirical evidence..

Tell me Crick, what defines the wavelength of the energy when emitted?


----------



## Crick (Dec 8, 2016)

To what do you want a link?  The absorption spectra of those gases?  The spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation?  Do you think these are all unknowns?

I don't give diddly shit about a hot spot. ANY warming will produce one.  What I care about is stratospheric cooling.  That has always been my position and that of others here not interested in pushing lies (like the necessity of a tropospheric hot spot).

Give us a cause for the stratospheric cooling we see nearly world wide that doesn't involve greenhouse warming Mr Atmospheric Physicist.

PS: Vibrational modes


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> To what do you want a link?  The absorption spectra of those gases?  The spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation?  Do you think these are all unknowns?



You have been asked repeatedly crick...actual experimental evidence that absorption and emission equals heating....



Crick said:


> I don't give diddly shit about a hot spot. ANY warming will produce one.



If absorption and emission equaled heating, the hotspot would be clear and evident...and it would be growing larger and warmer...since it isn't, it is clear that absorption and emission do not equal warming....therefore the hypothesis is falsified and has been for a very long time...why is it still around if not because of political and monetary support?


As to the rest... The s_tratosphere stopped cooling in 1993, and began warming again around 10 years ago. Oddly enough, around 10 years ago is when some of the signs of a new cooling cycle began to appear








If, and it is a large if the cooling of the stratosphere really was due to greenhouse gasses, the lack of any further cooling since is strong evidence that the pause is real which also calls the AGW hypothesis into question since CO2 has been steadily increasing...._


----------



## Crick (Dec 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> To what do you want a link?  The absorption spectra of those gases?  The spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation?  Do you think these are all unknowns?





SSDD said:


> You have been asked repeatedly crick...actual experimental evidence that absorption and emission equals heating....



HAHAHAHaaahaahaahaaa.... what a fool you are.



Crick said:


> I don't give diddly shit about a hot spot. ANY warming will produce one.





SSDD said:


> If absorption and emission equaled heating, the hotspot would be clear and evident...and it would be growing larger and warmer...since it isn't, it is clear that absorption and emission do not equal warming....therefore the hypothesis is falsified and has been for a very long time...why is it still around if not because of political and monetary support?



That explains 2K temperature of the surface of the Earth.  Man, you're both stupid and twisted so bad you can't see straight.



SSDD said:


> As to the rest... The s_tratosphere stopped cooling in 1993, and began warming again around 10 years ago. Oddly enough, around 10 years ago is when some of the signs of a new cooling cycle began to appear
> 
> 
> 
> ...










You are such a fucking idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > To what do you want a link?  The absorption spectra of those gases?  The spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation?  Do you think these are all unknowns?
> ...



Newsflash crick...your graph support my comment...you really should go to the local community college and see if they have a basic class in graph reading....


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2016)

That graph does NOT support your comment.  It clearly shows warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere.  The latter is commonplace in a world warming for any reason while the latter is produced ONLY by greeenhouse warming. If you think you have some other explanation for those data, let's hear it whizbrain.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> That graph does NOT support your comment.  It clearly shows warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere.  The latter is commonplace in a world warming for any reason while the latter is produced ONLY by greeenhouse warming. If you think you have some other explanation for those data, let's hear it whizbrain.



You really are an idiot crick...and should stop using graphs immediately...

I said that the troposphere stopped cooling in 1993...look at your top graph...fron 1960 till about 1993...see the steady cooling trend till 1993?...have any idea what that means...now look at 1993 onward...from that point till the present, there is a warming trend.






Your stratospheric chart says the same thing as my graph except on a different scale....idiot...Maybe that is because they essentially come from the same satellite and radiosonde data set.  The stupidity just never stops with you...does it?


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2016)

What a fucking marOON.  The UPPER graph is the lower stratosphere, not the troposphere.  The LOWER graph is the troposphere.

You haven't got the brains god give a rubber duck.  A fucking rubber duck.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> What a fucking marOON.  The UPPER graph is the lower stratosphere, not the troposphere.  The LOWER graph is the troposphere.
> 
> You haven't got the brains god give a rubber duck.  A fucking rubber duck.




Ive said it before and I will say it again...the stupid just never stops with you does it?

Up in post 37, to your comments in post 36 regarding the stratosphere, I said....and I quote:

"As to the rest... The s_tratosphere stopped cooling in 1993, and began warming again around 10 years ago. Oddly enough, around 10 years ago is when some of the signs of a new cooling cycle began to appear"

to which I posted a graph from NOAA which supported my statement and to which you posted your own graph which supported my statement...give it up crick....you are just to stupid for words._


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That graph does NOT support your comment.  It clearly shows warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere.  The latter is commonplace in a world warming for any reason while the latter is produced ONLY by greeenhouse warming. If you think you have some other explanation for those data, let's hear it whizbrain.
> ...


Give it up Crick... you couldn't graph you're way out of a paper bag, even if it was wet.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> [
> Give it up Crick... you couldn't graph you're way out of a paper bag, even if it was wet.View attachment 101969



I think he jumped on the fact that in one post I misstated and said troposphere instead of stratosphere...he got so excited that I had misspoke and made an error that he forgot what the conversation was actually about...I keep waiting for him to start pointing out spelling or punctuation errors in an attempt to regain some face.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2016)

Well here is a new paper that just flushed the toilet on AGW and shows that water vapor is not acting in a positive roll..



> An investigation was conducted utilizing the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) 1°x1° gridded total precipitable water (TPW) dataset to determine the magnitude of upwelling long-wave infrared radiation from Earth’s surface since 1988. TPW represents the mass of water vapor in a 1 meter by 1 meter column from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. As referenced in IPCC AR5 WGI Box 8.1, the radiative effect of absorption by water vapor is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. Therefore it is the fractional change in water vapor concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a climate forcing mechanism. A time-series analysis utilizing a Loess decomposition filter indicated there is a clear upward trend in the RSS TPW data since 1988. The observed total change over the period is ~ 1.5 kg/m^2, centered around the long-term mean of 28.7 kg/m^2. Utilizing the observed relationship between water content and atmospheric absorption, the RSS TPW data indicates an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period 1988 – 2015.


And it was presented at the AGU meeting...

Source


----------



## Crick (Dec 14, 2016)

You think an INCREASE in precipitable water shows water vapor is not increasing?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> You think an INCREASE in precipitable water shows water vapor is not increasing?




lol

That's rich... As usual, Crick cant see the forest through the trees..

*Key finding:*

_"The finding of an observationally measured increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3W/m2 since 1988, in addition to the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature, calls into question the applicability of the concept of “climate sensitivity”._

*From the paper:*

_"That is to say, we get a bit over two watts per square meter of increased absorption for every additional kilogram of atmospheric water per square meter.That is an interesting finding which we can combine with the following look at the change in global average total precipitable water since 1988: There is a clear trend in the TPW data. The total change over the period is ~ 1.5 kg/m2, centered around the long-term mean of 28.7 kg/m2. Utilizing the relationship between water content and atmospheric absorption derived above, this indicates an increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period. Note that this 3.3 W/m2 increased forcing from the long-term increase in water vapor since 1988 is in addition to the IPCC-claimed 2.3W/m2 increase since 1750 in all other forcings (see Figure SPM-5, IPCC AR5 SPM 5). The IPCC counts as forcings the long-term changes in the following: CO2, CH4, Halocarbons, N2O, CO, NMVOC, NOx, mineral dust, SO2, NH3, organic carbon, black carbon, land use, and changes in solar irradiance, but not the long-term changes in water vapor."

"This leads us to a curious position where* we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750.*"_


In other words, All other forgings have acted at less than 20% of the IPCC lowest C-scenario assessment.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> You think an INCREASE in precipitable water shows water vapor is not increasing?


"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."






"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

_So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming._

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You think an INCREASE in precipitable water shows water vapor is not increasing?
> ...



Long term trend of surface and troposphere heat loss are paralleled at the same gradient slope.  This indicates that water vapor is acting as the heat transport mechanism and CO2 is incapable of stopping it..  Result is no hot spot..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Long term trend of surface and troposphere heat loss are paralleled at the same gradient slope.  This indicates that water vapor is acting as the heat transport mechanism and CO2 is incapable of stopping it..  Result is no hot spot..



CO2 is a heat transporting mechanism as well...CO2 is not the blanket, but small holes in the blanket.  It is just goofy to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.


----------



## Crick (Dec 15, 2016)

The two of you take the cake.

Does CO2 transport radiative energy faster than free space?

Duh....

And, Billy, oh Atmospheric-Physicist-at-large, how much water vapor does one find in the stratosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> The two of you take the cake.
> 
> Does CO2 transport radiative energy faster than free space?



By free space, do you mean empty vacuum?


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The two of you take the cake.
> ...




A significant amount of surface radiation already escapes freely to space via the atmospheric window at 8-14 microns. leaves at the speed of light. if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere then that window would be expanded to 8-16 microns, and all the energy intercepted by CO2 and passed to the atmosphere by molecular collisions would be immediately lost. That would cool the atmosphere, which in turn would cool the surface.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Long term trend of surface and troposphere heat loss are paralleled at the same gradient slope.  This indicates that water vapor is acting as the heat transport mechanism and CO2 is incapable of stopping it..  Result is no hot spot..
> ...




CO2 does increase radiation loss to space at high altitudes where CO2 specific radiation does not get recaptured by another CO2 molecule because of the thinness of the air. Stratospheric cooling. At lower levels it is quickly reabsorbed and cannot escape.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

IanC said:


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



What small amount of radiation that does get absorbed and emitted from CO2 molecules does not get absorbed by another CO2 molecule because it is emitted at a slightly lower frequency.....unless you are claiming that no energy is required to excite the CO2 molecule to a higher  energy state so that it emits a "photon"...


----------



## Crick (Dec 17, 2016)

That would apply to everything.  Water vapor would be eliminated as an effective GHG agent.  Is that what you're suggesting.

PS, you might want to look up the definition of the term quanta.

PPS Ian, are you suggesting that increasing CO2 levels increase radiation to space from the stratosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> That would apply to everything.  Water vapor would be eliminated as an effective GHG agent.  Is that what you're suggesting.



It might...except that water vapor absorbs and emits over a far greater range of frequencies than CO2...A slight change in the frequency of IR won't put it out of the range of water vapor.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2016)

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored.  Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation



Came across this while looking around.  Thought you'd enjoy it:

*6 -- HOW OBJECTS EMIT RADIATION: BLACKBODIES*
_All material objects emit electromagnetic radiation; the distribution of photon energies and fluxes emitted depend primarily on the object's temperature. This phenomenon is known as blackbody radiation. Because the amount of radiation, and its spectrum depends on the temperature, it is sometimes called thermal radiation, or heat radiation.

The object in question can be large (stars and planets), small (single molecules), solid, liquid, or gaseous. Blackbody radiation is a familiar phenomenon: When the temperature of an object (such as a piece of metal) is increased, it begins to glow reddish orange, and, as the temperature is further increased, its glow becomes progressively whiter. As the temperature is further increased, the glow takes on a bluish cast, however, at such high temperature, the glow is usually so intense that it is painful to look at, and even harmful to the eyes (which is why welders use dark goggles when working).

Even when an object is cool, and we do not see a glow at all, the object is constantly emitting radiation that is mostly in the infrared region. Night vision equipment detects this infrared radiation, and electronically converts the image detected in the infrared to a visible image.

Blackbody radiation is continually removing energy from an object, thereby causing it to cool. This is the reason that Earth's surface cools at night. *Why doesn't an object keep cooling and cooling, eventually reaching the absolute zero of temperature? The reason is that at the same time the object is losing energy to outgoing blackbody radiation, it is bathed in the blackbody radiation emitted by everything else in its surroundings, and it absorbs some of this radiation, replacing some of the energy that is being lost.* Electromagnetic radiation is continually being "exchanged" among objects. Objects that are warmer emit more energetic radiation than those that are cooler and so they cool faster. Therefore, in the absence of an external heat source, all objects in a confined space will eventually reach the same temperature. That is, they will reach thermal equilibrium. *Even after thermal equilibrium is reached, the objects still exchange radiation with each other, but now the objects are absorbing and emitting energy in the form of radiation at exactly the same rate, so no net heat exchange takes place.*

The blackbody radiation of the Sun, Earth, Earth's atmosphere, and clouds play an important role in Earth's climate. Most of the Sun's radiation is blackbody radiation radiated from the Sun's surface, or photosphere, whose temperature is about 5700 K. Earth's surface is warmed by absorbing this light. At the same time it is absorbing energy, Earth's surface is emitting its own blackbody radiation. At night, when the surface is no longer being illuminated by the Sun, it is still radiating its own blackbody radiation, Earth's surface to cool. Some of that radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere also emits blackbody radiation, some of which is absorbed by Earth's surface. The nighttime temperature depends upon the relative rates of absorption and emission by Earth and the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is made more efficient at absorbing radiation, it will trap more of Earth's radiation, and reradiate more of it downward, making Earth's surface warmer on average. This is known as the greenhouse effect._

_
Remember that all objects are blackbody radiators, and that the spectrum of an object's blackbody radiation is determined by the object's temperature, and by its emissivity. 
Chapter 4 Section 6_

And this: Advanced Concepts in Quantum Mechanics

*Where Kirchoff's Law is spelled out stating clearly that radiation is dependent solely on temperature and demonstrating that it is independent of position, direction and nature of the material.*


----------



## IanC (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> That would apply to everything.  Water vapor would be eliminated as an effective GHG agent.  Is that what you're suggesting.
> 
> PS, you might want to look up the definition of the term quanta.
> 
> PPS Ian, are you suggesting that increasing CO2 levels increase radiation to space from the stratosphere?




As with most things determining atmospheric radiative transfer, the devil is in the details. While extra CO2 may increase the percentage of CO2 specific radiation at the fuzzy boundary where it can escape to space, the change in height of that boundary due to the increase may lower the temperature which would mean less available energy to be converted into CO2 specific radiation. 

It would be very informative to know how much blackbody radiation is produced by straight molecular collision, and how much takes the extra step of exciting a GHG molecule which then emits in a very specific wavelength. eg. IR guns measure radiation in the bands that would escape to space so that it is known that that radiation is actually created in the atmosphere, rather than GHG radiation which may just be scattered.


I agree with you that SSDD simply has no concept of atomic scale interactions. If electron jumps and bends actually consumed energy then the clockwork universe would have winded down soon after the big bang. Entropy increases but energy is not destroyed.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored.  Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation



Is it your claim that it requires zero energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state so that it emit's a photon?  Is that really your claim...and if you acknowledge that some small bit of energy is required to accomplish that task...how do you suppose the photon is emitted at the same frequency as it was emitted?


----------



## IanC (Dec 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored.  Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation
> ...




no energy is consumed during quantum jumps. the energy stored when the electron is excited is exactly the same energy that is released when it drops back to groundstate.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2016)

So your claim is that it requires no energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state...   Higher energy state...no energy required....more magic...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So your claim is that it requires no energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state... Higher energy state...no energy required....more magic...


You are misquoting IanC. He said _no energy consumed_, not _no energy required_.


IanC said:


> no energy is consumed


It's a simple matter of the conservation of energy. That means in any interaction the total energy must remain constant in all the forms it may have before, during, or after the interaction.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So your claim is that it requires no energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state...   Higher energy state...no energy required....more magic...




Please quote my actual words when you rephrase what you _think _I said.

the whole point of quantum mechanics is to restrict the available possibilities for electrons. to describe the granularity of the atomic scale, to point out distances that cannot be further divided.

you continue to impose macroscopic rules on atomic scale interactions. macroscopically, the electron should produce radiation as it 'circles' the nucleus, getting closer and closer until it crashes into the nucleus. every atom would disintegrate in less than a second. that doesnt happen so a better theory was needed.

you say that some 'portion' of the energy needed to excite an electron is used up during every cycle of excitation/relaxation. where does this energy go? what form does it take? you say that the wavelength coming out is a different frequency than what went in. where is the evidence for this? absorbance/emission lines for any substance are exactly congruent. why doesnt your theory of ever diminishing frequency show up in the data?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2016)

Sorry guys..when molecule absorbs light, one of its electrons is sent to a higher energy level. When the electron drops to its ground state from the excited state at the higher energy level, a photon is emitted at a lower frequency than the excitation frequency...like it or not, believe it or not...I could not possibly care less...that is how it is.

http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf



> There are three general vibrations for a CO2 molecule: a symmetric mode, a bending mode, and an asymmetric mode (Figure 1). Each mode is able to absorb certain bands of wavelengths, with the bending mode absorbing longer wavelengths (667 cm-1) and the asymmetric absorbing shorter wavelengths, 2349 cm-1 (Figure 2). (Kverno) Ultimately, the energy from the photon has two pathways. It can either be converted into thermal energy by the conversion of the internal kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule to the kinetic energy of a different, inert molecule such as N2. Or the molecule can reemit a photon at a lower frequency.


----------



## IanC (Dec 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guys..when molecule absorbs light, one of its electrons is sent to a higher energy level. When the electron drops to its ground state from the excited state at the higher energy level, a photon is emitted at a lower frequency than the excitation frequency...like it or not, believe it or not...I could not possibly care less...that is how it is.
> 
> http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf
> 
> ...




As usual, SSDD's link supports my position and nullifies his. The presented quote is rather ambiguous in meaning when taken in context.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guys..when molecule absorbs light, one of its electrons is sent to a higher energy level. When the electron drops to its ground state from the excited state at the higher energy level, a photon is emitted at a lower frequency than the excitation frequency...like it or not, believe it or not...I could not possibly care less...that is how it is.
> ...



It says what it says ian...and you know it...what small bit of radiation that CO2 molecules emit as opposed to transferring via collisions is emitted at a lower frequency than at which it was absorbed...and therefore not absorbed by another CO2 molecule...  And where is that hot spot that would inevitably appear in the troposphere if the greenhouse hypothesis, and in turn, the AGW hypothesis was correct?

Your fantasy world is becoming as rich as those of crick and rocks and mammoth...better make a reality check or you will be as lost in fantasy as they are.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guys..when molecule absorbs light, one of its electrons is sent to a higher energy level. When the electron drops to its ground state from the excited state at the higher energy level, a photon is emitted at a lower frequency than the excitation frequency...like it or not, believe it or not...I could not possibly care less...that is how it is.
> 
> http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf
> 
> ...


The paper gives no date or institution on the title page. (Presumably Wesleyan college).
The authors screw up their units "_wavelengths (667 cm-1)". _A length is given by a inverse length units!

 The paper reads like a class project which is not done all that well. This is the last paragraph:
_This experimental setup is a prototype that should be developed further to remove errors inherent to its design. First and foremost, the light, gas cell, and detector should be fastened to a solid surface, because every injection of gas resulted in a slight movement of the gas cell relative to the light and detector. Second, a check valve should be installed on the outflow of the gas cell to prevent leaking of the high concentration gas between measurements. Finally, a pressure gauge should be installed inside the cell so that the molecular density can be more accurately measured, as this value is critical to determination of the absorption coefficient._​
 If you want to believe that an unidentified student project shows a flaw in the conservation of energy ... that is how it is.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Water covers a very wide range of the spectrum. And no the energy at lower levels is not being reabsorbed by CO2..  The hot spot does not exist and would have to exist if this were true.

SO where do you think the magical energy is being reabsorbed?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Now were talking perpetual motion..  I know of nothing that can do what you claim..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That would apply to everything.  Water vapor would be eliminated as an effective GHG agent.  Is that what you're suggesting.
> ...



Crick can not grasp the graph he posts as proof of AGW..


He simply can not read this very simple graph...

Now for Ian, and others...




Note the wavelength indication at the bottom of the graph.. Note the components of our atmosphere and the bandwidths they absorb.. Water vapor most certainly absorbs throughout all CO2 spectrums in the up-welling portion of energy release.

The new papers coming out show that water vapor is indeed sucking up the energy at lower altitudes and releasing it above cloud boundary where water vapor re-nucleates. This is the reason we have no hot spot...  Its the shear mass of water vs CO2 that is the reason...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored.  Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation
> ...



Quantum mechanics is a fledgling hypothesis but it is used to explain things we do not understand.

Energy must be lost in photon transmission. Commonsense and observed reactions indicate there is no exception to this rule.. Work consumes energy..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Even magic consumes energy...except the magic that ian believes in.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2016)

If you want to be a science idiot, be a science idiot.  Just do it somewhere else, eh.


----------



## IanC (Dec 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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




No energy is consumed during quantum leaps. That is why there are sharp spectral lines. Only specific jumps are allowed.

However, there IS a transfer of momentum associated with absorption/emission of a photon. Two atoms that swapped a photon between them would be slightly driven apart. Hence entropy.

No perpetual motion.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 21, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Unproven hypothesis..  Nothing more.. The math simply does not add up..


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2016)

Quantum mechanics is the most successfully tested physical system ever conceived.  It's predictions have been shown accurate in excess of ten decimal places.  If you think the math doesn't add up, you've simply admitted you're no good at math.

And you are CERTAINLY not the "atmospheric physicist" you claimed to be.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Quantum mechanics is the most successfully tested physical system ever conceived.  It's predictions have been shown accurate in excess of ten decimal places.  If you think the math doesn't add up, you've simply admitted you're no good at math.
> 
> And you are CERTAINLY not the "atmospheric physicist" you claimed to be.



You say that like you think all of qm has been successfully tested...a couple of points have been successfully tested and some of the "successful testing" is nothing more than the output of computer models....the successful tests, while they are fine baby steps on a long road are hardly the major advances you claim...they are like comparing the first step of a child to the performance of a world champion try-athelete.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You say that like you think all of qm has been successfully tested...a couple of points have been successfully tested and some of the "successful testing" is nothing more than the output of computer models....


That is simply not true.

The level of precision of anything "measurable, observable, or repeatable" has been done to parts per billion or trillion. For example laboratory measurements of the energy states of hydrogen and helium. These measurements also agree with models at the same level of calculated precision: one part per trillion. Virtually every aspect of atomic physics that can possibly be observed and measured agrees with the modern physics models to unprecedented accuracy.



SSDD said:


> ....the successful tests, while they are fine baby steps on a long road are hardly the major advances you claim...they are like comparing the first step of a child to the performance of a world champion try-athelete.



Quantum Electrodynamics has won the triathlon long ago. Of course you think science is taking baby steps because the only place that is taking baby steps is your understanding of modern physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Quantum mechanics is a fledgling hypothesis but it is used to explain things we do not understand.
> 
> Energy must be lost in photon transmission. Commonsense and observed reactions indicate there is no exception to this rule.. Work consumes energy..


But you still believe in the principle of the conservation of energy right?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You say that like you think all of qm has been successfully tested...a couple of points have been successfully tested and some of the "successful testing" is nothing more than the output of computer models....
> ...



Of course it is true...you apparently worship at the altar of science and go prostrate even over its failures....the fact is that quantum mechanics today is swirling with pseudoscience...even more pseudoscience than climate science...worship there if you like, but be prepared to see drastic alterations in your religion as time goes on...in 100 years, should you live that long, physics will look back on what we though we knew today with the same distain as we look back on the medical profession bleeding patients to get the bad humors out of their bloodstream.


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2016)

Why don't you google "testing quantum mechanics" and then try telling us that bullshit one more time.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Of course it is true...you apparently worship at the altar of science and go prostrate even over its failures....the fact is that quantum mechanics today is swirling with pseudoscience...even more pseudoscience than climate science...worship there if you like, but be prepared to see drastic alterations in your religion as time goes on...in 100 years, should you live that long, physics will look back on what we though we knew today with the same distain as we look back on the medical profession bleeding patients to get the bad humors out of their bloodstream.



All that coming from somebody who doesn't understand some of the most fundamental aspects of science and who doesn't understand quantum mechanics at all. You look at one form of the SB law and insist on a weird interpretation. You find a statement on refrigerators and think it applies to radiation. You think that objects can't both radiate toward each other.

The amazing thing about your statement lashing out against modern science is that you covet old laws in days when quantum mechanics wasn't understood. But you don't even understand those laws correctly. No wonder you lash out against modern science. We are already looking back at your archaic opinions with disdain while you gnash your teeth at the the new world of understanding that left you far behind gnarling in a cave of ignorance.


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2016)

Gnarling?  Well... okay.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Gnarling?  Well... okay.


I thought that added a poetic ring to a dark science nihilist.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is true...you apparently worship at the altar of science and go prostrate even over its failures....the fact is that quantum mechanics today is swirling with pseudoscience...even more pseudoscience than climate science...worship there if you like, but be prepared to see drastic alterations in your religion as time goes on...in 100 years, should you live that long, physics will look back on what we though we knew today with the same distain as we look back on the medical profession bleeding patients to get the bad humors out of their bloodstream.
> ...



Sorry guy...but I am afraid the misunderstanding is all you...and most of it is due to your FAITH...that's right...faith in qm as something more than a theory.  The fact is that your faith in the theory puts you in the minority...physicists certainly don't exhibit such faith as you.

Poll after poll among physicists have demonstrated that among them, there is precious little faith in the theory, or even what it means...and certainly nothing like agreement among them...physicists don't agree among themselves that qm is the apex achievement in modern physics...

The fact is that the polls have shown that fewer than 50% of all physicists today adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation as the main textbook interpretation of qm.  The bottom line is that here in the early 21st century, remains a mystery with no actual meaning.    In real science, theory without interpretation has no meaning and science without meaning simply is not real science...how could it be?.

If less than 50% of physicists agreed on the meaning and interpretation of the theories of classical physics such as Navier's, or Newton/Lagranges, or Navier/Stokes, and Maxwell, it would represent a complete disintegration of classical physics and physics as a science and subject of serious study....and yet, there stands qm, 100 years old, with less than 50% of physicists agreeing on even what is the primary textbook interpretation of the theory...and you hold it up as the pinnacle of modern science?

Far from being a topic of endless deliberation with no plausible end in sight, classical physics is what all of science wants to be because there is little if any disagreement from any quarter on the formulation and interpretation of the basic equations...

The polls strongly suggest that there will never be agreement on the place and meaning of Shrodinger's equation as the basis for qm...and without agreement on the basis, exactly what sort of science are we talking about here?  Lubos Motl said, regarding a failure to widely accept the Copenhagen interpretation of qm:



			
				Lubos Motl said:
			
		

> the foundations of quantum mechanics were fully built in the 1020's, mostly in 1925 or at most 1926 and by 1930, all the universal rules of the theory took their present form...as the Copenhagen interpretation.  *IF you subtract all these rules, all this "interpretation", you will be LEFT WITH NO PHYSICAL THEORY WHATSOEVER.  AT MOST, YOU WILL BE LEFT WITH SOME MATHEMATICS - BUT PURE MATHEMATICS CAN SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE WORLD AROUND US OR OUR PERCEPTIONS*



Poll Reveals Quantum Physicists’ Disagreement About the Nature of Reality

Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows

Experts still split about what quantum theory means












https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...sts-disagreement-about-the-nature-of-reality/


Wuwei said:


> The amazing thing about your statement lashing out against modern science is that you covet old laws in days when quantum mechanics wasn't understood.



And so comes forth the bullshit...physicists themselves freely acknowledge themselves that no one understands qm....which explains why there is no agreement on the interpretation...or what qm even means...



Wuwei said:


> But you don't even understand those laws correctly.



The laws are straight forward and the statements are perfectly understandable...you fail to grasp them because you are all tied up in trying to alter them with what you think we know about qm...the second law states clearly that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from a cold body to a warm body....that is the statement...to which you attempt to apply an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable statistical theory into the mix (which isn't part of the second law) and claim that back radiation exists....alas...it is you who doesn't understand that qm hasn't altered the basic physical laws even in the least...and it appears that it never will...at this point qm can't even rightly be called a science...it is an area of interest and little more.



Wuwei said:


> No wonder you lash out against modern science



A great deal of "modern science" is bullshit and deserves to be lashed out against....there are long tried and tested rules regarding what is and isn't science and a method for moving forward..."modern science" for the most part has forgotten those rules and the result is chaos and a steep and steady loss of credibility and trust...



Wuwei said:


> We are already looking back at your archaic opinions with disdain while you gnash your teeth at the the new world of understanding that left you far behind gnarling in a cave of ignorance.



Perhaps you are...in your confusion and faith...but not actual science...there remains a virtual 100% agreement on what my old archaic physical laws mean,  while there is less than 50% agreement among physicists on even the basic interpretation of qm...but you keep up your faith...maybe some day the great pumpkin will show up..


----------



## Crick (Dec 26, 2016)

From your first link:

And yet “quantum theory is based on a clear mathematical apparatus, has enormous significance for the natural sciences, enjoys phenomenal predictive success, and plays a critical role in modern technological developments.”

Fool.

You attempt to attack QM by the route of macroscopic interpretations.  Identify for us, for instance, the difference in the prediction of the outcome of a head on proton-proton collision in the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> From your first link:
> 
> And yet “quantum theory is based on a clear mathematical apparatus, has enormous significance for the natural sciences, enjoys phenomenal predictive success, and plays a critical role in modern technological developments.”
> 
> ...




And still....after 100 years, there still exists no agreement among physicists regarding the most basic interpretation of qm....at present...it is smoke and mirrors and even physicists admit that they don't understand it...I don't need to understand, or even speak the language in which the script of a play is written, to grasp that I am, in fact, watching a play.


----------



## Crick (Dec 26, 2016)

You're a fool and every single one of those physicists would agree on that.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> You're a fool and every single one of those physicists would agree on that.



I am not the one placing such trust in a branch of "science" that even the physicists themselves admit to not grasping...that even the physicists themselves can't agree on something as basic as the interpretation of the theory....that would be you crick...the one who believes without evidence...the gullible one...


----------



## Crick (Dec 26, 2016)

As you have shown us repeatedly, your grasp of all forms of basic physics seems to be intentionally twisted.  You insist on impossible interpretations solely for the sake of being different and being able to use that to try to show you're smarter than the rest of the world.  What it actually shows is that you need psychiatric help.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

_*Quantum mechanics* (*QM*; also known as *quantum physics* or *quantum theory*), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental branch of physics concerned with processes involving, for example, atoms and photons. Systems such as these which obey quantum mechanics can be in a quantum superposition of different states, unlike in classical physics._

_Quantum mechanics gradually arose from Max Planck's solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem (reported 1859) and Albert Einstein's 1905 paper which offered a quantum-based theory to explain the photoelectric effect (reported 1887). Early quantum theory was profoundly reconceived in the mid-1920s._

_The reconceived theory is formulated in various specially developed mathematical formalisms. In one of them, a mathematical function, the wave function, provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle._

_Important applications of quantum theory[1] include superconducting magnets, light-emitting diodes, and the laser, the transistor and semiconductors such as the microprocessor, medical and research imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and electron microscopy, and explanations for many biological and physical phenomena._

So, several of the functions of the computer you are viewing this on are based on QM processes and have no explanation in classical physics.  But, you think most physicists reject it as an accurate description of the behavior of atomic scale processes.  Got it.

Fool


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> As you have shown us repeatedly, your grasp of all forms of basic physics seems to be intentionally twisted.  You insist on impossible interpretations solely for the sake of being different and being able to use that to try to show you're smarter than the rest of the world.  What it actually shows is that you need psychiatric help.



Sorry guy...I don't "interpret" anything....

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

I accept that statement at face value...do you accept it at face value or do you find that you must interpret it before you can accept it?  Just in case you don't actually know the word, let me give you a definition for interpret as it applies...to perform or render according to one's own understanding or sensitivity

So do you accept the statement at face value?  If so...good...we are in agreement...if you find that you must add, or take away, then you are interpreting.



Crick said:


> So, several of the functions of the computer you are viewing this on are based on QM processes and have no explanation in classical physics.  But, you think most physicists reject it as an accurate description of the behavior of atomic scale processes.  Got it.



Got it...you fall down and worship at the altar of qm...the fact is that the things you attribute to qm would have been discovered anyway...qm is a theory upon which physicists can't even agree on a basic interpretation...to claim that qm, and qm alone has given us anything is delusion.

idiot.


----------



## Crick (Dec 26, 2016)

Good fucking god, there is no end to your ignorance.



Crick said:


> As you have shown us repeatedly, your grasp of all forms of basic physics seems to be intentionally twisted.  You insist on impossible interpretations solely for the sake of being different and being able to use that to try to show you're smarter than the rest of the world.  What it actually shows is that you need psychiatric help.





SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...I don't "interpret" anything....



Couldn't ask for a better  example of your exceptional ignorance.  You say you don't interpret anything and then proceed in the very next line to do exactly that.



SSDD said:


> Second Law of Thermodynamics  - It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> I accept that statement at face value...do you accept it at face value or do you find that you must interpret it before you can accept it?  Just in case you don't actually know the word, let me give you a definition for interpret as it applies...to perform or render according to one's own understanding or sensitivity
> 
> So do you accept the statement at face value?  If so...good...we are in agreement...if you find that you must add, or take away, then you are interpreting.



For anyone just wandering by, unfamiliar with SSDD's interpretation, he believes that all matter is able to throttle and aim its heat emissions so that it does not radiate towards warmer objects. 



Crick said:


> So, several of the functions of the computer you are viewing this on are based on QM processes and have no explanation in classical physics.  But, you think most physicists reject it as an accurate description of the behavior of atomic scale processes.  Got it.





SSDD said:


> Got it...you fall down and worship at the altar of qm...the fact is that the things you attribute to qm would have been discovered anyway...qm is a theory upon which physicists can't even agree on a basic interpretation...to claim that qm, and qm alone has given us anything is delusion.



And what would be the understanding of those effects under purely classical mechanics?  Do you really think they could have or would have been exploited with no understanding of what was happening?  Why would anyone have ever attempted to produce the Hall Effect?  Tunneling?  Photoelectrics?  Do you think the world would have been happy, as you make yourself appear to be, to just accept a certain level of ignorance as to how the universe works?

God are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Good fucking god, there is no end to your ignorance.



Cant read a graph...can't read english either.



Crick said:


> Couldn't ask for a better  example of your exceptional ignorance.  You say you don't interpret anything and then proceed in the very next line to do exactly that.



No interpretation there on my part...I accept the statement at face value...you don't therefore you are the one who finds it necessary to interpret.




Crick said:


> For anyone just wandering by, unfamiliar with SSDD's interpretation, he believes that matter is able to throttle and aim its heat emissions so that it does not radiate towards warmer objects.



Again, I accept the statement at face value...it states that neither heat nor energy moves form cool objects to warm objects...it is a straight forward statement that isn't in the least ambiguous....you don't accept it and find that you must interpret it to mean something that it doesn't say.

And again...what sort of actual science has less than 50% of its practitioners agreeing on even a basic interpretation of the theory?..not science at all...sounds more like the sort of agreement you could get on any given religious doctrine.


----------



## Crick (Dec 26, 2016)

Your interpretation requires all matter to be intelligent, able to observe the entire universe instantaneously, able to predict the future, able to throttle and aim its own emissions - all to accomplish what is accomplished by the simple and (aside from you) universal observation that all matter radiates constantly in all directions.  Is that the sort of "critical thinking" you claim to be full of?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 26, 2016)

You obviously don't understand the difference between the philosophy of science and the mathematical models of science. The basic models of particles and atomic structure model are accurate to parts per billion or trillion, and every scientists believes these models work. These models (that *always *work) are so arcane that they allow many philosophical interpretations when it comes to explaining things in English (or German, etc.) That should be nothing for you to get excited about, except that you are an amateur and don't understand what the science is all about.



SSDD said:


> ...the second law states clearly that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from a cold body to a warm body....that is the statement...


You are still obsessed by thermodynamics that you don't understand and try to blame me for not grasping what you think. Let me remind you what all scientists think:
All the following references define the Stefan Boltzman law specifically as




Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Stefan-Boltzmann law | physics
Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
The Stefan-Boltzmann law
How to Calculate Heat Emission from a Blackbody Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant - dummies
Stefan-Boltzmann law - Hmolpedia
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/mathis/mathis64.pdf

The following references clearly show how the subtracted form can be simply derived from the above formula using the distributive law.




http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf see pp 413-414
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf
Radiation Heat Transfer
Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle
Blackbody Radiation Theory in Heat Transfer
Heat Transfer: Radiation

Many references explicitly say that thermal radiation is exchanged between objects. The word exchange means that it is not one way radiation.

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
Thermal equilibrium • Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation explained
http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf

Finally, the second law as defined by entropy, has no mention of any constraints on the flow of thermal radiation from cold to warm objects.

In short the many references of
*the definition of the SB equation;
the derivation of the subtracted form;
the science of radiation exchange between any objects;
the law of entropy;*​*all show that you are totally wrong about your understanding of thermodynamic systems.*


You do all this in a vain attempt to show that there is no such thing as back radiation. Your views on the nature of thermodynamics are only a misguided opinion.

*Again, let me remind you that this isn't about me or my ideas. It is about you and your denial of the entire historic body of science from 140 years ago to present, which disagrees with your opinion.*


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Your interpretation requires all matter to be intelligent, able to observe the entire universe instantaneously, able to predict the future, able to throttle and aim its own emissions - all to accomplish what is accomplished by the simple and (aside from you) universal observation that all matter radiates constantly in all directions.  Is that the sort of "critical thinking" you claim to be full of?



Again... you don't seem to be able to grasp basic english...I said that I accept the statement at face value...maybe you don't know what face value means...need some help...if the law says that neither heat nor energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm..I accept that...and all its ramifications...without interpretation....you don't...you must add...you must alter...you must interpret....again...I have no interpretation...

And all matter radiates in all directions when it is in a vacuum....take it out of the vacuum and things become different.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> *Again, let me remind you that this isn't about me or my ideas. It is about you and your denial of the entire historic body of science from 140 years ago to present, which disagrees with your opinion.*



You be sure to let me know when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to state that heat and or energy do move spontaneously from cool to warm...will you do that?....till then...I am afraid that the physical law supports my position....if I were an idiot, I too would take a position in opposition to physical law.


----------



## IanC (Dec 26, 2016)

You do take a position in opposition to physical law. 

Are you saying you're an idiot?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> You do take a position in opposition to physical law.
> 
> Are you saying you're an idiot?




Show me the physical law that states that heat and or energy move from cool to warm spontaneously...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You be sure to let me know when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to state that heat and or energy do move spontaneously from cool to warm...will you do that?....till then...I am afraid that the physical law supports my position....if I were an idiot, I too would take a position in opposition to physical law.


Read up on entropy. You were shown that in post #97. Show me an experiment that says that EM radiation can go only one way between objects at different temperatures.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You do take a position in opposition to physical law.
> ...


You can pretend to disagree with the entire body of science if you want, but that is not what makes you look totally like an idiot.  I know that deep down that you probably believe the science. But to demean your dignity by posing to disagree with 150 years of science really does look like idiocy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You be sure to let me know when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to state that heat and or energy do move spontaneously from cool to warm...will you do that?....till then...I am afraid that the physical law supports my position....if I were an idiot, I too would take a position in opposition to physical law.
> ...




Is EM radiation energy?....if so, then it does not move from cool to warm...don't like it?..take it up with the second law of thermodynamics....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 26, 2016)

Wuwei said:


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



I can't help but notice that you aren't informing me that they rewrote the second law of thermodynamics to support your position...guess it still supports mine...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I can't help but notice that you aren't informing me that they rewrote the second law of thermodynamics to support your position...guess it still supports mine...


Are you now pretending you don't know about the second law defined in terms of entropy? You know it does not preclude two way radiation exchange between any objects. You are only demeaning your dignity, or do you have any.


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Is EM radiation energy?....if so, then it does not move from cool to warm...don't like it?..take it up with the second law of thermodynamics....



In SSDD-World, what stops it?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> In SSDD-World, what stops it?


I think I can accurately answer for SSDD on this. He would say cold photons are stopped by a vortex of resonance waves of anti-photons interacting with dark matter.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 27, 2016)

wow, I can't believe the same discussion another thread.  and still no evidence.


----------



## IanC (Dec 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> wow, I can't believe the same discussion another thread.  and still no evidence.




There are piles of evidence. You're too stupid to understand it, and SSDD is too obstinate to acknowledge it.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > wow, I can't believe the same discussion another thread.  and still no evidence.
> ...


well this is like how many fking threads now and to rehash shit over and over with the same unfounded evidence is rather funny don't you think?  I mean we both have a different position than you.  Why can't you accept that and move on.  I left this fking forum cause you all won't let it go.  I happened back over and baddabing, the same fking arguments again.  It isn't like we are the only two on the planet right?  you do read I'm positive with that.  so let it go.  accept we're not going where you are.  The proof isn't there.  No hot spot.  never was.  second law and all. 

BTW,  the temps aren't warming either.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > In SSDD-World, what stops it?
> ...




Is a logical fallacy really the best you can manage?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > wow, I can't believe the same discussion another thread.  and still no evidence.
> ...



No ian...there are piles of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...no observation....EVER...of energy or heat moving spontaneously from cool to warm...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Is EM radiation energy?....if so, then it does not move from cool to warm...don't like it?..take it up with the second law of thermodynamics....
> ...



Why must something stop it?....why do you suppose that it is stopped?  It simply does't radiate towards warmer objects....and don't ask me how....we don't even know the underlying mechanism for gravity....much less energy transfer....but there has never been an observed instance of energy or heat moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...that is why the law says that it isn't possible for heat or energy to move from cool to warm spontaneously.  I didn't write the law...but I do accept it at face value...unlike you who finds that it must be modified if it is to jibe with your position.


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2016)

Let's apply Occam's razor to our choices here.

Option 1: All matter radiates in all directions all the time.  No net heat flows from cold to warm without work because warm matter radiates more than cold and the net flow is from warm to cold.  No magic required.
Option 2: All matter is somehow aware of the temperature of all other matter in the universe and can throttle and aim its own emissions to avoid radiating at warmer matter no matter the distance and no matter the motion of the parties involved.  Even if a rock is 15 billion light years away, a rock here on Earth can calculate where that rock will be 15 billion years from now and adjust its radiation to avoid improper emissions in that very, very, very specific direction.  No mechanism has ever been even suggested for this ability and none seems conceivable.

What does ol' William tell us about these two choices?  He tells us that SSDD is an ignoramus and a fool.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


Not a logical fallacy. It's what I think is the best you can manage.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



Two posters clicked "Winner" on SSDD's response to IanC: jc456 and Billy Bob.  It does not surprise me that JC456, who has proven exceptionally resistant to education, should side with SSDD on this issue.  Billy Bob, however, claims to be an atmospheric physicist.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


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


Too Funny:

You claim to be science based yet you want no dissent of your belief's..  Science is the difference of understanding by different people.  I don't believe in your no energy loss universe. You believe in fantasy and unprovable theory.  I believe in what I can prove by observation and empirical evidence based science...  You all seem to think modeling and rearranging numbers to get a desired result is scinece.....

There are several of us who are not swayed by SWAG *(Scientific Wild Ass Guess) but then there are the ones who are..


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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


Thank you as always my friend.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

So you think basic (and I do mean basic) thermodynamics is a fantasy and unprovable theory?  You believe you can "prove" SSDD's bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Law by observation and empirical evidence?

Let's see it.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you think basic (and I do mean basic) thermodynamics is a fantasy and unprovable theory?  You believe you can "prove" SSDD's bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Law by observation and empirical evidence?
> 
> Let's see it.


we know you can't prove your theoretical mumbo jumbo.  And the 2nd law is the 2nd law.  You know it follows the first law.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 28, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> I don't believe in your no energy loss universe.


You don't believe in the first law of thermodynamics. The consevation of energy is fundamental to all science! SSDD doesn't believe in the second law. What's with you guys?


Billy_Bob said:


> There are several of us who are not swayed by SWAG *(Scientific Wild Ass Guess) but then there are the ones who are..


If not SWAG that just leaves WAG. You and your friends here don't believe nor understand science, but just wild ass guessing, so why are you always talking about science?


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So you think basic (and I do mean basic) thermodynamics is a fantasy and unprovable theory?  You believe you can "prove" SSDD's bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Law by observation and empirical evidence?
> ...



Calling something a theory is saying that it cannot be proven.  If you don't even know what a theory IS, what are you doing in this conversation


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe in your no energy loss universe.
> ...


just show one experiment where cold moves to warm.  Just fking one!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


theory is the evidence of a hypothesis friend.  you all have never actually moved out of that phase.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe in your no energy loss universe.
> ...



Billy Bob claims to have a graduate degree in meteorology and to be an atmospheric physicist.  That makes these statements of his all the more amazing.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> just show one experiment where cold moves to warm. Just fking one!!!


Of course there is no experiment!!! Cold never moves to warm!!


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, it is not.  Why don't you shut up and listen?  Or, better yet, go break out a book and actually LEARN some of this stuff.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > just show one experiment where cold moves to warm. Just fking one!!!
> ...



The problem, jc, is that cold doesn't move.  Cold is not a thing.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


crick, five plus years i've been in the forum and you sir have never once produced one piece of observed evidence that proves your models.  How is that possible.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

How many times in those five years have I told you that the natural sciences do not involve PROOF?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


would you like me to post a link of what a theory is?  I do use the internet. 

gawd I get tired of proving what an idiot you are. but here, you challenged I'll submit:

from Wikipedia: Theory - Wikipedia

*"Underdetermination*
Main article: Underdetermination
A theory is _underdetermined_ (also called _indeterminacy of data to theory_) if a rival, inconsistent theory is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions.

_*A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."*_


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> How many times in those five years have I told you that the natural sciences do not involve PROOF?


almost daily.  I call you on it for over five years.   i sir, do not live by your rules and science is many different things and does not line up for you or any one path of knowledge.  Dude, please go read something.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > just show one experiment where cold moves to warm. Just fking one!!!
> ...


there you go.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."


Thank you. Thermodynamics as of today has a plethora of supporting evidence, therefore it is not a hypothesis.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> there you go.


There I go what? Energy can freely move between objects of different temperatures. But not heat.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."
> ...


supporting evidence from where?  you just posted cold does not move to warm, so how does the surface get warmer if the air above is colder?  And don't give me back radiation.  that's hogwash and a hypothesis unproven.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > there you go.
> ...


how do you know this happens if there is no evidence?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> just show one experiment where cold moves to warm.


Furthermore it is scientifically stupid to use the phrase "cold moves to warm" A cold object has a lack of energy compared to a warmer object. How can you say a lack of energy moves anywhere.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> supporting evidence from where? you just posted cold does not move to warm, so how does the surface get warmer if the air above is colder? And don't give me back radiation. that's hogwash and a hypothesis unproven.





jc456 said:


> how do you know this happens if there is no evidence?


Your questions were answered very lucidly many many times by IanC, Crick, and others. Perhaps you don't have the education to understand their answers.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> *theory is the evidence of a hypothesis* friend.
> gawd I get tired of proving what an idiot you are. but here, you challenged I'll submit:
> 
> from Wikipedia: Theory - Wikipedia
> ...



This does not support the statement you made.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > supporting evidence from where? you just posted cold does not move to warm, so how does the surface get warmer if the air above is colder? And don't give me back radiation. that's hogwash and a hypothesis unproven.
> ...


or, perhaps they weren't answered.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > *theory is the evidence of a hypothesis* friend.
> ...


how?


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

A hypothesis is turned into a theory by sufficient evidence.  A theory is not, itself, that evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> A hypothesis is turned into a theory by sufficient evidence.  A theory is not, itself, that evidence.


well in my line of work we create a hypothesis first and prove it and declare it our theory based on testing.

I do root cause analysis, and we experiment in labs frequently.  We present a hypothesis after analysis of the logs collected off of our systems.  Then we present our theory based off the tests.  Not sure how you do it. but it is how we do it here at my company.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?


test results.  How do you prove yours?

ever hear of Kepner Treqoe?

BTW, it's the reason I don't support your claims, the what ifs don't make sense.


----------



## IanC (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let's apply Occam's razor to our choices here.
> 
> Option 1: All matter radiates in all directions all the time.  No net heat flows from cold to warm without work because warm matter radiates more than cold and the net flow is from warm to cold.  No magic required.
> Option 2: All matter is somehow aware of the temperature of all other matter in the universe and can throttle and aim its own emissions to avoid radiating at warmer matter no matter the distance and no matter the motion of the parties involved.  Even if a rock is 15 billion light years away, a rock here on Earth can calculate where that rock will be 15 billion years from now and adjust its radiation to avoid improper emissions in that very, very, very specific direction.  No mechanism has ever been even suggested for this ability and none seems conceivable.
> ...




Yup. Exactly as I have said many times.

Two objects at the same temperature do not stop radiating at each other. There is no 'heat' flow because the radiation from each simply balances out. 

All objects radiate according to their temp all the time. Under earth-like conditions, any object at any temperature can be a heat source, heat sink, or balanced, depending on the local conditions. A room temp roast is a heat source if you put it in the fridge, a heat sink in the oven, or balanced sitting on the counter. But it radiates the same amount until it is cooled or heated by its surroundings. This is an important concept. Warming and cooling are relative terms. There is nothing 'special' about an object or environment that is warmer or cooler, it is just the amount of relative radiation.

And the idea that the generalized macroscopic concept of 'temperature' can control the internal atomic scale creation of radiation is simply absurd.


----------



## IanC (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?
> ...




the fucking idiot can't even spell it right.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


i hadn't noticed.  LOL


----------



## IanC (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




What a fucking bonehead. No matter how many times it is explained to him, he just cannot understand it. The stupidity is just tragic.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And how do you "prove" your hypotheses?
> ...



You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "prove".

I have not heard of Kepner Treqoe.  I will look him up. ...  That should have been Kepner TreGoe. He sells a business problem solving method.

What what-ifs do you believe don't make sense?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


if ice melts it must be CO2. if temps go up it must be CO2 driving it.  Well in my world of KT, you prove out if CO2 will melt ice or cause temperature increases.  Now, listen up, I've asked for five plus years for that test.  I'm still whistle-n dixie here cause you never ever posted one.

Dude you still didn't state how you prove out a hypothesis?  Oh that's right in your world no proof is necessary.  But in the real world it is.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> if ice melts it must be CO2.



I have never said that.  I know of no one who has except deniers claiming that mainstream science makes such statements.  Like you.



jc456 said:


> if temps go up it must be CO2 driving it.



I have never said that.  I know of no one who has except deniers claiming that mainstream science makes such statements.  Like you.



jc456 said:


> Well in my world of KT, you prove out if CO2 will melt ice or cause temperature increases.  Now, listen up, I've asked for five plus years for that test.  I'm still whistle-n dixie here cause you never ever posted one.



I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions.  Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature.  The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.



jc456 said:


> Dude you still didn't state how you prove out a hypothesis?



I never claimed that anyone did so.  I specifically told you, repeatedly, that neither hypotheses nor theories in the natural sciences are provable.  On the other hand, YOU claimed that you proved hypotheses on a regular basis at work.  I asked you how you did so but you have not answered.



jc456 said:


> Oh that's right in your world no proof is necessary.  But in the real world it is.



Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world.  Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible.  Therefore, your statement is incorrect.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world. Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.



What the fuck are you smoking? Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..

You must believe in the common core version of science... its whatever we tell you it is.. no evidence required..


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.



Can you show me this irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.


Pony up big boy...

Lets see your irrefutable evidence.. Your math showing exactly what mans contribution to warming has been and how you ruled out all other potential causes... Be sure you include how you found the sensitivity of all atmospheric substances and how you derived their influence.

I'll wait..


----------



## jc456 (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > if ice melts it must be CO2.
> ...


I never fking answered? You liar. I explained how and the methodology! Dude you have no humility wow


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

You asked me if I had ever heard of Keystone and Treguna Mayfoppia.  That is hardly an explanation as to how your hypothesis was proven.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 29, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..


That is a common misconception among laymen.You can use the word "proof" in theorems that relate various aspects of science. For example, if we assume the speed of light is constant for all inertial systems, then we can mathematically prove E = mc^2. 

You should understand that mathematical proof in physics models does not prove anything observed in the real world. The observations lead to a model.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world. Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.





Billy_Bob said:


> What the fuck are you smoking? Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..
> 
> You must believe in the common core version of science... its whatever we tell you it is.. no evidence required..



You have just come as close to PROVING you do not have any form of science degree as it is possible to come.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You get more like crick, rocks, and the hairball every day....congratulations...embrace the cult.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

Sorry jc, but he was talking to you.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Sorry jc, but he was talking to you.


well shit, I thought he was referring to your misspelling of

"And how do you "prove" your _*hypotheses"*_

so mistakes can be made eh?  I will laugh now.  so how do you spell 'hypothesis'?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry jc, but he was talking to you.
> ...



You know the are desperate when they start pointing out spelling errors...next it will be punctuation.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

Hypotheses is the plural of hypothesis jc.  Ian was talking about your misspelling of Tregoe ("Treqoe").


----------



## IanC (Dec 29, 2016)

I don't give a shit about the spelling of common verbiage.

In jc's case, he was giving an obscure name without explanation or context. Google gave an optional spelling for a company that apparently specializes in decision algorithms. 

Is that what he meant to reference? Who knows. jc didn't specifically state much of anything.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2016)

IanC said:


> I don't give a shit about the spelling of common verbiage.
> 
> In jc's case, he was giving an obscure name without explanation or context. Google gave an optional spelling for a company that apparently specializes in decision algorithms.
> 
> Is that what he meant to reference? Who knows. jc didn't specifically state much of anything.



And you behaved exactly as crick, rocks, or the hairball would behave...again...congratulations.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

Whereas you're always nice to jc because he's one of the very few people around here that has any respect for your 'technical accomplishments'


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."
> ...



Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..
> ...


Love this liberal common core approach.. No wonder so many have been duped by this scam. MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FANTASY!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, the natural sciences operate in the real world. Proof is not only unnecessary in the natural sciences, it is impossible. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.
> ...


Your Funny....Again avoiding giving up any thing that resembles empirical evidence.. ADhom's...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Love this liberal common core approach.. No wonder so many have been duped by this scam. MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FANTASY!


That's right, models are not empirical evidence of anything. Who has been duped by saying that? Do you think I said that? Where? Which liberals have said that?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.


That's right thermodynamics is a series of laws. Yes, neither heat nor thermal energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.
> ...



Neither heat, nor any sort of energy...the second law is universal...it applies to all sorts of energy whether it be stored potential energy created by holding a rock up above the ground or IR radiation emitted from a CO2 molecule...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2016)

I said,


Wuwei said:


> That's right thermodynamics is a series of laws. Yes, neither heat nor thermal energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.


The context is quite obviously spontaneous heat transfer. You reply,


SSDD said:


> Neither heat, nor any sort of energy...the second law is universal...it applies to all sorts of energy whether it be stored potential energy created by holding a rock up above the ground or IR radiation emitted from a CO2 molecule.


You are saying a cold rock off the ground cannot move to a warmer ground. Your wording also requires that a snowflake cannot fall to a warmer ground. I know you are not that stupid, but you really have to be more precise. BTW I gave you dozens of references that say radiation is two way between objects. What do you think of those references. Do you disagree with them all?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You are saying a cold rock off the ground cannot move to a warmer ground.



Do you understand that potential energy stored in a rock held above the ground is different from the rock itself?...Do you grasp the meaning, and significance of the word spontaneously?



Wuwei said:


> Your wording also requires that a snowflake cannot fall to a warmer ground.



Well, you just answered my question...you don't understand either or you wouldn't have come up with such an idiotic analogy.



Wuwei said:


> BTW I gave you dozens of references that say radiation is two way between objects. What do you think of those references. Do you disagree with them all?



And not a single observation....your references are based on belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...without the first bit of observational evidence.


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




poor SSDD has some serious misconceptions about physics. basic laws are fundamental but they are still only single factors that need to be taken in combination with all the factors involved.

The Sun is a huge source of highly ordered energy that does work on Earth systems. Our atmosphere is only present because of stored solar energy that is constantly being refreshed to replace energy lost to space.

The radiation produced by the atmosphere (some of which returns to the surface) comes directly and indirectly from the Sun. It is not just an object at a defined temperature. Likewise the surface is also producing radiation from energy received directly and indirectly  provided by the Sun.

Both the surface and the atmosphere produce radiation according to their temperature and emissivity. All the time, in all directions. If the surface is warmer than the atmosphere then heat (net energy) moves towards the air. If the atmosphere is warmer than the surface then heat moves towards the surface, but the radiation is always there. No exceptions, no throttling down, no restricted directions.

There is nothing special about the temperature of any object or environment. Sometimes they are a heat source, sometimes they absorb heat. But they always radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. Heat moves to the cooler object whether the differential is 50C-40C, or 20C-10C.

The part that seems to confuse most people is when the radiation from each object is considered individually. An object at 16C radiates about 400W, 15C at 395W, 17C at 405W. The 16C object would be losing 5W to the 15W object, gaining 5W from the 17C object. As long as any of the objects remain at their original temperature their radiation output remains the same. 






I do not necessarily agree with Trenberth's numbers but it is illustrative. The Sun adds ~160W to the surface directly 
(and an unknown amount of energy has already been stored in the atmosphere). But the surface radiates at ~ 400W. The deficit must be made up from somewhere. It comes from radiation returning from the atmosphere. Trenberth says that ~60W is radiated away, ~100W is carried upwards by the water cycle, which balances out the ~160W received from the Sun. We can argue the numbers endlessly but the general explanation is correct. The surface cannot fully shed energy by radiation because the temperature differential between the surface and atmosphere is much smaller than surface directly to space. The atmosphere is warm because it absorbs a considerable fraction of the surface radiation (indirect sunlight energy).


----------



## IanC (Dec 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are saying a cold rock off the ground cannot move to a warmer ground.
> ...




SSDD is refusing to acknowledge all the blackbody experiments done in the past to formulate the basic Laws and repeated endlessly in university physics classes. Even though he linked up to some of them when he found a phrase used that seemed to support his position (out of context).


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Do you understand that potential energy stored in a rock held above the ground is different from the rock itself?...Do you grasp the meaning, and significance of the word spontaneously?


Yep, but you don't grasp the context.


SSDD said:


> Well, you just answered my question...you don't understand either or you wouldn't have come up with such an idiotic analogy.


It definitely is an idiotic analogy, and it comes from your ideas.


SSDD said:


> And not a single observation....your references are based on belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...without the first bit of observational evidence.


Are you saying you don't believe the text of those references?  Those references are the result of many observable, measurable, testable experiments.

About a dozen of those references were about the Stefan-Boltzmann mathematical model. You have used that model countless times. Why do you now disbelieve them?


----------



## ding (Dec 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.



Can you show me this irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming?


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2016)

Yes


----------



## ding (Dec 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> Yes


That doesn't look like irrefutable evidence to me.  How does this prove that the warming we are experiencing which is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacials is caused by CO2?  It doesn't, jackass.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Yes
> ...


Crick thinks a bandpass graph is proof..  He doesn't have a damn clue.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2016)

IanC said:


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


Trenbreths numbers are so bad that no one uses them... Fractional change and evaporation are the keys to why AGW is a farce.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Love this liberal common core approach.. No wonder so many have been duped by this scam. MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FANTASY!
> ...


You take the IPCC as gospel when their whole premise is built upon models which have zero predictive powers and fail empirical evidence review. You, like Crick and mamooth all believe in fantasy modeling..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I have not read any of the IPCC documents; I have no idea what their models are, let alone take it as gospel. In fact I agree with you that models are not empirical evidence of anything.
Your mind has gone way off track of what I said earlier. I was responding to what you said:


Billy_Bob said:


> Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..


I will say it again: Hard science can never prove anything, it can only model the physical concepts. If you know anything at all about science, you should know this.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> I don't give a shit about the spelling of common verbiage.
> 
> In jc's case, he was giving an obscure name without explanation or context. Google gave an optional spelling for a company that apparently specializes in decision algorithms.
> 
> Is that what he meant to reference? Who knows. jc didn't specifically state much of anything.


Ian I gave a name and incorrectly hit 'q' instead of 'g' you found the company right?  You have turned into one sad fk off.  So now you believe in AGW I suppose. You make me laugh


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


But they said it does so god damnit therefore it does! They don't need no stinking observation


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Yes









			
				Ding said:
			
		

> That doesn't look like irrefutable evidence to me.  How does this prove that the warming we are experiencing which is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacials is caused by CO2?  It doesn't, jackass.





Billy_Bob said:


> Crick thinks a bandpass graph is proof..  He doesn't have a damn clue.



Then, Mr Engineer and Mr Atmospheric Physicist, why don't you tell us what DOES happen to the IR energy this shows CO2 to be absorbing and re-emitting.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.


The second law does not state that. You have no basis for that. No scientist would ever say that. You are making that up.  Simply capitalizing EVER does not make that true.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> The second law does not state that. You have no basis for that. No scientist would ever say that. You are making that up.  Simply capitalizing EVER does not make that true.



Of course it does....once more...from the physics department at Georgia State:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is* not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow*. Energy *will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object*. This precludes a perfect refrigerator The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

I would say categorically that the physics department at GSU knows a bit more about the topic than you and this is from their hyper physics site.

Now wuwei, how about you provide us with some comic relief and tell us that this only applies to refrigerators....tell us again how it is refrigerator physics and doesn't apply to anything but refrigerators....or heat pumps....or air conditioners

And while you are at it, tell us why they say that the above physical law PRECLUDES a perfect refrigerator rather than stating that it only applies to refrigerators....

Of all the things you have said on this board...making the claim that that statement only applied to refrigerators was perhaps the silliest.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

IanC said:


> poor SSDD has some serious misconceptions about physics. basic laws are fundamental but they are still only single factors that need to be taken in combination with all the factors involved.



No ian....I am not laboring under any misconceptions...

*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. 
*
That is a very straight forward, unambiguous statement.  It is really not possible for someone to misunderstand it unless they do so willfully.  Now I know that you believe in a different second law of thermodynamics than that stated above, but at present, the statement above represents the actual second law.  If you have some idea about the second law other than that straight forward, unambiguous statement above, then I am afraid that alas, it is you who is laboring under a misconception....

But you watch the news and be sure to let me know when they rewrite the second law to reflect your belief...it will surely be a newsworthy event.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.
> ...


What do you think the Second Law states


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> 
> SSDD is refusing to acknowledge all the blackbody experiments done in the past to formulate the basic Laws and repeated endlessly in university physics classes. Even though he linked up to some of them when he found a phrase used that seemed to support his position (out of context).



If you are referring to the S-B law...again,, you are laboring under a misconception...and we have already been through this...and you lost....objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature and area IF THEY ARE IN A VACUUM....take them out of the vacuum and put them in the presence of other matter and they radiate according to their area and the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 31, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.
> ...


Here's where Crick posts the chart with no temperature axis


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Yep, but you don't grasp the context.



Of course I do...you are the one claiming that you can't place a warm rock in the snow without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

If you place the warm rock in the snow, energy will flow from the rock to the warm snow but no energy will flow from the snow to the rock...



SSDD said:


> It definitely is an idiotic analogy, and it comes from your ideas.



It comes from your abject misunderstanding of what I said....again, placing a warm rock in the snow doesn't violate any law of thermodynamics...now if you have the idea that energy from the snow will flow into the rock, then you are the victim of a terrible misunderstanding...placing the rock in the snow is a product of the work you did to move it there..



SSDD said:


> Are you saying you don't believe the text of those references?  Those references are the result of many observable, measurable, testable experiments.



And not a single observation of energy moving spontaneously in two directions...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Yes
> ...



every time he posts that graph I remind him that he failed to post the emission graph for those molecules.  He somehow thinks that absorption and emission equals warming.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Then, Mr Engineer and Mr Atmospheric Physicist, why don't you tell us what DOES happen to the IR energy this shows CO2 to be absorbing and re-emitting.



The bulk of it never gets re-emitted...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection.  Here...again...I don't expect the explanation to make any more sense to you this time than it has any of the other times but never let it be said that I didn't try to explain the real world to you.

Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?

A: About 1 nanosecond

Q: Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

A: The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is around 1 second....how much longer is that than the mean time between molecular collisions through which unexcited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom...why its about a billion times as long.

Q: Can you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

A: Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Apparently he thinks it states that energy can flow from cool to warm if it damned well wants to.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And while you are at it, tell us why they say that the above physical law PRECLUDES a perfect refrigerator rather than stating that it only applies to refrigerators....
> 
> Of all the things you have said on this board...making the claim that that statement only applied to refrigerators was perhaps the silliest.


I did not make that claim. It's the hyperphysics site - *your link* - that makes that claim. 



 
Read your link. In very large letters it says *Refrigerator*. Look at the diagram on the right. It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of *heat* from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. Not energy, it's *heat*. Furthermore radiatitive heat transfer by EM energy was totally unknown at the time Clausius  formulated his law. 

The Clausius understanding was later broadened to define the second law in terms of Entropy. Entropy says nothing about the flow of energy one way or another.

How could you be so naive about misunderstanding something so important.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Apparently he thinks it states that energy can flow from cool to warm if it damned well wants to.


How many times to I have to tell you that it's not just me. *All scientists* understand that radiation can flow anywhere. It's heat energy that can only flow one way.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And while you are at it, tell us why they say that the above physical law PRECLUDES a perfect refrigerator rather than stating that it only applies to refrigerators....
> ...



Clearly you can't read and comprehend words...Think hard now....what do you think the words  "this precludes a perfect refrigerator"  mean.

here...let me offer you a clue...preclude means:  to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible:

They are saying that because *it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow....and because 
energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..*it is not possible to build a perfect refrigerator....it is called applied physics...they are trying to give you an example so that you can apply the knowledge to your daily life....they also explain how the second law applies to heat engines...I guess you think there is a separate set of physics that only apply to heat engines as well.

If you are this easily confused...and find this very basic level of scientific explanation difficult to follow, then I understand perfectly why you have fallen for the AGW scam and are one of the true believers.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The bulk of it never gets re-emitted...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection. Here...again...I don't expect the explanation to make any more sense to you this time than it has any of the other times but never let it be said that I didn't try to explain the real world to you.
> 
> Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?
> 
> ...



That Q-A unreferenced post is right for the one narrow aspect of it covered. Yes, a CO2 molecule will probably loose its excited vibration state through a collision rather than an emission.

What the dialog didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/eqpar.html

There will be equal amounts of energy divided among all the GHG vibration states, rotation states and kinetic energy. Most of the vibration states will arise from the churning energy of the atmospheric molecules hitting the GHGs and not from the earth's upward LWIR. The upward IR will increase the population of the GHG vibration part of the total energy, and that energy will dissipate through collisions and some LWIR in arbitrary directions.

One way of looking at it is that CO2 can absorb IR, but CO2 excited by collisions will emit most of the IR.

In short,  a single CO2 molecule absorbing IR and emitting the same energy is rare. In reality an large statistical ensemble CO2 molecules will absorb IR and the statistical ensemble will emit IR, although an individual molecule most likely won't do both in a small time window. Remember through the equipartition theorm there is a tremendous amount of energy in the vibrational states that scatter the LWIR.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> *it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow....and because
> energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*


Look at the hyperphysics picture I posted. It is obvious they were referring to heat energy, not radiation energy.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Clearly you can't read and comprehend words...Think hard now....what do you think the words "this precludes a perfect refrigerator" mean.
> 
> here...let me offer you a clue...preclude means: to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible:


Yes, I agree, heat flow constraints by the second law precludes a perfect refrigerator. But the subject here is EM radiation flow, not freon flow. Radiation direction is not constrained.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

IanC said:


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


You do know that AR5 in Table9.5 of Chapter9 points out the feedbacks they consider for the models? See how many say n/a, see how some feedbacks vary by a factor of 4 and 5. They are simply not credible.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

Ian;

The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.

ToA is 100 km or 62 miles.

The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.

The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.

ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic’s power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.

The troposphere is not ideal. The S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333, just 1.5% to 2.4% of.

The 333 W/m^2 up-welling/down-welling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.

The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.

Except they aren’t. No Tropospheric hot spot has manifested itself or exists by empirical evidence.

The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or layered from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable, 45% to 75% shortfall from 333.

(99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)

The math, simply put, does not add up.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.

The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The bulk of it never gets re-emitted...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection. Here...again...I don't expect the explanation to make any more sense to you this time than it has any of the other times but never let it be said that I didn't try to explain the real world to you.
> ...



You might have a point that mattered if CO2 emitted across a wide range of frequencies....it doesn't therefore, your point is moot.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


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



Then why do you think they took the time and effort to say that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object?

That is energy period...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly you can't read and comprehend words...Think hard now....what do you think the words "this precludes a perfect refrigerator" mean.
> ...



Once again....why do you think that after they spoke to heat, they specifically stated that ENERGY won't spontaneously flow from a cool object to a higher temperature object?  You have to look at all of the words....not just the ones that support your belief.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And while you are at it, tell us why they say that the above physical law PRECLUDES a perfect refrigerator rather than stating that it only applies to refrigerators....
> ...


WTF are you talking about? Heat *is* energy, it is measured in Joules. If it isn`t energy then what is it ? 
And then_  "Furthermore* radiatitive *heat transfer by EM energy _". The adjective for radiate  is *radiative *not "radiatitive".
Typical gibberish which clearly indicates that you are pretentious and have no idea what any of the terms you re-defined here actually mean.
Like this nonsense:"_Entropy says nothing about the flow of energy one way or another_"
Really? 
That shows that you have no clue whatsoever. 
Entropy is about the transfer of energy, as opposed to enthalpy which is the energy content of a system and not about the transfer of energy
Typical indicators that you are one of the  science impostors grand standing here ! I bet anything that the moment your WiFi gets cut your "expertise" in physics goes poof in an instant.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You might have a point that mattered if CO2 emitted across a wide range of frequencies....it doesn't therefore, your point is moot.


It's not moot. If you think it's moot why did you raise the point in the first place?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You might have a point that mattered if CO2 emitted across a wide range of frequencies....it doesn't therefore, your point is moot.
> ...



You really don't think about this much do you?  You just go about grabbing bits from the web and posting them as if you had a clue....

the whole point was that the AGW hypothesis is based on radiation from CO2...and it is built entirely on radiation and assumes that CO2 radiates all the energy it absorbs...it doesn't take convection or conduction even into consideration.....and the amount of energy that CO2 actually radiates as opposed to losing to conduction is about one billionth the amount of energy that the AGW hypothesis assumes that CO2 is radiating in all directions.

Use your brain sometime...and try to actually think.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Once again....why do you think that after they spoke to heat, they specifically stated that ENERGY won't spontaneously flow from a cool object to a higher temperature object? You have to look at all of the words....not just the ones that support your belief.


I did look at all the words especially the caption of the drawing on the right. You didn't look at all of the words:

_Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refigerator, forbidden by the second law._​Furthermore they label the energy as Q. That means heat energy in thermodynamics. So you are incorrect.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> the whole point was that the AGW hypothesis is based on radiation from CO2...and it is built entirely on radiation and assumes that CO2 radiates all the energy it absorbs...it doesn't take convection or conduction even into consideration.....and the amount of energy that CO2 actually radiates as opposed to losing to conduction is about one billionth the amount of energy that the AGW hypothesis assumes that CO2 is radiating in all directions.


Water vapor is also triatomic and has the same type of vibration states as CO2. Do you use the same "logic" for water too? If it weren't for water vapor the entire earth would be near freezing.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Then why do you think they took the time and effort to say that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object?


because they were referring to heat energy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Once again....why do you think that after they spoke to heat, they specifically stated that ENERGY won't spontaneously flow from a cool object to a higher temperature object? You have to look at all of the words....not just the ones that support your belief.
> ...



You are a f'ing idiot.....did you not read what polar bear posted for you?  Heat is energy...it is measured in joules...radiant exposure...which is, in fact, exposure to IR radiation is expressed in terms of joules per square meter....energy is energy you doofus...and all energy is governed by the second law of thermodynamics which says that it won't move spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects...

even when it is given to you in explicit terms, your mind won't allow you to read and understand the words.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do you think they took the time and effort to say that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object?
> ...



You mean IR..which is exactly what radiative heat is..which is measured in joules and exposure to it is expressed in terms of joules per square meter?

If you were half as sharp as you believe yourself to be, you would stop digging...but will you?...not no but HELL no...you will dig to china rather than acknowledge that you are just wrong...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

polarbear said:


> WTF are you talking about? Heat *is* energy, it is measured in Joules. If it isn`t energy then what is it ?
> And then_ "Furthermore* radiatitive *heat transfer by EM energy _". The adjective for radiate is *radiative *not "radiatitive".
> Typical gibberish which clearly indicates that you are pretentious and have no idea what any of the terms you re-defined here actually mean.
> Like this nonsense:"_Entropy says nothing about the flow of energy one way or another_"
> ...


Do you also believe that thermal radiation cannot emit from a colder object to a hotter one?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > the whole point was that the AGW hypothesis is based on radiation from CO2...and it is built entirely on radiation and assumes that CO2 radiates all the energy it absorbs...it doesn't take convection or conduction even into consideration.....and the amount of energy that CO2 actually radiates as opposed to losing to conduction is about one billionth the amount of energy that the AGW hypothesis assumes that CO2 is radiating in all directions.
> ...



CO2's primary absorption/emission band is 16-21um.  Water Vapor is 6um to 65um. When we consider that water vapor dwarfs CO2 in concentration by a factor of 2,400 it becomes painfully obvious we have a gorilla in the room that can stop all of CO2's activity and not even breath hard.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You mean IR..which is exactly what radiative heat is..which is measured in joules and exposure to it is expressed in terms of joules per square meter?


Read it again. The diagram from the hyperphysics site I posted does not refer to IR. It refers to energy transfer using Freon (or whatever they use nowadays.)


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You are a f'ing idiot.....did you not read what polar bear posted for you? Heat is energy...it is measured in joules...radiant exposure...which is, in fact, exposure to IR radiation is expressed in terms of joules per square meter....energy is energy you doofus...and all energy is governed by the second law of thermodynamics which says that it won't move spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects...
> 
> even when it is given to you in explicit terms, your mind won't allow you to read and understand the words.


Very good! You and polarbear can look up the units of energy. But you should cool down and don't blow a gasket. The units of energy are well known, but what you aren't considering is there are many forms of energy, not just heat. The subject is that thermal radiation (photon or EM energy) from any object is not impeded from striking any other object at any temperature.

You and polarbear disagree with that. Read about thermal equilibrium. I gave you references a while ago.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > WTF are you talking about? Heat *is* energy, it is measured in Joules. If it isn`t energy then what is it ?
> ...


What makes you think I believe that?
Sure it does, but the net transfer of energy is from the hotter to the colder one because the hotter one radiates more energy than the colder one. In the process the hotter one will cool off and the colder one will warm up with the radiation it absorbed from the hotter one.
There is no net gain of energy. For that to happen you need another heat source.
What`s the big mystery here?
If you got this other heat source then the temperature will increase if the colder body obscures the warmer one from an even colder back ground..so what ?
The problem is not if it does, but by how much !
If you want to see how much CO2 does then you have to measure it and that was done by Heinz Hug:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
_The *radiative forcing for doubling* can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m^2 *[14]* over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements *(Hanel et al., 1971)* and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m^2 - and not 4.3 W/m^2.*This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.*_

It`s also a joke to say that 1/2 of the absorbed energy goes down and is re-absorbed.
Why? Because it ignores the angle of incidence of the down dwelling radiation.
7/10 th of the earth surface is water and for that part the reflectance increases with the a.o.i. for all light, IR included.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are a f'ing idiot.....did you not read what polar bear posted for you? Heat is energy...it is measured in joules...radiant exposure...which is, in fact, exposure to IR radiation is expressed in terms of joules per square meter....energy is energy you doofus...and all energy is governed by the second law of thermodynamics which says that it won't move spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects...
> ...


I don`t have to look up what *energy* is, but you should.
Obviously you should else if you knew you would never say:
_The units of energy are well known, but what you aren't considering is there are many forms of energy, not just heat. The subject is that thermal radiation (photon or EM energy) from any object is not impeded from striking any other object at any temperature._
That`s not just one error but a whole cluster fuck of errors.
I`ll pick apart the worst one:
What do you get after you factor this equation with the 4th power of Temperature [in deg K]?
σ = 5.67×10^−8  [W m^−2 K^−4]
you get watts per m^2 right?
And if you knew the *area* and use that factor you get watts right ?
And what`s a watt?
It`s* power, not energy *right?
And if you knew the *time *during which you applied the number of watts then and only then do you know how much *ENERGY *that was.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

Do you think you're the only one to have thought of that [Angle of incidence]?  And where does the reflected light go?  It still has the entire atmosphere, at a very shallow angle, to penetrate.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You mean IR..which is exactly what radiative heat is..which is measured in joules and exposure to it is expressed in terms of joules per square meter?
> ...



Sorry guy....it doesn't say that at all...in fact, it is written at a 6th grade level and you still don't seem to be able to understand it...you feel the need to try and interpret it to mesh with your fouled up notions....try just reading what it says rather than trying to read something into it that it doesn't say.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Critical angles are determined by each material's index of refraction.  Index of refraction is frequency dependent.

Wikipedia

Snell's law states that the ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence and refraction is equivalent to the ratio of phase velocities in the two media, or equivalent to the reciprocal of the ratio of the indices of refraction:






with each 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 as the angle measured from the normal of the boundary, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 as the velocity of light in the respective medium (SI units are meters per second, or m/s), 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 as the wavelength of light in the respective medium and 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 as the refractive index (which is unitless) of the respective medium.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

polarbear said:


> the net transfer of energy is from the hotter to the colder one because the hotter one radiates more energy than the colder one. In the process the hotter one will cool off and the colder one will warm up with the radiation it absorbed from the hotter one.



Great. Now try to tell SSDD that. He sincerely believes the colder object can't radiate to the hotter one because he doesn't understand the second law or the S-B equation. Have you ever argued those points with him?



polarbear said:


> I don`t have to look up what *energy* is, but you should.
> Obviously you should else if you knew you would never say:
> _The units of energy are well known, but what you aren't considering is there are many forms of energy, not just heat. The subject is that thermal radiation (photon or EM energy) from any object is not impeded from striking any other object at any temperature._
> That`s not just one error but a whole cluster fuck of errors.
> ...


Very good. Now try to get SSDD to believe that. He doesn't.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > the net transfer of energy is from the hotter to the colder one because the hotter one radiates more energy than the colder one. In the process the hotter one will cool off and the colder one will warm up with the radiation it absorbed from the hotter one.
> ...



Like I said goober...you be sure to tell me when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to relate energy transfer in terms of net as opposed to gross energy movement....it will be big news...but let me know anyway.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy....it doesn't say that at all...in fact, it is written at a 6th grade level and you still don't seem to be able to understand it...you feel the need to try and interpret it to mesh with your fouled up notions....try just reading what it says rather than trying to read something into it that it doesn't say.


Reread the caption of the drawing on the right. You didn't look at all of the words:

_Spontaneous flow of *heat* from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.
_
They are talking about *heat*, not any sort of energy
Furthermore they label the flow of energy as *Q*. That symbol means *heat *energy in thermodynamics. So you are incorrect. And, as you say, it's written at 6th grade level.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Like I said goober...you be sure to tell me when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to relate energy transfer in terms of net as opposed to gross energy movement....it will be big news...but let me know anyway.


It is no longer big news. It was rewritten over 100 years ago in terms of entropy. Tell me how the second law written in terms of entropy disallows radiation from a colder body to a warmer body. (Note that the warmer body radiates more to the colder body so the *net *energy is from the warmer to the colder.)


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy....it doesn't say that at all...in fact, it is written at a 6th grade level and you still don't seem to be able to understand it...you feel the need to try and interpret it to mesh with your fouled up notions....try just reading what it says rather than trying to read something into it that it doesn't say.
> ...




Alright...you have proven beyond any doubt that you are an idiot and can't read and comprehend words written at a 6th grade level....I believe you are mostly illiterate..you can stop demonstrating now...and for the last time you f'ing idiot...heat is energy...it is measured in units like all other forms of energy...and the second law applies to all energy in any possible form.....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said goober...you be sure to tell me when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to relate energy transfer in terms of net as opposed to gross energy movement....it will be big news...but let me know anyway.
> ...



Lying doesn't make it true...if it were as you say, surely as respected a physics department as that of Georgia State would be aware and write it properly...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Alright...you have proven beyond any doubt that you are an idiot and can't read and comprehend words written at a 6th grade level....I believe you are mostly illiterate..you can stop demonstrating now...and for the last time you f'ing idiot...heat is energy...it is measured in units like all other forms of energy...and the second law applies to all energy in any possible form.....


My gosh you get angry. Try to cool down; it will let you think better. When you lash out at me you are lashing out at all science and scientists. Yes,it is absolutely true that the second law applies to all energy. In the case of radiation it applies to net energy. Want me cite the dozen sources that say that radiation between objects at any temperatures is two way radiation exchange?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Lying doesn't make it true...if it were as you say, surely as respected a physics department as that of Georgia State would be aware and write it properly...


They did write it properly. Look at the the diagram on the right where it talks about heat and uses the heat symbol Q. Look at the definition of Clausius at other university sites and tell me if you disagree with them.

The did write it with the understanding that the energy they were referring to is heat.

Edit: you will find that many word it the same as the hyperphysics site. Some have the entire paragraph identical to that site. But it should not be confusing to the students who understand the subject.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

Do you believe that the second law of thermodynamics written in terms of entropy is valid?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you think you're the only one to have thought of that [Angle of incidence]?  And where does the reflected light go?  It still has the entire atmosphere, at a very shallow angle, to penetrate.


Gee I almost never noticed your post under all the other clutter that buried it.
Your next post only proves that you can copy&paste wikipedia.
I guess you had to go there to look up what angle of incidence means.So you came across Snell`s law.
After that ou came up with your own theory how AGW is supposed to happen.
At least the IPCC factors in how much light has been reflected (albedo)and does not warm up the surface. Your`s uses light that has been absorbed, radiated down, warming the surface, which then re-radiates it up, to be absorbed again, going down, heating the surface even more, which radiates it up again and so on and on, till you get 400 watts out of 4 watts.
No wonder people like you think that conventional power plants are obsolete
And why did you copy that:...???
_Snell's law states that the ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence and refraction is equivalent to the ratio of phase velocities in the two media, or equivalent to the reciprocal of the ratio of the indices of refraction_:
Obviously because you had no idea what I was talking about but wanted to appear as somebody who knows physics inside out....as long as your WiFi works that is!


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> .and for the last time you f'ing idiot...heat is energy..



But heat has no meaning for a single atom or photon. It is a macroscopic quality only, a statistical description of a system of matter and photons.

Hence, the second law, being it only talks about heat, doesn't apply to single atoms or photons.

All non-tards understand that. Hence, you don't. Hence, everyone laughs at you hard.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being way below average in intelligence, SSDD. I'm sure you're a nice boy, and a good boy, and maybe even handsome, so you don't need brains. You just need to understand how it is a problem when stupid people get belligerent with their stupidity, as you do.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .and for the last time you f'ing idiot...heat is energy..
> ...



Energy, whether it be from a single atom or a whole array of them does not move from cool objects to warmer objects...

And the second law doesn't just talk about heat....the second law governs all energy transfer without regard to the nature of the energy being transferred.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2016)

> Energy, whether it be from a single atom or a whole array of them does not move from cool objects to warmer objects..



Again, endless repetitions of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" are not going to win you a Nobel, yet it's all you've got.



> And the second law doesn't just talk about heat....the second law governs all energy transfer without regard to the nature of the energy being transferred.



Someone who also inhabits your bizarro-universe might care about the alternate physical laws at work there, but we here in this dimension have no interest in them.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Again, endless repetitions of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" are not going to win you a Nobel, yet it's all you've got.



I don't say so hairball...if you have a problem with this statement take it up with the physics department of Georgia State...

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


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2016)

mamooth said:


> > Energy, whether it be from a single atom or a whole array of them does not move from cool objects to warmer objects..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's right, 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.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


You are essentially saying that the second law as defined using entropy is wrong. Do you reject the entropy version? 

 Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> [
> You are essentially saying that the second law as defined using entropy is wrong. Do you reject the entropy version?
> 
> Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.



In typical fashion, you only see what you believe makes your point and ignore the rest....In the first place, the statement applies to a closed system...where the system is in a steady state or a reversible process is occurring....

If you are not in a closed system, and an irreversible process is happening, then entropy always increases...and the critical bit of information that I am sure you are lacking is the FACT that ALL NATURAL PROCESSES ARE IRREVERSIBLE...

SECOND LAW



> _Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. *All natural processes are irreversible*._


_

http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf

_


> The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy)
> 
> Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, *natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible*.



Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia



> The second law is applicable to a wide variety of processes, reversible and irreversible. All natural processes are irreversible. Reversible processes are a useful and convenient theoretical fiction, but do not occur in nature.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> He's right, it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.



And as that's not happening according to AGW theory, what's the problem? The net heat flow is from warm to cold, hence the Second Law is satisfied.



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



Remember, heat is a macroscopic statistical quality. Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want. They are not bound in any way by the Second Law, being that the second law only applies to net heat flow in collections of matter.

The physics field of Statistical Mechanics says you are totally wrong. Yet you declare know better than 140 years of well-established physics. Have you or SSDD written up your groundbreaking work in this field, showing how Statistical Mechanics is all wrong, so  that you can collect your Nobel Prize?


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> And as that's not happening according to AGW theory, what's the problem? The net heat flow is from warm to cold, hence the Second Law is satisfied.



Not the way you describe it.  At least when describing the skin.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I don't say so hairball...if you have a problem with this statement take it up with the physics department of Georgia State...



And they say you're full of shit.



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



Again, "heat" and "temperature" have no meaning at the atomic level, hence atoms and photons are free to do whatever they damn please, unconstrained by your misreadings of the Second Law.

The Second Law is about 20 years older than the field of Statistical Mechanics. That "corrects" the original version of the Second Law, in the same way that relativity "corrects" Newtonian physics.

So, when you get a grasp on 140-year-old physics, come back and try again. Or just keep trying to use your mighty will to bend the laws of space and time to agree with you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Remember, heat is a macroscopic statistical quality. Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want. They are not bound in any way by the Second Law, being that the second law only applies to net heat flow in collections of matter.




According to an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...and nothing else.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Remember, heat is a macroscopic statistical quality. Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want. They are not bound in any way by the Second Law, being that the second law only applies to net heat flow in collections of matter.
> 
> The physics field of Statistical Mechanics says you are totally wrong. Yet you declare know better than 140 years of well-established physics. Have you or SSDD written up your groundbreaking work in this field, showing how Statistical Mechanics is all wrong, so that you can collect your Nobel Prize?



I didn't realize that getting a nobel prize was the standard I was aiming for.  The very process you are describing is the reason we don't fully understand how the GHG effect works.   We have more unknowns than we can solve.  

I approach this from a different angle.  I test your beliefs based upon what has happened in the past.  From that perspective, your beliefs do not match reality.  Why? There are more gases in the atmosphere than CO2 and CH4.  The transfer of heat is not well understood.  The timing is not well understood.  The effect of water vapor is not well understood.  The system is more complex and there is more we don't understand than we do understand.  

My problem with all of this is the attempt to shut down debate and analysis.  It is a group think herd mentality that is the antithesis of science.  People like you are nazi's when it comes to this.  The science is far from settled.  The models are flawed.  The models are not science.  Garbage in equals garbage out.  The driving force behind this "social movement" is emotion and politics, not science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't say so hairball...if you have a problem with this statement take it up with the physics department of Georgia State...
> ...


*"Again, "heat" and "temperature" have no meaning at the atomic level, hence atoms and photons are free to do whatever they damn please, unconstrained by your misreadings of the Second Law."*

If this were true, then you have no idea what LWIR is capable of. You have no idea if it will create heat when re-emitted from CO2 or any other gas in our atmosphere.  Your statement flat out falsifies the AGW theroy as you have no means to create heat that you can demonstrate.

Thanks for admitting that AGW is a lie and your pushing it from a political point of view only.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, heat is a macroscopic statistical quality. Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want. They are not bound in any way by the Second Law, being that the second law only applies to net heat flow in collections of matter.
> ...



Bu....Bu......BBUUUUU....Bbuuuuu.....But the science is settled....just ask any cult member..it is settled and has been settled since they got the idea that they could crush capitalism by demonizing CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



They don't seem to grasp the idea that heat is energy...and it exists in a measurable form...and it is real clear that they are under the impression that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to certain forms of energy rather than energy in any form.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



*"they got the idea that they could crush capitalism by demonizing CO2"*

Sadly this has been the UN's dream for decade's..  The IPCC was just a tool to accomplish it. Now it has been exposed and discredited.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> *"they got the idea that they could crush capitalism by demonizing CO2"*
> 
> Sadly this has been the UN's dream for decade's..  The IPCC was just a tool to accomplish it. Now it has been exposed and discredited.



That discredit needs to be hammered home 24/7 for a few years so that all but the true wackos, who will never admit that they have been duped, get the idea...AGW needs to be put on the shelf with eugenics, and phrenology, and bad humours where it belongs...


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2017)

Good luck gents, but I think the only thing that's going to be hammered down is you two and your utterly feckless leader


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Sometimes crick...faith just isn't enough...these government scientists are going to be asked to provide the evidence upon which they have been basing their cries of impending disaster.....and when asked, they are going to have just about as much actual evidence as you do when I ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...which is zero....they aren't going to be able to fool the PhD level skeptics who will be asking the questions...it is going to set back public trust in science for a very long time...


----------



## polarbear (Jan 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > He's right, 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.
> ...





mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > He's right, 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.
> ...



*Whaaat?




*
"_Remember, heat is a macroscopic statistical quality. Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want. They are not bound in any way by the Second Law_"
Reading stuff like this is even more entertaining than watching Chris Mathews on MSNBC.
We all know that "Heat" is energy and is measured as such. So now you claim that energy has no meaning at the atomic level and that the equation  E= h*c/ λ what the energy quantum of a photon is can not be applied when arguing physics in the wonderland of AGW pissics.

You also claim:"_ They are free to exchange energy however they want. They are not bound in any way by the Second Law_"
That would mean that an atom which is in the ground state can transfer energy to another one which is in the excited state.
Do tell me what kind of energy that would be and if you can then you should share that with the scientists at the Princeton Plasma Research Lab.
They are wasting their time to turn minute amounts of matter into a plasma so that they can fuse it, but it takes an enormous amount of energy.
With the insights you gained from AGW you can easily achieve that by pumping lots of energy from lots of atoms in the ground state to fewer atoms which are in the excited state to excite them even more till they turn into a plasma.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 1, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Reading stuff like this is even more entertaining than watching Chris Mathews on MSNBC.



When one of my points is that every single denier is just a brainwashed member of the right-wing-fringe loser political cult, reinforcing that point by openly weeping about those awful liberals and socialists probably isn't your best choice of tactics. Those who know science talk about the science. Those who don't, they cry about politics.



> We all know that "Heat" is energy and is measured as such.  So now you claim that energy has no meaning at the atomic level and that the equation  E= h*c/ λ what the energy quantum of a photon is can not be applied when arguing physics in the wonderland of AGW pissics.



No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy".

How about you respond to what I say, instead of what you wish I'd said? You'll look less dishonest that way.



> You also claim:"_ They are free to exchange energy however they want. They are not bound in any way by the Second Law_"



So when are you writing your paper to explain how the entire field of Statistic Mechanics is totally wrong?

Explain to us exactly what physical mechanism prevents a "hot" atom from radiating a photon towards a "cold" atom. Be precise, no vague handwaving. This ought to be good. Do you perhaps subscribe to SSDD's "intelligent atoms and photons" theory?



> That would mean that an atom which is in the ground state can transfer energy to another one which is in the excited state.



WTF does that have to do with the Second Law and heat flow? I'll answer that. Nothing. It's just another of your loopy deflections. No matter what the topic is, you're throw in some deranged interpretation of some science bit you read somewhere that isn't related to the topic at all, and then declare victory.

The reason people don't respond to you isn't because your brilliance has overwhelmed them. It's because your gibberish is never worth the mental effort it takes to decode it. Nobody cares about what special crank pseudoscience you came up with today.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> I approach this from a different angle.  I test your beliefs based upon what has happened in the past.  From that perspective, your beliefs do not match reality.  Why? There are more gases in the atmosphere than CO2 and CH4.  The transfer of heat is not well understood.  The timing is not well understood. The effect of water vapor is not well understood.  The system is more complex and there is more we don't understand than we do understand.



First, there's no evidence that those things are not well understood. You saying it does not make it true. That's just more of your usual "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Second, perfect knowledge is not required. We don't perfectly understand gravity, yet we launch rockets. According to your standard, we shouldn't have launched rockets until we had absolutely perfect knowledge of gravity. That's not how science works. The standard is "good enough", not "perfection", and climate science is way, way beyond "good enough".



> My problem with all of this is the attempt to shut down debate and analysis.



Then tell your side to stop doing that. Your side is the only side trying to censor the science and silence opposing views.



> It is a group think herd mentality that is the antithesis of science.  People like you are nazi's when it comes to this.



Awww, did we trigger you, Snowflake?

Your side says hilariously stupid crap. Hence, everyone points out you say hilariously stupid crap. That's not censoring you, Snowflake, no matter how much you cry that it is. Nobody is stopping you from saying hilariously stupid crap, and nobody is stopping the normal people from laughing at you. Isn't freedom grand? Odd, how such freedom upsets you so. If you want to people to stop laughing at you, the way to do it isn't by censoring them, it's by not being stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

You lose hairball...but it is appropriate that you go ahead and set the tone for your side of this discussion....there will be great loss of face on the warmer side of this topic over the next few years...I can't say that I will miss you when you disappear out of sheer humiliation when the facts about AGW start coming to light....


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
> 
> 
> > The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy)
> ...


Yes everyone knows nature is irreversible, but I'm surprised you quoted the above definition of the 2nd law. Contrary to the title, that is the Clausius definition of the 2nd law. It is not the entropy definition. The author gives the *classical *physics entropy definition at the end of the article as:
∆S = Q/T always positive for an irreversible process

But the *modern *universal way to define it mathematically comes from statistical mechanics and works with both classical and quantum mechanics:






If there is a substance with certain state variables of volume, pressure and temperature, pi is the number of microstates that give those state variables.

With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Explain to us exactly what physical mechanism prevents a "hot" atom from radiating a photon towards a "cold" atom. Be precise, no vague handwaving.


SSDD, polarbear, and ding are three of a kind.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I approach this from a different angle.  I test your beliefs based upon what has happened in the past.  From that perspective, your beliefs do not match reality.  Why? There are more gases in the atmosphere than CO2 and CH4.  The transfer of heat is not well understood.  The timing is not well understood. The effect of water vapor is not well understood.  The system is more complex and there is more we don't understand than we do understand.
> ...


Given that their models are wrong, I'd say there was plenty of evidence that the GHG effect and all the other variables I mentioned are not well understood.  Given that there models can't explain past climate changes where climate did not do what their models said should have happened I'd say that is plenty of evidence that the GHG effect and all the other variables are not well understood. If we are to believe you, everything is settled and understood.  That just isn't so.  The system is way to complex for that.  

We understand gravity well enough that their models work, lol.  Climate models, not so much.  The only people impeding the debate are you idiots and your high priests.  Snowflake?  That's your response to your herd mentality.  Your are just proving my point.  I have news for you... I am one of the normal people.  I've been laughed at before, it's not so bad, but given that you believe that should matter and given that you are in the minority, they are laughing at you and your religious climate change fanatics.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.



Modern definition = unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...untestable hypothesis.....nothing more....nothing less.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Modern definition = unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...untestable hypothesis.....nothing more....nothing less.


You are wrong. The modern form of entropy is so fundamental and rigorous that it is almost axiomatic. It's results are observable, measurable, and testable 
Now you really don't believe entropy is a correct expression of the second law although you promoted it in prior posts. Go figure.
For that matter, you really don't believe 99.9% of the hard sciences do you.
You apply your mantra "unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable" only to the science you personally don't want to believe in, but ignore your mantra for things that you think make your shallow case against AGW. In doing so you reject all science and scientists for the last 150 years. Fortunately science doesn't abide by your mantra, otherwise there would be no lasers, GPS systems, internet ........ etc. It's hard for me to imagine the intellectual corruption of your mind.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Reading stuff like this is even more entertaining than watching Chris Mathews on MSNBC.
> ...


No problem, but first let`s not move the goal posts as you just did (as usual):
In post #247 you said"_Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want._"
And now you are trying to load in temperature:"_No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy"_.
Why? Because there is no way to deny that heat=energy. I never said that you said that heat=energy.
* I did *and you damn well know that, but for some reason  that fact can`t fit that into your* A*lice*G*oesto*W*onderland theory where you have "hot" and "cold" atoms.
I have never seen any physics text book that calls an atom in the excited state a "hot atom" and one that is in the ground state a "cold atom". If there is, they probably have pictures of little atoms in there that look like Walt Disney cartoon characters, some are sweating and the cold ones are shivering.
Seriously how would one of your "cold" atoms emit a photon?
It can only do that when it`s not in the ground state, but only if it is in the excited state, like one of your Disney World "hot atoms"


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2017)

polarbear said:


> No problem, but first let`s not move the goal posts as you just did (as usual):
> In post #247 you said"_Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want._"
> And now you are trying to load in temperature:"_No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy"_.
> Why? Because there is no way to deny that heat=energy. I never said that you said that heat=energy.
> ...


I agree with Mamooth. Your posts are confused to the extent that I thought it was amusing.  I think Mamooth is running circles around you. Perhaps you should think a bit more carefully about what your'e trying to say before typing it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > No problem, but first let`s not move the goal posts as you just did (as usual):
> ...



Says the guy who believes in models over reality....you and the crazy cat lady make quite the pair.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > With the second law defined in terms of the modern definition, there is no requirement that thermal radiation is constrained from striking an object at any temperature. In other words, energy flow between two objects can be two way without a problem, as long as the total number of microstates of the two objects always increases. That last sentence results in the colder object warming and the warmer object cooling.
> ...


Common Core Physics....


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Says the guy who believes in models over reality....you and the crazy cat lady make quite the pair.


Pair? We are just two among millions who know how models are used to design the stuff that you buy. We are the norm in science understanding. You and your friends are the crazy ones who make up phony "science" or read it in blogs and think it's real.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2017)

You know, as soon as we get into the smart photons again, I just skip over the whole thing. Many pages from physics books have been posted showing how silly SSDD's opinions on this are. Does no good, he just comes back with the same idiocy. The only thing it is good for is that when we see someone join in his fantasies we know immediatly that they are also full of shit.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> You know, as soon as we get into the smart photons again, I just skip over the whole thing. Many pages from physics books have been posted showing how silly SSDD's opinions on this are. Does no good, he just comes back with the same idiocy. The only thing it is good for is that when we see someone join in his fantasies we know immediatly that they are also full of shit.


As I said before, SSDD is intellectually corrupt. He is smart enough to know better, but he refuses to admit well known science for reasons that are unfathomable. However the others aren't so much intellectually corrupt. They are simply ignorant, but don't realize it. They think science is a word game, and by putting science sounding words into sentences, they are making a cogent point. It's a sad state of affairs that millions are like them, especially those that are elected politicians.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature bject to a higher temperature object.
> ...


Let's talk in simple terms... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:  there is a cost for all mass to energy and energy to mass conversions, right?  Usable energy/heat will be lost for all transfers in form.  Right?   Isn't this the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf
> ...


Help me understand quantum mechanics in simple terms: we cannot know the position and velocity of a particle, right?  The act of measuring causes the particle to choose, right?  Particles are being forced to choose all of the time, right?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


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



Interesting point....they know we are peeking so they show up in another position, but they don't know to move from warm to cool...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Let's talk in simple terms... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is a cost for all mass to energy and energy to mass conversions, right? Usable energy/heat will be lost for all transfers in form. Right? Isn't this the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law?


Conversions from mass to energy are at the nuclear level. A bunch of plutonium converts radiation byproducts to heat. But that isn't the fundamental principle of the 2nd law. The second law can simply be stated that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I wasn't trying to make a specific point, I was trying to find common ground to progress the conversation.  Nature is constantly forcing particles to choose, right?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Let's talk in simple terms... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is a cost for all mass to energy and energy to mass conversions, right? Usable energy/heat will be lost for all transfers in form. Right? Isn't this the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law?
> ...


The 2nd law seems to cover a bunch of things, lol.  I have always viewed it in its simplest terms as there is no such thing as a free lunch.  There is a cost for every exchange and that cost is a loss of usable energy.  If we started from that position how does that inform us that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects.  Is this the domain of QM?  Or does QM not really apply since nature is constantly forcing particles to choose?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Let's talk in simple terms... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: there is a cost for all mass to energy and energy to mass conversions, right? Usable energy/heat will be lost for all transfers in form. Right? Isn't this the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law?
> ...



Neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from warm objects to cool objects....


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Help me understand quantum mechanics in simple terms: we cannot know the position and velocity of a particle, right?


We certainly can know both, but not to an infinite degree of accuracy. 


ding said:


> The act of measuring causes the particle to choose, right? Particles are being forced to choose all of the time, right?


When photons  are considered en masse, they are best described as waves and can undergo diffraction when dealing with obstacles near their wavelength. The waves don't choose anything. When the waves interact with matter, they act like particles, but are statistically confined to move where waves would go.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> The 2nd law seems to cover a bunch of things, lol. I have always viewed it in its simplest terms as there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost for every exchange and that cost is a loss of usable energy. If we started from that position how does that inform us that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. Is this the domain of QM? Or does QM not really apply since nature is constantly forcing particles to choose?


Quantum mechanics is not needed for the simple statement of the second law. It was an observation. However if your question is how does entropy explain the movement of heat, that does involve QM.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd law seems to cover a bunch of things, lol. I have always viewed it in its simplest terms as there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost for every exchange and that cost is a loss of usable energy. If we started from that position how does that inform us that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. Is this the domain of QM? Or does QM not really apply since nature is constantly forcing particles to choose?
> ...


Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right?  In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?


Right. Energy can fly any way it wants microscopically as long as the final outcome is that heat does not spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects,


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but on a large scale we don't see diametrically opposed outcomes, right? In other words, practically speaking on a large scale, we don't observe heat spontaneously moving from cold to warmer objects, right?
> ...


Then I don't understand the disagreement over this.  What am I missing?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



he wants back radiation to be able to warm the surface of the earth as the AGW hypothesis claims.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I think I get that.  What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so.  Or if he is proposing something else.  It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects.  So what else am I missing?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


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



He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


I didn't get that from his comments.  Maybe we should have him confirm that position.  That seems pretty unreasonable.  A more reasonable position would be that IR can be a factor when solar is not (albeit a very small factor).


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.


That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.
> ...


Let's try to put that aside.  Can you explain what you are trying to say to me in very simple terms?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > He is claiming that heat isn't energy...and therefore energy is free to move from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth) (on a statistical basis) if it feels like it.
> ...




So you are acknowledging that there is no such thing as back radiation and that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool objects to warm objects?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Let's try to put that aside. Can you explain what you are trying to say to me in very simple terms?


This is about as simple as I can make it:
Every object at temperatures we find on earth radiates electromagnetic energy everywhere all the time. That energy can strike any object in it's path. Every scientist understands that.

However a hotter object always radiates more energy to a colder object than the colder object radiates to the hotter object. It is easy to see that the net flow of energy is always from the hotter object to the colder object.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


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




Watch out for strawman arguments, especially from SSDD.

All objects radiate according to their temperature all the time. Two objects will pass net energy (heat) in the direction of warm to cold because the warm object is radiating more and at higher energy frequencies.

SSDD thinks that objects only produce the net difference of radiation, all from the warmer object, with the radiation that cancels out simply not being created at all, by an unknowable mechanism. eg two objects at the same temp stop radiating altogether.

While we can derive how much radiation is produced by each object according to its energy, we cannot ignore that both objects are radiating at the SAME TIME. Yes, energy is flowing in both directions but HEAT only flows from warm to cold.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try to put that aside. Can you explain what you are trying to say to me in very simple terms?
> ...


Sure.  It is the net flow which determines direction of flow.  I agree.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.


I agree with this too.  So what is you guys disagreement?


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.




Another important concept to keep in mind is that both the Earth and atmosphere are being warmed by the Sun. It is not the much simpler case of both cooling as fast as they can.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

IanC said:


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


Ok, they don't really produce anything, right?  This is just about flow and transfer of energy, right?  What he wrote in post #295 is accurate.  I'm not sure this isn't just a misunderstanding.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.
> ...


Agreed.  GHG don't add energy.  They retain/slow the transfer of energy, right?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 2, 2017)

polarbear said:


> No problem, but first let`s not move the goal posts as you just did (as usual):



Please don't project your specialty tactic on to me.



> In post #247 you said"_Heat has no meaning on the level of single atoms and photons. They are free to exchange energy however they want._"
> And now you are trying to load in temperature:"_No, I said "heat" and "temperature" have no such meaning for a single atom. It's only your claim I said "energy"_.



In another post on this thread I say

"Again, "heat" and "temperature" have no meaning at the atomic level,"

So it's very clear that has been my position all along, and that you're incorrect when you say I attempted to "load it in". Don't tell me what I supposedly believe, especially when what I write says the opposite.



> Why? Because there is no way to deny that heat=energy. I never said that you said that heat=energy.



This bores me, your endless attempts to deflect with meaningless word games. I'm not going to play such games. I'll talk about science, and you can either choose to join me, or not.



> I did and you damn well know that, but for some reason  that fact can`t fit that into your* A*lice*G*oesto*W*onderland theory where you have "hot" and "cold" atoms.
> I have never seen any physics text book that calls an atom in the excited state a "hot atom" and one that is in the ground state a "cold atom".
> 
> If there is, they probably have pictures of little atoms in there that look like Walt Disney cartoon characters, some are sweating and the cold ones are shivering.
> ...



I should care about that deflection ... why? It's part of SSDD's crazy theory. Ask him.

The topic here is that some people here are claiming that a colder atmosphere is incapable of radiating IR energy back down to earth. So, try talking about that. Let's start simple. Does backradiation exist? Yes or no. Then we'll take it from there.

And yes, I remember your bad telescope experiment. It was meaningless because lenses and parabolic dishes don't focus diffuse radiation, and therefore the telescope should not have focused the diffuse backradiation, which is exactly what happened.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> I think I get that.  What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so.  Or if he is proposing something else.  It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects.  So what else am I missing?



"Heat" is a macro statistical quality. "Heat" must go from warm-to-cold.

However, "energy" is a quantum-level quality, and is not subject to that restriction. Cold-to-warm, warm-to-cold, both are possible.

"Heat flow" is sort of a sum of "energy flow". With gazillions of quantum-level energy exchange events happening, the cold-to-warm quantum-level energy flow events will always be outnumbered by warm-to-cold quantum-level energy flow events, so on the macro scale, the net heat flow will always be warm-to-cold.

Welcome to the physics discipline of Statistical Mechanics.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I think I get that.  What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so.  Or if he is proposing something else.  It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects.  So what else am I missing?
> ...


Agreed.  So how does back radiation add energy to the system?


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.
> ...




CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.

This is wrong of course. Unfortunately some people have used the real mistakes to deny any warming influence at all for CO2. 

CO2 intercepts surface radiation before it escapes to space. Molecular collision converts this energy into a warmer atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere has a smaller temperature differential with the surface which reduces heat loss, which in turn allows solar insulation to warm the surface to a higher temperature.

The energy required to do this comes from radiation NOT LOST TO SPACE.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I agree.  As near as I can tell his post #295 agrees with this too.  I guess I'll have to wait to see what he says.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

Crap!!! 2017 is starting badly. I peeked at Mamooth's last post and I agree with him.

Scary.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




???

The main disagreement here is with SSDD's bizarroland version of physics. I thought that was what you were talking about.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> I agree. As near as I can tell his post #295 agrees with this too. I guess I'll have to wait to see what he says.


Yes, as far as my post 295, I think IanC  post 296 and 299 are in agreement. And Mamooth #303 is in agreement.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.
> 
> This is wrong of course. Unfortunately some people have used the real mistakes to deny any warming influence at all for CO2.


I agree that it is wrong of course, but I did not realize that CAGW science thought there was an infinite series. Who thinks that on this board. Even if you find a way to think of it as an infinite series, it would converge very rapidly to a finite number. Is this what they mean  by accelerations?

I thought accelerations were related to a warming which melts more ice, thereby reducing reflections of short wave EM, and increasing darker patches that absorb more short wave EM.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


No.  I'm just trying to understand what the disagreement is all about.  It seems to me that we should all be able to find the common ground then step out and identify where the real differences lie.  I could not imagine that we could not all get on the same page if we went back and worked through the simple stuff first.  Which it seems like we did and are all in agreement.  Now the fun starts, but at least we are now working from a common starting point.  I am no expert in this but I do have enough knowledge that I can spot incongruities that can be discussed to make sure there is not a communication gap.  I think that has been the biggest problem with discussions like this which are more scientific in nature.  It is real easy to misunderstand the position of another.  The thing that helps me the most is the fact that whatever we say here won't make a hill of beans difference.  CO2 emissions will continue to climb as long as population continues to climb and we will eventually find out who's right in due time.  I don't buy into the catastrophic fate argument and am more than willing to let nature and science take its course.  Everything will resolve itself as it always does.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.


Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
_It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. *Not energy, it's heat.* _
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
_That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll._
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "*flow"* from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat *conduction*.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy  in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.





_
_


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
> But I can`t let you get away with this:
> In your post # 201 you wrote:
> _It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. *Not energy, it's heat.* _
> ...


This is what you don't understand in the discussion:
All heat is energy. Not all energy is heat.
Read it again with that distinction in mind.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CAGW science has put forward a simplified explanation that is deceptive. They say CO2 captures CO2 specific surface radiation and returns half of it to the surface, imply that it is an infinite series so that the energy multiplies.
> ...


IanC is right and this is exactly what Crick was arguing when I was talking about the IPCC`s idea to use 1/2 of the watts/m^2 CO2 radiates down regardless of the angle of incidence.
He figures since the reflected portion has to go somewhere it is used again after that going up, then down, up again and so on...by definition an infinite series where E= ∑ of a harmonic series 1/x


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> No. I'm just trying to understand what the disagreement is all about. It seems to me that we should all be able to find the common ground then step out and identify where the real differences lie. I could not imagine that we could not all get on the same page if we went back and worked through the simple stuff first. Which it seems like we did and are all in agreement. Now the fun starts, but at least we are now working from a common starting point.


Since you understand that CO2  back-radiates to the surface and causes the earth to lose less heat because of that blanketing effect, you should now understand that SSDD, and a number of his minions do not believe that back-radiation exists. They got that conclusion from a faulty understanding of thermodynamics. It should also be understood that water vapor is the major GHG and has the major blanket effect.

That is where the real differences lie, and makes it impossible to get to step 1 with SSDD et al, let alone step 2, where the "fun begins".

As far as step 2, I generally don't get into arguments with others. I think the CO2 rise is definitely not trivial, but I have no idea of what it's warming effect will be in the future. I have not read the IPCC documents.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > When comes to the atmosphere and earth, the hotter earth radiates energy out at around 400 watts/m^2. And the radiation from the cooler atmosphere radiates back to earth around 330 watts/m^2. So the net radiation is from the earth outward. The atmosphere does not warm the earth at all. What it does is keeps the earth from loosing as much heat as it would if the atmosphere wasn't there.
> ...




English has multiple meanings for the same words. Energy is a very general term, as is heat. Heat transfer in solids is different than in liquids, or gases.

Much of the energy in oceans is stored in currents. Air not only has currents but much of its total energy is stored as potential in the gravity field.

Temperature is a tricky concept because it is not only just a macroscopic feature but also is an incomplete indicator of total energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2017)

The only contribution CO2 makes to the temperature of the planet is the additional mass it adds to the atmosphere...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but it is not dependent on the composition of the atmosphere beyond what the individual components add to the mass...and it is no coincidence that the calculations for the atmospheric thermal effect, combined with incoming solar radiation accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the calculations for the greenhouse effect only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
> ...


WhatTF !
*I said heat is energy !!!* I never said that *all energy* is heat.
I also said that  energy is expressed in  SI units [joules] as the base unit, including heat radiation. Because you and your cronies here kept insisting that *"it`s heat, not energy"*
Talk about lying and denying. You should have done like H.Clinton and use bleachbit to wipe your posts. So now after you got cornered with your weird definition what heat is you resort to other forms of energy because you don`t have the foggiest notion what they might be....and think you found a fog bank to hide from exposure.
Coming here to read the stuff you,crick etc write here is just as amusing as watching the likes of Madonna freaking out after the election.
IanC wondered once why I don`t go after SSDD. I never answered him but now might be the right time I do. It`s because he is a weed up your asses better than you and the rest of the AGW freaks aspire to, can ever hope to be to the rest of us..and I hope he never quits !!


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The only contribution CO2 makes to the temperature of the planet is the additional mass it adds to the atmosphere...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but it is not dependent on the composition of the atmosphere beyond what the individual components add to the mass...and it is no coincidence that the calculations for the atmospheric thermal effect, combined with incoming solar radiation accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the calculations for the greenhouse effect only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.




You need to articulate your ideas. I somewhat agree with you that the mass of gas in a gravity field is the framework for a range of surface temperatures. The composition of individual gases also affect the energy stored.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




That's why I have never even considered putting him on ignore. He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. I'm just trying to understand what the disagreement is all about. It seems to me that we should all be able to find the common ground then step out and identify where the real differences lie. I could not imagine that we could not all get on the same page if we went back and worked through the simple stuff first. Which it seems like we did and are all in agreement. Now the fun starts, but at least we are now working from a common starting point.
> ...


Let's not forget O2 and N2, right?  How well understood is the GHG effect from those gases?  As for water vapor, the effect of water vapor as a feedback (positive or negative) seems to be greatly misunderstood at the moment.  At least to me it does.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

polarbear said:


> *I said heat is energy !!!* I never said that *all energy* is heat.


I know you didn't. All I was saying is that when you read SSDD's and my posts, I distinguish between the two, but SSDD does not when he cites the 2nd law. Here is the distinction you should look for in my dialog with SSDD.

SSDD: *Energy *cannot spontaneously move from colder to hotter objects.
Wuwei: *Heat *cannot spontaneously move from colder to hotter objects.

SSDD goes on to say that since photons are energy, a photon from a cold object *cannot *hit a warmer object. I presumed you thought SSDD is wrong, but since you really flew off the handle and brought unrelated politics into it, I'm now thinking that maybe you agree with SSDD. Do you agree with SSDD that photon radiation from a colder object is constrained from striking warmer objects?

Here, let me reword it laboriously in terms of energy in a way that you might understand.

Wuwei: The spontaneous energy of blackbody radiation is *always exchanged* between objects whereas energy from the hotter body always exceeds energy from the colder body with the result that energy spontaneously flows from the hotter to the colder body.

SSDD: The spontaneous energy of blackbody radiation is *never exchanged *between objects. Radiation from the hotter body can hit the colder body. The colder body cannot not emit radiation at all to the hotter body.

I hope this is clear to you. If not, emotional outbursts of misunderstanding does not become you.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Let's not forget O2 and N2, right? How well understood is the GHG effect from those gases? As for water vapor, the effect of water vapor as a feedback (positive or negative) seems to be greatly misunderstood at the moment. At least to me it does.


Only gasses with at least three molecules can vibrate at thermal wavelengths. O2 and N2 are invisible to those wavelengths. 

Yes. Water vapor is more complex as a GHG than CO2 because it can exist in 3 phases, water, ice, vapor. The vapor concentration is highly dependent on local temperature. There is an virtual infinite supply. It can quickly change it's concentration by evaporation or precipitation. Global climate models such as Trenberth's have to somehow average through this, but the error bars have to be large.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Your ideas are on solid ground but it`s always advantageous to view them from another vantage point. That`s why I also like reading what he has to say.
Like just now when you discussed the effect of an atmosphere
Remember your thread about the moon?
Suppose it were under a very thin 100% volume/volume CO2 gas layer.
That would of course absorb some IR going out, but would also conduct heat. That layer would increase the surface area of the overall radiating sphere and thus increase the amount of energy that this sphere radiates. Agree ?
The question is now what is the net effect of this CO2 layer in terms of exact numbers, after taking the amount it absorbed into account.
Leave aside all the rest of it which complicates that question, like water vapor and clouds etc. and how they affect the overall outcome, because all of that, especially their negative magnitude is just as verboten in AGW as doubting the accuracy of the data they feed into their models.
Too bad the guys at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab stopped short at doing that when they experimented with using CO2 in the double pane window gap:






The U value per deg K inside/outside temperature includes heat loss by conduction and radiation.
But it does show that it is a logarithmically decreasing function as the gap (the CO2 layer) is increased. There is not much of a drop by *doubling *the thickness of the CO2 layer.

(In spectroscopic analysis we use variable path length cuvettes for low concentrations because doubling the path length L is like doubling the Concentration C since A=ε*L *C (Beer Lambert).)

And that is *with 100% unadulterated CO2 not just 0.04 %* as we have been discussing.
Also the 2 glass panes help quite a bit dropping the U value down to what it is even without the CO2. A double pane window with a 1/2 inch gap filled with air has a typical U value of 0.37.
The U value for CO2 even at a 100% concentration is only 0.07 watts per m^2 per deg K better than just air.
Heinz Hug found a similar ratio which is 1/80th of what the IPCC uses.


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




Inert or single bond gases are a better choice for Windows because they don't interact with IR.

A CO2 atmosphere on the moon would illustrate my point about stored potential energy. The fourteen day long night would leave the CO2 a frozen crust on the surface. The 14 day long day would quickly heat the CO2 and puff it up until it reached escape velocity.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



About the "CO2 moon", which was  meant to serve as a mathematical model only to single out the effect the CO2 has, without any unnecessary interference like water etc. and I did say that thinking you would understand it as such. Obviously not.
It also was not my intention to discuss what makes a better window. The point was that the numbers for 100% CO2 instead of air in the gap are very close, within 0.07 w/(K*m^2). 
Too bad that you decided to sidestep that as well. That`s okay and I am not really surprised you did. Most of the people here don`t want to crunch numbers and equations. It`s easier for them to huff and puff buzz words picked&pasted from wikipedia web pages without really understanding the associated concepts and  equations. Discussing physics here is as amusing as being challenged by somebody who isn`t sure at which end the bullets come out of a gun.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Let's not forget O2 and N2, right? How well understood is the GHG effect from those gases? As for water vapor, the effect of water vapor as a feedback (positive or negative) seems to be greatly misunderstood at the moment. At least to me it does.
> ...


Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?


Yes.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?
> ...


Ok, does that cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere? Let me ask that a different way... does that affect our temperature?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Ok, does that cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere?


I wouldn't use the word "trapped." There is a forever changing turbulence that keeps the temperature from straying too far from norm. There, of course is a temperature gradient from the warm earth to the colder higher altitudes (lapse rate). The IR emissions between higher and thinner layers play a strong part in the lapse rate and the amount of heat sent to outer space.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, does that cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere?
> ...


Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?


Yes, the warm earth heats the atmosphere, including O2 and N2. The earth and atmosphere are continually radiating the heat everywhere. Eventually 160 W/m^2 leaves the earth to outer space to balance the short wave incoming radiation from the sun at the same 160 W/m^2.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?
> ...


And water vapor?  What effect does that have?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?
> ...


Do O2 and N2 have the same  conversion (W/m^2 to C) to associated temperature that radiative forcing has?  If so or not, what are those conversions?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 2, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Using the basic equations found in the glass/fill evaluation one can show the IPCC's position and assumptions to be very wrong.. If their computations are inflated by a factor of 80/1, then the empirical effect of CO2 on our atmosphere at 0.04ppm is so small that it could not be distinguished from noise in our climatic system.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The wave lengths are different therefore their total power levels are very different.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2017)

polarbear said:


> The point was that the numbers for 100% CO2 instead of air in the gap are very close, within 0.07 w/(K*m^2).




Might the difference be attributed to the difference in density between CO2 and air?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2017)

IanC said:


> He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.



Observation suggests that it is more likely that you are wrong....


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.
> ...




Then start producing these observations that support your position.

Can I make a suggestion where to begin? You have claimed that IR detectors can only work if they are cooled. Show us the data where they read zero until the tipping point of equal temperature, and then continue to show increased readings as the instruments gets colder. That is your theory, right? Gross flow according to temperature differential?

Show us those results and we will have to take you seriously. It should be simple enough. Just turn on the instrument and record the data as it cools.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Good point but poorly presented.

A bucket of lukewarm water has more 'energy' than a AA battery. Which is more useful to do work?

CO2 theory considers a watt of disordered IR from the atmosphere to be the equivalent to a watt of highly ordered shortwave solar input. Their 'energy' may be equal but their ability to do work is not.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



WTF?!?

Your CO2 Moon example is untenable. CO2 snow on one side and escape velocity on the other. If you wanted me to pretend that the temperature wouldnt affect the atmosphere then you should have said so. You said a very thin layer. What does that mean? One kilometer, twenty five kilometers? One Km would have negligible effect on the surface area, 25Km would be what? About one percent? What would be the lapse rate, ignoring zero height in the dark and infinity (escape velocity) in the light? What is the percentage of CO2 specific surface IR produced on cold and hot sides?

If you consider that sidestepping you are being hypocritical. Your record of answering my pointed questions is sketchy at best.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Using the basic equations found in the glass/fill evaluation one can show the IPCC's position and assumptions to be very wrong.. If their computations are inflated by a factor of 80/1, then the empirical effect of CO2 on our atmosphere at 0.04ppm is so small that it could not be distinguished from noise in our climatic system.


CO2 is not indistinguishable from noise.
Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation
_The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams....
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams._​
A way to calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.
12.9/3.0 = 4.3.​The mass of CO2 is about a quarter of the mass of water vapor:

However when it comes to scattering IR, it's the relative number of molecules that is important, not the mass. The conversion to number is done by the relative molecular weights in moles:
moles CO2 = 44.1
moles H2O = 33.0​
Since CO2 is heavier, it's effect should be reduced by the ratio of moles:
Ratio 4.3 * 44/33 = 5.73​
What that means is that *for every 5.7 molecules of water vapor, there is one molecule of CO2*. In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any “gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.

Bottom line: CO2 is not indistinguishable from noise. If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 3, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I agree that it is wrong of course, but I did not realize that CAGW science thought there was an infinite series. Who thinks that on this board.



1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ....

is an infinite series, but it converges to "2".

Water vapor feedback works the same way.

Oh, I suggest avoiding the use of "CAGW". Only WUWT devotees use that bizarre non-scientific term, and using it makes people think you're one of them.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 3, 2017)

polarbear said:


> That would of course absorb some IR going out, but would also conduct heat. That layer would increase the surface area of the overall radiating sphere and thus increase the amount of energy that this sphere radiates. Agree ?



Of course not.

Leaving out all the issues Ian raised about the practicality of your system, it still fails on a basic level. The expanded atmospheric sphere can't create or destroy energy. After it reaches equilibrium, it will be radiating the same amount of energy as before. Once in equilibrium, energy-in equals energy-out. Energy-in hasn't changed, so energy-out won't change.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The point was that the numbers for 100% CO2 instead of air in the gap are very close, within 0.07 w/(K*m^2).
> ...


Some of it yes. That is why Argon is also a better gas filling than air resulting in a better U value than just air because it has a higher density. But that could lead to draw the wrong conclusions when you consider what affects the rate of heat conduction. The lower the gas pressure, the lower the density and as a consequence the rate of heat conduction drops. Dewar flasks take advantage of that but with a window surface in the order of m^2 surface area a below ambient pressure it would be a problem to prevent it from imploding. The research-techies in the U value tweaking business say that the higher density gas is better because it is more viscous ergo less molecular motion.
They do have a point there because Argon filled windows are also good sound insulators.

Aside from all the above the U value is a composite of heat conduction and IR transmittance and if that composite for 100% CO2 is only 0.07 w/(K*m^2) lower than just air that does say something about the overall combined insulating ability of CO2.
Bear in mind that insulating ability is expressed as the "R-value" which is the exact opposite of the U value, but the U value is the standard for windows because it`s more convenient to calculate energy loss.
The standard temperature gradient used for U-value measurements is 24 C
So now you can see that the difference for 100% CO2 and air at 24 C is only 1.68 Watts per m^2.
At 14 C ( the IPCC "normal average") it`s half of that, only 0.98 watts per m^2 less than air at the same path length and using 100% CO2.
After you extrapolate that on a log scale down to 0.04% CO2 the difference between air with no CO2 and air with 0.04% CO2 is of no more significance.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 3, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Aside from all the above the U value is a composite of heat conduction and IR transmittance and if that composite for 100% CO2 is only 0.07 w/(K*m^2) lower than just air that does say something about the overall combined insulating ability of CO2.



Your windowpane example is meaningless, as it fails to account for how the atmosphere works. You did a lot of calculations, but your setup was totally wrong, so your conclusions are nonsense. Nobody ever said "More CO2 means the air is more insulating". That's your bad strawman, so the fact that you disproved it means nothing.

At low altitudes, CO2 primarily loses heat by conduction.

At high altitudes, with few molecular collisions, CO2 will primarily lose heat to space by radiation.

It's the high altitudes that are changing with increased CO2. The highest radiating layer is getting higher, so there are more layers of atmosphere that heat has to be pushed through, so temperature at the bottom has to get warmer to do that. It's much like putting another blanket on the bed. More insulation means a higher temperature at the heat source.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


to be clear, the argument has been in here and remains that GHGs make the earth surface warmer.  The AGW crowd, and others use the term back radiation in an effort to validate that claim.  And I will remain constant that that is cow manure. There is no observed empirical data to show that happens.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 3, 2017)

jc456 said:


> here is no observed empirical data to show that happens.



You mean other than the direct measurements of backradiation that anyone can now make with easily affordable consumer electronics?

The nonsense you babble is literally every bit as crazy as flat earther babble.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2017)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > here is no observed empirical data to show that happens.
> ...


and yet still no empirical data right?  none zip nadda.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 3, 2017)

jc456 said:


> and yet still no empirical data right?  none zip nadda.



jc, that lie was old the first hundred times you mewled it out.

We could post the data again, for the hundredth time, but you'd just piss yourself and run again, so what's the point?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 3, 2017)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > and yet still no empirical data right?  none zip nadda.
> ...


yeah i know you say that all the time, and yet you fail every time.  It isn't just me asking for it right?  So had it actually been provided all of us would have seen that.  The fact is you have nothing to show backradiation or that it can make the surface warmer.

Again, if your position were indeed true, then the surface temps would be in a perpetual loop.  I explained that many moons ago to you.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 3, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


No it`s not. All the statements you made are absurd.
With a thin layer that has a barometric pressure of 10 mm Hg the only places where you would have dry ice are at the 2 poles and in craters that never get sunlight..
Everywhere else where the temperature is above - 120 C that won`t happen (vapor pressure of CO2 at > -120 = > 10 mm Hg). Anyhow why are you insisting to use the lunar cycle of our moon for a mathematical model ?...unless you wanted to avoid thinking what would happen...as you obviously did when you say that the CO2 would reach escape velocity on the sun-lit side.
I would like to see you making a 2.38 km per second hypersonic projectile out of dry ice by shining sunlight on it. If you can you could get a job at DARPA right now because that would solve all their problems in that area.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



What can a very narrow band of LWIR do to our atmosphere? Is the energy actually able to do work and create heat or is it thwarted by other atmospheric gases?

The ability of CO2 and its LWIR are not giving the 'work' that most CAGW believe it should. Empirical evidence show us that it is not.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?
> ...


How much does O2 and N2 warm the earth?  Do O2 and N2 have the same conversion (W/m^2 to C) to associated temperature that radiative forcing has? If so or not, what are those conversions?  And water vapor? What effect does that have?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> How much does O2 and N2 warm the earth? Do O2 and N2 have the same conversion (W/m^2 to C) to associated temperature that radiative forcing has? If so or not, what are those conversions? And water vapor? What effect does that have?


N2 and O2 don't warm the earth. The only thing that warms the earth is the sun. Water vapor is a GHG and is the major factor that prevents the earth from cooling.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > How much does O2 and N2 warm the earth? Do O2 and N2 have the same conversion (W/m^2 to C) to associated temperature that radiative forcing has? If so or not, what are those conversions? And water vapor? What effect does that have?
> ...


In post #327 I asked, "Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?"

In post #328 you replied, "yes"

In post #329 I asked, "Ok, does that cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere? Let me ask that a different way... does that affect our temperature?"

In post #330 you replied, "I wouldn't use the word "trapped." There is a forever changing turbulence that keeps the temperature from straying too far from norm. There, of course is a temperature gradient from the warm earth to the colder higher altitudes (lapse rate). The IR emissions between higher and thinner layers play a strong part in the lapse rate and the amount of heat sent to outer space."

So are you saying that O2 and N2 can be heated by convection and not cause any temperature effect in the atmosphere?  What happened to the heat?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2017)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > here is no observed empirical data to show that happens.
> ...




Fooling yourself with electronics hardly amounts to direct measurement of non existent back radiation...it does, however, identify you as an idiot who probably shouldn't be allowed to touch anything more technical than a popsicle stick.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2017)

jc456 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


I understand your position.  I am trying to understand his.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 4, 2017)

The battle over CAGW is boiled down to what 'work' can be shown to be directly attributed to mans contribution of CO2 to our atmosphere. Or what 'work' does the LWIR actually do?

Irrespective of photon travel (hot to cold or cold to hot) and that argument... The NET loss or gain has not been seen in empirical observed evidence. there is no empirical link..


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2017)

ding said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


However, he doesn't understand it.  He is just a parrot.  Parrots only repeat.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> The battle over CAGW is boiled down to what 'work' can be shown to be directly attributed to mans contribution of CO2 to our atmosphere. Or what 'work' does the LWIR actually do?
> 
> Irrespective of photon travel (hot to cold or cold to hot) and that argument... The NET loss or gain has not been seen in empirical observed evidence. there is no empirical link..


^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^^^


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2017)

ding said:


> In post #327 I asked, "Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?"
> 
> In post #328 you replied, "yes"
> 
> ...


There seems to be a disconnect here and I'm not sure what it is. I think the most important thing I said is,


Wuwei said:


> N2 and O2 don't warm the earth. The only thing that warms the earth is the sun. Water vapor is a GHG and is the major factor that prevents the earth from cooling.


The sun will warm plants and earth to a certain extent, but the most important thing is the warming of the oceans where the short wave radiation can penetrate much more deeply. The ocean dissipates it's heat at the surface through evaporation, convection and long wave radiation.

Convection and evaporation are not impeded by GHG's, but the long wave radiation is. The GHG's scatter the LWR in all directions. Some of it is scattered back to the ocean.

It's the last sentence that many people on this board, who don't understand or believe science, reject. The following very well established factors that have been measured without controversy must be answered by those people.

The average temperature of the earth is 15C.
According to well known physics, this would cause 400W/m^2 to be radiated toward space.
The sun only brings 160 W/m^2 to the earth.
If the earth is radiating that much energy above it's input, it would freeze. What causes this discrepancy?
The answer from a physicist is that the GHG's back-scatter most of that radiation.
The answer from SSDD and his minions is that the GHG's stop or cancel most of that radiation.

A physicist would think they are wrong, but it doesn't really matter. Either way the short wave radiation is impeded by the same amount, by the same thing, GHG's.

So, the danger of excess GHG's is the same either way.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > In post #327 I asked, "Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?"
> ...


I appreciate what you are saying here but I'd like to understand how much temperature in the atmosphere on any given day is due to the other gases. After all they are 99% of the atmosphere, right?  We can talk about back radiation later. I'd like to get a feel for the magnitude of the components. I'm not saying that o2 and n2 are trapping gas. I'm trying to understand how they fit in the big picture and by that I mean their contribution to temperature on a day to day basis. Can you help with that?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2017)

ding said:


> I appreciate what you are saying here but I'd like to understand how much temperature in the atmosphere on any given day is due to the other gases. After all they are 99% of the atmosphere, right? We can talk about back radiation later. I'd like to get a feel for the magnitude of the components. I'm not saying that o2 and n2 are trapping gas. I'm trying to understand how they fit in the big picture and by that I mean their contribution to temperature on a day to day basis. Can you help with that?


I'm not sure I understand your question. I would say that 99% of the atmospheric temperature is in N2 and O2. 
GHG's may pick up radiant heat from the earth, but that heat is immediately mixed with all other gasses.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I appreciate what you are saying here but I'd like to understand how much temperature in the atmosphere on any given day is due to the other gases. After all they are 99% of the atmosphere, right? We can talk about back radiation later. I'd like to get a feel for the magnitude of the components. I'm not saying that o2 and n2 are trapping gas. I'm trying to understand how they fit in the big picture and by that I mean their contribution to temperature on a day to day basis. Can you help with that?
> ...


Ok. So on a day to day basis it is a fairly significant component of our atmospheric temperature.  does it dissipate that temperature every day?


----------



## polarbear (Jan 4, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from all the above the U value is a composite of heat conduction and IR transmittance and if that composite for 100% CO2 is only 0.07 w/(K*m^2) lower than just air that does say something about the overall combined insulating ability of CO2.
> ...


Okay let`s walk through that in your shoes.The words in_ italics_ are my specifications, so feel free to disagree with any of them :
So now you say that the CO2 in the 1st (_10 meters_) layer looses most of the energy it absorbed ( _at 15  μm_) by conduction...going up.
And then way up there at the higher altitudes CO2 looses (_all)_ the heat it got from below by radiation.
Did you just say that_ all _the heat from below has to be radiated by CO2 and the rest of the gas components are not allowed to radiate?
Did you just say that more CO2 is like adding more layers to the atmosphere way up there ?
You did say that this increased insulation way up there means a higher temperature at the heat source (_the earth_).
Would that be because the earth is being warmed by _1/2 _of the energy CO2 absorbed at 15
μm in the lower (_10 m_) layer or from the _heat _which is way up there ?
Nobody disputes that heat radiation is absorbed  by CO2 at 15μm and that makes nonsense out of your statement that CO2 at high altitude can warm the heat source (_the earth_)
The only way it could do that is by back-radiating 15μm IR from way up there down to the heat source, _the earth _through _several thousand meters _of air laced with 400 ppm CO2.
How TF. would 15μm IR make it through that?
You, Crick and the rest of the AGW advocates should get your story straight what causes *man made* global warming.
That other character WUWEI has photons hitting objects, (CO2 molecules) like they were glass beads.
You better have a talk with him, because that makes total nonsense out of your back radiation energy budget...which is not just 1/2 the absorbed energy but as you just pointed out:
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ....is an infinite series, it converges to "2".
E= 1/2 *+ 2* watts/ m^2 because the reflected energy had to "go somewhere" when I was talking about how much light the oceans reflect depending on the angle of incidence.
CO2 re-emits light in all directions, but the* WUWEI photons* that "hit CO2 molecule objects" cant`t even make it through transparent glass beads that scatter light in all directions.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > How much does O2 and N2 warm the earth? Do O2 and N2 have the same conversion (W/m^2 to C) to associated temperature that radiative forcing has? If so or not, what are those conversions? And water vapor? What effect does that have?
> ...




That isn't true...the earth generates some heat of its own and it has been shown in repeatable laboratory experiments that there are temperature gradients in columns of air...so the atmospheric pressure itself provides some heating...as is seen in several planets that have no appreciable amount of so called greenhouse gasses and in some cases have temperatures equivalent to the troposphere here with nothing like the amount of incoming solar energy.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> That isn't true...the earth generates some heat of its own and it has been shown in repeatable laboratory experiments that there are temperature gradients in columns of air...so the atmospheric pressure itself provides some heating.


I agree. But the internal heat is slow in escaping, except for volcanoes. What lab experiments show pressure causes heating? I know it happens in adiabatic compression, but the earth is far from adiabatic.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2017)

ding said:


> Ok. So on a day to day basis it is a fairly significant component of our atmospheric temperature. does it dissipate that temperature every day?


Yes the thermal energy wends it way to outer space. It dissipates about 160W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> That other character WUWEI has photons hitting objects, (CO2 molecules) like they were glass beads.....
> CO2 re-emits light in all directions, but the* WUWEI photons* that "hit CO2 molecule objects" cant`t even make it through transparent glass beads that scatter light in all directions.


Glass beads?  They are more like miniature tuning forks. Please clarify.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. So on a day to day basis it is a fairly significant component of our atmospheric temperature. does it dissipate that temperature every day?
> ...


Every day.  There is no residual temperature left over from the heating of O2 and N2 through convection?


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2017)

Electrical Power Generation from Geothermal Sources


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Your terminology is confusing. What do you mean by residual temperature? The atmosphere heats because the sun warms the earth. The thermal energy of the atmosphere radiates up and down, but at the top of the atmosphere "up" is outer space, and it is lost.


----------



## ding (Jan 4, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Ok, each day the O2 and N2 warms by convection during the day, right?  Maybe even at night too, right?  How much does it warm up and how much is lost during the day or night?  Is all of the heating of the 99% of the atmosphere - by convection - lost each and every day?  Or is there some heat or energy that was left over and was not lost?

Maybe latent is a better term than residual.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Fooling yourself with electronics hardly amounts to direct measurement of non existent back radiation...it does, however, identify you as an idiot who probably shouldn't be allowed to touch anything more technical than a popsicle stick.



Hey pisschugger, are you still sticking with your hilariously stupid theory that detailed IR cameras work entirely by thermocouples heating up? At pixel level?

I think that had everyone busting a gut. You're just a profoundly stupid human being.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 4, 2017)

polarbear said:


> So now you say that the CO2 in the 1st (_10 meters_) layer looses most of the energy it absorbed ( _at 15  μm_) by conduction...going up.
> And then way up there at the higher altitudes CO2 looses (_all)_ the heat it got from below by radiation.
> Did you just say that_ all _the heat from below has to be radiated by CO2 and the rest of the gas components are not allowed to radiate?



Obviously not. If I had wanted to say such a crazy thing, I would have said it. That's why I didn't say it.



> Did you just say that more CO2 is like adding more layers to the atmosphere way up there ?
> You did say that this increased insulation way up there means a higher temperature at the heat source (_the earth_).
> Would that be because the earth is being warmed by _1/2 _of the energy CO2 absorbed at 15
> μm in the lower (_10 m_) layer or from the _heat _which is way up there ?
> ...



Obviously wrong. More layers means more resistance to conduction. A wool blanket makes you warmer by increasing resistance to conduction, not by blocking more IR. Same with the atmosphere.



> How TF. would 15μm IR make it through that?



It doesn't. Congratulations on figuring out what all the scientists already knew.



> You, Crick and the rest of the AGW advocates should get your story straight what causes *man made* global warming.



Your inability to understand AGW theory, as demonstrated again here, is only your problem. It doesn't reflect badly on us at all.




> E= 1/2 *+ 2* watts/ m^2 because the reflected energy had to "go somewhere" when I was talking about how much light the oceans reflect depending on the angle of incidence.





> CO2 re-emits light in all directions, but the* WUWEI photons* that "hit CO2 molecule objects" cant`t even make it through transparent glass beads that scatter light in all directions.



I'm sure you consider that some sort of great victory, but we all see it as your usual way of deflecting by babbling about some issue that has nothing to do with the topic.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2017)

ding said:


> Ok, each day the O2 and N2 warms by convection during the day, right? Maybe even at night too, right? How much does it warm up and how much is lost during the day or night? Is all of the heating of the 99% of the atmosphere - by convection - lost each and every day? Or is there some heat or energy that was left over and was not lost?
> 
> Maybe latent is a better term than residual.


Yes, day and night O2 and N2 are continually being warmed by earth convection and thermal radiation. The O2 and N2 are unable to absorb the earth's thermal radiation directly, but the GHG's can, and since the are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere the GHG's heat all the atmosphere. The heat loss at the top of the atmosphere is largely constant day and night. Of course at night we loose the influx of solar energy so it gets colder and the blanketing effect of GHG's keeps most of the heat retained in the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2017)

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fooling yourself with electronics hardly amounts to direct measurement of non existent back radiation...it does, however, identify you as an idiot who probably shouldn't be allowed to touch anything more technical than a popsicle stick.
> ...




All you have to do is go out and look at the specs hairball...what people are laughing at is you for not being bright enough to do so before you make claims.....but then you are in good company...Dr Spencer...Ian...and all the other people who told you that IR moves spontaneously from cool to warm...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> Ding-
> 
> I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.
> 
> It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.



Only in so far as they add mass to the atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Your windowpane example is meaningless, as it fails to account for how the atmosphere works. You did a lot of calculations, but your setup was totally wrong, so your conclusions are nonsense. Nobody ever said "More CO2 means the air is more insulating". That's your bad strawman, so the fact that you disproved it means nothing.
> 
> At low altitudes, CO2 primarily loses heat by conduction.
> 
> ...


Also what is important is that, as higher altitudes get colder, radiation to space will be less because of the S-B law.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, each day the O2 and N2 warms by convection during the day, right? Maybe even at night too, right? How much does it warm up and how much is lost during the day or night? Is all of the heating of the 99% of the atmosphere - by convection - lost each and every day? Or is there some heat or energy that was left over and was not lost?
> ...


Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right?  What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> Ding-
> 
> I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.
> 
> It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.


I'm just asking questions right now.  I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2017)

ding said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ding-
> ...



What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

_Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. *This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the *Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. *
_
I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2017)

ding said:


> Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?


The GHG's, O2, and N2 are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere and are at the same temperature.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either


Not true.


SSDD said:


> ... *Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. *


That is not totally accurate wording, because it's the sun that warms the earth. Many say the strictly more correct, "keeps the surface warm", or "prevents heat loss", etc. But they do correctly say "..._*reradiated back to Earth*_.."


SSDD said:


> at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere ...


What experiments are those?


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




You said 





> Remember your thread about the moon?



If you want to change the parameters of the type of moon you want to discuss then you should have defined the parameters instead of making a reference to our Moon.

Daytime and nighttime on our Moon are roughly 300+ hours long. Night temps quickly drop to ~ minus 150C, cold enough to turn CO2 into a solid. Day temps rise to about 100C+, more than hot enough to boil off any CO2 atmosphere present under the weak lunar gravity.

Sorry, I am too lazy to actually find the precise facts and figures for the speed of a CO2 molecule under lunar gravity. 2.4K m/s sounds fast but is not for a molecule of gas. My vague recollection from 35 years ago is that air molecules here travel at 1000 MPH, or 500 m/s. rule of six for speed distribution sets max speed at 3000m/s.

My back of the envelope calculations suggest dry ice in the dark and disappearing gas in the light. Perhaps the mediating effect on temperature of having even a thin atmosphere would push the numbers around a bit.

The Moon's albedo is less than the Earth. It should be warmer than the Earth if only total solar input is considered. About -10C for the Earth and 0C for the Moon, if my memory of someone else's calculations are right. But that is only if the average is in force all the time. The moon has huge swings, the Earth moderate ones. Any deflection from average drops the average temp. Especially because the radiation loss is related to the fourth power of temperature in Kelvins. The 600 hr day of the Moon and the 24 hr day of the Earth also skews things. But the energy in (solar) always equals the energy out to space, over time.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




potential and kinetic energy are fully transferable by molecular collisions. Keep in mind that 'temperature' is a macroscopic quality defined as the average speed of molecules, which defines the range of speed for the atmospheric molecules but does not define any individual particle. 

The energy absorbed by CO2 near the surface is much greater than the energy released by CO2 which escapes into space. The energy differential between these two quantities is used to warm the atmosphere (kinetic) or increase the height (potential).


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2017)

IanC said:


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


All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer.  That is exactly what the IPCC states.  So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface. 

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase.  So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




The price of your morning coffee goes up by 10%. Does it make a noticeable difference in your net worth? Or maybe change your coffee drinking habits?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?
> ...


So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's right. If a molecule of a GHG picks up energy, it will transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere immediately.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> All you have to do is go out and look at the specs hairball...



I did.

_None_ of them use thermocouples. They (modern uncooled IR cameras) all use CCD's of some type, or their descendant technologies, where incoming photons result in a flow of electrons.

Yet you were raving about how they work by raising the temperature of a thermocouple. Hence, why everyone was laughing.

So, now that your fantasy thermocouple explanation has been laughed out of the room, maybe you'd like to try again. Think up a new conspiracy theory. How is it that an IR camera can display detailed pictures of the IR coming in from much colder sources?

This will be tricky for you, explaining how they're not absorbing photons, given that they use electronics technology that specifically relies on reacting to the absorption of photons, independent of the instrument temperature.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


And then that molecule of o2 or n2 then dissipates it too, right, because o2 and n2 do not trap heat, right?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 5, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Right, O2 and N2 don't trap heat, but of course, they can stay hot and dissipate heat eventually to outer space. But during the day they will pick up more heat, and you see the up and down temperatures of day and night.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Agreed.  But the heat that is immediately transferred from the ghg to the non-ghg is not trapped, right?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ... *Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. *
> ...



My statement is verbatim from the IPCC web site answering the question...what is the greenhouse effect....





Wuwei said:


> What experiments are those?



Here are a couple....there are plenty out there...and they directly contradict the claim that pressure does not create a temperature gradient in columns of air.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2017)

IanC said:


> Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.



I am not asking anything...I am merely observing.



IanC said:


> I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.



Internal perhaps...but not external.  My view on climate science is corroborated by observation across the solar system...and repeatable lab experiments.



IanC said:


> Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.



And as I have stated 100 times...observation....neither heat nor energy have ever been observed moving SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm...do you think it suddenly stops when we start looking?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2017)

IanC said:


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



If I watched my total net worth as closely as climate science supposedly watches the temperature...then yes, it would be a noticeable difference.....climate science claims to measure data to the 1000th of a degree...if I watched my net worth to the 1000th of a cent, then practically any change would be easy to track and quantifiably identify.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All you have to do is go out and look at the specs hairball...
> ...



And in typical fashion, you failed to learn anything...there are two basic types of IR CAMERAS...not IR thermometers which use thermocouples...IR CAMERAS...the cheap uncooled ones have an internal IR source which sends out IR light which is then reflected from the surroundings back to the lens....and then there are the high dollar type as mounted on police and military helicopters, or the heavy shoulder mount type which are cooled...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm not sure I know what you mean by trapped. All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity. All the atmosphere is at the same temperature locally, although it varies wildly with altitude or distance from the  poles. Since GHG's are completely intermixed with the atmosphere there is no distinction between the heat of GHG's vs. the heat of O2 and N2.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What experiments are those?
> ...


Both references refer to the work of R W Graeff. The experiment is a static system at equilibrium. And both references have the following statement.

_Contrary to the statement by Clausius, the reported results show that in an isolated system under the influence of a force field like gravity heat can flow from a reservoir at a given temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature._​
That is contrary to what you have been continually saying, that heat cannot spontaneously flow from an object at lower temperature to a higher temperature. It is also contrary to the second law. Also if Graeff's experiments are valid, he has discovered perpetual motion of the second kind. In short, Graeff's conclusions are outlandish, and his experiment has to be flawed.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And in typical fashion, you failed to learn anything...there are two basic types of IR CAMERAS...not IR thermometers which use thermocouples...IR CAMERAS...the cheap uncooled ones have an internal IR source which sends out IR light which is then reflected from the surroundings back to the lens....
> and then there are the high dollar type as mounted on police and military helicopters, or the heavy shoulder mount type which are cooled...



And then there are the light mid-priced uncooled IR cameras, that absolutely do not have an internal IR source.

You're twenty years behind the technology curve. Modern technology has destroyed your crazy theory.

How a normal person views the technology:

"Cold" IR photons strikes the warm CCD bits. As it doesn't matter at all that they came from a cold source, those photons are absorbed, that initiates various individual electron flows, and the electronics assemble those into a picture.

Your explanation is ... ?

You're going to have trouble with that, being how you say the warm CCD's can't absorb those cold photons. So then how does the IR camera manage to create a very detailed image of a cold sky? "A model" certainly isn't going to give detailed images of clouds which are an exact match for the clouds you can see visually.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Mars has gravity, yet lost its atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mars has gravity, yet lost its atmosphere.


That's right.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mars has gravity, yet lost its atmosphere.
> ...



But you said, " All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity." Did the force of gravity weaken on Mars?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 6, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> But you said, " All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity." Did the force of gravity weaken on Mars?



And he clearly didn't say "any gravity traps an atmosphere".

Hence, you look stupid for implying he did say that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2017)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > But you said, " All the atmosphere is trapped by gravity." Did the force of gravity weaken on Mars?
> ...



Did the Russians hack your account to make you look like an idiot?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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



No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...



Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work. 

Work (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia
_There are several ways of doing work, each in some way related to a force acting through a distance._​


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.



what do you mean nothing is moving?...is the atmosphere static?


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?  And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2017)

ding said:


> Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?


Right. It doesn't matter how the heat originally was transformed, but in the end it is radiated to space as EM energy.


ding said:


> And you said that the heating of o2 and n2 from convection did not warm the planet because that energy was lost to space, right?


That's right. Actually the planet heats O2 and N2, but the O2 and N2 don't back-radiate to earth.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Actually pressure alone is not work since nothing is moving. An isolated system at equilibrium is not doing work or receiving work.
> ...


I was referring to the experiment you posted:


SSDD said:


> Here are a couple....there are plenty out there...and they directly contradict the claim that pressure does not create a temperature gradient in columns of air.
> 
> https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf
> Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments


The discussion was not about earth's atmosphere. It was about the experiment that was done in a sealed container with no *moving *force acting on it.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?
> ...


Right. I get that, so how much of that heat is transferred to the surrounding atmosphere that does not back-radiate to the earth?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2017)

ding said:


> Right. I get that, so how much of that heat is transferred to the surrounding atmosphere that does not back-radiate to the earth?


Various GHG's radiate in different wavelengths. There are a few wavelengths that GHG's don't back-radiate.






The percent near zero does not back-radiate. The important region for the earth is between 4 and 70.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Right. I get that, so how much of that heat is transferred to the surrounding atmosphere that does not back-radiate to the earth?
> ...


So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2?  What percent?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 6, 2017)

ding said:


> So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2? What percent?


Almost all of it is transferred from the warm earth to the O2 and N2, if I understand your question.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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



And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..


----------



## xband (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No it isn't...pressure is work...and energy can flow from cold to warm if work is applied...it just doesn't happen spontaneously...
> ...



Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always flows from cold to warm and never vice versa.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2017)

xband said:


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



heat and energy always flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cold to warm...if you apply work, you can make heat and energy flow from cool to warm...as in an air conditioner.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?
> ...


Aren't the odds of CO2 "back radiating" toward Earth extremely small in the first place and decrease proportionally as the molecules are higher in the atmosphere? Does CO2 have some magical redirectional beam that only radiates back toward Earth surface. Most of the other potential vectors are AWAY from Earth


----------



## xband (Jan 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I don't know much about it but got in an argument about the Third Law of Thermodynamics with my mom and in particular, entropy. I was asking her about how life emerged from chaos, she said there are small pockets of order in disorder.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 7, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



*Does CO2 have some magical re directional beam that only radiates back toward Earth *

co2 is a poor insulator


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..


The random movement of a gas in a closed container is not work. The paper you cited claims it is a perpetual motion device of the second kind. Do you believe perpetual motion can be achieved?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2017)

xband said:


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




The first consideration in such an argument is that the Earth is not a closed system...it receives energy and matter from outside itself and loses energy and matter to locations outside itself...

Secondly...the second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any, or all particular parts of a system must increase.  If it did, ice could never form or vapor would never condense into liquid...


Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..
> ...



Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is.  And the fact of the temperature gradients is still there and still repeatable...it gives far more credibility to the atmospheric thermal effect which warmer wackos claim can't exist..than the unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mechanism buy which you claim the greenhouse effect works.


----------



## xband (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet...there were the temperature gradients..repeatable experiments demonstrating them.....and there was plenty of movement...do you think that the air in those columns was actually static?..
> ...



A few years ago CERN claimed that a neutrino travels at the speed of light and thus has no mass. This amazing discovery was peer reviewed by European scientists and proved right, later they had egg on their face making an apology to the world wide scientific community.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Aren't the odds of CO2 "back radiating" toward Earth extremely small in the first place and decrease proportionally as the molecules are higher in the atmosphere? Does CO2 have some magical redirectional beam that only radiates back toward Earth surface. Most of the other potential vectors are AWAY from Earth


CO2 in the atmosphere is a source of isotropic radiation.  It radiates in all directions equally.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't the odds of CO2 "back radiating" toward Earth extremely small in the first place and decrease proportionally as the molecules are higher in the atmosphere? Does CO2 have some magical redirectional beam that only radiates back toward Earth surface. Most of the other potential vectors are AWAY from Earth
> ...




So you say...and yet, backradition can not be measured at ambient temperature even though your claim is that it is more than twice the amount of incoming solar radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is.


That is definitely not how it is. Look up the definition of work. Exerted pressure becomes work if it mechanically moves something, like a piston in a pump. The experiment you cited was isolated.


----------



## xband (Jan 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


 
Please read my posts again where I clearly defined the difference between the Second and Third Law. I have a lot of questions that I need answered. How does gravity escape a black hole when light cannot and both travel at the same speed? You will probably say Frame Dragging.which will boggle my mind.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So you say...and yet, backradition can not be measured at ambient temperature even though your claim is that it is more than twice the amount of incoming solar radiation.


So I say? It is what every scientist says. There is no principle that says radiation from any gas is not isotropic.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

xband said:


> Please read my posts again where I clearly defined the difference between the Second and Third Law. I have a lot of questions that I need answered. How does gravity escape a black hole when light cannot and both travel at the same speed? You will probably say Frame Dragging.which will boggle my mind.


This topic is about atmospheric physics. I suggest you post that question in the Science and Technology forum.


----------



## xband (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you say...and yet, backradition can not be measured at ambient temperature even though your claim is that it is more than twice the amount of incoming solar radiation.
> ...



I know what an isotope is but nut sure about isotropic. Iso means close and tropic means under the Tropic of Cancer or above the Tropic of Capricorn.


----------



## ding (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So can you ballpark how much heat is immediatly transferred to o2 and n2? What percent?
> ...


Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?  

That energy or heat that would be transferred to the o2 and n2 would be quickly lost to space, right?

So what percentage of the heat from the co2 is transfered to o2 and n2?


----------



## xband (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



That is wild and will read it three more times before I dare to answer. My first re-read starts now because your post got my undivided attention.


----------



## xband (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You know the formula and just show it rather than making silly remarks.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is.
> ...




with the disorder of the gas 

energy such as heat is transferred

which is work


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity exerts pressure...exerted pressure is work...like it or not, it is how it is.
> ...




So you say that the pressure of gravity does not result in the movement of the molecules in the air?...interesting...got any actual evidence to support that claim?...because the temperature gradients that have been shown experimentally to exist in columns of air say otherwise....if the pressure is not resulting in movement, why would the air at the bottom of the column be warmer than the air at the top?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2017)

xband said:


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



Any claims regarding black holes...and what they do or do not do is at best, a claim about the accuracy of a mathematical model based on hypothetical conditions...nothing more.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you say...and yet, backradition can not be measured at ambient temperature even though your claim is that it is more than twice the amount of incoming solar radiation.
> ...




And still not a single measurement of all this back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature.....more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 7, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


If your doing simple odds calculations, using a rounded body, the LOG of diminishing return becomes near zero at about 20,000 feet. Taking into account ppm of the molecular make up of the atmosphere from CO2.  Remember were talking a very narrow band 16-21um of LWIR that has no ability to penetrate.


----------



## Crick (Jan 7, 2017)

Your comment about the temperature of the receiver is, of course, based on your asinine interpretation of the 2nd law.  This is a direct measurement of radiation coming down from the night sky by Evans 2006.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?


Yes, any CO2 that gains energy will be immediately absorbed by the atmosphere. It is confusing to separate the heat of GHG's from the heat of the rest of the atmosphere. Since they are all intermixed there is only one temperature or heat to consider.


ding said:


> That energy or heat that would be transferred to the o2 and n2 would be quickly lost to space, right?


Not quickly. The heat that the sun gives earth takes a long time to reach the top of the atmosphere. 


ding said:


> So what percentage of the heat from the co2 is transfered to o2 and n2?


I think you asked this before. All heat that the GHG's acquire are immediately transferred to the atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And still not a single measurement of all this back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature.....more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun


Crick showed you the measurements dozens of times.


----------



## ding (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Earlier I asked you if the co2 was warmer than the o2 and n2. You said that they were not that the warmer co2 would heat the o2 and n2, right?
> ...


Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So you say that the pressure of gravity does not result in the movement of the molecules in the air?...interesting...got any actual evidence to support that claim?...because the temperature gradients that have been shown experimentally to exist in columns of air say otherwise....if the pressure is not resulting in movement, why would the air at the bottom of the column be warmer than the air at the top?


The force of gravity is not work. A rock falling to the ground can provide work. A rock laying on the ground can't. 
I already told you the experiment is corrupt. The authors believe that they can provide perpetual motion of the second kind.

Both references have the following statement.
_Contrary to the statement by Clausius, the reported results show that in an isolated system under the influence of a force field like gravity heat can flow from a reservoir at a given temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature.
_​


----------



## ding (Jan 7, 2017)

xband said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I'm not making silly remarks. I am asking valid question. Just trying to gain a better understanding.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?


What I said was the heat from  convection is quickly lost to the rest of the atmosphere. I didn't mean it was lost to outer space. CO2 heat from IR absorption is also quickly mixed with the atmosphere.


----------



## ding (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Right and when I brought up heat from convection you seemed to say it was lost quickly. So if heat from co2 immediately heats up the surrounding atmosphere how would that loss be any different?
> ...


Ok.  I'll come back to rates in a bit. Is all of the energy transfered from the co2 to o2 and n2 or does some go directly into land an ocean without heating o2 and n2? If so, how much, what percentage?   Btw, I appreciate this discussion as it is helping me understand this process in simple terms.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And still not a single measurement of all this back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature.....more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun
> ...


A graph of spectral range is not a measurement of energy output..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The length of the wave determines what will be absorbed or reflected. As CO2 itself will not warm, the surrounding atmosphere is what warms CO2 by conduction. {no atmospheric hot spot} tells the tale about this.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The CO2 (and other GHG's including H2O) very close to the surface of earth radiate exactly half their energy downward to land. The other half radiates up. O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere will quickly capture the upward energy. 

CO2 that is a few meters higher will also radiate half their energy up to O2 and N2. It will also radiate half its energy downward, but not all that radiation will hit earth. Some will be captured by other CO2 molecules and immediately transferred to the O2 and N2 before it hits earth.  The higher you go, the less CO2 radiation will actually reach the earth, but it will be absorbed by the atmosphere. A few dozen meters off the ground, none of the CO2 will reach the earth. So half the radiation will be absorbed in the atmosphere above, and the other half in the atmosphere below.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> A graph of spectral range is not a measurement of energy output..


It was output of a detector aimed directly upward and therefore was a measurement of energy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > A graph of spectral range is not a measurement of energy output..
> ...



It was not a measurement of energy. It was a measurement of the downward wavelength converted into a number which represents POTENTIAL ENERGY. A Thermopylae, aimed upward, can not differentiate the difference between POTENTIAL and Realized energy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


It is far from half.  At best it is below 31% at just 10 meters. That is the kind of error which would render all of your calculations useless.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


By "very close to the surface" I meant fractions of an inch. That should have been obvious to you. If you think "very close to the surface" is 10 meters, yes it would be quite obvious that less than half the energy would actually reach the surface.


----------



## ding (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Does that mean the vast amount never reaches the earth and remains in the atmosphere which then eventually is lost to space?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


That doesn't make any sense at all. EM radiation can never be potential energy. Please clearly define what you mean by potential and realized energy with regard to long wave radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> Does that mean the vast amount never reaches the earth and remains in the atmosphere which then eventually is lost to space?


That's right.


----------



## ding (Jan 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Does that mean the vast amount never reaches the earth and remains in the atmosphere which then eventually is lost to space?
> ...


What percentage would you say?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I haven't seen a site that estimates how much thermal energy is stored in the atmosphere. Think of a long slow river that is sourced by a lake  and dumped in the ocean. There can be a lot of water in the river, but since it's slow you don't see much of it at the point it is being dumped.


----------



## Crick (Jan 8, 2017)

About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system. *About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere* by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.
Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles


----------



## Crick (Jan 8, 2017)

The total heat capacity of the atmosphere is 5.92e21 J/C

The total heat capacity of the ocean is 5.30e24 J/C  (this is where the 1000x difference between the two comes from Frank)

Climate Science for Everyone: How much heat can the air and ocean store?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Show me where all EM radiation (LWIR) is turned into 'work' and therefore heat.. Show me how you determined the ratios of heat generating and free floating.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system. *About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere* by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.
> Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles


Trenbreths calculations have been shown ludicrous..  He imply's that there is a self re-enforcing  energy loop which can not exist..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Are you implying that the atmospheric hot spot should be 1 meter off the ground then?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Are you implying that the atmospheric hot spot should be 1 meter off the ground then?


Of course not.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Trenbreths calculations have been shown ludicrous.


Who showed they are ludicrous?


Billy_Bob said:


> He imply's that there is a self re-enforcing energy loop which can not exist.


Which scientists say that?


----------



## Crick (Jan 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



An IR detector cannot detect potential energy.  It sees IR coming in its aperture.  The detector is able to measure the intensity level of the different frequencies and thus it IS a measurement of energy.

Your objections here Billy are simply crazy.  You're spitting out terms that you heard somewhere that have no actual application to this discussion.  It's commentary like this that makes us doubt your claim to be an atmospheric physicist.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Show me where all EM radiation (LWIR) is turned into 'work' and therefore heat.. Show me how you determined the ratios of heat generating and free floating.


Where did you read anything about LWIR turning into work? Exactly what is "Free floating" ? None of that makes sense. Tell me more clearly what ratios you are looking for.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And still not a single measurement of all this back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature.....more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun
> ...



He never showed me a measurement of back radiation taken with an instrument at ambient temperature...every measurement he has shown was made with an instrument cooled to at least -80F and in that case it isn't energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth...it is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...hardly back radiation..simply energy moving from warm to cool as predicted by the 2nd law.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The force of gravity is not work. A rock falling to the ground can provide work. A rock laying on the ground can't.



Constant pressure isn't work?  Do you mean that those heavy weights hanging on chains in my grandfather clock aren't providing work?



Wuwei said:


> I already told you the experiment is corrupt. The authors believe that they can provide perpetual motion of the second kind.



Yeah..you said it...but that doesn't make it true...and it isn't perpetual motion if work is being applied to the system...


​


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



that's pretty low for an "upper" tropospheric hot spot isn't it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Are you implying that the atmospheric hot spot should be 1 meter off the ground then?
> ...


If your premise were true than this is precisely where it would reside.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Ok Moron... Lets drag out the crayons.. Its the only way you understand anything..

An IR detector is only registering the IR flowing at that point in time into the receiver. IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY WHAT WORK IS BEING DONE IT ONLY IDENTIFIES THAT LWIR IS PRESENT and extrapolates the temperature from the wavelength.

How you morons go from the 'presence of' to 'heat work' is a jump of pure faith. And it can not determine its origin unless its focal point is known. 

Pointing it up into the atmosphere is pure speculation as to what it is actually reading.. As far as I am aware, there are no IR detectors, uncooled, that can identify close spectral ranges. A generic IR detector can not tell what portion of our atmosphere is actually radiating.

All you have is a Wild Ass Guess.. no science is involved.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Show me where all EM radiation (LWIR) is turned into 'work' and therefore heat.. Show me how you determined the ratios of heat generating and free floating.
> ...


LWIR has to do one of two things..  Be absorbed and excite or be absorbed and re-emitted.  If it is exciting a mass then work is being performed and heat is the result.  If it is being passed from one molecule to the next, with little work and no heat being created, it is free floating in our atmosphere. There is little to no free floating energy.

Now explain what portions of LWIR are doing what and how did you define it ?

Current empirical evidence suggests that water vapor is absorbing CO2 LWIR and it is not allowing it to be trapped in Trenbreths self propelling energy loop. It is then released above cloud boundary where it is lost to space..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> He never showed me a measurement of back radiation taken with an instrument at ambient temperature...every measurement he has shown was made with an instrument cooled to at least -80F and in that case it isn't energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth...it is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...hardly back radiation..simply energy moving from warm to cool as predicted by the 2nd law.


Crick showed you the measurements dozens of times. Doesn't matter what the temperature is. It's back radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Constant pressure isn't work? Do you mean that those heavy weights hanging on chains in my grandfather clock aren't providing work?


The weight is moving downward. When it gets to bottom you have to do work to reset it.


SSDD said:


> Yeah..you said it...but that doesn't make it true...and it isn't perpetual motion if work is being applied to the system...


Continual work was not being applied.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> that's pretty low for an "upper" tropospheric hot spot isn't it?


Yeah, billy had a screwy idea didn't he.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

You guys don't know what work is in mechanics or thermodynamics. 

Work, Energy and Power
*Work*
*refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force. A force of 20 newtons pushing an object 5 meters in the direction of the force does 100 joules of work.*

A photon hitting an atom puts it into a excited state. That is internal energy. A physicist would not call that work. Work is a macroscopic concept in mechanics.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jan 8, 2017)




----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


For god's sake billy this was my post #454
_The CO2 (and other GHG's including H2O) very close to the surface of earth radiate exactly half their energy downward to land._​
By very close, I told you I meant a fraction of an inch. Half the radiation goes up and the other half goes down. The distance is to short for atmospheric absorption, so all the downward half hits the earth. And you try to turn it into a discussion on the hot spot. I have no idea how your mind got to that.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> LWIR has to do one of two things.. Be absorbed and excite or be absorbed and re-emitted. If it is exciting a mass then work is being performed and heat is the result. If it is being passed from one molecule to the next, with little work and no heat being created, it is free floating in our atmosphere. There is little to no free floating energy.
> 
> Now explain what portions of LWIR are doing what and how did you define it ?


You got it all wrong. LWIR can only excite or through stimulated emission force an excited GHG to a lower energy state. If it is excited it can re-emit which is very rare. The most probably event (99% of the time) is to crash into N2 or O2 and exchange energy. No work is being done. You are misusing the term. If energy is being passed from one molecule to the next, that is a microscopic nature of heat and the word "free floating" still has no meaning in this context.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


*
and all the other people who told you that IR moves spontaneously from cool to warm...*

This is why we can't see the surface of the Sun, the photons can't travel toward the hotter corona. DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> .but then you are in good company...Dr Spencer...Ian...and all the other people who told you that IR moves spontaneously from cool to warm...


"All the other people" also includes all scientists over the past 100 years.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > He never showed me a measurement of back radiation taken with an instrument at ambient temperature...every measurement he has shown was made with an instrument cooled to at least -80F and in that case it isn't energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth...it is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...hardly back radiation..simply energy moving from warm to cool as predicted by the 2nd law.
> ...



It isn't back radiation if energy is moving from the warmer instrument...that is simply energy moving from warm to cool...it would be back radiation if the energy were moving from the cooler atmosphere to a warmer instrument....Again, you display how you have come to be duped to the extent you are.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Constant pressure isn't work? Do you mean that those heavy weights hanging on chains in my grandfather clock aren't providing work?
> ...



And gravity doesn't amount to weight moving downward?....is there no pressure difference between the top of the atmosphere, the middle of the atmosphere, and the bottom.

All you need do is look at some of the outer planets to see that what I claim is actually happening...Uranus...arguably one of the coldest places in the solar system has a temperature almost equal to the temperatures found in our troposphere with virtually no greenhouse gasses and not nearly enough incoming solar energy to power a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...how do those temperatures get that high if it isn't due to pressure?



Wuwei said:


> Continual work was not being applied.



When does gravity stop pressing down on the atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> You guys don't know what work is in mechanics or thermodynamics.
> 
> Work, Energy and Power
> *Work*
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .but then you are in good company...Dr Spencer...Ian...and all the other people who told you that IR moves spontaneously from cool to warm...
> ...



And still not a single observation of it happening spontaneously....


----------



## Crick (Jan 9, 2017)

Your fixation on this bizarre interpretation really seems like an illness.  Given two explanation for the same behavior, why stick with the one that calls for intelligent matter able to sense its surrounding and throttle and aim its own emissions as well as violate relativity, when the alternative is simpler, is the understanding of everyone else on the fucking planet and doesn't violate anything?  Answer?  You're insane or stupid beyond belief or both.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> It isn't back radiation if energy is moving from the warmer instrument...that is simply energy moving from warm to cool...it would be back radiation if the energy were moving from the cooler atmosphere to a warmer instrument....Again, you display how you have come to be duped to the extent you are.


Crick showed you the measurements dozens of times. It doesn't matter what the temperature is. It's back radiation. Radiation can go any direction.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And gravity doesn't amount to weight moving downward?....is there no pressure difference between the top of the atmosphere, the middle of the atmosphere, and the bottom.


Gravity is a downward force. Atmosphere molecules move randomly all directions. 


SSDD said:


> When does gravity stop pressing down on the atmosphere?


It doesn't. It's not doing work.
*Work*
*refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force.*


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *Work*
> *refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force. A force of 20 newtons pushing an object 5 meters in the direction of the force does 100 joules of work.*
> 
> *That pretty much describes gravity and its effect on the atmosphere.  The direction and strength of gravity can certainly be measured.*


Gravity is a continual downward force. The atmosphere is not continually moving downward. Therefore no work is being done by gravity.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And still not a single observation of it happening spontaneously...


So you disagree with all scientists over the last 100 years yet have no explanation why you think they are wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> Your fixation on this bizarre interpretation really seems like an illness.  Given two explanation for the same behavior, why stick with the one that calls for intelligent matter able to sense its surrounding and throttle and aim its own emissions as well as violate relativity, when the alternative is simpler, is the understanding of everyone else on the fucking planet and doesn't violate anything?  Answer?  You're insane or stupid beyond belief or both.


I don't think he's stupid. He's either insane or just a troll, or both.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > that's pretty low for an "upper" tropospheric hot spot isn't it?
> ...


It was your implication... LOL  what an ass..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


Nope, that was your inference.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And gravity doesn't amount to weight moving downward?....is there no pressure difference between the top of the atmosphere, the middle of the atmosphere, and the bottom.
> ...




You are falling into the same trap SSDD is mired in.

Radiation is created in all directions and remains unchanged until it interacts with a particle of matter. Air molecules are constantly being accelerated by gravity. Without a constant source of new energy to replace the energy radiated away by temperature dependant Blackbody Radiation, the atmosphere would collapse to the surface. As it is, the atmosphere swells and shrinks daily depending on whether it is in sunlight or not.

The total energy of the atmosphere is the framework that defines the range of surface temps. GHGs simply change the amount of energy sequestered in the atmosphere.

SSDD seemingly does not understand that it is the movement of the weights in his Grandfather Clock that run the mechanism. You have to store potential energy weekly for it to continue to operate.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

IanC said:


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





IanC said:


> You are falling into the same trap SSDD is mired in.


Yikes, that would be awful!

Otherwise I agree with you. However, SSDD is saying that gravity is doing work on a closed system at equilibrium insulated from external temperature, without any external influence except gravity. I'm saying there is no work involved in that.

When you talk about the atmosphere, I would say it is not so much that gravity is doing work, it's the solar energy cycle that is actually causing work. It is similar (but certainly not identical) to a Sterling engine.

Another way of looking at it is that the atmosphere and gravity creates a sort of spring. The spring is flexed by daily radiation cycles which cycles the atmospheric "engine". I would  say that gravity is part of the "spring" system and the external force that causes work comes from solar radiation cycle.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 9, 2017)

IanC said:


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


no one is telling me to cut my coffee drinking.  They are asking me to pay to breathe.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Otherwise I agree with you. However, SSDD is saying that gravity is doing work on a closed system at equilibrium insulated from external temperature, without any external influence except gravity. I'm saying there is no work involved in that.



Earth is neither a closed system...nor is it at equilibrium...And there are still the gas planets in the outer solar system which have temperatures comparable to our own troposphere with no greenhouse gasses to speak of an certainly not enough incoming solar to power a greenhouse effect even if they did have CO2 or some other so called greenhouse gas....if pressure isn't creating that heat...what is?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but the heat that is exchanged immediately by the GHG and then transferred to the o2 and n2 is lost to space the exact same way as the temperature from convection was lost to space, right?
> ...


I thought all matter radiated all directions?


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Otherwise I agree with you. However, SSDD is saying that gravity is doing work on a closed system at equilibrium insulated from external temperature, without any external influence except gravity. I'm saying there is no work involved in that.
> ...




You keep making unsubstantuated claims. Present the planet and define your terms. Preferably with error bars for the certainty of temperature data.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




excellent question. I hope W responds. 

While I have explained it many times in the past, no one seems to catch on. Perhaps W can do a better job of describing it.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




Actually, you were saying that the influence of CO2 overrides all the other factors that contribute to surface temperature, therefore an imperfect correlation between CO2 and temperature means there is no correlation or influence at all. Buying a coffee everyday affects your budget. Is it an overriding factor? The depreciation of your car, or the appreciation of your real estate are larger factors. Can you tell the price of coffee from your net worth? No. Does the price of coffee have an effect on your budget or drinking habits? Yes.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Earth is neither a closed system...nor is it at equilibrium.


You are certainly right.

If you followed the thread you would know that I wasn't talking about the atmosphere. I was referring to the references to an experiment that you cited.

Both references refer to the work of R W Graeff. The experiment is a static system at equilibrium. And both references have the following statement.

_Contrary to the statement by Clausius, the reported results show that in an isolated system under the influence of a force field like gravity heat can flow from a reservoir at a given temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature._​
That is contrary to what you have been continually saying, that heat cannot spontaneously flow from an object at lower temperature to a higher temperature. There is no work being done by gravity. It is also contrary to the second law. Also if Graeff's experiments are valid, he has discovered perpetual motion of the second kind. In short, Graeff's conclusions are outlandish, and his experiment has to be flawed.


SSDD said:


> And there are still the gas planets in the outer solar system which have temperatures comparable to our own troposphere with no greenhouse gasses to speak of an certainly not enough incoming solar to power a greenhouse effect even if they did have CO2 or some other so called greenhouse gas....if pressure isn't creating that heat...what is?


IanC and I would like you to explain that further with details.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> I thought all matter radiated all directions?


IanC hopes I will respond. If you are being sarcastic then don't bother reading the rest of this.

Yes all matter radiates in all directions that it is physically allowed to. However N2 and O2 do not radiate anything in LWIR. Therefore those two don't participate in the atmospheric green house effect.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 9, 2017)

IanC said:


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


not at all, I am merely asking that if CO2 is bad and will create catastrophic temperature increases as CO2 increases, then why hasn't it happened already as the CO2 is increasing?  My weather patterns and climate in Chicago are unchanged my 60 years of life.  I'm regurgitating the nonsense that CO2 is bad and use the past as an example that that hasn't happened.  if CO2 increased from 380 PPM to 400 PPM you wouldn't see a change in temperatures.  Proven.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




Let's make up a simple example. Presume there are 100 known and unknown factors that influence surface temperature. CO2 is one of them, and at the current increases it should add 0.1C per decade. If the 99 other factors add up to 0.0C per decade then the surface temp will increase by 0.1c in that decade. If the 99 add up to -0.1C then the temp stays the same, if the 99 add up to -0.2 then the temp falls 0.1C. In all cases the CO2 added 0.1C. The correlation between CO2 and temperature cannot be proven without knowledge of the contribution of all the other factors, which are both known and unknown.

The '80s and '90s coincidentally seemed to coincide and correlate to the CO2 theory, and it became a 'fixed' common assumption. The '00s did not fit, but instead of correcting the theory they 'adjusted' the data.

You are wrong by considering temperature as proof that CO2 doesn't influence temperature. The CAGW alarmists are criminally wrong by declaring their pet theory to be certain, and to make absurd predictions of doom, all the while making ad hoc excuses as to why their predictions continue to fail.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought all matter radiated all directions?
> ...




I agree that O2 and N2 don't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Is that the only source of atmospheric radiation? Does a non GHG atmosphere still warm the surface?

IR guns use wavelengths in the atmospheric window. Where does that radiation come from?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought all matter radiated all directions?
> ...


Then what is lost to space?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 9, 2017)

IanC said:


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


Then what are carbon credits for?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> I agree that O2 and N2 don't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Is that the only source of atmospheric radiation? Does a non GHG atmosphere still warm the surface?


Another way of asking the question is: If there were no GHG's would the earths BB radiation go unimpeded to space? I would think the earth would chill about as fast as if there were no atmosphere at all. I would be wrong if someone could think of another process that kept the heat in. 


IanC said:


> IR guns use wavelengths in the atmospheric window. Where does that radiation come from?


GHG's is the only thing I can think of right now.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Then what is lost to space?


GHG radiation at the TOA.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Then what is lost to space?
> ...


So directional?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> So directional?


?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> You keep making unsubstantuated claims. Present the planet and define your terms. Preferably with error bars for the certainty of temperature data.



Unsubstantiated?....geez ian...do you just ignore everything in the universe that doesn't support your belief system"

 The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than Earth’s, despite receiving only 2 W/m2 from the Sun. Are you going to claim that what small amount of  greenhouse gases exist there are able  to amplify 2 W/m2 to 602 W/m2?  

Gravity/pressure/atmospheric mass completely explain this, and the atmospheric temperature profiles of all the planets with thick atmospheres.  And before you start claiming internal heat is responsible...there is no Kelvin-Helmholtz effect happening on Uranus.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You keep making unsubstantuated claims. Present the planet and define your terms. Preferably with error bars for the certainty of temperature data.
> ...


Now this is funny as hell..

Over on WUWT an article is posted on thermodynamic limitation of our climate system.  Just one more nail in the coffin of AGW...

"Awareness has grown over the last few years in the climate community of this thermodynamic limitation. A lot of climate scientists have started qualifying scary predictions of wilder weather, by saying storms will become more violent, but they will occur less frequently. But as I noted at the start of this post, far too often the qualification is lost. Many people believe weather will simply grow more violent without constraints if the world warms, because they don’t understand the hard limits imposed by the Earth’s total climate energy budget."

The CO2 monster is dying a horrid death. Basically the input of energy to the system is relatively stable and thus the actions of that system can not change drastically.. So all of their hype is pure BS...

The Difference Between Energy, Work and Power – and Why it Matters to Climate Prediction


----------



## mamooth (Jan 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> [Over on WUWT an article is posted on thermodynamic limitation of our climate system.  Just one more nail in the coffin of AGW...



And it was enseless handwaving.



> The CO2 monster is dying a horrid death. Basically the input of energy to the system is relatively stable and thus the actions of that system can not change drastically.. So all of their hype is pure BS...



Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The energy in storms is a small fraction of the energy of all weather.

Hence, storm energy can increase, with the energy easily shifting from other areas. "Earth gets finite energy" in no way prevents that energy from shifting about more chaotically.

So, that was a fine example of the total lack of common sense found at WUWT.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 10, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > [Over on WUWT an article is posted on thermodynamic limitation of our climate system.  Just one more nail in the coffin of AGW...
> ...


I am not supprised that this too went over your damn head...


*Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate*

"Incoming and outgoing solar radiation couple with heat exchange at Earth’s surface to drive weather patterns that redistribute heat and moisture around the globe, creating an atmospheric heat engine. Here, we investigate the engine’s work output using thermodynamic diagrams computed from reanalyzed observations and from a climate model simulation with anthropogenic forcing. We show that the work output is always less than that of an equivalent Carnot cycle and that it is constrained by the power necessary to maintain the hydrological cycle. In the climate simulation, the hydrological cycle increases more rapidly than the equivalent Carnot cycle. *We conclude that the intensification of the hydrological cycle in warmer climates might limit the heat engine’s ability to generate work."*

Read more (requires registration): Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate | Science


----------



## mamooth (Jan 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than Earth’s, despite receiving only 2 W/m2 from the Sun. Are you going to claim that what small amount of  greenhouse gases exist there are able  to amplify 2 W/m2 to 602 W/m2?



"Small amount"?

Riiiiiiiight.

Uranus has a 300km troposphere, stuffed full of various greenhouse gases, with massive pressure at the bottom. The GHG concentrations are like a zillion times more than earth.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> I am not supprised that this too went over your damn head...



I'm not surprised you didn't look at the paper, and instead just parroted the WUWT misrepresentation of it. Here's how the author summarizes it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129143040.htm
---
"Put more simply, powerful storms are strengthened at the expense of weaker storms," said Laliberte. "We believe atmospheric circulation will adapt to this less efficient form of heat transfer and we will see either fewer storms overall or at least a weakening of the most common, weaker storms."
----

It's not the number of storms that gets you. It's the peak storm. And that paper said he peak storms will get stronger.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than Earth’s, despite receiving only 2 W/m2 from the Sun. Are you going to claim that what small amount of  greenhouse gases exist there are able  to amplify 2 W/m2 to 602 W/m2?
> ...




SSSSSWWWWWIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGG and another miss...


Molecular hydrogen: 82.5%
Helium: 15.2%
Methane: 2.3%
Now...using the standard calculations for the greenhouse effect here, predict the temperature on Uranus which receives about 2 W/m2 of energy from the sun...and don't forget that the bulk of the methane is very deep in the atmosphere which reflects most of the paltry sunlight reaching the planet because it is mostly hydrogen and helium ice.

The fact is that the temperature in the troposphere is due to pressure...not anything like a greenhouse effect.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 11, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I am not supprised that this too went over your damn head...
> ...


Where are you  going to get the energy to make these 'peak' storms? If cloud cover increases than energy into the system falls..  which just happens to be a function of water vapor.. Had you read the paper you would have found out that we can not become a Carnot system due to entropy...  but alas you believe in the self-powering, never-ending energy loop of AGW..

WE cant fix your stupidity.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Just one more example of where climate science has failed...it is inevitable, I guess when you have liberal graduates from a soft science curriculum trying to do what should be done by graduates from a hard science curriculum.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> SSSSSWWWWWIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGG and another miss...
> 
> Molecular hydrogen: 82.5%
> Helium: 15.2%
> Methane: 2.3%



I always have fun humiliating you like this.

Atmosphere of Uranus - Wikipedia
----
At depth it is significantly enriched in volatiles (dubbed "ices") such as water, ammonia and methane.

The troposphere hosts four cloud layers: methane clouds at about 1.2 bar, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia clouds at 3–10 bar, ammonium hydrosulfide clouds at 20–40  bar, and finally water clouds below 50 bar. Only the upper two cloud layers have been observed directly—the deeper clouds remain speculative. Above the clouds lie several tenuous layers of photochemical haze.
----

Your kook theory relies on pretending the composition at the top of the Uranus atmosphere is the same as the deep composition.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Where are you  going to get the energy to make these 'peak' storms?



How about you read what I just posted? The author of the paper makes it very clear where his paper says the energy comes from.

"Put more simply, powerful storms are strengthened at the expense of weaker storms,"



> If cloud cover increases than energy into the system falls..  which just happens to be a function of water vapor..



Why are you disagreeing with the author of the paper that you had just declared was the bestest thing ever? I think he knows what his paper said better than you.



> Had you read the paper you would have found out that we can not become a Carnot system due to entropy...



You have no idea what the paper says, because you never looked at it. You're just parroting buzzwords that you don't understand.

I did look at the paper. And it's extremely difficult material, really high level thermo stuff. I'd have to spend weeks on it before I could comment on it. You don't stand a chance.

But as I don't have weeks to spend on it, I'll just go with the author's summary.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > SSSSSWWWWWIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGG and another miss...
> ...




Another Swwwwwiiiiinnnnggggg and another miss....The count is 2 and 0


Still waiting hairball...lets see the math...it wouldn't make any difference if the entire atmosphere were methane...there isn't enough incoming solar for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to reach a temperature anywhere near 33K warmer than the base of our own troposphere...

Again...the temperature there is what it is due to pressure...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*Another Swwwwwiiiiinnnnggggg and another miss....The count is 2 and 0*

Wow, bad at physics and baseball.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Maybe you would like to do the math and show us how a greenhouse effect as described by climate science could make the base of the troposphere on Uranus 33K warmer than our own with 2Wm2 of incoming solar radiation and and atmosphere that is hydrogen, helium, and 2.3% methane..and show us how good you are at physics....or not.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 11, 2017)

Awww. Todd beat me to pointing out SSDD's bad baseball.



SSDD said:


> Still waiting hairball...lets see the math...



Not necessary. I just had to point out you lied big about the lack of greenhouse gases on Uranus. That rips your kook theory to shreds.

As for doing the math, I just have to point out that a 300km thick blanket is a hell of an insulator. Maybe you should show us the math that says otherwise. real math, not your meaningless "I can't believe it, so it's not true!" handwaving.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



Sure, right after you show how objects of the same temperature cease emitting when you place them next to each other.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



What I thought....I never claimed to know why energy doesn't move from cool to warm...I just said that it did.......and we both know that you can't do the math showing how a greenhouse effect on uranus with the paltry solar energy coming in manages to warm the lower troposphere to 33K warmer than our own...but then, I knew you couldn't when you made the claim.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Not necessary. I just had to point out you lied big about the lack of greenhouse gases on Uranus. That rips your kook theory to shreds.



According to NASA...the atmosphere is as I said...



			
				nasa said:
			
		

> Uranus' atmosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium, with a small amount of methane and traces of water and ammonia. The methane gives Uranus its signature blue color.





mamooth said:


> As for doing the math, I just have to point out that a 300km thick blanket is a hell of an insulator. Maybe you should show us the math that says otherwise. real math, not your meaningless "I can't believe it, so it's not true!" handwaving.



Refer to the ideal gas laws hairball....


----------



## mamooth (Jan 11, 2017)

Here's some quick math demolishing SSDD's pseudoscience fantasy.

According to wiki, Uranus radiates significantly less net heat (per square meter) than earth. (net heat = total heat radiated - absorbed solar energy).

Uranus - Wikipedia
---
Uranus's internal heat appears markedly lower than that of the other giant planets; in astronomical terms, it has a low thermal flux.[17][68] Why Uranus's internal temperature is so low is still not understood. Neptune, which is Uranus's near twin in size and composition, radiates 2.61 times as much energy into space as it receives from the Sun,[17] but Uranus radiates hardly any excess heat at all. The total power radiated by Uranus in the far infrared (i.e. heat) part of the spectrum is 1.06 ± 0.08 times the solar energy absorbed in its atmosphere.[12][69] Uranus's heat flux is only 0.042 ± 0.047 W/m2, which is lower than the internal heat flux of Earth of about 0.075 W/m2.[69] The lowest temperature recorded in Uranus's tropopause is 49 K (−224 °C), making Uranus the coldest planet in the Solar System.[
---

However, Uranus has a much thicker atmosphere than earth. Since SSDD's loopy theory says that it's the amount of the gravity-induced pressure gradient that creates heat, and Uranus has a far, far larger such gradient, then Uranus should be generating far more such heat than earth.

But no, the opposite happens.

Hence, SSDD's kook theory is conclusively proven, by the math, to be totally delusional.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Like I said...I have no idea why...just as I have no idea of the fundamental mechanism of gravity...one doesn't need to know the mechanism in order to know what every observation ever made suggests...now you just suggested that you are good at physics...lets see the math showing that a greenhouse effect as described by climate science manages a temperature 33K warmer than ours at the base of the troposphere...or you could not and in doing so, admit that you aren't so good at physics, or math yourself and in doing so, acknowledge that your opinion means little.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


*
What I thought....I never claimed to know why energy doesn't move from cool to warm*

You claimed matter ceases to emit, just because it is near matter of the same temperature.
That's a unique twist on equilibrium, but I guess you need it for your "back-radiation doesn't exist" epicycle system.

*and we both know that you can't do the math showing how a greenhouse effect on uranus with the paltry solar energy coming in manages to warm the lower troposphere to 33K warmer than our own*

Who would be dumb enough to assume the only factor in the temperature was the greenhouse effect?
Oh, right. LOL!

*...but then, I knew you couldn't when you made the claim.*

I made no claim about temperatures on distant planets. DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What I thought....I never claimed to know why energy doesn't move from cool to warm...I just said that it did.


You are making a claim that no scientist over the last 100 years believes, and you don't know why you make that claim. That is weird.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You claimed matter ceases to emit, just because it is near matter of the same temperature.



Nope...that claim is yours and Ian's...like the whole "smart photon" thing belongs to rocks...My position is the SB equation...nothing more nothing less.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who would be dumb enough to assume the only factor in the temperature was the greenhouse effect?
> Oh, right. LOL!



Guess that's toddster speak for "you are right SSDD...I can't do the math....I just thought I would toss out a smart assed one liner and never expected to be called on my math skills.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What I thought....I never claimed to know why energy doesn't move from cool to warm...I just said that it did.
> ...



What is weird is that every scientist according to you believes an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over every observation and measurement ever made....damned strange.  Guess that is post modern science for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed matter ceases to emit, just because it is near matter of the same temperature.
> ...



*My position is the SB equation...nothing more nothing less.*

SB says two identical objects of the same temperature will emit equal amounts of energy toward each other.
Your silly claim is that they cease to emit toward each other.
*
Guess that's toddster speak for "you are right SSDD...I can't do the math*

No, that's toddster speak for you're a fucking idiot to assume the greenhouse effect is the only explanation for the temperature of distant planets. DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon. That's weird.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon. That's weird.



What scientists "know" at this point is far less than you believe that they know...What scientists have is a lot of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.  

As to my not knowing what the basic mechanism for energy transfer is...big deal...no one in science knows...just like we have no idea what the basic mechanism for gravity is...we have observation...and we have models that don't match up with observation....personally, I will stick with observation...hard to go wrong there.  You...well you can watch the models change and modify over the years and maybe at some point, you will realize that you have spent your life waiting for the great pumpkin to show up.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Here's some quick math demolishing SSDD's pseudoscience fantasy.
> 
> According to wiki, Uranus radiates significantly less net heat (per square meter) than earth. (net heat = total heat radiated - absorbed solar energy).
> 
> ...



Not much math there hairball...and certainly none by you supporting your claims...

Here...have a look at some math that leaves nothing to guesswork and fudge factors.

According to NASA...the temperature at 1 bar of pressure on Uranus is about 76 degrees...The atmospheric pressure at 1 bar is about 1000mb....the density of the atmosphere at 1 bar is 420g/m3.....the mean molecular weight of the atmosphere at 1 bar is 2.64g/mole.......The black body temperature estimate is 58.2 degrees

*PV = nRT*

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~*77 K  *   Interesting...don't you think?...or do you think at all...

Now show us what the temperature at 1 bar on uranus should be according to the greenhouse hypothesis.....here is a clue...there is no greenhouse effect on uranus by any definition that meshes with the greenhouse effect described by climate science....


As long as we are doing this, lets look at a couple of other planets

According to NASA, the temperature at the surface of Venus is 737K  the atmospheric pressure at the surface is about 92000mb....the density of the atmosphere at the surface is 65000/m3...the mean molecular weight of the atmosphere at the surface is 43.45g/mole...the black body temperature estimate of venus is 184.2K

*PV = nRT*

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~*750 K
*
Odd...don't you think that the ideal gas laws give a pretty accurate estimate of the temperature while the black body temperature estimates miss by a mile?
*
*
Earth....black body temperature estimate is 254.3K

*PV = nRT*

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~*294 K
*
The ideal gas laws and the actual measurements of the Diurnal temperature range are pretty close while the black body estimate again...misses by a mile..
*

*
Jupiter...at 1 bar of pressure

*PV = nRT*

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~*169 K
*
Again...the ideal gas laws give a damned close estimate of the temperature at 1 bar while the black body estimate...again...misses by a mile.  You think this pattern is coincidence?

and on and on it goes...for every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....the formula for the greenhouse hypothesis only works here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...but feel free to run the numbers through the greenhouse effect formula and see what it predicts the temperatures of the various planets to be....here is a clue...it won't even be close.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What scientists "know" at this point is far less than you believe that they know...What scientists have is a lot of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.


What scientists know at this point is far far more than you can possibly understand. What scientists have are a lot of observable, testable, measurable mathematical models that predict observable, testable, measurable phenomena to an unprecedented accuracy of parts per billion. Can your theory do that?


SSDD said:


> As to my not knowing what the basic mechanism for energy transfer is...big deal...no one in science knows.


Right, you know nothing about radiation transfer. Science does know and does not agree with your unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable idea of the second law, or radiation equilibrium, etc.


SSDD said:


> maybe at some point, you will realize that you have spent your life waiting for the great pumpkin to show up.


Maybe at some point, you will admit to yourself that you know nothing about modern science and will have spent your life uselessly trolling.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> PV = nRT


Hey SSDD that is a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. Furthermore your mathematical model is wrong. A lot of your planets fail being "ideal". The fact that it's called the ideal gas law should have given you a clue. Try redoing your analysis using the *van der Waal* equation.

When does ideal gas law fail? | Socratic
_The ideal gas law "fails" when the pressure is high, the volume is low, the temperature is low, or there are significant intermolecular forces.. _​


----------



## SSDD (Jan 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PV = nRT
> ...




Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.

When comparing the estimates of temperature on the planets with predictions made by the ideal gas law...it is clear that it did not fail...are you going to claim that it is just coincidence?  

It is obvious, looking at the NASA data sheets on the planets that they have used the ideal gas law and incoming solar radiation to predict the temperatures of the various planets to a pretty high degree of accuracy...that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets...even here....why do you suppose they don't use the greenhouse gas equations for their estimates of the temperatures of the various planets?...I will tell you why...because they aren't even close....more failure for post modern science...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.


Yes, all that testing...testing....testing...testing... showed flaws in the ideal gas law and led to the van der Waal equation. The models in radiation physics were also done with testing...testing....testing...testing... they exhibit impeccable accuracy.


SSDD said:


> that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets


Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Not much math there hairball...and certainly none by you supporting your claims...



In other words, after your kook theory was completely demolished by the data, you responded by ... tossing insults and bringing up a crazy evasion. Same thing you always do.



> Here...have a look at some math that leaves nothing to guesswork and fudge factors.



Aside from the massive basic logic failure, it seemed to be a mass of unsupported numbers. Fudge, that is.

*



			PV = nRT
		
Click to expand...

*In a near-ideal situation, that equation has to hold regardless of whether there's a greenhouse effect or not. So, congratulations, you proved that gases tend to obey the ideal gas law. Being that nothing in the greenhouse theory says gases don't obey the ideal gas law, your exercise has no bearing on the validity of greenhouse theory.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 12, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.



Like I said...look at any NASA data sheet for the planets...and plug in the numbers....they all use the ideal gas law...and if they tried using the greenhouse equations for the other planets, they would be so far off as to be ridiculous...look above at the black body temperature of the planets vs the temperature derived from the ideal gas law...the black body numbers are invariably way off...which is why an ad hoc fudge factor must be added in to even get the temperature right here.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except...hairball...that NASA uses the ideal gas equations to estimate the temperatures on the planets...not the greenhouse equations....if they used the greenhouse equations they would be way off...even further off than the black body temperatures which are nothing like as close to reality as the figures derived from the ideal gas laws....

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science on any planet...including this one.fakery and fraud...nothing more.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Except...hairball...that NASA uses the ideal gas equations to estimate the temperatures on the planets...



No, dumbass, they use instruments to measure the temperatures.

Holy shit, you're stupid.

Look, just because you "model" everything by fudging and shun actual data, don't assume everyone else acts like you.

I think the funniest thing is how you think there are secret "greenhouse equations". You seem to be the only person on the planet who knows what they are. Can you let us in on the secret? 

I just ask because all the normal people use the normal heat flow equations that have been around for over a century. Can you tell us why you think it's wrong to use the normal heat flow equations to describe heat flow? Why do you think secret magical "greenhouse equations" are necessary?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Like I said...look at any NASA data sheet for the planets...and plug in the numbers....they all use the ideal gas law.


You forgot to give me the source where NASA uses the ideal gas law to explain the atmospheres.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said...look at any NASA data sheet for the planets...and plug in the numbers....they all use the ideal gas law.
> ...



Sorry guy...I told you that you could reference the planetary fact sheets from NASA....I thought that providing a reference was sufficient to someone who thinks so highly of his own intelligence.  Had someone like rocks, or the hairball, or crick asked, I would have made every effort to draw them a picture in crayon...like I did above in post #546..

The planetary fact sheet from NASA...Here.     Planetary Fact Sheets   is where the planetary information came from...the pertinent information was simply plugged into the ideal gas law formula....pardon me for thinking that you were bright enough to figure that out....Hold on a second...while I grab my crayons....

Can I assume that you know what PV=nRT stands for?

*Venus (at the surface)*

*P = 92000(mb)*
*n= 65000 (g/m3)*
*R= 43.45( g/mole)*
*Temp = 737K*


*92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288*

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


*Jupiter  (at 1 bar)*

*P= 1000*
*n= 160 (g/m3)*
*R=2.22 (g/mole)*
*Temp = 165*
*
PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn  (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)*
*R=2.22(g/mole)*
*Temp = 134K*
*
PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K

If you are looking for words from NASA that say "we are using the ideal gas laws to predict the temperatures of planets"...I suppose you would be out of luck...and if you like, you can imagine that it is just coincidence that the NASA fact sheets happen to jibe with the figures that the ideal gas laws predict...and if you are really....really...really...out there, you can imagine that it is just coincidence that the ideal gas laws actually predict the temperatures of the various planets with atmospheres with some minor adjustment for incoming solar radiation.....and if you are waaaaaaaayyyyy out there, you can make up some excuse in your head for NASA using the ideal gas laws to predict temperatures rather than applying the "oh so accurate" greenhouse model to the planets with atmospheres...


*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.
> ...


Simple observation..... is all that is necessary.... One method fails every time and the other does not... simple science.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *If you are looking for words from NASA that say "we are using the ideal gas laws to predict the temperatures of planets"...I suppose you would be out of luck...and if you like, you can imagine that it is just coincidence that the NASA fact sheets happen to jibe with the figures that the ideal gas laws predict.*


Just as I thought. You were trying to put words into NASA's mouth.
According to your blog,


SSDD said:


> *Jupiter (at 1 bar)*
> 
> *P= 1000*


According to your NASA reference. 
*Jovian Atmosphere*
_Surface Pressure: >>1000 bars  _​In math or science the symbol ">>" means much greater than. The interpretation of the math you got at some blog is that the temperature is much greater than 169 K. That doesn't seem like a correlation at all. The NASA data sheet for Jupiter does not jibe with your blog at all.

Finally the formulas are looking at only one point in the atmosphere. That is meaningless as far as a theory of planetary physics is concerned. 

On the earth you still have to consider that the surface of the earth is pumping out 400W/m^2 while receiving 160W/m^2. An ideal gas law does not take that into consideration.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 13, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


well it's obvious that one would go with the one that fails.  It's the libturd mainstay.  failure.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> According to your NASA reference.
> *Jovian Atmosphere*
> _Surface Pressure: >>1000 bars _​


_
Guess you either didn't note...or don't know what 1 bar means as I explicitly wrote it._​


Wuwei said:


> Finally the formulas are looking at only one point in the atmosphere. That is meaningless as far as a theory of planetary physics is concerned.



Of course they are looking at only one point...but change the pressure and the temperature changes....increase it and the temperature rises...decrease it and the temperature decreases...My example picked 1 bar of pressure and the temperature was very close...move deeper in the atmosphere and my bet is that the resulting temperature will still be very close.

Like I said, I fully expect you to make up whatever story you need to avoid the truth...and ignore everything that doesn't support your position.



Wuwei said:


> On the earth you still have to consider that the surface of the earth is pumping out 400W/m^2 while receiving 160W/m^2. An ideal gas law does not take that into consideration.



And yet...

*Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288*

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K  [/quote]

and what does NASA list as the temperature of earth at the surface?...as I said, make a small adjustment for incoming solar radiation and guess what?....no fudge factor required...

Like it or not, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws with adjustments for incoming solar radiation works for every planet...while the greenhouse effect equations only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Like it or not, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws with adjustments for incoming solar radiation works for every planet...while the greenhouse effect equations only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.


Your blog theory simply doesn't work for the Jupiter example. It doesn't work for any example because the use of the ideal gas law in the context of *your theory assumes the system is adiabatic*. Planets are far from adiabatic. You are promoting an amateur exercise that no scientist believes - deniers nor warmers.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Like it or not, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws with adjustments for incoming solar radiation works for every planet...while the greenhouse effect equations only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.
> ...



Denial of what you can see is hardly a rational argument...but hey...you aren't operating from a position of rationality..you are operating from a position of faith....

And I have no theory....I have the ideal gas laws...and the results of the equations...they predict the temperatures of the planets far more closely than the greenhouse hypothesis...even here on earth...without the need for an ad hoc fudge factor.

By the way...where are these greenhouse equations?...Ever seen them?....or have you just been told to trust?...and not look too closely?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Denial of what you can see is hardly a rational argument...but hey...you aren't operating from a position of rationality..you are operating from a position of faith....
> 
> And I have no theory....I have the ideal gas laws...and the results of the equations...they predict the temperatures of the planets far more closely than the greenhouse hypothesis...even here on earth...without the need for an ad hoc fudge factor.
> 
> By the way...where are these greenhouse equations?...Ever seen them?....or have you just been told to trust?...and not look too closely?


Your blog hypothesis depends on the atmosphere being adiabatic. That is totally erroneous. The numbers don't even work. You will believe it because you want to, but absolutely no scientist, denier nor warmer, is would believe something that stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Denial of what you can see is hardly a rational argument...but hey...you aren't operating from a position of rationality..you are operating from a position of faith....
> ...




The analysis depends on the ideal gas laws...and what do you know...they predict the temperatures of the various planets with atmospheres to a pretty high degree of accuracy...far better than the formulae for the greenhouse hypothesis...so well, in fact, that it is what NASA used to predict the temperatures of the planets...and in fact, the ideal gas laws play an important part of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere...which, by the way, predicts the temperature on earth quite well...better, in fact than the greenhouse hypothesis..and what do you know.....no ad hoc fudge factor required.

What I find funny is that anyone would call a branch of pseudoscience actual science when it's centerpiece contains and ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 13, 2017)

Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.


The question is are his results wrong?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.


OBSERVATIONS WHICH WORK vs Fantasy that can not be proven....

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I'll go with physical observations that work


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.




It is like you are saying black is white because white is black....the fact is that the ideal gas laws plus an adjustment for incoming solar radiation provide a pretty accurate prediction for temperature across every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....that isn't coincidence...

You are simply mistaken and don't like it and are thrashing about for some reason to not believe your eyes...it is damned entertaining to watch as well as I sit on a stack of equations that predict the temperature for every damed planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while your hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor.....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.
> ...



Simply fascinating to watch...isn't it....that ideal gas law can't possibly predict the temperatures of the planets and the fact that it does must be some coincidence...or denier magic...or something...because it can't possibly be right...and yet it is...but it can't be....and yet it is...it must be a trick...and yet it predicts those temperatures...but it can't...and yet it does...and on and on and on...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.
> ...




There you go confusing the issue with the results of the equations...that is just a denier trick to clear the smoke and mirrors and cloud the issue with the facts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Stop that...  the circles are making me dizzy!


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> It is like you are saying black is white because white is black....the fact is that the ideal gas laws plus an adjustment for incoming solar radiation provide a pretty accurate prediction for temperature across every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....that isn't coincidence...
> 
> You are simply mistaken and don't like it and are thrashing about for some reason to not believe your eyes...it is damned entertaining to watch as well as I sit on a stack of equations that predict the temperature for every damed planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while your hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor.....


You don't really have to believe in a hair-brained blog. Back-radiation is real. All scientists for the last 100 years believe there is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the net radiation energy is from the hotter to the colder object. In radiation energy exchange, entropy will continually increase and satisfy the 2nd law. Do you believe entropy properties are valid?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> [Q Do you believe entropy properties are valid?



the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > [Q Do you believe entropy properties are valid?
> ...



*and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever... *

Wow! So few words, so much fail.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



you are funny...and sad...

SECOND LAW

_



			Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. *All natural processes are irreversible.*

Click to expand...

_


http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf



> As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, *and all natural processes are irreversibl*e. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time.



Thermodynamics



> The *second law of thermodynamics* states that in a system the entropy (the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system) cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink. Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. Thus, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and *all natural processes are irreversible.* This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time.
> 
> 
> http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/5130/Notes/SecondLaw.pdf
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible


That's right!


SSDD said:


> .no back radiation ever.


That's not right! 
Where in the law of entropy does it say that? Nowhere. As long as the colder object received more energy than it emits, the entropy law is satisfied. Anyone can understand that.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible
> ...



the second law says no such thing...you say that..and your references say that...but the second law doesn't say that...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model says that...but not the second law...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever... *
> 
> Wow! So few words, so much fail.



You are funny...and wrong..and sad....

SECOND LAW



> _Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. *All natural processes are irreversible*._


_
_
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf



> As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and *all natural processes are irreversible*.



Thermodynamics



> The *second law of thermodynamics* states that in a system the entropy (the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system) cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink. Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. Thus, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and* all natural processes are irreversible.* This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> and all natural processes are irreversible...*.no back radiation ever.*..





SSDD said:


> you are funny...and sad...
> *...all natural processes are irreversible.*


Todd was no doubt referring to the last sentence _"....no back radiation ever..."_
Now who's funny and sad.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > and all natural processes are irreversible...*.no back radiation ever.*..
> ...



Is energy flowing from the warm earth to the cooler atmosphere a natural process?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


The second law is very general. Consider a cold object and a warm object. The entropy of the system will be given by some value S0. After a while the warm object will be colder and the cold object will be warmer. The entropy is a larger value S1. There is no place in the entropy representation that says the two objects cannot have a two way exchange of energy, with, of course, the end result that more energy went from the warmer to the colder object.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Is energy flowing from the warm earth to the cooler atmosphere a natural process?


The net energy flow is from the warm to the cold.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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



Again...that isn't what the second law says....I suppose you are arguing that the second law of thermodynamics is a "living" law....meaning that you can change it when it isn't convenient...face it guy...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool objects to warm objects...

and again...is energy moving from the warmer surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere a natural process?  easy question...yes or no answer is all that is needed.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Again...that isn't what the second law says....I suppose you are arguing that the second law of thermodynamics is a "living" law....meaning that you can change it when it isn't convenient...face it guy...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool objects to warm objects...


The second law in modern usage is given by the properties of entropy. 



SSDD said:


> and again...is energy moving from the warmer surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere a natural process? easy question...yes or no answer is all that is needed.


It is more clear to say net energy moves from the earth to the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> The second law in modern usage is given by the properties of entropy.



The second law doesn't say anything at all about a modern usage...more torturing the statement on your part.



Wuwei said:


> It is more clear to say net energy moves from the earth to the atmosphere.



What's the matter guy?...can't bring yourself to simply state that energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process?...see what your believes have led you to?....how much more goofy can you get than to be afraid to say that energy moving from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process for fear of what it will do you your beliefs?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What's the matter guy?...can't bring yourself to simply state that energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process?...see what your believes have led you to?....how much more goofy can you get than to be afraid to say that energy moving from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process for fear of what it will do you your beliefs?


What could be clearer than saying net energy moves from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere. Of course it's a natural process. Who said it wasn't?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What's the matter guy?...can't bring yourself to simply state that energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process?...see what your believes have led you to?....how much more goofy can you get than to be afraid to say that energy moving from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere is a natural process for fear of what it will do you your beliefs?
> ...



What would be bullshit is to weasel  rather than simply state the obvious....of course that energy movement is a natural process and all natural processes are irreversible...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't go back...that is precisely the opposite of entropy..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What would be bullshit is to weasel rather than simply state the obvious....of course that energy movement is a natural process and all natural processes are irreversible...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't go back...that is precisely the opposite of entropy..


Of course what you say above is true.

And of course it doesn't preclude the fact that the energy of thermal radiation goes everywhere independent of temperature of its surroundings, with the constraint that the total, or net energy moves from the warmer objects to the cooler objects. It's as simple as that.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What would be bullshit is to weasel rather than simply state the obvious....of course that energy movement is a natural process and all natural processes are irreversible...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't go back...that is precisely the opposite of entropy..
> ...



so you say...and yet, it can't be observed, or measured with instruments at ambient temperature...again...let me know when they alter the second law to support your belief rather than every observation ever made...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ..let me know when they alter the second law to support your belief rather than every observation ever made..


You are the one altering it to support your belief.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ..let me know when they alter the second law to support your belief rather than every observation ever made..
> ...






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




Which part of that am I altering?....I accept that statement precisely as it is written...you, on the other hand want to add, or take away...or alter it to agree with your belief.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2017)

If we have a system of two objects of differing temperature, each will radiate according to its absolute temperature and the net effect will be flow of heat energy from the warmer to the cooler.  But both are radiating, constantly, in all directions.

You have found another way to interpret the 2nd Law, but given that your interpretation requires intelligent matter (or photons) capable of violating special relativity while the interpretation that everyone else on the planet makes does not, yours is obviously incorrect.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2017)

Crick said:


> If we have a system of two objects of differing temperature, each will radiate according to its absolute temperature and the net effect will be flow of heat energy from the warmer to the cooler.  But both are radiating, constantly, in all directions.
> 
> You have found another way to interpret the 2nd Law, but given that your interpretation requires intelligent matter (or photons) capable of violating special relativity while the interpretation that everyone else on the planet makes does not, yours is obviously incorrect.



And on and on and on...and the second law still says what it says....

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

So which part am I "interpreting"?  And which part is in opposition to my position.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Which part of that am I altering?....I accept that statement precisely as it is written...you, on the other hand want to add, or take away...or alter it to agree with your belief.


No, you took the word energy out of the context that was intended. The context at the hyperphysics site was,  "Spontaneous flow of *heat *from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator." Read that site again.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Which part of that am I altering?....I accept that statement precisely as it is written...you, on the other hand want to add, or take away...or alter it to agree with your belief.
> ...



Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.


If you want to be a troll and interpret that word out of context, so be it. You will find yourself disagreeing with all scientists over the last 100 years. But that's the sort of thing trolls do.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.
> ...


Troll? Words out of context?






project much?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think they would have said "heat" if they meant heat?...they certainly know the word since they used it in the first sentence...then in the second, they said energy so that some goofus like you couldn't say that heat is something other than energy....And once again...it is you who is interpreting...it is a straight forward, unambiguous sentence...it is you and yours who are trying to add ambiguity to it in an effort to support your beliefs.
> ...



the context is that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...and it is more than clear that you are the one interpreting...altering...attempting to read something into the statement that isn't there....

And disagreeing with scientists is nothing new...nor unusual...and if one looks at history...and one disagrees with mainstream science...espeically science not grounded solidly in observation, then one has a better than average chance of being right...you have apparently elevated science to a position of religion in your mind...and have made the practitioners infallible....your zealotry has made it impossible to view science with anything like cold calculating rationality...any disagreement with your dogma brings on an instant attack...just as it is with all religious zealots.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Amazing...the lengths they will go to isn't it...look at these sentences...

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

Do you see anything ambiguous there?...any thing in which the context isn't perfectly clear?  In fact, I would say that those two are among the most straight forward, unambiguous sentences I have ever read...they simply are not open to misunderstanding...or taking them out of context in any way...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*
Amazing...the lengths they will go to isn't it...look at these sentences...

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

Amazing, those sentences don't say anything about smart photons measuring the temperature of all matter.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


again photons are energy and again:

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*again photons are energy and again:*

Again, if you could find someone, anyone, who ever said the 2nd Law means photons don't travel from colder matter toward warmer matter, you might have a point. But you can't because you don't.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why don't you show us where they said they could.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Right here:

_The thermal energy radiated by a __blackbody radiator__ per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the __absolute temperature__ and is given by_






_For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:_





_where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net __radiation loss__ rate takes the form_





_The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is also related to the __energy density__ in the radiation in a given volume of space._

_Stefan-Boltzmann Law_


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


where's the black body radiator?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Everywhere you look.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


funny, don't see one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



You're blind and stupid?
Now it all makes sense. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


dude, I live here and no fking hot spot.  So show me where it is.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



The SB law applies to black bodies and gray bodies....is a CO2 molecule either?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



Yes. Obviously.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



None of the matter near you emits IR? Cool!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Is it?  You think a CO2 molecule is either a black body or a gray body?....got any support for your belief?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*Is it?*

Isn't it?

All matter above 0K emits radiation, except CO2? You could get a Nobel if you could prove it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Didn't think so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



You going to prove that CO2 is unique and doesn't emit radiation?
That's a disappointment.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> the context is that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...and it is more than clear that you are the one interpreting...altering...attempting to read something into the statement that isn't there....


Nope, The context was heat. Read it again.


SSDD said:


> And disagreeing with scientists is nothing new...nor unusual...and if one looks at history...and one disagrees with mainstream science...espeically science not grounded solidly in observation, then one has a better than average chance of being right...you have apparently elevated science to a position of religion in your mind...and have made the practitioners infallible....your zealotry has made it impossible to view science with anything like cold calculating rationality...any disagreement with your dogma brings on an instant attack...just as it is with all religious zealots.


My "zealotry" is supported by all scientists of the last 100 years.
Certainly, when well respected scientists disagree, that is one thing. But when your naive anti-science zealotry disagrees with science, it is meaningless.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _The thermal energy radiated by a __blackbody radiator__ per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the __absolute temperature__ and is given by_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Finally you are talking language that JC will be able to understand.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _The thermal energy radiated by a __blackbody radiator__ per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the __absolute temperature__ and is given by_
> ...




Guess you are both unaware that that formula applies to a theoretical black body in a vacuum....take it out of the vacuum and put it in the presence of other matter and the formula changes to reflect the fact that in the presence of matter, the black body radiates according to its area, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...Make its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings the same and P=0


----------



## Crick (Jan 18, 2017)

All bodes radiate according to their area, their emissivity.  Surely it must irk you to add complications to this scenario that accomplish nothing save to make you and your ideas look as stupid as stupid can be.  Matter cannot control, throttle or aim its emissions.  You cannot violate special relativity.  You are a fool to think otherwise.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2017)

Crick said:


> All bodes radiate according to their area, their emissivity.  Surely it must irk you to add complications to this scenario that accomplish nothing save to make you and your ideas look as stupid as stupid can be.  Matter cannot control, throttle or aim its emissions.  You cannot violate special relativity.  You are a fool to think otherwise.



I am not irked in the least...I am amused by your inability to read a mathematical formula and have any grasp at all of what it says...it only highlights the fact that your claims of being an engineer of any sort are bullshit...Below is the SB law as it applies to a theoretical perfect black body in the presence of other matter...the expression Tc to the 4th power refers to the temperature of the background...which would be anywhere other than in the perfect vacuum of space...







Now demonstrate those claimed mathematical skills you have and state in your own words what that equation says... You have claimed that all bodies radiate according to their area and emissivity....what does the equation above state that P is dependent upon?

Or don't and demonstrate, as I have stated that you are no more an engineer than my dog and are, in fact, unable to read even the most basic sort of equation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Guess you are both unaware that that formula applies to a theoretical black body in a vacuum....take it out of the vacuum and put it in the presence of other matter and the formula changes to reflect the fact that in the presence of matter, the black body radiates according to its area, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...Make its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings the same and P=0


We covered this many times and gave a dozen references on what science has discovered. What you are inventing here was wrong the first dozen times you brought it up, it is still wrong, and will always be wrong.

Here it is again: There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the hotter object always radiates more energy to the colder object than the colder object radiates to the hotter object. In radiation energy exchange, entropy will increase and satisfy the 2nd law.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Now demonstrate those claimed mathematical skills you have and state in your own words what that equation says... You have claimed that all bodies radiate according to their area and emissivity....what does the equation above state that P is dependent upon?


It really doesn't matter what Crick or I say. It's what the science over the last 100 years says:
The formula is the difference between radiation emitted and radiation received. 
Also note this:
There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the hotter object always radiates more energy to the colder object than the colder object radiates to the hotter object. In radiation energy exchange, entropy will increase and satisfy the 2nd law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*the black body radiates according to its area, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings*

That's funny!

*Make its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings the same and P=0*


Yup, _the net __radiation loss__ rate takes the form




_
Nothing there about matter above 0K stopping all emissions.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2017)

Crick said:


> All bodes radiate according to their area, their emissivity.  Surely it must irk you to add complications to this scenario that accomplish nothing save to make you and your ideas look as stupid as stupid can be.  Matter cannot control, throttle or aim its emissions.  You cannot violate special relativity.  You are a fool to think otherwise.


dude just post up that experiment and we'll all bow to you.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so what is the answer to that if P=0?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



The answer would be, net radiation loss is 0.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yep zero, why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Because the radiation out is matched by the radiation in.
No need for smart photons and no need for matter to use a dimmer switch to raise and lower emissions.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so no radiation.

how did they know that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*so no radiation.*

Incorrect.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so zero isn't zero? ok talk about your smart photons.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


> so zero isn't zero? ok talk about your smart photons.


X - X = 0
no matter what x is.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so zero isn't zero? ok talk about your smart photons.
> ...


yep, you got the picture now.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Just goes on and on...even when the equation clearly states that the amount of radiation emitted by the radiator equals the emissivity times the SB constant times the area of the emitter times the difference between the temperature of the emitter and its surroundings....

Guys can't even read a simple algebraic equation and grasp what it says...if there is any thing at all that can alter the value of P, then clearly the radiator doesn't radiate according to its own area and temperature if it is in the presence of other matter....and if all of science denies the SB law as they claim...then why hasn't the law been changed?....or why hasn't the second law of thermodynamics been changed?....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> We covered this many times and gave a dozen references on what science has discovered. What you are inventing here was wrong the first dozen times you brought it up, it is still wrong, and will always be wrong.



What does this equation say?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > We covered this many times and gave a dozen references on what science has discovered. What you are inventing here was wrong the first dozen times you brought it up, it is still wrong, and will always be wrong.
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*so zero isn't zero?*

Net radiation loss of zero means zero net radiation loss.
You'd have to be stupid to believe it means no energy radiation above 0K.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


or you'd be stupid if you thought zero meant something more than zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Where did you get the idea that zero net energy loss means anything other than zero net energy loss?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2017)

My God. The discussion with JC is now down to the level of kindergarten arithmetic.
Hey JC look at equation (3) in my post #637. For example if Re = 1,000,000,000 and Ra = 1,000,000,000, those are really big heat flow numbers for radiation going between two objects. Get you desk calculator and try subtracting the two to see how much net energy is lost.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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



So you found a school teaching the false SB equation...so what?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> what


I found a dozen of them and a number of the highest regarded scientists over the last 100 years who agree with my reference. Do you think Einstein, Plank, Wein, etc think the reference is false? Would you like me to cite the references again.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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




No need...any reference to an SB equation that repeats (T-Tc) is a false equation...meaningless...The actual SB equation used when the radiator is not in a perfect vacuum describes a one way gross energy flow...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No need...any reference to an SB equation that repeats (T-Tc) is a false equation...meaningless...The actual SB equation used when the radiator is not in a perfect vacuum describes a one way gross energy flow...


Aha. So that's your final and only argument - to say all the eminent scientists for the last 100 years were wrong. Well when someone has an idea in mind and only seeks evidence that supports him, and rejects inarguable evidence against his idea, that is called faith.
But there is no scientific evidence that supports you.
SSDD your only argument is your faith. That's not science.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No need...any reference to an SB equation that repeats (T-Tc) is a false equation...meaningless...The actual SB equation used when the radiator is not in a perfect vacuum describes a one way gross energy flow...
> ...



Tell me this...do you have any experimental evidence...or observation that proves that they are right?...or is unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and faith all that there is?

And your claim that "all" the scientists of the past 100 years believe this is absolutely not correct...there are plenty who disagree with those models.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Tell me this...do you have any experimental evidence...or observation that proves that they are right?...or is unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and faith all that there is?


There is no mathematical model nor observable, measurable, testable experiment that indicates BB photons could possibly be stopped or impeded by any object at any temperature. The faith is yours.


SSDD said:


> And your claim that "all" the scientists of the past 100 years believe this is absolutely not correct...there are plenty who disagree with those models.


Who?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> There is no mathematical model nor observable, measurable, testable experiment that indicates BB photons could possibly be stopped or impeded by any object at any temperature. The faith is yours.



So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.

faith - n.  belief that is not based on proof



Wuwei said:


> Who?




Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...

David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.
> 
> faith - n. belief that is not based on proof



I believe that you have* no evidence* that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part. 
I don't think you have been following the discussion carefully.


SSDD said:


> Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...



I still don't think you have been following the discussion carefully. If you were, you would seem to be saying those references verify that there is evidence that photons are impeded from striking a warmer body. Or as Todd you say, you think your thousands of references say that smart photons exist. I doubt it. You are changing the topic from radiation physics to atmospheric physics. We are not discussing that now.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> I believe that you have* no evidence* that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.



Other than every observation, and measurement ever made....no aside from that, I don't have any evidence at all.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.
> ...


Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object..  I'll wait..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that you have* no evidence* that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.
> ...


That's right, you have no evidence at all because there is no experiment that shows that BB radiation can be impeded by a hotter body. Remember that the hotter body always radiates more energy to the colder body. Thus, the law of entropy is not violated.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..



There is no scientist nor reasonably intelligent person in this forum that believes that would ever happen. If you want to believe that you will have to ask some other person.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..*

Don't tell SSDD that such photons can hit warmer matter.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics..  Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions.  A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.
> 
> Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.
> 
> ...


That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.
> ...



Enjoy your ignorance..  Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions.* 

Wow. So much wrong.
*
A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.*

How about photons not traveling from the Sun's surface to its much hotter corona?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..*

EM fields prevent photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting 101K matter?


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa.... Oh my fucking GOD.  You claim to be a physicist but don't know EM material you should have learned in a tenth grade physical science class.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


*They did rewrite the second law at Georgia State.*
Science wins over pseudoscience. Because of the misunderstanding SSDD had on the second law of thermodynamics, I wrote a letter some time ago to Georgia State concerning their hyperphysics site. This is correspondence I had with Georgia State:

_On Jul 16, 2016, at 3:56 PM, [Wuwei] wrote:
Dear XXXXX,_

_There is a difficulty with the hyperphysics site that you are probably not aware of. Many people quote it as an authoritative source, including me._

_However some people try to prove back radiation in greenhouse gases doesn't exist because photons (which have energy) cannot travel from a cold object to a warm object. They conclude global warming is a hoax. They get that from the page:_

_Second Law of Thermodynamics_

_There is a statement, under "Second Law: Refrigerator."
"Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."_

_That statement is true for refrigerators, but they interpret it to mean photons can't back radiate from a cold atmosphere to a warmer earth._

_It would really help if you made a very simple change ...._

_Thank you
[Wuwei]_​
*I got got a reply from them. I didn't ask permission to quote them, so I won't. He apologized for the long delay in his response and told me that he added a brief statement.*

Here is their updated site. Note the added paragraph that clearly spells out the fact that there is a* two way flow* of energy for radiation and particles, and the site refers to *net energy* of that two way flow.This illustrates a gross misunderstanding of SSDD and his minions of what the second law means. And that allows back-radiation.

Site:  Second Law of Thermodynamics
*


 
*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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



Awesome! Bravo!

Can't wait to see SSDD's new spin.
If we could harness that spin, we could power the US for a year.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Awesome! Bravo!
> 
> Can't wait to see SSDD's new spin.
> If we could harness that spin, we could power the US for a year.


Thank you. It is interesting that Georgia State included "energetic particles" along with radiation. He is referring to the fact that molecules of cooler air above a warmer earth can strike the earth.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2017)

You be sure to let me know when observations and measurements are made demonstrating net energy flow...I would be interested in knowing when the claim becomes anything more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

And be sure to post any measurements of back radiation in any specific frequency are made with an instrument at ambient temperature, not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the radiator.

Till such time, observation still supports me no matter who you can find who believes in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You be sure to let me know when observations and measurements are made demonstrating net energy flow...I would be interested in knowing when the claim becomes anything more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.
> 
> And be sure to post any measurements of back radiation in any specific frequency are made with an instrument at ambient temperature, not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the radiator.
> 
> Till such time, observation still supports me no matter who you can find who believes in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.



DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Awesome! Bravo!
> ...



He still won't explain how the cooler surface of the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


\
Already did...not that you would pay attention....work is being done to make it happen...vast jets of energy being ejected from the surface...But you go ahead and believe in your models....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



Vast jets that are hotter than the surface. That's why the surface is black, because it doesn't emit.
DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You be sure to let me know when observations and measurements are made demonstrating net energy flow...I would be interested in knowing when the claim becomes anything more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.
> 
> And be sure to post any measurements of back radiation in any specific frequency are made with an instrument at ambient temperature, not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the radiator.
> 
> Till such time, observation still supports me no matter who you can find who believes in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.



Poor loser, the hyperphysics site, your primary reference for your faulty understanding of thermodynamics has abandon you. Now all you have is your faith.  

Be sure to let me know when you come up with a theory, concept or model that definitively shows that electromagnetic radiation or energetic particles from an object cannot strike a warmer object. 

Don't forget that cold radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2017)

By the way...let me know when the second law speaks to the fantasy of net energy flow...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Since they agree with the second law, why should I look anywhere else....The only reason I post from their statement is that they are a top shelf physics department....and my understanding of the word isn't faulty...the fault lies in you wanting to use another word that isn't there...


You thought Georgia State was a "top shelf" physics department. 


SSDD said:


> By the way...let me know when the second law speaks to the fantasy of net energy flow...


They consider the 2nd law refers to net energy flow. Have you changed your mind about Georgia State being top shelf? 


.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> [
> They consider the 2nd law refers to net energy flow. Have you changed your mind about Georgia State being top shelf?



Still no observation or measurement of two way energy flow?...guess not....still an untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical model and that's all it will ever be...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Your rant is meaningless unless you know a physical principle on how particles or EM energy from a colder source are forbidden from hitting a warmer object? 

.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..
> ...








wow!!! I thought that was what AGW was all about?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 6, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...







Nice!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


*
the electrostatic field*

Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
*
what was so difficult there?*

Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Can you prove it?*
right after you prove they hit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



You need proof that photons hit matter?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


sure


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Maybe Bob can help you?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


right?  because you can't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



I am having a hard time talking down to your level.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I'd use that excuse too


----------



## polarbear (Feb 6, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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


"forbidden"? Don`t you think that`s stretching it a bit too far?
I have not read all of SSDD`s posts but I never seen him say that in any of the ones I did read.
Every time the radiative heat transfer from a cold to a warm body is discussed you stop the process at the point that implies that the warm body must have gotten (just then) warmer from the photons the colder body emitted. So at that instant when the warmer body got warmer the colder one must have gotten colder also...which is absurd unless you can cite an example where a hot body can cool a colder one. That would be so If radiative heat transfer were a series of sequential events in the way you try to make your case.
In reality it is continuous and can not be isolated as an event series.
It is also a reality that a colder body surrounded by a warmer gas does not warm that gas any warmer. In fact the warmer gas masks the colder body`s IR image from being seen in the overall thermal image.
But according to you the IR image should show a hot spot in the gas the Imaging device is looking at


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 6, 2017)

polarbear said:


> "forbidden"? Don`t you think that`s stretching it a bit too far?
> I have not read all of SSDD`s posts but I never seen him say that in any of the ones I did read.
> Every time the radiative heat transfer from a cold to a warm body is discussed you stop the process at the point that implies that the warm body must have gotten (just then) warmer from the photons the colder body emitted. So at that instant when the warmer body got warmer the colder one must have gotten colder also...which is absurd unless you can cite an example where a hot body can cool a colder one. That would be so If radiative heat transfer were a series of sequential events in the way you try to make your case.
> In reality it is continuous and can not be isolated as an event series.
> ...


I don't think you have been following SSDD's posts, and my retorts carefully.
You are totally wrong if you think I said a hot body can cool a colder one.

SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. Science believes both objects radiate equal amounts of energy toward each other.

If not at the same temperature, SSDD thinks radiation from the colder object is forbidden from hitting the hotter object, and only the hotter object can radiate.

The discussion now focuses on the fact that it is up to SSDD to explain what physical principle prevents the colder body from radiating the amount that black body theory says it should.

Again let me emphasize my point that two bodies always radiate toward each other, but with the constraint that the hotter body always radiates more to the colder body than it receives from the colder body.

I am following well known science principles that were known for 150 years. If you think I'm not then you misunderstand my posts.


.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing and redirecting   all photons. Observed empirical fact.  So why is it not capable of causing a photon travel path to change? Or to redirect it?

I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics.. Or the whys of the Second law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing*

Dude, you claimed an EM field prevents photons from striking matter warmer than the photon source.
Unless you meant anti-gravity, your claim had nothing to do with black holes.  Try again?
*
I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics..*

Obviously, you are. Though not as many as SSDD.
*
Or the whys of the Second law.*

Clarify your position.
Does matter cease emitting if nearby matter is warmer? If nearby matter is the same temp?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > "forbidden"? Don`t you think that`s stretching it a bit too far?
> ...


_SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other._
Did he really? Unfortunately Google does not crawl the USMB to the extent where I can specifically search for that. So either you or SSDD should link me to that statement.
The same goes for _SSDD thinks radiation from the colder object is forbidden from hitting the hotter object, and only the hotter object can radiate._
Now regarding your statement:
_Again let me emphasize my point that two bodies always radiate toward each other, but with the constraint that the hotter body always radiates more to the colder body than it receives from the colder body._
Of course that is correct but then you also implicitly stated that the colder body does not make the warmer body any warmer...which is at the heart of this war of words.
The photons which are radiated by both bodies are not "marked" photons like the marked photons in a quantum eraser, so it follows that it is a fallacy to follow up on what happens to a singular photon which had been radiated from cold to warm.
But that`s how the question was framed in almost all the arguments concerning radiation and the second law of thermodynamics.
Once both of the 2 bodies are at equilibrium there is no way to reverse engineer the sum of the energy quanta and re-trace how much of the energy content on the warmer body came from the colder one.
Like challenging someone to answer a question that has no answer"so what happened to the photons from the colder body?" and invoke Zugzwang.
But for the warmer to colder (body) energy transfer you can say that the source of the additional energy  on the previously colder body was the warmer one.
And you say?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 7, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > "forbidden"? Don`t you think that`s stretching it a bit too far?
> ...


*Science believes both objects radiate equal amounts of energy toward each other.*

So tell me what happens when they radiate at each other.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2017)

polarbear said:


> _SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other._


_

I wouldn't say that the two bodies at the same temperature couldn't radiate "towards" each other...but I would say that the radiation would not strike or be absorbed by the other...and certainly radiation from a cooler object would never be absorbed by the warmer object...I suppose it might be ascribed to Poynting Vectors or more probably something that may be described via the use of Poynting Vectors...well known properties of EM radiation for which every installer of radio or microwave equipment must account.

_


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 7, 2017)

polarbear said:


> _SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other._
> Did he really? Unfortunately Google does not crawl the USMB to the extent where I can specifically search for that. So either you or SSDD should link me to that statement.
> The same goes for _SSDD thinks radiation from the colder object is forbidden from hitting the hotter object, and only the hotter object can radiate._


SSDD just answered your question  in the previous post.



polarbear said:


> _Again let me emphasize my point that two bodies always radiate toward each other, but with the constraint that the hotter body always radiates more to the colder body than it receives from the colder body._
> Of course that is correct but then you also implicitly stated that the colder body does not make the warmer body any warmer...which is at the heart of this war of words.


I don''t see your problem with the second sentence. The warmer body is always losing heat to the colder body. It is not being warmed. However the colder body does slow the loss of energy of the warmer body. That is what GHG back radiation does - slows the loss of energy from the Earth surface. 



polarbear said:


> The photons which are radiated by both bodies are not "marked" photons like the marked photons in a quantum eraser, so it follows that it is a fallacy to follow up on what happens to a singular photon which had been radiated from cold to warm.
> But that`s how the question was framed in almost all the arguments concerning radiation and the second law of thermodynamics.
> Once both of the 2 bodies are at equilibrium there is no way to reverse engineer the sum of the energy quanta and re-trace how much of the energy content on the warmer body came from the colder one.
> Like challenging someone to answer a question that has no answer"so what happened to the photons from the colder body?" and invoke Zugzwang.
> But for the warmer to colder (body) energy transfer you can say that the source of the additional energy on the previously colder body was the warmer one.


Of course you are correct. But SSDD does not agree with everything you say.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Of course you are correct. But SSDD does not agree with everything you say.



Correct according to what?...the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model?...certainly not based on any measurement or observation.


----------



## jillian (Feb 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.
> 
> The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.
> 
> ...



Your "graph source" doesn't seem to be authorized by yahoo. 

I guess in order to deny science you have to make up garbage and post fake unsourced links


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you are correct. But SSDD does not agree with everything you say.
> ...



Let me know when you come up with a theory, concept or observable, measurable, testable mathematical model that definitively shows that electromagnetic radiation or energetic particles from an object cannot strike a warmer object.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 8, 2017)

jillian said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.
> ...


Works fine on my computer.. Seems you have one that blocks any content that doesn't fit your political agenda.. (Yahoo blocks content they feel is detrimental to their political agenda)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Too funny;  Denial from a luke-warmer..  I guess covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) cant change a photons direction of travel..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Denial from a luke-warmer..*

I deny your silly EM field claim.

*I guess covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) cant change a photons direction of travel..*

I guess if they could, you could post proof?

When you get a chance, show how matter at 101K can repel photons from 100K matter.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Again, right after you show that a photon will hit it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Why won't it hit? Is it smart?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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


*Science believes both objects radiate equal amounts of energy toward each other.*

So tell me what happens when they radiate at each other.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why will it?  I said show it. dude I still have crickets from you and your friends.

BTW, my evidence is the fact that the object supposedly being hit doesn't increase in temperature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


*
why will it?* 

They travel until they hit something.
If it travels toward a warmer object, it will hit it, unless it hits something else first.
*
BTW, my evidence is the fact that the object supposedly being hit doesn't increase in temperature.*

The warmer object emits more photons than it absorbs.....see Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you can't show that photon hitting now can you? Just  as I already posted.  thanks.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> I guess covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) cant change a photons direction of travel..


Please clarify. Are you saying it can't sarcastically? or do you believe covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) actually can change a photons direction of travel.

In either case please define a magnetic hold and it's influence on a photon direction of travel.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I guess covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) cant change a photons direction of travel..
> ...


Dude, why you avoiding this question?

*Science believes both objects radiate equal amounts of energy toward each other.*

So tell me what happens when they radiate at each other?  By your theory, they both should heat up.  why don't they?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2017)

Here 


jc456 said:


> So tell me what happens when they radiate at each other?


Here is a simple picture that maybe even you can understand. Suppose you are faced with an opponent and each of you has 100 baseballs. Both of you have a net behind you. You each throw the balls at each other's net at the same rate. At the end of 10 minutes, roughly how many balls do you think each opponent has in their net?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Here
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


Curious, about how many hit the other side's balls? Do those make the net?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Curious, about how many hit the other side's balls? Do those make the net?


In this analogy, yes, they all make the net. I'm surprised you don't understand the intent of the analogy.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Curious, about how many hit the other side's balls? Do those make the net?
> ...


It seems you don't.  All of those balls are thrown at the same time. If you really think none will hit in between never watched dodgeball. Let me take a pause and have you explain how they don't hit!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


> It seems you don't. All of those balls are thrown at the same time. If you really think none will hit in between never watched dodgeball. Let me take a pause and have you explain how they don't hit!


You still don't understand the analogy. 
The balls are like photons. Thermal photons simply do not hit each other.
I thought I made it as simple as possible. I'm sorry you don't understand it as an analogy.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems you don't. All of those balls are thrown at the same time. If you really think none will hit in between never watched dodgeball. Let me take a pause and have you explain how they don't hit!
> ...


Guess you never watched a dodgeball game. 

Again, why don't they hit each other while occupying the same space?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Guess you never watched a dodgeball game.
> 
> Again, why don't they hit each other while occupying the same space?


You still don't understand the analogy. 
The balls are like photons. Thermal photons simply do not hit each other.
I thought I made it as simple as possible. I'm sorry you don't understand it as an analogy.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




I like they way they go on about what photons are doing or are not doing while at this point in the 21'st century, photons are still theoretical particles without the first piece of real evidence to support the claim that they exist...they are a story...a place holder that we use to try and describe something that we don't yet understand and in fact, don't have the first real clue as to what is going on...these guys who talk as if this is all real, and not just theoretical storytelling are doing nothing but yanking their own chains...they have given science the place of some sort of all knowing divinity in their minds....sad really to allow yourself to fool yourself that badly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



If I had a warm photon detector it would detect a "colder photon" hitting it.
You're welcome.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*If I had a warm photon detector it would detect a "colder photon" hitting it*

no you don't.  And you have no observation from any experiment that shows that.  thank you!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


I loved the analogy that wuwei waged.  throwing balls back and forth and none would ever hit in between.  wow.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Guess you never watched a dodgeball game.
> ...


well then your analogy ain't any good.  cause when balls fly back and forth they will hit each other.

So you're telling me that if they radiate at each other nothing happens because they equal out.  I said nothing happens.  In the end Ain't that the same and therefore, You just can't prove your theory of radiating at each other means something.  It doesn't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


*
no you don't.*

No I don't......what?
*
And you have no observation from any experiment that shows that.*

No one has ever observed or detected a "colder photon" striking a photon detector? Are you sure?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*throwing balls back and forth and none would ever hit in between.  wow*

You think photons can hit one another? Link?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*No one has ever observed or detected a "colder photon" striking a photon detector? Are you sure?*

well none from you I am sure.

*No I don't......what?*

have a warm detector, to detect a cold photon. No you don't.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I know balls can. so?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



What is a Photon Detector?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



You think a photon is like a ball?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


ok so hold that sucker between two objects at the same temperature and tell me what the photon detector shows.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I guess wuwei did, he used it in an analogy.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 8, 2017)

Consider this thought experiment.

A mass of matter with temperature 20C is located two-light seconds away from a mass of matter with temperature 19C. 

It emits a photon towards the other mass. So far ,so good. It's just flying towards it.

A second later, the target matter warms up to 21C.

What happens to the photon in flight?

Normal humans will say "It still strikes the target matter"

SSDD and jc will say ... what? Does it do a U-turn? Does it vanish immediately? Does it vanish upon striking the target? Did the emitter know that the target would warm a second later, and thus refuse to emit photons in that direction?

I'd like to hear an explanation, hopefully one that does not contradict either the laws of causality (information can't travel faster than light speed), energy conservation or momentum conservation.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Consider this thought experiment.
> 
> A mass of matter with temperature 20C is located two-light seconds away from a mass of matter with temperature 19C.
> 
> ...


all I'll say is post up supportive documentation and we can evaluate it.  Your thought experiments are nothing more than your wet dream.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


> all I'll say is post up supportive documentation and we can evaluate it.  Your thought experiments are nothing more than your wet dream.



Everything you needed to know was described in the problem.

So, what happens to the photon in flight?

It's not a tough question, but you're running from it in absolute terror. Why?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems you don't. All of those balls are thrown at the same time. If you really think none will hit in between never watched dodgeball. Let me take a pause and have you explain how they don't hit!
> ...


You were doing a-okay in the radiative transfer discussion we had. There was no need to degrade that interesting subject to the level where photons are becoming balls.
If  light rays were colliding particle beams  then it`s alright to use such an analogy.
It would have been better if you would have used the well explored subject of wave interference instead of balls hitting either a target or each other.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



It would show photons from both objects.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



I'm interested in your claim that photons can strike each other.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2017)

polarbear said:


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



You can't talk about wave interference because they are quite sure that opposing sources of light can't cancel themselves out even though you can see it happen on a soap bubble....you know...the whole photons exist till such time as they come into contact with matter thing...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Here
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


you forget the BAT (magnetic field) that each is holding.. the object with a higher frequency will repel one of a lower frequency..  You pitch it slow enough it gets hit...  the field generated  will repel the incoming


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 8, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here
> ...



You have a source that confirms your magic photon repelling field?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Lets use empirically observed evidence.

We know that all transmitters create a filed known as an 'umbrella' where opposing fields are repelled from. IE: Older AM transmitters used to play hell with twisted pair phone lines and FM radio stations wiping out all other emittence while you were under the umbrella. SO we know by observations that it happens. The actual mechanism is unknown, (Quantum Mechanism) but the theroy is; a more energetic wave field will deflect a less energetic field.

So we look at each molecule as a transmitter, transmitting at its temperature wave length. This means that each molecule has its own transmission 'umbrella' and that its strength and frequency are determined by the molecules temperature.

A photon emitted from a hot object will have a very small wave length as opposed to a cool object which will have long wavelength. A hot object will have a very narrow bandwidth which will penetrate a long wavelength allowing the energy to be absorbed by the molecule. The longwave length is reflected/deflected by the tighter magnetic filed of the hotter object.

When we look at the earths own magnetic fields we see the same behavior.  The fields of cooler particles allow downwelling radiation to pass unabated.  The mass of the earths magneto creates a series of fields which grow tighter in frequency as it nears the surface of the earth reflecting the colder CME energy and cooler solar waves of solar wind. This is why we don't have our atmosphere ripped of the planet.

The second law has many reasons as to why a cooler object can not warm a warmer object. Applying empirical observations to the laws of thermodynamics is relativity easy if you follow the known observed evidence.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 8, 2017)

polarbear said:


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


Wave interference? Are you kidding? Popeye would have absolutely no chance of understanding anything unless it was considerably dumbed down. The analogy was for him, not anyone else. Even then, he couldn't understand the analogy. He is the one who turned baseballs into huge dodge balls even though I tried twice to steer him away from collisions. JC, Billybob, and SSDD are all whacko in their understanding of science.

But getting back to your comment on wave interference. Black body radiation must be considered in terms of photons. That was how photons were hypothesized in the first place. Look up "ultraviolet catastrophe" and note Planck's solution.

If they really want to talk about EM waves they can only talk about superposition (uninteresting) not destructive interference since BB radiation is incoherent. Incoherent waves cannot cancel. Also those guys sometimes talk in terms of radio antennas canceling waves. Antennas can only redirect the coherent EM energy they can't destroy it because of the law of conservation of energy.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Wave interference? Are you kidding? Popeye would have absolutely no chance of understanding anything unless it was considerably dumbed down. The analogy was for him, not anyone else. Even then, he couldn't understand the analogy. He is the one who turned baseballs into huge dodge balls even though I tried twice to steer him away from collisions. JC, Billybob, and SSDD are all whacko in their understanding of science..



You going to argue that the engineers who place microwave dish arrays don't have to worry about interference from other arrays, and that the magnitude and direction of one microwave energy stream has no bearing on any other?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


lol

Obviously you have no concept of how wave energy (EM) works..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



*Antennas can only redirect the coherent EM energy they can't destroy it because of the law of conservation of energy.
*
A shorter wave can and does cause reflection of a longer wave.   In other words, a warm object can reflect all radiation from a cooler one.  Second law wins.  And it is wholly consistent with COE. Its is also why the atmosphere has no hot spot.

Please tell me again how a less energetic wave can overpower a high energetic wave?  You could win a Nobel for a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*We know that all transmitters create a filed known as an 'umbrella' where opposing fields are repelled from*

We're discussing photons, not "opposing fields".

*SO we know by observations that it happens.*

Post a source discussing a field repelling a photon.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Wave interference? Are you kidding? Popeye would have absolutely no chance of understanding anything unless it was considerably dumbed down. The analogy was for him, not anyone else. Even then, he couldn't understand the analogy. He is the one who turned baseballs into huge dodge balls even though I tried twice to steer him away from collisions. JC, Billybob, and SSDD are all whacko in their understanding of science..
> ...


*
You going to argue that the engineers who place microwave dish arrays don't have to worry about interference from other arrays*

You never did explain why we can see the cooler surface of the Sun through the hotter corona.

Why don't you explain?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


*
A shorter wave can and does cause reflection of a longer wave. In other words, a warm object can reflect all radiation from a cooler one.*

Wow!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


all you had to do was admit your analogy sucked and gone to something else.  You didn't like that I pointed out that balls will hit each other if thrown at the same time from opposite directions in the same space.  Seems you have no basic understanding of matter.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You going to argue that the engineers who place microwave dish arrays don't have to worry about interference from other arrays, and that the magnitude and direction of one microwave energy stream has no bearing on any other?


Nope.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You going to argue that the engineers who place microwave dish arrays don't have to worry about interference from other arrays, and that the magnitude and direction of one microwave energy stream has no bearing on any other?
> ...


then why do they choose the locations they do?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 9, 2017)

It seems that scientific laws have been as much politicized and twisted out of shape as constitutional laws by the previous administration. All the while the original laws, at least in science were unambiguous until they have been bastardized to serve an agenda with the intent to fabricate a case against Jo the coal miner committing a crime worse than Hitler or Stalin were guilty of.
According to them Jo the coal miner managed to launch  CO2 photon torpedoes, Star Trek style, capable of planetary destruction. The entire case is based on 3 words: "Unprecedented Climate Change", which are 3 rubber words that can be stretched to qualify any event that occurs as forensic evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Smart photons?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


or.............wait for it........Interference...............


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Ever find any backup for your claim that photons can hit each other?

Or that warmer matter stops "colder photons" from striking it?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


been waiting on yours thanks for asking.  still haven't seen the photon go cold to hot.  post that up at any time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Photons go in every direction, why wouldn't they go from cold to hot?

The "cold photons" from the Sun's surface have no problem going thru the hotter corona.

How do you explain that hole in your "theory"?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you don't have the experiment.  thanks,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



So the cooler photons do travel toward the hotter corona. Thanks!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


and still no experiment. crickets.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



You need an experiment to see the Sun?

DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You really can't be that stupid can you?...do you think there is anything spontaneous about energy moving away from the surface of the sun?....energy doesn't move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm...it can move that way...but not spontaneously...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*energy doesn't move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm*

So it can move from cool to warm....on the Sun?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


are you saying there is no energy on the surface?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



No...he has this crazy idea that energy must move spontaneously from the cooler surface of the sun to the warmer corona...as if any energy movement at all on the sun is spontaneous...they get fixated on points to the degree that they can't see how stupid the point they are trying to make is...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Why would I say that?
The temperature is about 6000K.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*No...he has this crazy idea that energy must move spontaneously from the cooler surface of the sun to the warmer corona...as if any energy movement at all on the sun is spontaneous*

It's not spontaneous?
Is there some sort of engine forcing photons from the surface to the corona?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 9, 2017)

well there is this:

"Well, the truth is that nobody knows for sure. Lots of scientists are hard at work trying to figure out the answer. One potential explanation is magnetic forces. All that superheated gas in the sun core creates a strong magnetic field—like Earth’s magnetic field, but a whole lot stronger and more chaotic. Some scientists think that it is this magnetic field that gives the sun’s corona energy."

A Solar Mystery :: NASA Space Place


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> well there is this:
> 
> "Well, the truth is that nobody knows for sure. Lots of scientists are hard at work trying to figure out the answer. One potential explanation is magnetic forces. All that superheated gas in the sun core creates a strong magnetic field—like Earth’s magnetic field, but a whole lot stronger and more chaotic. Some scientists think that it is this magnetic field that gives the sun’s corona energy."
> 
> A Solar Mystery :: NASA Space Place



Photons can go from cold to hot because.......magnets?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> well there is this:
> 
> "Well, the truth is that nobody knows for sure. Lots of scientists are hard at work trying to figure out the answer. One potential explanation is magnetic forces. All that superheated gas in the sun core creates a strong magnetic field—like Earth’s magnetic field, but a whole lot stronger and more chaotic. Some scientists think that it is this magnetic field that gives the sun’s corona energy."
> 
> A Solar Mystery :: NASA Space Place


That articles citations go right to my point about magnetic fields on varying levels.  Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well there is this:
> ...



Proving you haven't a clue about how covailent bonds work or why black holes can suck up every photon in its path..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Proving you haven't a clue about how covailent bonds work*

Show a source that says covailent [sic] bonds repel photons and I'll take your claim more seriously.

*or why black holes can suck up every photon in its path..*

What in pluperfect hell does gravity have to do with your claim about covailent [LOL!] bonds somehow preventing photons emitted by colder matter from striking warmer matter?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 9, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Proving you haven't a clue about how covailent bonds work*
> 
> Show a source that says covailent [sic] bonds repel photons and I'll take your claim more seriously.


You shouldn't have used [sic]. There is a link below. It is obvious that billybob thinks that if you drop a large crystal of sodium chloride on a hard floor, it will become a covailent bond. The site did not put "repel photons" as a possible answer.

Brainly.com - For students. By students.
High School Chemistry 5 points
Sodium chloride is an ionic compound. If you drop a large crystal of sodium chloride on a hard floor. Choices are 
change to gas, 
shatter into tiny pieces, 
become a covailent bond , 
conduct electricity


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well there is this:
> ...


agree.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

Nobody knows for sure?  I think we can limit that just a bit.  You and Billy seem to be the only folks who don't know for sure.  Magnets deflecting photons?  You don't think that's ever been tested?  No experiments?  So, it must be true?  Got it.

That Billy has the unmitigated gall to tell us he has a degree in physics is almost beyond belief.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> That Billy has the unmitigated gall to tell us he has a degree in physics is almost beyond belief.


and your claim of being an engineer when you can't read and understand even the simplest of graphs is absolutely hilarious...it reeks of Jethro Bodine playing the brain surgeon...or the double naught spy.


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

Coming from someone with your gross scientific misconceptions, a vote of doubt in my technical competence means absolutely nothing.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> Coming from someone with your gross scientific misconceptions, a vote of doubt means absolutely nothing.



Says the guy who is afraid to engage in a basic discussion on the topic of the greenhouse effect...the guy who is afraid to even say whether or not materials from respected schools is an accurate description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Face it crick..your comfort level doesn't go any further than swapping insults...you are unable to engage in actual discussion on the topic...even at a basic level...of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That Billy has the unmitigated gall to tell us he has a degree in physics is almost beyond belief.
> ...



Are you ever going to explain why we can see the cooler Sun through the hotter corona?

Don't those surface photons know they aren't allowed to travel toward matter of higher temperature?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sorry..already have...my apologies if the explanation went right over your head....if you are interested in understanding, I suggest you go and learn something beyond the ability to post 5th grade level one liners...you might start with learning how to calculate radiating temperatures from wm2...so you can follow discussions on the topic of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*Sorry..already have...*

No, you've never explained why no photon can travel toward matter hotter than its emitter, except the Sun.

*my apologies if the explanation went right over your head....*

Your inability to explain is obvious.
*
...you might start with learning how to calculate radiating temperatures from wm2*

I need to learn the calculation you used to claim the Sun radiates at -18C? LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I need to learn the calculation you used to claim the Sun radiates at -18C? LOL!



Not my claim toddster...the claim of the climate scientists on whose ass you have your lips firmly planted...  Unfortunate that you have no idea what the radiating temperature of an object radiating at 239.7wm2 is...even after you have been told half a dozen times...here is a hint...-18C....once again..not my claim...the claim of climate science and the basis of the mechanism for the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> Nobody knows for sure?  I think we can limit that just a bit.  You and Billy seem to be the only folks who don't know for sure.  Magnets deflecting photons?  You don't think that's ever been tested?  No experiments?  So, it must be true?  Got it.
> 
> That Billy has the unmitigated gall to tell us he has a degree in physics is almost beyond belief.


You fucking moron.. Kindly tell me what a black hole (singularity) has that captures all photons.  Even stars bend and capture light.  You really are ignorant of science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I need to learn the calculation you used to claim the Sun radiates at -18C? LOL!
> ...



*Unfortunate that you have no idea what the radiating temperature of an object radiating at 239.7wm2 is*

Do you believe the Sun is radiating 239.7wm2?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody knows for sure?  I think we can limit that just a bit.  You and Billy seem to be the only folks who don't know for sure.  Magnets deflecting photons?  You don't think that's ever been tested?  No experiments?  So, it must be true?  Got it.
> ...



A magnet isn't a black hole, idiot.
Gravity isn't magnetism, moron.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



No I don't...as I have said repeatedly....but that is what the model of the greenhouse effect says...clearly you have been unaware of what the model says all along..but agreed with it based on something than any knowledge of what it, or climate science claims...that was the point of this whole thing...to demonstrate how the model of the greenhouse effect isn't reflecting anything like reality...and if you start with a basic model that is not describing reality...and is based on a thermodynamic impossibility, then you can't possibly complicate the model enough to make it reflect reality...


----------



## Crick (Feb 15, 2017)

What is your thermodynamic impossibility?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*No I don't...as I have said repeatedly....but that is what the model of the greenhouse effect says...*

You've seen a model of the greenhouse effect that says the Sun is radiating 239.7 W/m2?
Show me.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Crick said:


> What is your thermodynamic impossibility?




That a radiator radiating upwards at -18 degrees, and a radiator radiating downwards at -18 degrees could ever produce enough radiation to raise the temperature even one degree higher than either...much less 48 degrees warmer than either...and yet, that is precisely what the model of the greenhouse effect claims...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



I already did...multiple times, but clearly you are just too stupid to understand, even when it is explained to you at a 4th grade level...you must be so proud...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What is your thermodynamic impossibility?
> ...



*and a radiator radiating downwards at -18 degrees could ever produce enough radiation to raise the temperature even one degree higher than either*

The Sun is radiating down. The Sun is much warmer than -18C.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*I already did...multiple times,*

You think what you've shown is the Sun radiating 239.7 W/m2?
If you weren't so painfully stupid, you'd be funny.

*but clearly you are just too stupid to understand*

Says the moron who thinks the Sun is radiating at -18C. DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no one disagrees as far as I know except the universities SSDD referenced.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


rat hole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



SSDD is the only one who claimed the incoming energy means the radiator is -18C.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



I am sure that in is parent's basement...he is fist pumping over his perception of victory....doesn't take much to make an idiot smile....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Again...my apologies for thinking you were smart enough to know what I was talking about...everyone else did...no one except you thought I was talking about anything more than the energy reaching the surface of the earth....so in a group that included crick and old rocks...how does it feel to be the stupidest guy in the room?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



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


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

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

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect_

The sun and the atmosphere, both radiating at -18C. DERP!

And I thought you were smart enough to know what you were talking about.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


the source of the original post for  your guidance.


Old Rocks said:


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Thanks!
Now where did that source, or Old Rocks, say that the Sun is radiating at -18C?
Or was that something SSDD said?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well factually speaking, SSDD was using the information to see what you all thought about what old socks posted.  It was a trap post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*It was a trap post.*

Yes. SSDD misinterpreted the info in the diagram and became trapped in his own errors.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


what errors were his? And, what did he misinterpret? he merely copy and pasted the material from the university.

It seems you all misinterpreted his original post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*what errors were his?*

The part where the Sun is radiating at -18C.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


he never said it did.  he pointed to a bad university statement and image that showed that.  You're too confused I understand.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks!
> Now where did that source, or Old Rocks, say that the Sun is radiating at -18C?
> Or was that something SSDD said?



And I never said that the sun was radiating at -18....that is just more of your never ending dishonesty.. I said repeatedly that the graphic showed the INCOMING RADIATION from the sun at -18 degrees but always qualified the statement with incoming radiation...I made no claims regarding the radiating temperature of the sun...again you are wrong..and a liar...do you never tire of it?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes. SSDD misinterpreted the info in the diagram and became trapped in his own errors.



Nope...never misinterpreted anything...you, on the other hand have done nothing but lie, misinterpret, and misrepresent in your pitiful display of denial...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



He is just playing his same old stupid game...he is a one trick pony and the trick isn't very interesting...anytime I mentioned the solar radiation shown in the graph...I qualified the statement by saying incoming solar radiation...or solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the earth...the only mention I made regarding the actual radiating temperature of the sun was in reference to old europe's claim that you could heat an object to a temperature higher than the surface of the sun by using a magnifying glass...I plugged the numbers into the SB equation which said that you could only heat up an object to about half the tmperaure of the sun with a magnifying glass...

Toddster is either a liar, or a poor unfortunate without the intelligence to read and comprehend what people say...I would lean more towards liar...stupid, but still a liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*never said that the sun was radiating at -18...
*
You did. Post #135.


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


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

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

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect_

*
...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees
*
Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


*please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...*

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


*
...he is a one trick pony*

Yup. Highlighting your errors and watching you run away from your errors.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




And the lies and misrepresentation just never stops with you does it? Look at the first paragraph I wrote...

_Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the *incoming solar radiation.*.that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?...._
_
Incoming solar radiation...I qualified whet we were talking about...did I then, anywhere change the topic to the sun and the radiation emitting from its surface?...of course I didn't...but honesty isn't your thing...is it..._


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sorry toddster...all you have managed to highlight is how dishonest you are....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



_see the _*incoming solar radiation.*_.that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....
_
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

That's where you took the info from the image and went horribly wrong.

_did I then, anywhere change the topic to the sun and the radiation emitting from its surface?...
_
You said the radiation equates to the temperature of the 2 radiators but you weren't talking about the Sun? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



When it comes to your confusion and errors, I'm very honest.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well does _*239.7wm^2* _equate to -18C?  you've never actually commented.  does it convert to the -18C?

And, just for my edification, didn't the image from the universities show that? So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD.  perhaps you could explain it to him and me.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.*

it comes from the sun though correct? the incoming radiation I mean.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



they still don't know where the numbers are coming from....


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


I know.  It is amusing.  I like all the flaming going on as well.  they have no fking idea what they're even talking about.  It's like they got an alternate post from you. I'm still not sure where they're coming from and neither do they.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*well does *_*239.7wm^2 *_*equate to -18C?* 

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

*didn't the image from the universities show that?*

No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.

*So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. *

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Yes, the incoming radiation from the Sun comes from the Sun.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C*

no he didn't.

*No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C*.

Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures? hmmmmmmmm


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well you said:
*That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.*

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?  Why'd you go down that rat hole there?  hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board.  what a proud disrupt-er you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

*no he didn't.*

He did. Right here.

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

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect

*Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures?
*
He did, and came up with a temperature of -18C for the Sun. How'd that work out?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


*
I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?*

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_*Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?..*
_
did you read that?  hmmmmmm dude have some fking dignity at least.

How is radiating up from the surface coming from the sun?  I'm sorry, but dude that is just a flat out lie with your input there to show it.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*He did, and came up with a temperature of -18C for the Sun. How'd that work out?*

that wasn't my question.  why can't you answer the question.  so, please tell me is it possible to convert the w/m2 into a temperature?  yes or no.

And if one can convert w/m2 into temperature, perhaps you could tell us all what the temperature of 239w/m2 is.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so pull out the abstract where he did that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




_*Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?..*_
*did you read that?*

No one disputes the Earth surface temp would be -18C.
Everyone disputes that the Sun's temp would be -18C.

*How is radiating up from the surface coming from the sun?*

Read further....._239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere.......so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees 
_
Those are radiating down, not up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



That is a predictable response from warmers...show them that they are wrong and they bury the evidence as quickly and with as much bullshit as they can muster...they get right to the task of getting off topic and starting as large a flame war as they can manage...same shit different day...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.



If you have an object radiating at 239.7 wm2...what is its effective radiating temperature?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.



It did, however give a radiating wm2, and for anyone who actually knows how to use the SB equation, they gave enough information to determine radiating temperature...anyone who actually knows..that is...not you apparently.

*So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. *

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*No one disputes the Earth surface temp would be -18C.
Everyone disputes that the Sun's temp would be -18C*

Great, again, not a statement that was ever made by SSDD.  so so far you are stating you lie about what he said.

*Read further.....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere.......so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees*

I did,  the university used two 239.7w/m2 sources in *their* equation from two sources from *their* own image, one can only conclude they were referencing one source from the incoming black arrow of incoming solar radiation and one source from the red arrow from the atmosphere. it was the only two sources pointing toward the surface at 239.7w/m2.  you don't disagree with that right? 

Again, from *their* image.  

It's why SSDD stated what he stated in his original question on the validity of the equation that is being used to teach with.  It was rather a very simple/ basic question he posed.  You all just acted like jack monkeys in an attempt to disrupt his thread.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


dude, I clicked the link, so what?  It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Jack monkeys...LOL...never heard that one before...colorful description that perfectly matches the image of them I have in my head...thanks..

Glad I wasn't drinking an adult beverage...would have blown it right out of my nose....


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


you bet. again the dude is void of any technical ability to converse with.  one liner PeeWee Hermanite phrases.

I will back your posts about that university information as long as I have to.  I can't stand people who can't understand logic.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




No need...anyone who matters recognizes his bullshit for what it is...anyone who doesn't really doesn't matter...they have their first class ticket on the AGW crazy train and are too busy stroking each others delicate little egos to notice the BRIDGE OUT AHEAD!!!  sign the train just passed


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


it is my enjoyment.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Enjoy on Garth....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2*

Post #135

_Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2_
*
you just haven't*

DERP!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



How many times do I need to apologize for thinking that you were bright enough to differentiate between the amount of radiation incoming from the sun and radiation, and the amount of radiation leaving the sun's surface...who would have thought that anyone would be stupid enough two think the two values would be equal...again...my apologies for giving you credit for being as smart as an average junior high student...I won't make the mistake again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



*differentiate between the amount of radiation incoming from the sun and radiation, and the amount of radiation leaving the sun's surface...*

When you claimed the Sun was radiating 239.7w/m^2, you were wrong?
When you claimed the Sun was radiating at -18C, you were wrong?
*
who would have thought that anyone would be stupid enough two think the two values would be equal..*

Besides you? LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When you claimed the Sun was radiating 239.7w/m^2, you were wrong?



I never made that claim..that is you being unable to read and comprehend what is being written...sorry I the board doesn't have a crayon function to allow us to communicate at your level...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> [When you claimed the Sun was radiating at -18C, you were wrong?



Again.. I never made the claim...just more bullshit from the toddster...misunderstanding..misinterpreting...missing the boat...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When you claimed the Sun was radiating 239.7w/m^2, you were wrong?
> ...



When you claimed the Sun was radiating at -18C, you were wrong?

*Again.. I never made the claim...just more bullshit
*
That's a relief. So you're not a total idiot.

I guess the idiotic claim that energy from an object at nearly 6000 K added
to the energy (back radiation) from the atmosphere can't possibly warm the surface above -18C
wasn't your claim either?
Because, 2 ice cubes can't heat a nearby object above the temperature of the ice cubes.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 18, 2017)

CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere only absorbs IRR at around 15um. Wavelength is directly proportional to temperature and 15um occurs at -80C. CO2 can only emit IRR at the same 15um so it radiates very low energy photons at -80C.

Now some simple quantum physics. Electrons orbiting a molecule can only do so at specific orbital heights. The higher the orbit, the higher the energy and the “warmer” (temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of a substance) the molecule. When a photon hits a molecule, if it has too much energy, enough is absorbed to boost an electron to the next higher orbit and the rest is immediately radiated away. Magnetic resonance of the field holding the electrons in orbit will determine if a photon will be absorbed or re-emitted.

If there isn’t enough energy to boost an electron to the next available slot in a higher orbit, the photon’s energy is immediately re-radiated leaving the molecule with the same kinetic energy (temperature) as before.

Radiation from a molecule at -80C therefore cannot provide enough energy in the form of photons, to warm molecules (by boosting electrons into higher, more energetic orbits) at -4C or above (seawater temperatures).

CO2 is incapable of warming sea water as its thermal layer (skin) can not be penetrated by a photon at -80C wave length. A colder object can not warm a warmer object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere only absorbs IRR at around 15um. Wavelength is directly proportional to temperature and 15um occurs at -80C. CO2 can only emit IRR at the same 15um so it radiates very low energy photons at -80C.
> 
> Now some simple quantum physics. Electrons orbiting a molecule can only do so at specific orbital heights. The higher the orbit, the higher the energy and the “warmer” (temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of a substance) the molecule. When a photon hits a molecule, if it has too much energy, enough is absorbed to boost an electron to the next higher orbit and the rest is immediately radiated away. Magnetic resonance of the field holding the electrons in orbit will determine if a photon will be absorbed or re-emitted.
> 
> ...



*CO2 is incapable of warming sea water as its thermal layer (skin) can not be penetrated by a photon at -80C wave length.*

Is that because of the covailent (sic) bonds creating the force field to divert the photons?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere only absorbs IRR at around 15um. Wavelength is directly proportional to temperature and 15um occurs at -80C. CO2 can only emit IRR at the same 15um so it radiates very low energy photons at -80C.
> ...


its actually a two fold denial.

The energy of the photon is too weak to penetrate just 10um and the bond at differing wavelengths.  Ever skip a rock on water?  same concept..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



A photon from matter at 100K is never absorbed by matter at 101K, because the bond knows the temperature of the source and makes it skip away?

That might actually be worse than SSDD's smart photon claim.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Magnetic resonance is logarithmic, thus as the wavelength and energetic disparity grows more is reflected. Angle and speed also have a direct impact on the object entering the lake. The hardness of the surface that a photon must defeat to be absorbed depends on the size and strength of the magnetic field. If the photons wave is to big and slow it will bounce off the tighter and more energetic field, like a rock hitting a frozen surface.  (Or sea water)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*If the photons wave is to big and slow it will bounce off the tighter and more energetic field, like a rock hitting a frozen surface.*

We aren't talking about reflection, we're talking about the force field that you imagine detects the temperature of the photon emitter, magically, and then, magically, refuses the let a "cooler photon" strike the warmer material.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You don't know how EM works, do you? Frequency? Wavelength?  Its no wonder you can not grasp the concept.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I don't know how your magic force fields block "cooler photons".


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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









That is why you do not understand how EM fields deflect and protect.  Without them the earth would have no atmosphere and the surface would be barren waste.  I guess the sun doesn't produce photons.. Right?  And a cooler object must accept everything thrown at it.... Right?

Earths own EM fields show exactly how molecules can do the same on a much smaller scale. As the disparity of frequencies becomes larger they reflect and redirect particles/energy. This is why we have a very narrow bandwidth, which ultimately reaches the surface of the earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*That is why you do not understand how EM fields deflect and protect.*

Now maybe you can explain the difference between deflecting charged particles from the Sun and deflecting photons from the Sun?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Is not a photon a charged particle?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



He debates like a 5 year old...how much do you expect?....I don't think I have ever seen him actually put any thought into, or actually defend any idea since I have been here...one liners is as much as he is able to manage...I guess he knows if he says more than one sentence on any topic..his ignorance will be brought to front and center.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Is not a photon a charged particle?*

No.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


Like not knowing that a photon is a charged particle?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Why don't you elaborate? This I got to hear!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



What's the charge on a photon?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Zero charge. No charge. Is that too complex?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter. Is that to basic for you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


*
A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter.*

Yes, your false claim is too basic. Give me some proof.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


"The classical model of electricity and magnetism makes use of the ideas of electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s equations describe how these fields behave, and the Lorentz force equation, which describes how the fields push and pull charged particles and magnets. A prediction of Maxwell’s equations is that there are waves in the electromagnetic field which travel at the speed of light. These waves were identified with light by the experiments of Hertz and others. *We therefore have two very different ideas for how light works -- as waves in the electric and magnetic fields, and as motion of particles -- photons.* This pair of explanations is called "wave-particle duality" and is a recurring theme of quantum mechanics. Depending on the experimental situation, light acts as a wave or as a particle (but never both simultaneously)."

Depending on the state of the energy it can be either a wave or a particle. My explanation is using the particle as my point of view.

"Professor Michael Stone said 'It's tricky'.  His explanation is that an ordinary, free, photon has two different transverse polarization states as can be easily demonstrated by the usual crossed polarizers experiment.  An electron that interacts with this kind of photon couldn't care less where it came from.  It just scatters ala Compton. Now in the case of when the photons are virtual, such as when two electrons are close to each other and are experiencing Coulomb-like forces, the photon has an extra, longitudinal, polarization state.  This extra state carries information as to the charge sign of its source. Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..  

Its rather amusing to see everyone squirm..

Source


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


*

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..* 
_
Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."
_
Your source says the electron is attracted or repelled, not the photon.

Also from your source.

_Grahame- You’re right that electromagnetic waves, whether viewed classically or in terms of quantized photons, are not affected by static electrical or magnetic fields. They have no charge.
_
Let me know when you find proof of your claim.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


A photon as a particle has a positive charge (simplified state, as a photon is affected by two electrons columb state within a field). Photons as a wave are neutrally charged (quanitized). The 'state' is the issue and the field surrounding an electron changes the state of the electron and its ability to accept or reject a photon. We can go round and round on this as I have done with professors.

In my case we agreed to disagree as there is scientific evidence supporting both positions.  This is an area far from settled, as science goes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*A photon as a particle has a positive charge *

A claim which you have failed to prove.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *A photon as a particle has a positive charge *
> 
> A claim which you have failed to prove.


That is so weird. I have never seen anyone go that far against well known physics. I wonder if his friends will give him a winner rating.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *A photon as a particle has a positive charge *
> ...



Between smart photons and charged photons, it's the biggest concentration of scientific idiocy I've seen in a while.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



At this point JC...he knows he is wrong...he just isn't grown up enough to admit it...again, look to the behavior of a 5 year old if you want to understand toddster....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *A photon as a particle has a positive charge *
> ...




Sorry guy...that isn't "well known" physics...the fact is that we are just scratching the surface with regard to what light actually is...we still don't know whether it is wave or particle...or both...what we claim we know is nothing more than a story used as a place holder till such time as we actually know...you guys who accept unproven theory as fact crack me up...


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

You, who make up insane nonsense regarding basic physics make me think you are one pathetic human being.  A photon has no charge. That is a KNOWN.  There is no question as to whether light is a particle or a wave.  It is both; something that has been KNOWN since Einstein was young.

The problem here isn't the failings of basic physics.  The failing is your belief that the universe has to correspond to your limited senses and your personal prejudices.

Just pathetic.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


Do you think the photons might have charge? If you, do would they would be positive or negative or both? The like charged photons would repel each other and the unlike charged photons would attract. How do you think that might affect the visual appearance of objects? Why don't you try a repeatable testable measurable experiment along those lines and tell us what you get.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Wuwei said:


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


funny how you all want someone else to do the testing that should have already been done.  I'm saying this since this is science right?  isn't that a rule of science to perform tests to validate a hypothesis?  Where is yours that show cool moving to warm?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it.  It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics.  BASIC FUNDAMENTAL.  Do you fucking understand?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it.  It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics.  BASIC FUNDAMENTAL.  Do you fucking understand?


then why is it you don't have one to show cold matter warming up warm matter?


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it.  It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics.  BASIC FUNDAMENTAL.  Do you fucking understand?
> ...




Fuck, you're stupid.

You are simply incapable of understanding a moderately complex condition because it is impossible to simplify it down to the point where you can grasp it.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


there is none, I know.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




And the extra insulating wrap you can buy for your hot water tank doesn't cut your fuel bill either. Right? 

Hahahaha. What a moron you are.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


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


there you have it!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it.  It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics.  BASIC FUNDAMENTAL.  Do you fucking understand?



And yet..you can't seem to manage a single measurement of back radiation at ambient temperature....you telling me that they have been experimenting for 200 years and have forgotten to take measurements?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



And when the greenhouse effect is simplified to the point that the bullshit is completely exposed...you still believe in the magic..


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

You're the one who believes in magic.  You've admitted it yourself (thing's we'll just never know...).  There is nothing wrong with the simplified explanations of radiative transfer provided in those diagrams.  The problem is YOU and your idiotic interpretations.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> You're the one who believes in magic.  You've admitted it yourself (thing's we'll just never know...).  There is nothing wrong with the simplified explanations of radiative transfer provided in those diagrams.  The problem is YOU and your idiotic interpretations.


except for the parts that are wrong.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




Yup, there you have it.

A bare steel water heater with an always on element that kept the water temp at an average of 30C, would be able to warm the water to perhaps 50C once the standard insulation was put on it. Once the silver foil extra insulator was in place it might go up to 60C.

Water heaters have enough output to heat water rapidly therefore an always on element would soon lead to disaster. In real life the element is only on enough to keep the water at the desired temperature. An insulated, or double insulated tank needs less electricity or gas to accomplish this because the heat loss to the environment has been decreased.

I know you won't be able to make the jump to Sun (element), Earth (hot water), Atmosphere (insulation) and Space (environment).

But I tried. Again.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


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


dude, you have no idea what your even saying.  excuse the laughter here.  but see, there is a thermostat on that water heater, and that thermostat keeps the water from overheating from the source.  All that wrapping does is keep the tank from cooling off faster.  WTF man, don't you know anything?


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




You are pathetic in your inability to understand.

Like I said, at least I tried.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

JC, did you not notice the TWO times he used the term "always on"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


*
All that wrapping does is keep the tank from cooling off faster.* 

How does it do that?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It's a blanket. And?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


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


You still looking to say CO2 is a blanket?  Here


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Its a pity you are unwilling to look at this objectively.  Yet your lack of proof, to challenge me, is stunning evidence of your inability to defend your position.  Bravo!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 20, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Tell me again how a gas radiating at -80 Deg C can warm water or ground radiating at >0.0 deg C.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


Billy, nice job!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



And how does the blanket stop it from cooling off faster?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Its a pity you are unwilling to look at this objectively.*

I've never heard of an electric field or a magnetic field bending a beam of light.

I suspect if you could pull that off, you could be up for a Nobel Prize in physics.

Show me evidence that anyone, anywhere has managed to prove a photon is charged and deflected it using its charge.

There is your challenge. Prove your claim, crush my position.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It's a physical blanket! So?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



And here I thought you thought you knew something


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Have you proven CO2 acts as a blanket? Fart


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Yes. So how does it work?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Let's discuss the water tank first.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



I know photons have no charge. What do you know?


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Light is a queer thing.

Magnetism can polarize light. But only in the presence of matter.

Photons show the 'symptoms' of charge. Just like they show the 'symptoms' of mass. But that doesn't mean they have either.

Like I said, very odd.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Guess you never considered that photons aren't what you  think they are...or that photons don't exist at all and the photon story is actually a place holder till we learn that what we thought isn't even close to what is..


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2017)

So... they're magic, right?  Got it.

Really?  That's your reasoning?  That's your logic?  That's your explanation?

Man, you give pathetic a bad name.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

Crick said:


> So... they're magic, right?  Got it.
> 
> Really?  That's your reasoning?  That's your logic?  That's your explanation?
> 
> Man, you give pathetic a bad name.



They are magic.
They're magically deflected by matter warmer than the matter that emitted them.
Or they're magic because they can see the future and don't travel toward warmer matter.
The story changes.
Except on the Sun's surface. There they _can_ travel toward warmer matter, because....work.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 21, 2017)

Crick said:


> So... they're magic, right?  Got it.
> 
> Really?  That's your reasoning?  That's your logic?  That's your explanation?
> 
> Man, you give pathetic a bad name.


Duality...

A *theroy *of differing phase changes between it being charged particulate matter and Electro-Magnetic energy (a wave).  The point being, there is no definitive proof of either state. Incomplete science with differing hypothesis.

Again, closed minds that don't have a clue about what they post. You give real scientists a bad name..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Wrong.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen.  A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


about?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well then post that experiment that shows how warm CO2 gets when it absorbs IR.  Got that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


*
If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen.*

If O2 is transparent to IR and CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR, why would it radiate heat away faster?

* A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.*

An electron moves to a higher orbit. Why doesn't that heat the CO2?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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








_Molecules of __carbon dioxide (CO2)__ can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating._

_This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which __make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere__, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules __can vibrate in ways__ that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons._

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


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs and is that before it transfers the IR to the O and N molecules? How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

*nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere*_*, do not absorb infrared photons.*
_
They don't? Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?  SSDD posted that in the other thread.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs*

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

*How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?*

Clarify what you mean by "how high".
*
They don't?*

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

*Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?* 

By collision.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.*
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in?*

No.
It is warmer than it was before.
Do you feel every single molecule in a given volume of atmosphere has the exact same energy level?

Again, talking single molecule temperatures is silly.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


why? people keep saying when we add them it gets warmer.  I want to know how warm.  

than it was before?  before meaning what exactly?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*people keep saying when we add them it gets warmer.*

That's the idea.
*
I want to know how warm.* 

Me too. Let me know when you find out.

*than it was before?* 

Yes.

*before meaning what exactly?*

Before the photon strikes it. Exactly.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Me too. Let me know when you find out*.
LOL

*That's the idea.*
you just said it doesn't get warmer than the surrounding environment so how would that be possible?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*you just said it doesn't get warmer than the surrounding environment*

Reread that. I didn't say anything about how the new, warmer CO2 compared to the surroundings.

Is the idea that not every molecule has the same energy level too complex?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I did, here.  you said it didn't.
oh well no surprise you went to a rat hole immediately.


Toddsterpatriot said:


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



I asked, does it get warmer than the surrounding environment?  you said "NO"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



*I asked, does it get warmer than the surrounding environment? you said "NO"*

Wrong, you asked, "*are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in?"
*
And I wasn't saying it was getting warmer than the environment or not.
Because taking the temperature of single molecules is silly.

Do you feel every single molecule in a given volume of atmosphere has the exact same energy level?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


blah, blah, blah,  you got nothing todd.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Only large groups of molecules do. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


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


so do you have the temperature of 10PPM of CO2 then? D'OH

How about 100, 200 or even 400PPM?


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




I know you are too stupid to understand this because I have explained it before.

There are two basic types of energy an air molecule can have. Potential and kinetic. Height and speed. A high but slow moving molecule can have the same amount of stored energy as a low but fast moving one.  

Vibrations or electron jumps are a form of potential energy. They can 'drop' down to ground state by emission or pass the energy into a different form through molecular collision. Until that energy is converted into kinetic speed there is no change in temperature (average kinetic speed).

I don't think it can get much simpler than this. If you can't understand then you might as well give up and stop asking the question.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




What colour is 100? What flavour is loud?

Dolt!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


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


so you have no readings, right?  yes or no!!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


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


blah, blah, blah and still you got nothing.  nothing at all to prove your failed claims of back radiation or anything related to warming the planet by adding CO2. There is but one heat source the Sun, period end of story and you can fking insult me until your pink skirt wears out.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




Tea readings? Poetry readings?

No and no.

Calculations based on the known properties of CO2, etc. Yes


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

IanC said:


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


and never tested.  wow, that ain't science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


*
nothing at all to prove your failed claims of back radiation*

No back radiation from the cooler atmosphere of Earth toward the warmer surface just like no radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun to and through the hotter corona of the Sun. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


exactly!!!!


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




I agree that more experiments should be done using realistic changes in CO2 concentration.

That said, we know the basic principles by the tens of thousands of simple single variable experiments that have been done. Which are confirmed by millions of machine test results every day under a quality control protocol.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Interesting to note the number of papers that have been published over the past year giving the sun credit for driving the climate...the AGW crazy train...and the bullshit greenhouse effect are on their way out....making room for actual science..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

IanC said:


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



I believe they have been done...and the results get put where all the science that is inconvenient to AGW goes....the fact is that the climate doesn't care what the atmosphere is made of or how much of any particular gas is present...all it cares about is how heavy the atmosphere is...nothing else matters and as science moves along...all us skeptics are going to be well vindicated and you warmers and luke warmers are going to have to go stand in the corner with the folks who scoffed hand washing and thought bleeding was a good idea


----------



## Crick (Feb 22, 2017)

So compression develops energy forever.  I cannot tell you how easy that would make the world.  We need no fuel.  We need no energy sources.  We'll just grab a few scuba tanks and power the planet. Of course that also means the temperature of the Earth should be several billion degrees, but this is a trivial issue, isn't it.

As for experiments that refute the greenhouse effect, why don't you show us some of them?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

The level of energy retained due to excitement (vibration) caused by the movement.  I thought you knew basic physics.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.*

Unstable molecules behave differently? Tell me more.

So when then CO2 re-emits, some photons travel toward the surface.
Sounds like that radiates heat away more slowly.
Sounds like the greenhouse effect.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2017)

Crick said:


> So compression develops energy forever.  I cannot tell you how easy that would make the world.  We need no fuel.  We need no energy sources.  We'll just grab a few scuba tanks and power the planet. Of course that also means the temperature of the Earth should be several billion degrees, but this is a trivial issue, isn't it.
> 
> As for experiments that refute the greenhouse effect, why don't you show us some of them?




You are looking at things backward. Gravity is trying to compress the atmosphere. Without input from the Sun and surface it would collapse.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 22, 2017)

Crick said:


> So compression develops energy forever.  I cannot tell you how easy that would make the world.  We need no fuel.  We need no energy sources.  We'll just grab a few scuba tanks and power the planet. Of course that also means the temperature of the Earth should be several billion degrees, but this is a trivial issue, isn't it.
> 
> As for experiments that refute the greenhouse effect, why don't you show us some of them?



*As for experiments that refute the greenhouse effect, why don't you show us some of them?*

There is the one that shows the cooler surface of the Sun can't emit toward the corona....oops, that's another SSDD fail.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.
> 
> The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.
> 
> ...



Total bullshit and denier cult insanity.

In the real world....

*Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007 
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters 

 
Provided by: University of New South Wales 

*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere.. But they radiate much shorter (warmer) wavelengths and bands.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.
> ...



No.  The bullshit is the AGW claims unsupported by science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere...*

Water etc do what? Contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Add to back radiation?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.





RollingThunder said:


> Total bullshit and denier cult insanity.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> No.  The bullshit is the AGW claims unsupported by science.



LOLOLOLOL.....your denier cult bullshit just got thoroughly debunked, as usual, Boober, and you are once again just too stupid and clueless to recognize that fact. Everybody else can sure see it though. Your brain is totally "_unsupported by science_".


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



LOL

CO2's LWIR is radiating at  wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C.  Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.

Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


*
Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C.  Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object.*

Back radiation doesn't slow the escape of IR from the planet?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output. Thus no tropospheric hot spot is seen. Warming is evenly distributed with a lag of about 100 years from solar output ramp up.  WE have yet to see the real cool down from our solar drop starting 1998. It is coming, as we exhaust ocean reserves, but has not yet manifested itself.






Correlation of global temperature with solar activity


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL
> 
> CO2's LWIR is radiating at  wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C.  Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.



More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober.

In the real world.....

*Warmer Oceans*
*The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.*

*What's happening now?*




_*The surface of the world's oceans has become warmer overall since 1880. In this graph, the shaded band shows the likely temperature range, which depends on the number of measurements and the methods used at different times. Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators (2016).*_
*
Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in the last 50 years. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.*

*What will happen in the future?*
*Oceans are expected to continue getting warmer—both in the top layer and in deeper waters. Even if people stop adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere now, oceans will continue to get warmer for many years as they slowly absorb extra heat from the atmosphere.*

*Why does it matter?*
*Warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and can impact many kinds of sea life, such as corals and fish. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea level.

Check out the major effects of warmer oceans on people and the environment:*

*Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems*
*Coastal Areas*
*Learn more about warmer oceans and sea level rise by going on an expedition to the Maldives!


*



Billy_Bob said:


> Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.


And of course, the Boober stil can't admit that he was wrong.....



RollingThunder said:


> Total bullshit and denier cult insanity. In the real world....
> 
> *Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
> PhysOrg
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


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



Your own information and graph out you as a liar.




The previous warming in the oceans was far steeper and faster than today's current trend.  So why the slower rate if your so called 'back-radiation' is so prevalent? The IPCC reports should mean that our current trend should be twice that of the previous. Why is it not?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2017)

Accidental repost.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.
> ...



Ive seen your so called evidence of a hot spot.. The satellites debunked the lie quite easily as did the balloon data sets. The paper was withdrawn when they were confronted.  SO why do you use a paper that has been withdrawn and shown false?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL
> 
> CO2's LWIR is radiating at  wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C.  Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything.
> 
> Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans. The fact there is no evidence of a mid-tropospheric hot spot shows that alleged heat retention is not happening.





RollingThunder said:


> More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> _*The surface of the world's oceans has become warmer overall since 1880. In this graph, the shaded band shows the likely temperature range, which depends on the number of measurements and the methods used at different times. Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators (2016).*_
> *
> Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in the last 50 years. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.*
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> Your own information and graph out you as a liar.
> 
> View attachment 113790



LOLOLOLOL....

Altering a graph that you are too stupid to understand just makes you look even *more* retarded, boober.

In the real world...





*Ocean heat content data to a depth of 2,000 meters*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*Recent studies show a direct correlation of input to output.*

Back radiation slows output.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So why does Blundering idiots graph above show the rate of warming slower?  If your hypothesis were correct it should be warming faster and its not.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 23, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


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


Changing the scale and leaving out the data of the 1900-1950's is really a shit move.. Making the data look bad by falsification and a parlor trick.. nice move there blunderboy...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*your hypothesis were correct it should be warming faster and its not.*

Back radiation slows output. By definition. Whether the planet is in a warming or cooling phase.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.





RollingThunder said:


> Total bullshit and denier cult insanity.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> Ive seen your so called evidence of a hot spot..


Too bad you're too stupid and ignorant to understand it, boober.






Billy_Bob said:


> The satellites debunked the lie quite easily as did the balloon data sets. The paper was withdrawn when they were confronted.  SO why do you use a paper that has been withdrawn and shown false?



Why do you lie about these things when your lies are so easy to debunk?

In the real world, the Sherwood paper was never "_debunked_"....nor was it "_withdrawn_"!

It stands! As anyone can check and see.

YOU ARE A LIAR!

*Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)*
*Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant
Published 11 May 2015 • © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd 
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 5*


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2's LWIR is radiating at  wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C.  Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything. Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans.





RollingThunder said:


> More denier cult anti-science bullshit and bogus myths from the Boober. In the real world.....
> *Warmer Oceans*
> *The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> Your own information and graph out you as a liar.
> 
> View attachment 113790
> The previous warming in the oceans was far steeper and faster than today's current trend.  So why the slower rate if your so called 'back-radiation' is so prevalent? The IPCC reports should mean that our current trend should be twice that of the previous. Why is it not?



More denier cult cherry-picking.

In the real world....

*Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature*
*United States Environmental Protection Agency*

*This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.*

*Figure 1.* *Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880–2015*





*This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.*

*Data source: NOAA, 2016*
_*Web update: August 2016*_


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 23, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2's LWIR is radiating at  wavelength of -80 deg C. That same wavelength is incapable of penetrating the skin of sea water so it can not heat anything. Earths surface land mass is radiating on average at about 28 deg C.  Tell me again how this magical gas radiating at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. Your so called back radiation is incapable, by known laws of thermodynamics, to warm anything. Only down-welling solar radiation has any ability to penetrate the earths surfaces and oceans.
> ...


You keep posting bullshit... here are a few facts..

_*"Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean; heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface."
*_
And you still don't have a clue...

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2017)

And does your link conclude that the ocean is cooling?  Does it state that the ocean cannot absorb energy from long wave radiation?  Does it reject AGW?  No, no and no.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

xband said:


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



What a great question! Thanks for that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 19, 2018)

xband said:


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


gravity travels at the speed of light? 

are there gravity particles?


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The atmospheric hotspot for the wavelength of 15 microns is at two meters. The mean path distance. It is different for other wavelengths. It is the location where the warmer surface deposits energy into the cooler atmosphere.

The missing tropospheric hotspot refers to the area in the atmosphere where energy is deposited from latent heat of phase change from water vapour precipitating. The cloud layer.

That this layer is not warming up in the predicted amounts is strong evidence that the climate models are not capturing the correct physics.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And gravity doesn't amount to weight moving downward?....is there no pressure difference between the top of the atmosphere, the middle of the atmosphere, and the bottom.
> ...



That is splitting hairs. Gravity is always deflecting molecules towards the centre of the Earth. Kinetic collisions are pushing them up. The NET movement is zero, therefore no work is done under the specific definition of the term 'work'.

In the real world, solar insolation causes upward movement during the day, and gravity causes downward movement at night. Energy storage followed by energy release. In no small part caused by the harnessing of entropy increase.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that O2 and N2 don't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Is that the only source of atmospheric radiation? Does a non GHG atmosphere still warm the surface?
> ...



Conduction to the atmosphere. The energy is stored as potential and kinetic, to be released later when the temperature gradient changes.

But yes, surface IR would escape freely, causing the surface to be cooler, because the atmosphere no longer recycles a portion of it back to the surface .


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > [Q Do you believe entropy properties are valid?
> ...



There are many processes that can be imagined. Only some of them are actually allowed by physical laws.

You imagine that radiation can be stopped or throttled down. Physical laws say that is impossible.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



The SLoT is defined by changes in entropy. You imagined your version. And your imagination is wrong. It violates entropy.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

IanC said:


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


Wow. You are quoting my post of a year ago. It's easy to handle work with a solid and a uniform force. It's hard to deal with work at the atomic level in a gas. You have a uniform force down and a stochastic process up (and all other directions.) But yes, intuition leads to a net work of zero.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 19, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> gravity travels at the speed of light?



Yes. Read up on gravitational waves.



> are there gravity particles?



Maybe. Maybe not. Some theories posit the existence of gravitons. The issue is being investigated.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 19, 2018)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > gravity travels at the speed of light?
> ...



Unlike global warming, wheres the settled science on the speed of gravity?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 19, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Unlike global warming, wheres the settled science on the speed of gravity?



The whole internet at your fingetips, I tell you where to look, and you still demand I educate you personally.

While I educate those willing to learn for free, you're clearly not in that category. Hence, if you wish my services as your tutor, you'll have to pay in advance to a paypal account, with my rates being $50/hr.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



I just followed SSDD'S quote back to there. I have been going forward instead of backwards. Perhaps the original discussion of Loschmidt is in this thread.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here
> ...




Good old retarded jc.

The analogy was to photons. Photons don't 'hit' each other. That is why the transfer of heat must be a net result of flows going in both directions.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2018)

IanC said:


> I just followed SSDD'S quote back to there. I have been going forward instead of backwards. Perhaps the original discussion of Loschmidt is in this thread.


It may be in this thread:
Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Good old retarded jc. Seems he has no basic understanding of light.


----------



## IanC (Jan 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




The amount of radiation received from the sun is attenuated by the inverse square law. The quality of radiation is still that of a 5000K blackbody.


----------



## IanC (Jan 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18...




As per usual, you are making a fundemental error. The radiation being received by the Earth from the Sun is still 5000K radiation, simply attenuated by the Area term in the S-B equation being calculated for transit through three dimensional space. There is still the same amount of order per watt to be used up as entropy increase. Radiation from a -18 source has very little order present to affect entropy driven processes.

The quality of energy coming from the Sun is much different than the quality of energy being 'backradiated' from the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18...
> ...


back radiation----LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



Pesky matter radiating in all directions.....


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


back radiation, LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



Physics, just awful!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it is when it is misused.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2018)

jc456 said:


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



Like covailent bonds?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

IanC said:


> You imagine that radiation can be stopped or throttled down. Physical laws say that is impossible.



Really?  Which physical law says that?  The second law states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...that statement seems to state explicitly that conditions can exist where precisely the throttling down that you claim is impossible must happen...refer again to the SB law...as the difference between the temperature of a radiator and its cooler surroundings changes the amount of energy it radiates changes...and ONCE AGAIN...net energy exchange is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and has never been observed or measured in reality so don't bother going there...it is fiction and nothing more till such time as it is observed...which it will never be because it doesn't happen.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2018)

IanC said:


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



Energy moving up hill..moving from a more disorganized state (cooler) to a more organized state (warmer) violates entropy which states that energy always moves towards a more disorganized state and that all natural processes are irreversible precisely because energy is always moving towards a more disorganized state?


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

"
An asymmetry in the up- and downwelling eigen radiation (only from atmosphere) will be found with a stronger contribution in downward direction, which is caused by the lapse rate as well as the density profile over the atmosphere with higher temperature and pressure at lower atmospheric layers and therefore a higher net downward radiation. Calculations for the radiative forcing at doubled CO2 concentration and at an average cloudiness give a 30% smaller forcing than applied by the IPCC.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C, so any back radiation from colder and higher atmospheric layers can be absorbed by the lower and warmer layers, and this back radiation can also be absorbed by a warmer surface of the earth without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As long as the surface is assumed to be a black or gray absorber, it does not filter any frequencies of the incoming radiation, in the same way as it does not reject any frequencies of the broad Planck spectrum of a thermal radiator, independent, if it has a higher or lower temperature than the earth. Radiation converts to heat after an absorption, followed by an emission in accordance with a newly adjusting thermodynamic equilibrium, which only requires that the net energy transfer is in balance.
"
From https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/

This is a pretty thorough analysis of radiation and energy movement into, through, and out of the atmosphere. And the mechanisms by which the energy is constantly being switched back and forth into different forms. 
"
 The radiation in upward direction is the only possibility to render any absorbed energy to space and by this to keep the atmospheric temperature in balance with all the supplied direct and indirect energy from the sun. On the other hand, the downwelling part determines the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface, which is the source term of the so heavily discussed atmospheric greenhouse or atmospheric heating effect. *While the upwelling radiation only contributes to cooling, as long as the radiation can escape to space, the downwelling part only causes heating, when it reaches the surface.*
*"
*
This has to be taken in context. It is describing the two possible exits for energy contained in the atmosphere. Either it is lost to space or returns to the surface. 

The surface expels energy by radiation, conduction and convection (containing latent heat). Only some of the radiation can escape to space causing cooling of the system, the rest is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms in response.

The atmosphere expels energy by radiation and conduction. These are the only paths. Conduction can only return to the surface, therefore cannot cause cooling of the total Earth system. Radiation can cause cooling but only if it escapes to space. Some of the radiation produced by the atmosphere does escape, some returns to the surface, but most is simply reabsorbed by the atmosphere.

The energy absorbed by the Earth system swirls around being transformed back and forth into different forms. Whenever it takes the form of radiation that can escape through the atmospheric window, it leaves (if it is traveling in the right direction). Radiation can also escape if it emitted high up in the rarified atmosphere and doesn't get reabsorbed. Those are the only two escape routes, the only way to cool the Earth system.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

Efficiency is a big part of the real world. The most efficient way to enclose area with a defined circumference is a circle. The radius is equal in all directions. A square is not as good but still better than a rectangle.

The moon receives as much solar energy as the Earth so why isn't it as warm? The main reason is the length of a lunar day/night cycle. It is very hot in the day and very cold at night. The energy inputs and outputs are extreme, less efficient. Like how a circle has more area per circumference than a flat rectangle. Only more so, because area is a ^2 relationship and temperature is a ^4 relationship. If the lunar 'day' was half as long the average temperature would be warmer. If you halved it again, warmer still. And so on, ignoring the effects of spinning the mass.

The predicted temperature of the Earth is -18C, from the average amount of sunlight hitting it. Now hold on a minute. We were talking about efficiencies. An Earth day is shorter than a lunar day but it is still 24 hours. Shouldn't the hypothetical max (circle) be greater than the actual Earth (square) which is greater than the Moon (rectangle)? 

Obviously the atmosphere has something to do with it. But how does the atmosphere raise the average temperature ABOVE the theoretical maximum derived from the solar input?

I'll talk more about this if anyone is interested. Or we can just leave it as another unanswered question.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You imagine that radiation can be stopped or throttled down. Physical laws say that is impossible.
> ...



This law-






And the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

You can only control the amount of radiation produced by an object by adding or subtracting to the amount of energy available to be converted to radiation.

Any object above absolute zero will attempt to cool down by radiating. It always radiates but it only cools if it emits more energy than it receives.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Your description of what is allowed or prohibited is at odds with reality, therefore it is either wrong or incomplete.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C, so any back radiation from colder and higher atmospheric layers can be absorbed by the lower and warmer layers, and this back radiation can also be absorbed by a warmer surface of the earth without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.



The more you talk, the more I can see why your physics professor needed to correct you...unfortunately, he didn't correct you well enough.  You rush to these knee-jerk conclusions without first considering the basics...and if you don't have the basics, you don't have jack.

The 2nd law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm.  Tell me ian, how, exactly, do you think radio waves represent spontaneous energy movement?  You believe microwaves in a microwave oven represent spontaneous energy movement?..and lasers..you believe the energy emitting from a laser is emitting spontaneously?

The key word is spontaneous....apply enough energy and you can move energy to wherever you want...but spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...in any amount simply doesn't happen...and it is all moot anyway since infrared energy does not warm the air.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> This law-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That law states no such thing...that law states that a perfect black body radiating in a vacuum devoid of any other matter radiates according to its temperature to the 4th power...an ideal, perfect black body in a perfectly empty universe...a fantasy.

Bring matter into the equation and j starts changing in accordance with the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its cooler surroundings.  You keep forgetting the basics and jumping to knee jerk conclusions...think ian, I know that you are capable of it.

There is no law that says that the rate of energy emitted by an object can not change if its environment changes...quite the contrary..the application of the SB law relating to radiators that are not perfect black bodies radiating into perfectly empty space says exactly the opposite...P keeps changing as the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings change.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> Your description of what is allowed or prohibited is at odds with reality, therefore it is either wrong or incomplete.



It is neither...the problem here is your inability to separate reality from fiction...you believe models over observation.  Even though we can observe and measure energy movement...and know by the evidence that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, you continue to believe that it does because a model which you have given godlike powers says that it does.  The model doesn't represent reality...and it never will..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C, so any back radiation from colder and higher atmospheric layers can be absorbed by the lower and warmer layers, and this back radiation can also be absorbed by a warmer surface of the earth without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> ...



*The 2nd law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Tell me ian, how, exactly, do you think radio waves represent spontaneous energy movement? You believe microwaves in a microwave oven represent spontaneous energy movement?..and lasers..you believe the energy emitting from a laser is emitting spontaneously?*

What about the 343 K walls in my home? Did they spontaneously achieve that temperature?


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C, so any back radiation from colder and higher atmospheric layers can be absorbed by the lower and warmer layers, and this back radiation can also be absorbed by a warmer surface of the earth without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> ...



The quote you attribute to me is actually a cut&paste from the paper I linked. Did you read it?

The paper does a thorough job of discussing the energy inputs and outputs for the atmosphere, as well as the mechanisms for transforming energy between radiation, kinetic and potential.

The most important point was that cooling can only happen from radiation loss to space.

The most interesting point was that their calculations for a doubling of CO2 was 30% less than the IPCC value.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What about the 343 K walls in my home? Did they spontaneously achieve that temperature?



Let me guess..you believe your HVAC generates spontaneous energy movement.  And I suspect you should learn to convert temperatures...you just claimed that the walls in your home are heated to 157 degrees F.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> The quote you attribute to me is actually a cut&paste from the paper I linked. Did you read it?



Doesn't matter who said it..if you believe it then both you and the author are wrong.



IanC said:


> The paper does a thorough job of discussing the energy inputs and outputs for the atmosphere, as well as the mechanisms for transforming energy between radiation, kinetic and potential.



Infrared does not warm the air...the topic is fantasy.



IanC said:


> The most interesting point was that their calculations for a doubling of CO2 was 30% less than the IPCC value.



Unless it was 100% less, it is wrong...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...Infrared does not warm the air...infrared only warms solid objects and there is overwhelming evidence to support the claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C,


That's a good point that has not been stressed enough here. If we look your comment in terms of photons, once a photon leaves its source it can only be characterized by its spin, wavelength, and direction. Any information about heat is lost. Those parameters give no indication of it's source or how long it has been in flight. It's existence is only manifested when it hits something. That something can be at any temperature.


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This law-
> ...








This equation is obviously not for a perfect Blackbody because it has a term for emmisivity.

You should also note that it has no term for area. It is an intensive property. 

If you divide the _j_ by area then you get an actual amount of power, an extensive property. But you then have to do the calculations for every angle that is in line-of-sight of the area you defined.

Your confusion seems to stem from confusing the intensive property of _j _with the extensive property of P.

The object exists and radiates. The environment that surrounds the object does not change the radiation, which is always proportional to the temperature of the object.

We can turn the intensive property of radiation into the extensive property of power by defining the radiating surface area of the object. We can turn the intensive property of temperature into the extensive property of total heat content by measuring the mass and the specific heat for its constituents.

With the two extensive properties of power and heat content we can calculate the rate of cooling as time passes. Quickly at first and then progressively slower.

If we add a second object nearby, it also radiates in the same fashion as the first. Some of the radiation from the first will be intercepted by the second, and vice versa. The amount will be determined by the line-of-sight connection. The amount of radiation energy absorbed will add to the total energy content of the two objects, thus slowing the rate of their cooling. But both objects will still be cooling overall.

I will leave it there for now.


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken, or CO2-laser radiation (10.6 μm) can be used for welding and melting of metals up to several thousand °C,
> ...



Right you are. I have shown SSDD the Planck curves for 10C and -10C on multiple occasions. The range is almost exactly the same. How can the two objects differentiate a 15 micron photon by the temperature of its source? Obviously they cannot. Therefore energy is being swapped back and forth. It is also a visual explanation of why the SLoT works. The higher temperature object produces more radiation at a slightly higher average energy wavelength. The difference between the two graphs is the amount of energy available to effect change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What about the 343 K walls in my home? Did they spontaneously achieve that temperature?
> ...



*Let me guess..you believe your HVAC generates spontaneous energy movement. 
*
Let me guess, you don't know how my walls reached 70 F?

*And I suspect you should learn to convert temperatures...
*
You got me, I added 70 F to 273 K.
294 K.......better?

Now, back to your claim that energy can move from cooler matter to warmer matter if work is done........


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> Efficiency is a big part of the real world. The most efficient way to enclose area with a defined circumference is a circle. The radius is equal in all directions. A square is not as good but still better than a rectangle.
> 
> The moon receives as much solar energy as the Earth so why isn't it as warm? The main reason is the length of a lunar day/night cycle. It is very hot in the day and very cold at night. The energy inputs and outputs are extreme, less efficient. Like how a circle has more area per circumference than a flat rectangle. Only more so, because area is a ^2 relationship and temperature is a ^4 relationship. If the lunar 'day' was half as long the average temperature would be warmer. If you halved it again, warmer still. And so on, ignoring the effects of spinning the mass.
> 
> ...



Hey Wuwei, you like theoretical problems.

Don't you find it interesting that the GHE is large enough to more than compensate for the inefficiencies caused by unequal input and output energies?

While it is just a variation on the theme of why the surface is warmer than the Sun's input, don't you find it amazing that entropy gained by converting sunlight to IR can 'power' such a large effect?

I realize the actual energy comes from radiation not lost to space but it seems to me that entropy gained in the total area causes entropy loss by the storage mechanism in a subset area.

I could be wrong. What do you think?


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



It's easy to just own up to simple calculation mistakes, at least for some people.


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


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



SSDD says the transfer of energy can only go downhill. No exceptions.

Let's make up a simple example and see what hIfappens.

A small packet of 99 molecules of gas has a range of speeds from one unit to 99 units, one molecule for each possible speed. Let's say that only one unit of speed can be transferred by any single collision. 

After every collision the standard deviation decreases as slower molecules speed up and the fast molecules slow down, all heading for the average speed of 50 units. As more and more molecules reach 50, there are fewer SSDD allowed collisions and more and more SSDD prohibited collisions that cannot happen. At some point in time all speeds are 50, and no further collisions are allowed.

This isokinetic condition is never found in reality. Any real set of molecules is found to have a range of speeds centred around the average, in a Bell Curve shaped distribution.

That means some molecules are always getting bumped to a higher energy level than the average. Contrary to SSDD'S vision of the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Efficiency is a big part of the real world. The most efficient way to enclose area with a defined circumference is a circle. The radius is equal in all directions. A square is not as good but still better than a rectangle.
> ...


I'm not ignoring you. I'm working on it. Your question in quotes is easier. I once wrote an internal company paper on how to find the rotation angle of an image using entropy. The problem was that nothing was known about the image except that it most likely had a few straight edges at right angles with a bit of clutter thrown in. 

The math of the solution is rather similar to your discussion of the lunar day length and how it affects entropy.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD says the transfer of energy can only go downhill. No exceptions.
> 
> Let's make up a simple example and see what hIfappens.... etc.


This is surprisingly similar to the previous problem you posed. More on that later.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


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



You can appeal to as much complexity as you like ian, but that law does not state that an object can not radiate less when it is in the presence of other matter..

The whole topic is moot as IR does not warm the air.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Efficiency is a big part of the real world. The most efficient way to enclose area with a defined circumference is a circle. The radius is equal in all directions. A square is not as good but still better than a rectangle.
> ...



There is no greenhouse effect...infrared radiation does not, can not, and never will warm the air.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> Let me guess, you don't know how my walls reached 70 F?



One of two ways...either they absorbed the radiation from your radiative heater, or they were warmed via conduction from the air being blown across the element of your radiative heater...they did not receive any energy from the air as the IR radiation coming from your heater does not warm the air.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*One of two ways...either they absorbed the radiation from your radiative heater, or they were warmed via conduction from the air being blown across the element of your radiative heater..
*
Excellent!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


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



So...if your infrared heater does not warm the air in your home...how do you suppose that infrared radiation warms the air outside your home?  Is there some magic at work that makes air inside your home (which has a far higher CO2 concentration by the way) invisible to IR but has exactly the opposite effect on air outside the home?

How can there be a radiative greenhouse effect in the atmosphere when  infrared radiation does not warm the atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*So...if your infrared heater does not warm the air in your home
*
If I turn off the infrared heater, will the air in my home remain at the current 70 F?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Of course not...all the solid objects in your room will begin to cool and in turn, not convect as much heat.  which solid objects in the atmosphere do you believe the infrared radiation emitting from the surface of the earth is warming?  How does a radiative greenhouse effect work if infrared radiation does not warm the air?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


*
Of course not...all the solid objects in your room will begin to cool and in turn, not convect as much heat. 
*
Will they radiate as much heat?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



They will radiate according to the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings...but the radiation from the walls and objects will not warm the air either.


What's the matter toddster...afraid to answer the question?...how does a radiative greenhouse effect work if infrared radiation does not warm the air?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


*
They will radiate according to the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings
*
They won't radiate if the air is warmer?
They won't radiate at me if I'm warmer?
*
how does a radiative greenhouse effect work if infrared radiation does not warm the air?
*
How does radiation absorbed by the air not warm the air? Of course it does.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They won't radiate if the air is warmer?
> They won't radiate at me if I'm warmer?



Energy moves from warm to cool...not the other direction.
*
how does a radiative greenhouse effect work if infrared radiation does not warm the air?
*
How does radiation absorbed by the air not warm the air? Of course it does.[/QUOTE]

The radiation is immediately emitted on towards cooler pastures...millions of hours of repeatable, measurable, observable evidence toddster...infrared does not warm the air...

so again...how does a radiative greenhouse effect work if the atmosphere is not warmed by infrared radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They won't radiate if the air is warmer?
> ...



The radiation is immediately emitted on towards cooler pastures...millions of hours of repeatable, measurable, observable evidence toddster...infrared does not warm the air...

so again...how does a radiative greenhouse effect work if the atmosphere is not warmed by infrared radiation?[/QUOTE]
*
Energy moves from warm to cool...not the other direction.
*
Unless work is done.

*The radiation is immediately emitted on towards cooler pastures.
*
Or toward the ground. Or transferred to other molecules in the air by collision or emission.
*
so again...how does a radiative greenhouse effect work if the atmosphere is not warmed by infrared radiation?
*
You just admitted, however briefly, the IR is absorbed. Matter that absorbs radiation is warmed.


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Actually I am appealing to simplicity.

_j _= sigmaT^4 is the most simple of the S-B equations. It makes the assumption of a Blackbody and gives the amount of radiation for any temperature. Regardless of the environment that it is imbedded in, because it doesn't have a term for the environment. The radiation is always that much. The only way you can change the radiation is to change the temperature.

The first, but still reasonably simple step up in complexity is to add the emmisivity term. Emission and absorption are still exactly equal but are less than the unity value of a blackbody. Emmisivity can be further defined by individual wavelengths. Eg, CO2 has near perfect absorption at 15 microns near perfect non-absorption at 10 microns.

The next step up is to include the environment. Any of the equations that include some variation of the term (T^4 - Tc^4). This is a huge complication, because we are now dealing with radiation both going out and coming in. We are dealing with at least two objects, and imbedding them in three dimensional space. We now have to add the area term with complex line-of-sight calculations. And emerging temperature gradients. Etc.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> Actually I am appealing to simplicity.
> 
> _j _= sigmaT^4 is the most simple of the S-B equations. It makes the assumption of a Blackbody and gives the amount of radiation for any temperature. Regardless of the environment that it is imbedded in, because it doesn't have a term for the environment. The radiation is always that much. The only way you can change the radiation is to change the temperature.



But it places the object in a space where there is no other matter...when you bring other matter into the picture, the equation changes and J starts to change with the difference in temperature between the radiator and its surroundings.

And again...moot.  IR does not warm the air.


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> But it places the object in a space where there is no other matter...when you bring other matter into the picture, the equation changes and J starts to change with the difference in temperature between the radiator and its surroundings.



That is incorrect. The radiation _j_ is always there, always sigmaT^4.

The original cavity experiment produced the data from which this relationship was derived. It was a clever use of topology to have both a radiating surface AND a space to radiate into, without any loss of the radiation produced or the temperature drop from it.

I say the cavity surface is emitting at sigmaT^4 at all times, with the radiation crossing the cavity to be absorbed on the other 'side', with no net change because the object is absorbing EXACTLY as much as it emits.

You say no radiation is allowed to be emitted into the cavity. That radiation can only be produced if it has a lower temperature absorber to accept it.

Would you accept that radiation was being produced if a probe was inserted into the cavity that produced a photoelectric effect? With the threshold energy being in the top half of the range for the Planck spectrum?

I really don't understand how the sigmaT^4 relationship was found if no radiation is being produced so that it can be sampled. Perhaps you could expand on that. We would love to hear your explanation.


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The radiation is immediately emitted on towards cooler pastures...




You keep saying this but you never explain what you actually think is going on.

I think we all agree that the surface emits 15 micron energy. I think we all agree that this radiation is absorbed to extinction within just a few metres of the atmosphere. 

Once absorbed, where does it go? SSDD has two mutually exclusive statements on this.

Sometimes he says it is immediately re-emitted. Sometimes he says it is transferred to nearby molecules by collision, 99.9999% of the time. So which is it? 

What does 'towards cooler pastures' mean? SSDD claims that energy in all forms, but specifically radiation, can only 'spontaneously' from warm to cool. Therefore radiation is prohibited from being emitted toward the surface (presumably by some unknown mechanism). Even though radiation can be consistently measured coming from the atmosphere in the direction of the surface. Apparently we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Efficiency is a big part of the real world. The most efficient way to enclose area with a defined circumference is a circle. The radius is equal in all directions. A square is not as good but still better than a rectangle.
> ...



I looked at the idea of entropy for a rotating absorber (the moon). The following formula works for simple problems that are closed system, a solid (no atmosphere), and at equilibrium. The change in entropy is given by

delta S = n Cp log(Tf/Ti) where,

n = moles of moon surface that is warmed,
Cp = specific heat of surface,
Ti = initial temperature,
Tf = final temperature.

The factors in n x Cp are hard to determine. They refer to the mass and specific heat of the mass being heated.. They will be replaced by M referring to the amount of material being heated.

Dark side of moon Ti = 100 K
Bright side of moon Tf = 373 K

When looking at the sun hitting the moon there are two extremes where a quasi-equilibrium exists.

1. The moon is slowly rotating, and the sun is shining on one side for an extended period.
2. The moon is rapidly rotating, and night is so short that the temperature has no time to drop.

Case 1. The delta entropy for energy hitting the light side of the moon only.

delta S = M log(373K/100K) = M x 0.572

Case 2 . This is a bit trickier because there is no temperature data for the non-existing case of both sides getting half the energy all the time, but it can be computed from what we already know.

The sun energy E results in a temperature of Tf.
From SB equation, E = K Tf ^4. Where K contains all the proportionality constants.

Let T2 be the unknown Case 2 temperature of the moon.
The whole moon will be receiving half the energy. 2 x E = K T2^4.

Using simple algebra, Tf = T2 x fourth root of 2 or, T2 = Tf x 0.841

The entropy formula for case 2 is
delta S = 2 M log(Tf x 0.841 / Ti) = 2 M log( 3.137) = 2 M x .496
Note: the leading factor of 2 is because twice as much material (both sides) are being heated.

Summary for the moon:

Case 1 delta S = M .572
Case 2 delta S = M .992

The Case 1 slow spin is almost twice as efficient in using energy from the sun.

The earth, it is more like the fast spin Case 2 since both sides of the earth are closer in temperature. Case 2 is a less efficient mechanism for gaining energy from the sun, but at least we don't freeze or boil to death.

Your intuition seems to be right, entropy shows an inefficiency to the storage mechanism.


----------



## IanC (Jan 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Thanks for your hard work. I hope you had fun doing it.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to address the difference in average temperature between the slow and fast spinning globes. The faster spinning globe is warmer on average.

I'll read your comment through a few more times.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> Thanks for your hard work. I hope you had fun doing it.
> 
> Unfortunately it doesn't seem to address the difference in average temperature between the slow and fast spinning globes. The faster spinning globe is warmer on average.
> 
> I'll read your comment through a few more times.



T2 is the unknown Case 2 temperature of the moon.



Wuwei said:


> Using simple algebra, Tf = T2 x fourth root of 2 or, T2 = Tf x 0.841


Tf is 373K but I didn't multiply it out to get T2

T2 = 313.7K


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


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


*Only Closed Minds Theorize a Closed Universe*

Fission science is a lot more important than the Greenies' greenhouse plaything. Since you know the orthodox dogma on this, wouldn't it explain a lot of things if instead the first collision after fission actually happens at the square of the speed of light (a light-year in 3 minutes).  Is it possible to measure that now?  Why should we believe that nothing can travel faster than light, especially if it is energized from outside this universe?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > But it places the object in a space where there is no other matter...when you bring other matter into the picture, the equation changes and J starts to change with the difference in temperature between the radiator and its surroundings.
> ...



Not true..unless you live in a model.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The radiation is immediately emitted on towards cooler pastures...
> ...



Exactly what I said is going on...radiation only moves from warm to cool...it can't spontaneously move anywhere else so if you are a theoretical photon leaving the surface of the earth, where are you constantly moving towards...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/19139813/I think we all agree that the surface emits 15 micron energy. I think we all agree that this radiation is absorbed to extinction within just a few metres of the atmosphere.[/quote]

No...we are not agreed on that...if it we're absorbed to extinction, that would suggest that IR could warm the air...it can't...



IanC said:


> Once absorbed, where does it go? SSDD has two mutually exclusive statements on this.



It is absorbed and emitted or the energy is transferred via collision...if it is emitted then it is moving towards a cooler region.



IanC said:


> Sometimes he says it is immediately re-emitted. Sometimes he says it is transferred to nearby molecules by collision, 99.9999% of the time. So which is it?



Do you know what the term sometimes means?  On rare occasions it is reemitted...in the vast majority of instances it is passed on via collision.  Not sure what is so difficult to understand about that....I say what i mean to say...no interpretation required on your part.



IanC said:


> What does 'towards cooler pastures' mean?



Geez ian, are you not able to take a cooler region from that statement...any cooler region..  Since it can't move towards a warmer region, and the CO2 molecule has no capacity to retain it at atmospheric temperatures, where else would it go?



IanC said:


> SSDD claims that energy in all forms, but specifically radiation, can only 'spontaneously' from warm to cool.



Not my claim ian...it is the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics..



IanC said:


> Therefore radiation is prohibited from being emitted toward the surface (presumably by some unknown mechanism).



Unknown being the operative word...you seem to think that science knows all...guess again.  If enough IR were being radiated back towards the earth to alter the cliamte, you would not need to cool an instrument to -80F in order to measure it...and that is the only way to measure so called back radiation.



IanC said:


> Even though radiation can be consistently measured coming from the atmosphere in the direction of the surface. Apparently we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'.



Only if you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.  Reference being fooled by instrumentation.  IR can not warm the air.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


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




*
radiation only moves from warm to cool...it can't spontaneously move anywhere else 
*
We've already determined that radiation can move from the 296 K walls of my house toward my 307 K body.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We've already determined that radiation can move from the 296 K walls of my house toward my 307 K body.



No we haven't...we have determined that via conduction, not radiation energy absorbed by your walls can be transferred to the air.  And air which is at a lower temperature than your body doesn't impart any energy to your body...your body radiates according to the temperature difference between it and its surroundings...if the air is warmer, then your body radiates less.  T-Tc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > We've already determined that radiation can move from the 296 K walls of my house toward my 307 K body.
> ...


*
No we haven't.
*
You said radiation can travel from cooler to warmer matter, if work is done.
That's why radiation is allowed to flow from the Sun's surface toward the corona. Correct?

Exactly how do you think the walls of my home reached 296 K?


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Exactly. Any object that could simply radiate freely without absorbing energy from it's surroundings would quickly approach absolute zero temperature. But that still leaves the question of how it got to its initial temperature.

Two object of unequal temperature are close to each other. They will both radiate freely except in the area defined by line-of-sight. They will both cool to absolute zero, but more slowly. The initially cooler object may not even cool at first if the net exchange is large enough to offset the radiation loss by the rest of its surface area not in line-of-sight to the warm area. But this initial stage would quickly pass, and both would then continue to cool. This is the passive 'spontaneous' part that SSDD claims is the only thing that happens in thermodynamics. That everything cools, and that only the rate of cooling can change.

In reality, there are energy sources. Especially the Sun but other sources as well in smaller systems, like the furnace in your house. That is a different thermodynamic story that does not lead to absolute zero, but instead, to equilibrium temperatures and temperature gradients.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

From over at Tallbloke. Model output.

Temperature at the equator for spin rates from very fast to very slow.

Sorry Wuwei. I keep meaning to get back to this but...

Interesting that the two extreme temperatures are very close to equal for rotation rates of 24 hrs or longer.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> From over at Tallbloke. Model output.
> 
> Temperature at the equator for spin rates from very fast to very slow.
> 
> ...



By eyeball it looks like the average temperature would be about 280 for infinitely fast ( even radiation), just under for 0.01 (14 minutes per spin), 250 for 0.1, 220 for a 24 hour day, 190 for a lunar day, and bottoming out at about 185 for very, very long days.

The poles would be colder but so what? There is no mechanism to spread the heat out from the equator.

100K drop just from lengthening the time of the day/night cycle. A big inefficiency.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > From over at Tallbloke. Model output.
> ...


It looks like my computation is slightly off from your graph. I got 313 K where your graph is a bit lower, at 280 K.
However the limiting values I used are different. I used a low of 100 K, and a high of 373 K.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2018)

An average temperature for the moon is a bit farcical anyways. And there is nothing to make use of the entropy either. 

But it is useful as a landmark for what the Earth might look like without an atmosphere. I wonder how long the day was 500,000,000 years ago. Obviously it would have made some difference.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> An average temperature for the moon is a bit farcical anyways. And there is nothing to make use of the entropy either.
> 
> But it is useful as a landmark for what the Earth might look like without an atmosphere. I wonder how long the day was 500,000,000 years ago. Obviously it would have made some difference.



Not totally farcical. If we want to colonize the moon we have to figure out how to speed up the rotation to maybe four revolutions per hour. That would play havoc with our circadian rhythm though.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > An average temperature for the moon is a bit farcical anyways. And there is nothing to make use of the entropy either.
> ...



Live underground.......


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 28, 2018)

Here we go again...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2018)

They have tried every other scare word in an attempt to get people to believe in the sham...may as well try cancer...although, it is pointless as the climate sensitivity to CO2 is steadily trending towards zero...maybe when it reaches zero, where it belongs, they may get around to addressing the real cancer...pollution, and begin working on a cure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*One of two ways...either they absorbed the radiation from your radiative heater, or they were warmed via conduction from the air being blown across the element of your radiative heater..
*
Excellent! My walls were warmed because of work.
That's why they are allowed to radiate toward my warmer body.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent! My walls were warmed because of work.[/quote[
> 
> Absorbing radiation is not work.  What work do you suppose your walls performed in order to emit energy towards a warmer object?
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent! My walls were warmed because of work.
> ...



*Absorbing radiation is not work.  What work do you suppose your walls performed in order to emit energy towards a warmer object?*

Matter outside the Sun's core, where fusion occurred, absorbed that fusion radiation.
That matter isn't allowed to radiate to the hotter corona?
All that energy is trapped in the Sun.....forever?
Neat!

Is this another one of your discoveries that no one else in the world is going to agree with?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 1, 2018)

He he,, it appears from reading this long winded thread that "hot spot" doesn't exist and that the AGW hypothesis remains a model only conjecture.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matter outside the Sun's core, where fusion occurred, absorbed that fusion radiation.
> That matter isn't allowed to radiate to the hotter corona?
> All that energy is trapped in the Sun.....forever?
> Neat!



You should write to NASA and tell them that there is no need to spend millions or billions on learning why the corona is warmer than the surface of the sun...Simply explain to them that it is a clear case of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm and that all they need do is ignore the second law of thermodynamics and they will be as confident of the reason the corona is warmer than the surface as you.

Of course, they will be as wrong as you, but what the hell...science is wrong all the time isn't it?


And unlike you, I don't need anyone to agree with me.  I have already proven several times in my own lifetime that the worldwide consensus on a particular scientific topic was wrong and I was right...  You should try it sometime...it is quite easy.  Choose a controversial scientific topic and go against the consensus...the odds are heavily in your favor that you will be right when all the facts are hashed out.  All you need is the patience to wait.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 1, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> He he,, it appears from reading this long winded thread that "hot spot" doesn't exist and that the AGW hypothesis remains a model only conjecture.



SSDD


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matter outside the Sun's core, where fusion occurred, absorbed that fusion radiation.
> ...



*You should write to NASA and tell them that there is no need to spend millions or billions on learning why the corona is warmer than the surface of the sun.*.

I don't care why the corona is hotter.

I care that you claim the Sun can't radiate through the corona.

I don't care why the Earth's thermosphere is hotter than the Earth's surface.

I care that you claim the Earth's surface can't radiate through the thermosphere.

*And unlike you, I don't need anyone to agree with me*

How convenient, considering no one agrees with you.

*I have already proven several times in my own lifetime that the worldwide consensus on a particular scientific topic was wrong and I was right...*

None of those involved the 2nd Law.


----------

