1.) Where did I say that radiation is the same a conduction?
Don`t attribute your stupid statements to me !
You are the one that keeps using an ideal radiation profile that you copy from wiki which only applies for a system where there is no heat conduction and no work is performed.
Take a look at the title of this thread...!
"Atmospheric physics" (!)
Now that it finally did dawn on you how insignificant the radiative transfer from the ground to the atmosphere is as compared to heat conduction you try lecture me on heat flow in a room with forced air heating as opposed to room with a radiator....and where the cold spots are.
While I was showing you that an arc light heats another object quicker when it is shunted and acts primarily as a heater.
Only if you disallow all heat conduction... will the # of watts of the filament load be dissipated by radiative transfer.
It just does not dawn on you, does it ?
2.) After all heat conduction is disallowed that shunted arc light will heat another nearby object much quicker by RADIATIVE heat transfer in the IR range than it would do if the contact rods open and the arc light radiates way less IR but peaks the output at much shorter wavelength.
3.) Now try and heat something that is a less than ideal black body with that radiation profile...!!!
Good luck
4.) Even if heat conduction is disallowed, for ex. if that arc light were mounted on a satellite pointed at another close by object that object would be heated quicker when the radiation profile is shifted towards IR as opposed to emitting most of the energy as UV photons.
All the while the "back-radiation" concept you subscribe to along with the other naive Roy Spencer "yes Virginias" is using the entire energy profile of the second, the colder object to heat the radiator beyond it`s original temperature because there are a few photons at the high end spectrum coming back....which could only heat an ideal black body that performs no work.
Both objects in that stupid "thought experiment" you use as your gospel expand when they are being heated.
When heat expands an object it performed work
Not only have you been too stupid to grasp that, but you even went beyond and kept claiming with your copy&paste black body wiki radiation profile that there is the same radiative heat transfer from the source to the absorber even if the spectrum is shifted to the shorter wavelength.
And you still don`t understand the most basic thermodynamic principle that governs radiative heat transfer:
Did you ever hear of the "standard lapse rate"...???
Obviously not
And according to you and all the rest of the AGW idiots a 120 km path length atmosphere "blocks" only outbound IR from the surface that how did you put it..:
"allowing it to absorb and hold more sunlight "
That's almost as funny as the "nuclear admiral`s" black objects don`t radiate faster or his volcano drilling project to prevent eruptions.
*As soon as a photon was emitted by a radiator that radiator just lost energy...it does not care what kind of detours that photon takes on its way out into space
*If you got air at 20 C then it emits the same frequency profile EMR with or without CO2.
* So how do you wind up with more photons with more CO2 ppm ?
Or did you discover in some sort of "thought experiment" that CO2 distorts Planck`s law ????
You like ideal black bodies ?
Okay then, let`s take an ideal black body at 4000 K and is so because it receives (incident) radiation from the 5000 K radiator
And place another one which is at 3000 K next to it.
You say the photons from the 3000 K b.b. are heating the 4000 K b.b.
which means that after it (the 4000 K) did it must emit more thermal radiation as before ( emit more, as in exceeding)
Max Planck says:
Planck's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poor Max never envisioned that Marihuana would be widely used and that there would be idiots like Roy Spencer who would say that a 4000 K black body with a 3000 K neighbor can exceed the thermal radiation of a 4000 K black body that was heated by the incident radiation of a 5000 K body...while the only radiation source feeding the whole system was the 5000 K body ...first the lone 4000 K and then the 4000K + another 3000 K .
Or are you trying to tell me that our heat does not just come from the sun, but that the earth and the "greenhouse gas" atmosphere are "extra heat sources" that somehow add up to more than what the sun delivered...(or than the 5000 K source in the example)
I might as well try discuss physics and chemistry with the "brilliant numan" who can oxidize limestone with oxides in the earth`s crust and generate enough CO2 to get a 120 psi atmosphere.
Discussing physics with you is like trying to teach somebody who can`t chew gum while walking to fly a multi-engine aircraft by instruments.
You would never be able to make sense what 6 different instruments are telling you and not know the difference if the airplane just rolled out of a steep turn or is loosing altitude...because you are not able able to process more than one thing at the same time and defend your inability by claiming that the VSI has nothing to to with the turn coordinator, just like you have been doing it with every example I showed you so far.
Last edited:
