AGW: atmospheric physics

[IanC]

Every physics text teaches that matter emits radiation according to its temp. I have never read about a mechanism that can turn this radiation off. Have you?

 

[mamooth]

So they say...and still you can't show me a single measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperature.

I've seen it directly, with a military-grade FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared). The sky emits IR light, even at night.

 

[SSDD]

Every physics text teaches that matter emits radiation according to its temp. I have never read about a mechanism that can turn this radiation off. Have you?

I never said anything about turning radiation off, but there isn't any law that says that an object "must" radiate in every direction. Stating that an object won't radiate in the direction of an object that is warmer and therfore receiving radiation from is no more radical than saying that if dropped, a marble falls down, or if stet on an incline will roll down hill. The physical laws are what they are.

You know that electricity only moves in one direction along a wire...Hook up a 12 volt battery to one end and a 6 volt to the other and no electricity from the 6 volt will travel to the 12 volt along the wire. It simply won't "radiate" in a direction from which a higher energy is coming.

 

[SSDD]

So they say...and still you can't show me a single measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperature.

I've seen it directly, with a military-grade FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared). The sky emits IR light, even at night.

No you haven't. Maybe you are unaware that FLIR units are cooled. They have to be cooled to a lower temperature than anything that they are likely to be looking at otherwise no image would be detected as backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object is not possible.

No measurement...and I mean absolutely NO measurement of backradiation has been taken at ambient temperature. If you were viewing with military grade hardware, then you were probably using something along these lines:

Apache 1K
FLIR’s Apache 1K camera core is based on our high-performance, 18-micron pitch, 1024 × 1024 MWIR, Indium Antimonide (InSb) focal plane array. The Apache 1K camera core consists of a detector/dewar/cooler assembly (DDCA), with camera electronics packaged into a compact, rugged, military-qualified configuration. The camera core outputs both corrected 14-bit digital data and analog NTSC video.

Photon HRC
The Photon HRC camera core consists of a detector/dewar/cooler assembly (DDCA), camera electronics, and a mechanical frame (pictured). It is one of the smallest high-resolution (640x512) MWIR cooled camera cores in the world, and is based on our 15-micron pitch, high performance, low power, Indium Antimonide (InSb) focal plane array

Or maybe even something as downgraded as this:

Key Features:
Cooled Mercury Cadmium Telluride detector
Continuous optical zoom lens option eliminates the need for multiple lenses
640 x 512 pixel resolution
Powerful image processing algorithms embedded in hardware and software
Easy to integrate and compatible with common power and video interfaces





And of course the sky emits radiation...just not towards the surface if the surface is warmer.

 

[Oddball]

So they say...and still you can't show me a single measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperature.

I've seen it directly, with a military-grade FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared). The sky emits IR light, even at night.

No you haven't. Maybe you are unaware that FLIR units are cooled. They have to be cooled to a lower temperature than anything that they are likely to be looking at otherwise no image would be detected as backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object is not possible.

mamooth seems to lie a lot.

 

[SSDD]

I've seen it directly, with a military-grade FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared). The sky emits IR light, even at night.

No you haven't. Maybe you are unaware that FLIR units are cooled. They have to be cooled to a lower temperature than anything that they are likely to be looking at otherwise no image would be detected as backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object is not possible.

mamooth seems to lie a lot.

Maybe he has seen images on a FLIR display. Like many, he just didn't know what he was looking at. He saw images and figured that they must represent backradiation but had no idea that the images were the result of the FLIR device being cooled to a temperature blow anything it would likely be called to look at so that the radiation from the objects could actually radiate to the FLIR device. All these people who believe in backradiation should realise that instruments like the FLIR represent observable evidence that backradiation does not exist.

Hell, vist Dr. Roy Spencer's site. He currently has a completely idiotic thread up trying to claim that his hand held infrared thermometer is proof of backradiation even though he knows that it takes extremely sensitive equipment that is being cooled to temperatures close to those found in the upermost atmosphere to measure backradiation.

He has had what is IR thermometer is actually reading dozens of times on various threads, even by a manufacturer of IR thermometers speaking on behalf of the company but he just keeps pushing the same old backradiation line of crap because he has so much of himself invested in it that he just can't beleive that he has been so wrong. He may be a brilliant meterologist, but apparently doesn't know jack about atmospheric physics.

 

[RollingThunder]

you misunderstand thermodynamics. it leads to macroscopic laws because of the interaction of large numbers. there is no forbidding of microscopic fluctuations and you cannot point to any mechanism by which they are forbidden.

So they say...and still you can't show me a single measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperature.

in the specific case of atmospheric physics you arbitrarily separate the radiation in one direction from the radiation going in the other direction even though they are going on at the same time and continuously. the SLOT predicts the direction of net flow, not each and every interaction possible.

Actually, the second law predicts one direction gross flow. Neither heat nor energy will move from low energy areas to high energy areas or low entropy to high entropy and that simply can't happen.

from wiki-

Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that characterize materials and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what laws they change with time. Thermodynamics describes the average behavior of very large numbers of microscopic constituents, and its laws can be derived from statistical mechanics.

Once more, it is interesting that physics texts leading to the hard science physics degree don't teach backradiation while physics texts leading to the soft science degree of climatology do. The letter of the law says no backradiation...I will stick with that till such time as backradiation can be measured at ambient temperature. I say ambient because backradiation can be measured if the temperature of the measuring device is lowered to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...at that point, you can measure all the downward radiation you like, but even that isn't backradiation since the downward radiation is only reaching the specific area that has been cooled down. The second law predicts that if you cool the device down to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, energy will move from the cool atmosphere to the cooler device.

Oh, you poor silly sad insane little retard.

From Dr. Roy Spencer, the 'darling of the deniers', the climate scientist who is probably the most cited and quoted by deniers because of his skepticism regarding climate sensitivity. The 'darling of the deniers' until, of course, he sticks to the actual science and doesn't go along with the kooky myths of the denier cult, at which point they turn on him savagely.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
(excerpts)
...These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect. Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, “How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?” The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.

Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation says (roughly), that a good infrared absorber is an equally good infrared emitter. So, each layer of the atmosphere is continuously absorbing IR, as well as emitting it. This is what makes the Greenhouse Effect so much more difficult to understand conceptually than solar heating of the Earth. While the sun is a single source, and most of the energy absorbed by the Earth is at a single level (the surface of the ground), in the case of infrared energy, every layer becomes both as source of energy and an absorber of energy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Can Energy “Flow Uphill”?
In the case of radiation, the answer to that question is, “yes”. While heat conduction by an object always flows from hotter to colder, in the case of thermal radiation a cooler object does not check what the temperature of its surroundings is before sending out infrared energy. It sends it out anyway, no matter whether its surroundings are cooler or hotter. Yes, thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions.


Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
Measuring The (Nonexistent) Greenhouse Effect in My Backyard with a Handheld IR Thermometer and The Box
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 6th, 2010
(excerpts)
One of the claims of greenhouse and global warming theory that many people find hard to grasp is that there is a large flow of infrared radiation downward from the sky which keeps the surface warmer than it would otherwise be. Particularly difficult to grasp is the concept of adding a greenhouse gas to a COLD atmosphere, and that causing a temperature increase at the surface of the Earth, which is already WARM. This, of course, is what is expected to happen from adding more carbon dioixde to the atmosphere: “global warming”. Well, it is one of the marvels of our electronic age that you can buy a very sensitive handheld IR thermometer for only $50 and observe the effect for yourself. These devices use a thermopile, which is an electronic component that measures a voltage which is proportional to the temperature difference across the thermopile. If you point the device at something hot, the higher-intensity IR radiation heats up the hot-viewing side of the thermopile, and the IR thermometer displays the temperature it is radiating at (assuming some emissivity…my inexpensive unit is fixed at e=0.95). If you instead point it at the cold sky, the sky-viewing side of the thermopile loses IR radiation, cooling it to a lower temperature than the inside of the thermopile.

For instance, last night I drove around pointing this thing straight up though my sunroof at a cloud-free sky. I live in hilly territory, the ambient air temperature was about 81 F, and at my house (an elevation of 1,000 feet), I was reading about 34 deg. F for an effective sky temperature. If the device was perfectly calibrated, and there was NO greenhouse effect, it would measure an effective sky temperature near absolute zero (-460 deg. F) rather than +34 deg. F, and nighttime cooling of the surface would have been so strong that everything would be frozen by morning. Not very likely in Alabama in August. What was amazing was that driving down in elevation from my house caused the sky temperature reading to increase by about 3 deg. F for a 300 foot drop in elevation. My car thermometer was showing virtually no change. This pattern was repeated as I went up and down hills. The IR thermometer was measuring different strengths of the greenhouse effect, by definition the warming of a surface by downward IR emission by greenhouse gases in the sky. This reduces the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface (and lower atmosphere) to space, and makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be.

 

[SSDD]

Guess you didn't read the comments where roy got himself a new one torn. I am afraid that roy's thought experiment was an abject failure as well as his little construction project in his back yard.

You guys will believe anything won't you? Guess that is because you really don't have a grasp of the science and just believe or disbelieve based on your political leanings. Unfortunate.

If you believe backradiation exists, then provide some actual measurements of it taken at ambient temperature. We have no problem at all measuring incoming radiation of all wavelengths coming in from the sun at ambient temperature, but oddly enough are completely unable to measure backradiation without cooling the instruments to temperatures near those found at the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere.

If so much backradiation is coming in from the atmosphere, why can't it be measured at ambient temperature?

 

[mamooth]

No you haven't.

Yes, I have. You can spout your kook theory about the magic fairies that prevent radiation in one direction, but it doesn't stop people from observing the radiation from the atmosphere.

Maybe you are unaware that FLIR units are cooled. They have to be cooled to a lower temperature than anything that they are likely to be looking at otherwise no image would be detected as backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object is not possible.

So according to your crank theory, cooling the instrument causes the atmosphere far away from it to start emitting backradiation. Your theory is insanely stupid.

 

[mamooth]

mamooth seems to lie a lot.

Oddball, are you officially joining TeamDickless and claiming I lie about being in the military?

If you have, locate your balls and say it directly to my face. My virtual face, that is. I'll make sure to include you in all my future transmissions to TeamDickless.

 

[RollingThunder]

Guess you didn't read the comments where roy got himself a new one torn.

LOLOLOLOLOL....is that your new myth???.....I did read the comments and there were a few denier cult retards like you who posted some nonsense and Dr. Spencer answered them with the facts. Since you have long since demonstrated your aversion to the facts, it is not too surprising that you don't recognize them when you see them.

I am afraid that roy's thought experiment was an abject failure as well as his little construction project in his back yard.

Well, that's the insane little myth you tell yourself anyway, but it has no relation to reality. And of course, you would never think of buying the sensitive handheld IR thermometer he mentioned and trying it for yourself. LOLOLOLOLOL......it might, after all, upset your precious myths and fantasies.

You guys will believe anything won't you? Guess that is because you really don't have a grasp of the science and just believe or disbelieve based on your political leanings. Unfortunate.

Oops, there you go, talking to yourself again, you poor deluded anti-science retard.

If you believe backradiation exists, then provide some actual measurements of it taken at ambient temperature.

Just did. You're just too stupid to comprehend it and too brainwashed to admit it if you could understand it.

We have no problem at all measuring incoming radiation of all wavelengths coming in from the sun at ambient temperature, but oddly enough are completely unable to measure backradiation without cooling the instruments to temperatures near those found at the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere.

LOLOLOLOL.....where do you get this nonsense. Dr. Spencer just showed how to measure backradiation with a "handheld IR thermometer for only $50" that doesn't require any special "cooling". You are such a pathetically incompetent liar.

If so much backradiation is coming in from the atmosphere, why can't it be measured at ambient temperature?

It can. Only retarded fools deny it.

 

[Saigon]

Every physics text teaches that matter emits radiation according to its temp. I have never read about a mechanism that can turn this radiation off. Have you?

I never said anything about turning radiation off, but there isn't any law that says that an object "must" radiate in every direction. Stating that an object won't radiate in the direction of an object that is warmer and therfore receiving radiation from is no more radical than saying that if dropped, a marble falls down, or if stet on an incline will roll down hill. The physical laws are what they are.

.

No one on this thread has claimed that an object MUST radiate heat to a warmer object - only that it could given certain conditions.

Backradiation may not occur in every scenario with cushions, heaters and frogs, but we know for a fact that it exists in the earth & atmopshere, and you can go and watch it happen yourself if you are sufficiently interested.

I've posted all of the information on this twice now - I've yet to see you address the science behind it.

 

[gslack]

mamooth seems to lie a lot.

Oddball, are you officially joining TeamDickless and claiming I lie about being in the military?

If you have, locate your balls and say it directly to my face. My virtual face, that is. I'll make sure to include you in all my future transmissions to TeamDickless.

You DO lie a lot tool... It's a well known fact now..

 

[gslack]

Every physics text teaches that matter emits radiation according to its temp. I have never read about a mechanism that can turn this radiation off. Have you?

I never said anything about turning radiation off, but there isn't any law that says that an object "must" radiate in every direction. Stating that an object won't radiate in the direction of an object that is warmer and therfore receiving radiation from is no more radical than saying that if dropped, a marble falls down, or if stet on an incline will roll down hill. The physical laws are what they are.

.

No one on this thread has claimed that an object MUST radiate heat to a warmer object - only that it could given certain conditions.

Backradiation may not occur in every scenario with cushions, heaters and frogs, but we know for a fact that it exists in the earth & atmopshere, and you can go and watch it happen yourself if you are sufficiently interested.

I've posted all of the information on this twice now - I've yet to see you address the science behind it.

What conditions? What conditions allow for two-way heat flow? A perfect machine? Doesn't exist..

Backradiation is make believe, a hoax to sell a messed up theory. Ever see some of the convoluted equations and explanations they use to explain it? It's simply retarded..

The laws of physics do not stop working just to suit some theory. They are laws because in the natural world they have shown to be inflexible therefore laws. They are using complex mathematics and theoretical mumbo-jumbo to claim that in this one case, the laws of physics are broken.. Nowhere else in the natural world at anytime have they shown this phenomenon, but using their computer generated models, and theoretical math based on equations designed to give the result they want, they say it's fact now..

BS..

 

[Saigon]

Backradiation is make believe, a hoax to sell a messed up theory.

I suggest you do a little reading - this article explains how it works, and provides examples you can probably see from your own window.

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

 

[gslack]

Backradiation is make believe, a hoax to sell a messed up theory.

I suggest you do a little reading - this article explains how it works, and provides examples you can probably see from your own window.

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields…). The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

No thanks read his nonsense before.. Want a clue? His premise is false... His contention...

For Greenhouse Effect to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:

the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and; the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.

The first part is the killer really.. First he has already set the parameters he would accept to make the theory in violation of the law. That's not how it works is it...

Why would the earth need to be a discrete body to be a body of a lower temperature? That's complete nonsense a discrete body in this scenario would have to be black-body emitter. The Earth is not a black body. It's just not.. And for that matter since when is a body of a lower temperature have to be absolute zero? That's what his implication is...

He then claims the second law has to preclude any feedback...Says who? What the hell kind of nonsense was that??

Then he states the only true thing he said at all..."...could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature” yes the only thing he said that was concise, and clear and true.. ALL the rest of it was circle talk nonsense designed to confound a simple matter really...

What he is doing is taking the theory in question, and using it to prove itself.. it's nonsense and plain ignorant..

The dudes a BS artist nothing more. I read his crap a few times, he's a charlatan, a paid storyteller with enough of a science background to make it seem like he's saying something..

Want an example? Sure..

If a cow and a half, weighed a tom and a half, how much would a pound of butter weigh?
One pound of course..

Now did I actually say anything of substance there? no I didn't it was just BS..

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I have. You can spout your kook theory about the magic fairies that prevent radiation in one direction, but it doesn't stop people from observing the radiation from the atmosphere.

You have not observed backradiation at ambient temperature. No one has. It does not exist. There is nothing magic about the second law any more than gravity is magic, or that the fact that electricity will only run in one direction in a wire or that air at normal atmospheric pressure won't enter a hole producing a slow leak in a baloon, or that a marble placed on an incline won't roll up hill. These are all predicted by the second law. Suggesting that energy will flow spontaneously from cool to warm is the claim of magic.

There is no law stating that an object must radiate in every direction but there is a law that states that it can only radiate energy to areas of lower energy...that same object is receving energy from areas of higher energy.

So according to your crank theory, cooling the instrument causes the atmosphere far away from it to start emitting backradiation. Your theory is insanely stupid.

Not at all. The problem is that you don't understand the laws of physics. The second law states that energy won't spontaneously move from cool to warm.

What sort of object do you believe you saw backradiation from with a FLIR? What were you looking at that was colder than the FLIR unit?

 

[RollingThunder]

I never said anything about turning radiation off, but there isn't any law that says that an object "must" radiate in every direction. Stating that an object won't radiate in the direction of an object that is warmer and therfore receiving radiation from is no more radical than saying that if dropped, a marble falls down, or if stet on an incline will roll down hill. The physical laws are what they are.

.

No one on this thread has claimed that an object MUST radiate heat to a warmer object - only that it could given certain conditions.

Backradiation may not occur in every scenario with cushions, heaters and frogs, but we know for a fact that it exists in the earth & atmopshere, and you can go and watch it happen yourself if you are sufficiently interested.

I've posted all of the information on this twice now - I've yet to see you address the science behind it.

What conditions? What conditions allow for two-way heat flow? A perfect machine? Doesn't exist..

Backradiation is make believe, a hoax to sell a messed up theory. Ever see some of the convoluted equations and explanations they use to explain it? It's simply retarded..

The laws of physics do not stop working just to suit some theory. They are laws because in the natural world they have shown to be inflexible therefore laws. They are using complex mathematics and theoretical mumbo-jumbo to claim that in this one case, the laws of physics are broken.. Nowhere else in the natural world at anytime have they shown this phenomenon, but using their computer generated models, and theoretical math based on equations designed to give the result they want, they say it's fact now..

BS..

Yeah but the thing is, slackjawed, you're a clueless, brainwashed retard with no real knowledge or understanding of the laws of physics or anything else in science, as you have clearly demonstrated every time you post. As SSooooDDuuumb has also done, almost as well as you. Two clueless dumbfucks, spewing ignorant drivel and nonsense.

I just posted some good explanations from Dr. Roy Spencer that detail just how you denier cult fools are misinterpreting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As he said: "thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions".

If you mindless denier cult dupes actually knew anything at all about physics, you would realize just how absurd your claims are about the "impossibility of backradiation". What seems to be beyond your meager comprehension is the fact that infrared radiation is very close to the visible light wavelengths that we can see in the electromagnetic spectrum. and both IR and visible light are transferring energy with photons. If there were actually no backradiation possible, as you kooks would have it, we would certainly notice that when a 1000 lumens lamp and a 500 lumens lamp were pointed directly at each other, the lower intensity light source would just black out and refuse to emit photons in the direction of the other lamp. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Or point a flashlight at the sun and then hold up a mirror next to the sun and see if the flashlight is still shining. LOLOLOL....you Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted rightwingnutjobs are soooo hilarious when you try to explain how all of the scientists are wrong and you're right. You're just too stupid and ignorant to be able to recognize just how extremely stupid and ignorant you really are and you have no comprehension at all of just how much smarter most other people are than you imbeciles.

 

[SSDD]

LOLOLOLOLOL....is that your new myth???.....I did read the comments and there were a few denier cult retards like you who posted some nonsense and Dr. Spencer answered them with the facts. Since you have long since demonstrated your aversion to the facts, it is not too surprising that you don't recognize them when you see them.

There were no facts to answer with thunder. Thought experiments involve hypothesis and supposing what would happen if. Actual experiments involve facts which is why his backyard experiment failed.

Well, that's the insane little myth you tell yourself anyway, but it has no relation to reality. And of course, you would never think of buying the sensitive handheld IR thermometer he mentioned and trying it for yourself. LOLOLOLOLOL......it might, after all, upset your precious myths and fantasies.

I have a hand held infrared thermometer. Of course you can point it at the sky and get different readings, but it doesn't mean you are measuring backradiation. Thermometer manufacturers have explained to roy that his instrument isn't measuring backradiation.

If you point an infrared thermometer at a clear sky, you are reading a temperature at a much higher altitude than if you point it at a cloud. The cloud isn't backradiating, it is simply at a much lower temperature because it is at a much lower altitude. You do realise that the atmosphere gets colder as you increase altitude don't you?

LOLOLOLOL.....where do you get this nonsense. Dr. Spencer just showed how to measure backradiation with a "handheld IR thermometer for only $50" that doesn't require any special "cooling". You are such a pathetically incompetent liar.

All spencer showed was that he doesn't have a clue as to what his insturment is reading. If backradiation can be measured with a $150 hand held IR thermometer, why do you suppose meteorological agencies buy incredibly expensive instruments that are cooled far below the -20 degree average of the atmosphere to make direct measurement of atmospheric radiation possible?

Here is the sort of instrument they use:

The AIRS Instrument:
Notice the amount of "Cooling" modules?
They are used to cool the IR detectors in the Focal Plane Assembly.

AIRS: instrument
Cryogenic Cooling Systems

-Dewar Assembly
-Cryocooler Assembly
-Radiators and Earth Shield Assembly

Dewar Assembly
"The focal plane assembly operates at 58 K for high sensitivity and is packaged in a permanent vacuum dewar which mates directly to the 155 K grating spectrometer."

58K = -215 deg C !!
AIRS: dewar

Cryocooler Assembly
"Low vibration, long life focal plane operation near 58 K is critical to the success of AIRS.."
AIRS: cryocooler


Spencer is no more measuring backradiation with his IR thermometer than he is measuring gravity.

It can. Only retarded fools deny it.

Then I am sure that you can provide some direct measurements, in watts per square meter taken at ambient temperature.

 

[Saigon]

No thanks read his nonsense before.. Want a clue? His premise is false... His contention...

Right.

So the scientists have got it wrong - again. It's surprising how often it comes down to that on this board.

Even more surprising that we can post research written by a Professor of Physics with 25 years experience, and he can be "proven wrong" by someone who struggled to pass high school maths.

Enlightening.

btw, keep this in mind:

The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.htm