AGW: atmospheric physics

[gslack]

Wow....lol

 

[numan]

All of you.

Knock it off.

If you want to flame, do it in the Flame Zone.

"A Daniel come to judgement! Yea, a Daniel !
O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!"

Speak again, sweet doctor!

I am tempted to vote for you as absolute dictator over this thread, with plenary power over all trolls, flamers, spammers and stalkers, to condemn them and and punish them, even unto torture and the ripping out of their tongues!
.

 

[gslack]

Quit sucking up numan..

 

[IanC]

The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).

here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-

Joe says:
April 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM
You know, one of the worst things about being a CAGW sceptic is knowing that all those people who continue to deny the fact of a “greenhouse effect” from CO2 are batting the same wicket and that they’re the ones the other side will hold up as “typical” of your team. With such easy pickings for the alarmists, no wonder it’s hard to get the MSM to take scepticism seriously!

Of course CO2 can warm the planet. The effect may be badly named but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and it certainly doesn’t mean it breaks any physical laws.

Take a light bulb, a light meter and a partially silvered mirror. If you illuminate an object with the light and take a reading with the meter you’ll get a certain light intensity.

Now place the partially silvered mirror on the opposite side of the object and take another reading. The illumination of the object will be brighter because some of the photons that were “leaving the area” are now being sent back to your object.

It doesn’t matter that the light bulb is brighter than the mirror, the mirror still adds to the total illumination in the space between.

Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!

So it is with GHGs. The earth radiates heat in the form of photons. Without the gasses all those photons would shoot off through the atmosphere intop space. But the GHG molecules absorb some and then radiate some of the ones they absorb back towards the earth. It doesn’t matter if they’re cooler than the air beneath, they will still radiate photons (and, therefore, energy) downwards as well as upwards.

All the other effects such as increased convection, evaporation and so on may well be true but they don’t alter the basic radiative situation. In IPCC terms they are simply feedbacks which complicate the basic radiative model.

It’s quite possible that the “consensus science” fails to account for them adequately (or even at all) but that doesn’t mean they invalidate the fundamental radiative principle, only that they modify the nett effect. Even if they modify it to almost zero, they are still separate processes acting against it rather than an invalidation of the ratiative theory itself!

SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).

 

[SSDD]

SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).

Show me some small bit of observed, measured evidence for a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. Show me the first bit of hard, observed evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. Show me anything like hard evidence that the atmosphere warms the oceans rather than the other way around.

Short of being able to produce actual, observed, measured, empirical evidence for those things Ian, it is you who is wrong headed and dragging out the inevetable collapse of the AGW hypothesis. Don't ask me to take a hypothesis that I know to be wrong on faith and failing to provide any of the requested empirical evidence, ask yourself why you do.

By the way, your choice of posts from roy's site hardly reflects the clock cleaning he is getting there and gets every time he tries to defend the CO2 causes warming hypothesis. Roy may be a fine meteorologist, but he is no physicist and when people with a detailed and working knowledge of physics show up, they tear his argument to shreds and he inevetably retreats from the thread till new posts become scarce and then he posts a new topic. He has lost that argument at least half a dozen times and he keeps bringing it up again every time he thinks he has a new twist on it and every damned time, he gets his hat handed to him again.

 

[gslack]

The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).

here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-

Joe says:
April 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM
You know, one of the worst things about being a CAGW sceptic is knowing that all those people who continue to deny the fact of a “greenhouse effect” from CO2 are batting the same wicket and that they’re the ones the other side will hold up as “typical” of your team. With such easy pickings for the alarmists, no wonder it’s hard to get the MSM to take scepticism seriously!

Of course CO2 can warm the planet. The effect may be badly named but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and it certainly doesn’t mean it breaks any physical laws.

Take a light bulb, a light meter and a partially silvered mirror. If you illuminate an object with the light and take a reading with the meter you’ll get a certain light intensity.

Now place the partially silvered mirror on the opposite side of the object and take another reading. The illumination of the object will be brighter because some of the photons that were “leaving the area” are now being sent back to your object.

It doesn’t matter that the light bulb is brighter than the mirror, the mirror still adds to the total illumination in the space between.

Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!

So it is with GHGs. The earth radiates heat in the form of photons. Without the gasses all those photons would shoot off through the atmosphere intop space. But the GHG molecules absorb some and then radiate some of the ones they absorb back towards the earth. It doesn’t matter if they’re cooler than the air beneath, they will still radiate photons (and, therefore, energy) downwards as well as upwards.

All the other effects such as increased convection, evaporation and so on may well be true but they don’t alter the basic radiative situation. In IPCC terms they are simply feedbacks which complicate the basic radiative model.

It’s quite possible that the “consensus science” fails to account for them adequately (or even at all) but that doesn’t mean they invalidate the fundamental radiative principle, only that they modify the nett effect. Even if they modify it to almost zero, they are still separate processes acting against it rather than an invalidation of the ratiative theory itself!

SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).

Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...

A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....

I got an idea, why not place a glass container of CO2 in between the light bulb and the mirror and see if the reflected light from the mirror gets any extra heat back from the CO2... No that would be wrong wouldn't it.. Idiotic...

As stupid and irrelevant as that idea was, the worst was this bit of nonsense..

"Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!"

Brilliant, pure and simple...You will get warmer if you sit between two heaters or one heater.. This guy's a genius... Yep Ian, I can see how it explains your position almost exactly... Sounds exactly like your nonsense...

The last bolded part, is epic Ian nonsense. two-way energy flow, brilliant...Photons interacting with CO2 creates more photons. Genius... Not only more of them but they can now oppose their incoming stronger force and warm that source even more..

Why don't you guys just admit what people are figuring out? It's a bogus theory, made to answer things about light interacting with gases they couldn't explain. It's a ,mathematical concept that shows correct mathematically but doesn't show correct in the real world. it's not the first time this has happened, and judging from the absolute dedication to this kind of logic by the scientists involved it won't be the last..

Take your buddies first concept and place a pane of glass between the light and the mirror, and see if the mirror gets warmer because of it's presence.. It won't, we all know it. Why? because energy, even your version of the magical photon, can't flow back to its greater source. I know your going to claim now that the CO2 molecule is the new source. SO what? It's source is warmer therefore no flowing to it...

Unbelievable man, your hypocrisy here knows no bounds..

 

[RollingThunder]

The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).

here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-

Joe says:
April 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM
You know, one of the worst things about being a CAGW sceptic is knowing that all those people who continue to deny the fact of a “greenhouse effect” from CO2 are batting the same wicket and that they’re the ones the other side will hold up as “typical” of your team. With such easy pickings for the alarmists, no wonder it’s hard to get the MSM to take scepticism seriously!

Of course CO2 can warm the planet. The effect may be badly named but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and it certainly doesn’t mean it breaks any physical laws.

Take a light bulb, a light meter and a partially silvered mirror. If you illuminate an object with the light and take a reading with the meter you’ll get a certain light intensity.

Now place the partially silvered mirror on the opposite side of the object and take another reading. The illumination of the object will be brighter because some of the photons that were “leaving the area” are now being sent back to your object.

It doesn’t matter that the light bulb is brighter than the mirror, the mirror still adds to the total illumination in the space between.

Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!

So it is with GHGs. The earth radiates heat in the form of photons. Without the gasses all those photons would shoot off through the atmosphere intop space. But the GHG molecules absorb some and then radiate some of the ones they absorb back towards the earth. It doesn’t matter if they’re cooler than the air beneath, they will still radiate photons (and, therefore, energy) downwards as well as upwards.

All the other effects such as increased convection, evaporation and so on may well be true but they don’t alter the basic radiative situation. In IPCC terms they are simply feedbacks which complicate the basic radiative model.

It’s quite possible that the “consensus science” fails to account for them adequately (or even at all) but that doesn’t mean they invalidate the fundamental radiative principle, only that they modify the nett effect. Even if they modify it to almost zero, they are still separate processes acting against it rather than an invalidation of the ratiative theory itself!

SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).

Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...

A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....

I got an idea, why not place a glass container of CO2 in between the light bulb and the mirror and see if the reflected light from the mirror gets any extra heat back from the CO2... No that would be wrong wouldn't it.. Idiotic...

As stupid and irrelevant as that idea was, the worst was this bit of nonsense..

"Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!"

Brilliant, pure and simple...You will get warmer if you sit between two heaters or one heater.. This guy's a genius... Yep Ian, I can see how it explains your position almost exactly... Sounds exactly like your nonsense...

The last bolded part, is epic Ian nonsense. two-way energy flow, brilliant...Photons interacting with CO2 creates more photons. Genius... Not only more of them but they can now oppose their incoming stronger force and warm that source even more..

Why don't you guys just admit what people are figuring out? It's a bogus theory, made to answer things about light interacting with gases they couldn't explain. It's a ,mathematical concept that shows correct mathematically but doesn't show correct in the real world. it's not the first time this has happened, and judging from the absolute dedication to this kind of logic by the scientists involved it won't be the last..

Take your buddies first concept and place a pane of glass between the light and the mirror, and see if the mirror gets warmer because of it's presence.. It won't, we all know it. Why? because energy, even your version of the magical photon, can't flow back to its greater source. I know your going to claim now that the CO2 molecule is the new source. SO what? It's source is warmer therefore no flowing to it...

Unbelievable man, your hypocrisy here knows no bounds..

And the slackjawed idiot once again demonstrates conclusively that he knows absolutely nothing about science and can't comprehend it even when it is clearly explained in small words.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).

Show me some small bit of observed, measured evidence for a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. Show me the first bit of hard, observed evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. Show me anything like hard evidence that the atmosphere warms the oceans rather than the other way around.

Short of being able to produce actual, observed, measured, empirical evidence for those things Ian, it is you who is wrong headed and dragging out the inevetable collapse of the AGW hypothesis. Don't ask me to take a hypothesis that I know to be wrong on faith and failing to provide any of the requested empirical evidence, ask yourself why you do.

By the way, your choice of posts from roy's site hardly reflects the clock cleaning he is getting there and gets every time he tries to defend the CO2 causes warming hypothesis. Roy may be a fine meteorologist, but he is no physicist and when people with a detailed and working knowledge of physics show up, they tear his argument to shreds and he inevetably retreats from the thread till new posts become scarce and then he posts a new topic. He has lost that argument at least half a dozen times and he keeps bringing it up again every time he thinks he has a new twist on it and every damned time, he gets his hat handed to him again.

Damn. Now that is a lark. SSDD critisizing Dr. Spencer because he is not a physicist. So, who is the leading atmospheric physicist in the US? Someone with a BA in physics and mathematics, an MS in astronomy, and a Phd in physics.

And what organization sponsors this site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

None other than the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society of physicists in the world.

Now I think Dr. Spencer severly underestimates the effect of the GHGs, but he is enough of a scientist to recognize how GHGs work.

 

[gslack]

The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).

here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-



SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).

Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...

A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....

I got an idea, why not place a glass container of CO2 in between the light bulb and the mirror and see if the reflected light from the mirror gets any extra heat back from the CO2... No that would be wrong wouldn't it.. Idiotic...

As stupid and irrelevant as that idea was, the worst was this bit of nonsense..

"Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!"

Brilliant, pure and simple...You will get warmer if you sit between two heaters or one heater.. This guy's a genius... Yep Ian, I can see how it explains your position almost exactly... Sounds exactly like your nonsense...

The last bolded part, is epic Ian nonsense. two-way energy flow, brilliant...Photons interacting with CO2 creates more photons. Genius... Not only more of them but they can now oppose their incoming stronger force and warm that source even more..

Why don't you guys just admit what people are figuring out? It's a bogus theory, made to answer things about light interacting with gases they couldn't explain. It's a ,mathematical concept that shows correct mathematically but doesn't show correct in the real world. it's not the first time this has happened, and judging from the absolute dedication to this kind of logic by the scientists involved it won't be the last..

Take your buddies first concept and place a pane of glass between the light and the mirror, and see if the mirror gets warmer because of it's presence.. It won't, we all know it. Why? because energy, even your version of the magical photon, can't flow back to its greater source. I know your going to claim now that the CO2 molecule is the new source. SO what? It's source is warmer therefore no flowing to it...

Unbelievable man, your hypocrisy here knows no bounds..

And the slackjawed idiot once again demonstrates conclusively that he knows absolutely nothing about science and can't comprehend it even when it is clearly explained in small words.

ROFL, hows your other you holding up? Knew you were a forum spammer....

 

[gslack]

SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).

Show me some small bit of observed, measured evidence for a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. Show me the first bit of hard, observed evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. Show me anything like hard evidence that the atmosphere warms the oceans rather than the other way around.

Short of being able to produce actual, observed, measured, empirical evidence for those things Ian, it is you who is wrong headed and dragging out the inevetable collapse of the AGW hypothesis. Don't ask me to take a hypothesis that I know to be wrong on faith and failing to provide any of the requested empirical evidence, ask yourself why you do.

By the way, your choice of posts from roy's site hardly reflects the clock cleaning he is getting there and gets every time he tries to defend the CO2 causes warming hypothesis. Roy may be a fine meteorologist, but he is no physicist and when people with a detailed and working knowledge of physics show up, they tear his argument to shreds and he inevetably retreats from the thread till new posts become scarce and then he posts a new topic. He has lost that argument at least half a dozen times and he keeps bringing it up again every time he thinks he has a new twist on it and every damned time, he gets his hat handed to him again.

Damn. Now that is a lark. SSDD critisizing Dr. Spencer because he is not a physicist. So, who is the leading atmospheric physicist in the US? Someone with a BA in physics and mathematics, an MS in astronomy, and a Phd in physics.

And what organization sponsors this site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

None other than the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society of physicists in the world.

Now I think Dr. Spencer severly underestimates the effect of the GHGs, but he is enough of a scientist to recognize how GHGs work.

Interesting site.. Has this at the bottom of the first paragraph..

"Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate."

Notice they use the word theories.. Yes they say it's a theory not a fact.

oldsocks you just posted a story on the theories development. How does that even address what he talked about? Seriously man, sober up...

 

[IanC]

SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).

Show me some small bit of observed, measured evidence for a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. Show me the first bit of hard, observed evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. Show me anything like hard evidence that the atmosphere warms the oceans rather than the other way around.

Short of being able to produce actual, observed, measured, empirical evidence for those things Ian, it is you who is wrong headed and dragging out the inevetable collapse of the AGW hypothesis. Don't ask me to take a hypothesis that I know to be wrong on faith and failing to provide any of the requested empirical evidence, ask yourself why you do.

By the way, your choice of posts from roy's site hardly reflects the clock cleaning he is getting there and gets every time he tries to defend the CO2 causes warming hypothesis. Roy may be a fine meteorologist, but he is no physicist and when people with a detailed and working knowledge of physics show up, they tear his argument to shreds and he inevetably retreats from the thread till new posts become scarce and then he posts a new topic. He has lost that argument at least half a dozen times and he keeps bringing it up again every time he thinks he has a new twist on it and every damned time, he gets his hat handed to him again.

how odd.....I find that Spencer's arguments are always stronger. not only that but he keeps trying to attack the problem from different sides to give detractors yet another opportunity to see the light.

I see that Postma is making a fool of himself, again.

 

[IanC]

Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...

A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....

I got an idea, why not place a glass container of CO2 in between the light bulb and the mirror and see if the reflected light from the mirror gets any extra heat back from the CO2... No that would be wrong wouldn't it.. Idiotic...

As stupid and irrelevant as that idea was, the worst was this bit of nonsense..

"Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!"

Brilliant, pure and simple...You will get warmer if you sit between two heaters or one heater.. This guy's a genius... Yep Ian, I can see how it explains your position almost exactly... Sounds exactly like your nonsense...

The last bolded part, is epic Ian nonsense. two-way energy flow, brilliant...Photons interacting with CO2 creates more photons. Genius... Not only more of them but they can now oppose their incoming stronger force and warm that source even more..

I usually dont respond to your comments but I am bored.

I can understand how you get confused, and lose track of the concepts by focussing on irrelevant details. perhaps you are saying to yourself that the light meter would throw a shadow on the mirror so that none would reflect back at the meter. that is a legitimate point if the mirror was perfectly aligned but the thought experiment is an analogy for surface/earth. the light from the surface (IR) is diffuse, the radiation from molecules in the atmosphere even more so. that is why he said a half silvered mirror, to accomodate the fact that only half of the atmospheric radiation has a downward component (less because of the curvature of the earth if you want to be picky).

moving on to the heater example. do you doubt that two heaters would warm you up more? again, the single heater is not that great a simulation of the surface because it is not diffuse. one interesting aspect is that you could actually use a parabolic mirror behind you to focus the escaped IR that missed you the first time. you can magnify and direct sunlight, or output from a point source but you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any appreciable extent at ambient temperatures. this entropy is why you cannot use the large amount of energy in the ground or atmosphere to do work.

I dont really expect you to pick up on any of the concepts from Joe's comment, gslack. you never seem to be able to pick up anything.

go back to your ad homs. you dont need brains for that, just bad manners.

 

[polarbear]

Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...

A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....

I got an idea, why not place a glass container of CO2 in between the light bulb and the mirror and see if the reflected light from the mirror gets any extra heat back from the CO2... No that would be wrong wouldn't it.. Idiotic...

As stupid and irrelevant as that idea was, the worst was this bit of nonsense..

"Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!"

Brilliant, pure and simple...You will get warmer if you sit between two heaters or one heater.. This guy's a genius... Yep Ian, I can see how it explains your position almost exactly... Sounds exactly like your nonsense...

The last bolded part, is epic Ian nonsense. two-way energy flow, brilliant...Photons interacting with CO2 creates more photons. Genius... Not only more of them but they can now oppose their incoming stronger force and warm that source even more..

I usually dont respond to your comments but I am bored.

I can understand how you get confused, and lose track of the concepts by focussing on irrelevant details. perhaps you are saying to yourself that the light meter would throw a shadow on the mirror so that none would reflect back at the meter. that is a legitimate point if the mirror was perfectly aligned but the thought experiment is an analogy for surface/earth. the light from the surface (IR) is diffuse, the radiation from molecules in the atmosphere even more so. that is why he said a half silvered mirror, to accomodate the fact that only half of the atmospheric radiation has a downward component (less because of the curvature of the earth if you want to be picky).

moving on to the heater example. do you doubt that two heaters would warm you up more? again, the single heater is not that great a simulation of the surface because it is not diffuse. one interesting aspect is that you could actually use a parabolic mirror behind you to focus the escaped IR that missed you the first time. you can magnify and direct sunlight, or output from a point source but you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any appreciable extent at ambient temperatures. this entropy is why you cannot use the large amount of energy in the ground or atmosphere to do work.

I dont really expect you to pick up on any of the concepts from Joe's comment, gslack. you never seem to be able to pick up anything.

go back to your ad homs. you dont need brains for that, just bad manners.

IanC, do you have a BBQ?
Mine is black alu, has a 24 x 16 inch lid, and if I place it during the summer at 12:00 noon into direct sunlight it also exposes the 24 by 20 inch front to the sun...which radiates ~1000 Watts per m^2 at it. After 5 minutes it received on top and at the front ~ 244 000 watt seconds solar radiation, yet you can put your hand on the lid for as long as you want to.

But if you put a 500 watt electric hotplate inside the BBQ you can`t touch the lid after 5 minutes without getting your fingers burnt even though that was only 150 000 watt seconds.

You can try out the same thing with a 1 m^2 sheet metal painted pitch black. If you stand on it after it was exposed to the sun for an hour it won`t burn your feet either, but if it`s been sitting for an hour on a 1000 watt electric heater it would.

Photons @ x µm do represent a specific energy quantum but that does not mean that each Joule of energy carried at a given radiation flux is converted into heat.
Much of it remains radiation and only an ideal black body converts the entire amount into heat.

It`s Okay to speculate if one lamp would heat the filament of another lamp next to it, but unless you can show that it actually does so it`s a mute point.

You keep saying it would and also keep saying that Roy Spencers silly "thought experiment" + his anecdotal "explanations" are correct, while you are disputing the rest of that "science"....the back radiation temperature yields that this photon===> equal amount of heat energy has been projecting.

 

[IanC]

Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...

A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....

I got an idea, why not place a glass container of CO2 in between the light bulb and the mirror and see if the reflected light from the mirror gets any extra heat back from the CO2... No that would be wrong wouldn't it.. Idiotic...

As stupid and irrelevant as that idea was, the worst was this bit of nonsense..

"Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you don’t need a second heater – a simple mirror to reflect the heat that’s gone past you will do the same!"

Brilliant, pure and simple...You will get warmer if you sit between two heaters or one heater.. This guy's a genius... Yep Ian, I can see how it explains your position almost exactly... Sounds exactly like your nonsense...

The last bolded part, is epic Ian nonsense. two-way energy flow, brilliant...Photons interacting with CO2 creates more photons. Genius... Not only more of them but they can now oppose their incoming stronger force and warm that source even more..

I usually dont respond to your comments but I am bored.

I can understand how you get confused, and lose track of the concepts by focussing on irrelevant details. perhaps you are saying to yourself that the light meter would throw a shadow on the mirror so that none would reflect back at the meter. that is a legitimate point if the mirror was perfectly aligned but the thought experiment is an analogy for surface/earth. the light from the surface (IR) is diffuse, the radiation from molecules in the atmosphere even more so. that is why he said a half silvered mirror, to accomodate the fact that only half of the atmospheric radiation has a downward component (less because of the curvature of the earth if you want to be picky).

moving on to the heater example. do you doubt that two heaters would warm you up more? again, the single heater is not that great a simulation of the surface because it is not diffuse. one interesting aspect is that you could actually use a parabolic mirror behind you to focus the escaped IR that missed you the first time. you can magnify and direct sunlight, or output from a point source but you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any appreciable extent at ambient temperatures. this entropy is why you cannot use the large amount of energy in the ground or atmosphere to do work.

I dont really expect you to pick up on any of the concepts from Joe's comment, gslack. you never seem to be able to pick up anything.

go back to your ad homs. you dont need brains for that, just bad manners.

IanC, do you have a BBQ?
Mine is black alu, has a 24 x 16 inch lid, and if I place it during the summer at 12:00 noon into direct sunlight it also exposes the 24 by 20 inch front to the sun...which radiates ~1000 Watts per m^2 at it. After 5 minutes it received on top and at the front ~ 244 000 watt seconds solar radiation, yet you can put your hand on the lid for as long as you want to.

But if you put a 500 watt electric hotplate inside the BBQ you can`t touch the lid after 5 minutes without getting your fingers burnt even though that was only 150 000 watt seconds.

You can try out the same thing with a 1 m^2 sheet metal painted pitch black. If you stand on it after it was exposed to the sun for an hour it won`t burn your feet either, but if it`s been sitting for an hour on a 1000 watt electric heater it would.

Photons @ x µm do represent a specific energy quantum but that does not mean that each Joule of energy carried at a given radiation flux is converted into heat.
Much of it remains radiation and only an ideal black body converts the entire amount into heat.

It`s Okay to speculate if one lamp would heat the filament of another lamp next to it, but unless you can show that it actually does so it`s a mute point.

You keep saying it would and also keep saying that Roy Spencers silly "thought experiment" + his anecdotal "explanations" are correct, while you are disputing the rest of that "science"....the back radiation temperature yields that this photon===> equal amount of heat energy has been projecting.

great example. I am short on time right now but I think this is a case of convection and conduction being a much more efficient way of transferring heat. as well there is 1000w heater putting the power through much less than 1 m2. and thirdly there is the matter of emissivity, what wavelengths a material preferentially absorbs. as a kid I hated chrome doorhandles on sunny summer days.

please be careful when saying or even implying what I have said. you have distorted my position almost every time in the past, so please just make an actual quote of my words, preferably with the context. as far as Spencer, do you disagree that the temperature of an object is not only affected by the energy input but also by the energy loss?

 

[numan]

'
Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!

First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!

Moreover, how similar, how very similar the way heat is built up inside the barbeque is to the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth!!!

Idiocy like this is unimaginable to mere mortals -- it takes a genius of the absurd like bear-brain and his fellow Denialists to come up with something this nuts!!
.

 

[Meister]

'
Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!

First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!

Moreover, how similar, how very similar the way heat is built up inside the barbeque is to the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth!!!

Idiocy like this is unimaginable to mere mortals -- it takes a genius of the absurd like bear-brain and his fellow Denialists to come up with something this nuts!!
.

You're fairytale is losing steam* with each passing month....people all over the world are catching on to the warmers hype and are seeing things as they really are and not as you and your ilk spew. Now.....carry on

 

[SSDD]

And what organization sponsors this site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

None other than the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society of physicists in the world.

I've asked before and I will ask yet again...where in that link...or in any of the links that it provides is the first bit of observed, measured evidence that CO2 warms the atmosphere?

 

[SSDD]

how odd.....I find that Spencer's arguments are always stronger. not only that but he keeps trying to attack the problem from different sides to give detractors yet another opportunity to see the light.

Of course you do...but you are both wrong.

I see that Postma is making a fool of himself, again.

I am sure that you think that, but Postma and Cotten have actual observed, measured, repeatable, experimental evidnce in support of their side of the argument while spencer et al have failed thought experiments.

 

[SSDD]

You're fairytale is losing steam* with each passing month....people all over the world are catching on to the warmers hype and are seeing things as they really are and not as you and your ilk spew. Now.....carry on

We are seeing the last gasp of the failed AGW hypothesis...the true idiots...the devoted acolytes...those who have drunk most deeply of the koolaid will be the last to know.

You can see who they are.....they are still preaching the message while their priests are positioning themselves to get out of dodge while some career opportunities still exist.

 

[RollingThunder]

You're fairytale is losing steam* with each passing month....people all over the world are catching on to the warmers hype and are seeing things as they really are and not as you and your ilk spew. Now.....carry on

We are seeing the last gasp of the failed AGW hypothesis...the true idiots...the devoted acolytes...those who have drunk most deeply of the koolaid will be the last to know.

You can see who they are.....they are still preaching the message while their priests are positioning themselves to get out of dodge while some career opportunities still exist.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......it's really hilarious, these myths and fairy tales the deranged dingbat denier cultists tell each other to keep their spirits up while their crackpot cult is sliding down the poopchute of history. 'The South will rise again, boys, so save your Confederate money'.