Climate change

[flacaltenn]

Your claim, you don't know?

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

BINGO -- it is absorbed as heat energy or reflected as InfraRed light..

You shine an IRed Laser from a drone. What STOPS that light transmission? And what happens to that energy? Is the IR laser WARMER than the ground? Does it CARE???

So, if it reaches and reflects, where does it go? It has to go back up. I didn't know CO2 absorbed IR waves.

I said ABSORBED or reflected. Most is absorbed. Because MOST matter absorbs IR.. And IF a molecule EMITS IRed at a certain energy and frequency (which CO2 does) -- it will absorb at that same frequency..

In fact, the Earth itself has a certain band of heat generated IR that it EMITS in order to cool itself..

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't know.. My impression was you were contending that GH gases could not influence the warming of the surface because of the warmer-cooler thingy.. If we're clear on that -- I apologize for rambling. Except that JC IS definitely confused by this and is in this discussion as well.

You are still trying to phrase this as I agree with your global warming rambling.

NO, NO, NO, NO NO NO ...............

You have not proved anything but you can ramble.

You certainly have not proved GHG's have any relationship to global warming / global climate change.

I wonder what your technical version of the "warmer-cooler thingy" is .......

Another of those highly technical scientific terms that boggle the mind.

So no you have convinced me of nada, nada, nada ...................

Why don't you tell us WHY GHGases don't act to reduce the rate of cooling to space then? Something obviously does..
That's how they cause the surface to RETAIN more heat given that the source of heating (the sun) stays constant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I must say that jc, Doom, Billy Bob, and SSDD have provided some of the most interesting interpretations of basic physics I have ever seen.

Wow... TO bad you dont even know what basic physics is..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I promise I'll stay out after this. But DrDoom is almost there. The laws of thermo are the same for heat as they are for IR transfer. As DrDoom said --- ""It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest""

With HEAT flow, if I use a heatsink to DRAW the heat from an object, my ability to draw it will be due to how cool I can keep my heatsink. If I don't have enough airflow to carry the heat away -- the transfer will SLOW because "the cooler object" has warmed.

SAME DEAL kinda for IR Radiative transfer. The NET transfer is always from the warmer object. But the magnitude of that transfer can be reduced by the amount of photons shot from the cooler object. Nothing is violated and cooler object never wins the transfer.

In fact, for extry credit. Take two objects of similar IR absorption characteristics and start them at the same temperature and the NET exchange will bounce back and forth statistically. Similar to the occasional errant mechanical HEAT energy that goes the "wrong way" in a material. Statistically, SOME molecular energy WILL flow the opposite way in heat conduction -- but it never wins the battle.

So you can ramble, the relation to this conversation or the point you were trying to make??

You basically now are saying that I am absolutely right, but you still want every one to think you are ............

Is that about the size of it??'

Did I miss read that??

Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.

Molecules are like two lasers pointed at each other. The photons leave each molecule at specific propagation of its thermal temperature and its mass (intensity). While the weak laser is fired at the other laser, the strongest laser is the one that will reach the weak one causing a reaction. This is where we get into the quantum physics of the two opposing photons (collision) and little is proven. More commonly called the Thermal Lapse Rate. This is the rate at which two bodies of near same temperature slow their cooling/warming.

 

[gtopa1]

Fine, call it radiation. It's still radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.

and adding no heat to surface or troposphere temperatures.

All matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions.
Even if it's radiating toward warmer matter.

Are we clear on the basics yet?

yep agree, however, the radiation toward the surface does not heat jack.

So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions.

Greg

 

[Crick]

Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.

Molecules are like two lasers pointed at each other. The photons leave each molecule at specific propagation of its thermal temperature and its mass (intensity). While the weak laser is fired at the other laser, the strongest laser is the one that will reach the weak one causing a reaction. This is where we get into the quantum physics of the two opposing photons (collision) and little is proven. More commonly called the Thermal Lapse Rate. This is the rate at which two bodies of near same temperature slow their cooling/warming.

Show us a credible source that provides your definition (or any definition) of "frequency propagation". I've seen 'audio frequency propagation', and 'radio frequency propagation' and 'electromagnetic frequency propagation' but I have never seen "frequency propagation" by itself.

Propagation is simply another term for moving, traveling, transmitting. For instance, c is the propagation velocity of light. It can get a little more complicated with wave phenomena: propagation velocity versus group velocity. But that is not needed in this conversation

The rate of oscillation is the frequency, not the wavelength.

Lasers do not need to be focused. The have minimal divergence, maximal coherence, because they have almost zero bandwidth.

Lasers are not necessarily high intensity nor do the always travel in a single direction. An LED is a laser. They have low intensity and are typically hemispherical radiators.

Photons are massless.

Photons cannot collide with each other.

Thermal lapse rate is a meteorological term describing the decrease of atmospheric temperature with altitude. It has nothing to do with photons, quantum mechanics or lasers.

Fer christ's sake, Billy, that was pretty bad.

 

[Crick]

I missed one. Photons do not have "intensity". They have frequency. The intensity of a beam of light is determined by the number of photons per cross sectional area within the beam.

 

[Old Rocks]

I must say that jc, Doom, Billy Bob, and SSDD have provided some of the most interesting interpretations of basic physics I have ever seen.

Wow... TO bad you dont even know what basic physics is..

Well, Mr. Billy Bob, I passed the Physics requirement for Geology. Obviously, you did not pass any courses in physics.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Why don't you tell us WHY GHGases don't act to reduce the rate of cooling to space then? Something obviously does..
That's how they cause the surface to RETAIN more heat given that the source of heating (the sun) stays constant.

I don't need to explain anything.

You have yet to prove global warming is occurring, in fact all of your confused peers have changed that to climate change now that the warning trend has not been verifiable through legitimate scientific research.

So now you come out and make a statement like it is fact, knowing it is based on a lie .................

You do realize how ignorant that makes one look, correct??

You failed miserably at this argument to either provide links or proof of your assertions.

While giving us intelligent adults some humorous material,.

I have heard parents tell their kids if they would keep their mouth shut, other people would not know how ignorant they were.

Perhaps there is a lesson there somewhere.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.

Molecules are like two lasers pointed at each other. The photons leave each molecule at specific propagation of its thermal temperature and its mass (intensity). While the weak laser is fired at the other laser, the strongest laser is the one that will reach the weak one causing a reaction. This is where we get into the quantum physics of the two opposing photons (collision) and little is proven. More commonly called the Thermal Lapse Rate. This is the rate at which two bodies of near same temperature slow their cooling/warming.

Frequency propagation, how many time we gonna have to do this folks??

From wikipedia.
Category:Radio frequency propagation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Radio propagation.
All articles regarding the propagation of radio frequencies.



As per forum\ rules this is your LIE, I need a LINK to verify.

Google say's you are full of shit.

No definition exist for that term in scientific circles, it may in fear monger warmer circles.

That means the rest of that shit is just that shit out of your head with not linkable proof.


Oh and in that rambling shit you also mention thermal lapse rate, why do you morons not Google this shit before making a fool of yourselves??

From Wikipedia
Lapse rate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The lapse rate is defined as the rate at which atmospheric temperature decreases with increase in altitude. [1][2] The terminology arises from the word lapse in the sense of a decrease or decline. While most often applied to Earth's troposphere, the concept can be extended to any gravitationally supported parcel of gas.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

and adding no heat to surface or troposphere temperatures.

All matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions.
Even if it's radiating toward warmer matter.

Are we clear on the basics yet?

yep agree, however, the radiation toward the surface does not heat jack.

So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions.

Greg

No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.

 

[jon_berzerk]

All matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions.
Even if it's radiating toward warmer matter.

Are we clear on the basics yet?

yep agree, however, the radiation toward the surface does not heat jack.

So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions.

Greg

No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

yup

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

yep agree, however, the radiation toward the surface does not heat jack.

So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions.

Greg

No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

yup

All these non scientific folks want to ramble about energy flowing from a cold molecule to a warmer molecule.

That is like saying the heater in the room gets warmed by the cooler objects in it's surroundings.

Simple concept, I am sure there is tons of accepted scientific research to illustrate and support that assertion.

If someone would just kindly provide one of those linky thingys for that it would be fucking great, especially since they keep making the same asinine assertions.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions.

Greg

No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

yup

All these non scientific folks want to ramble about energy flowing from a cold molecule to a warmer molecule.

That is like saying the heater in the room gets warmed by the cooler objects in it's surroundings.

Simple concept, I am sure there is tons of accepted scientific research to illustrate and support that assertion.

If someone would just kindly provide one of those linky thingys for that it would be fucking great, especially since they keep making the same asinine assertions.

i have posted several over the years

simply ignored

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

BINGO -- it is absorbed as heat energy or reflected as InfraRed light..

You shine an IRed Laser from a drone. What STOPS that light transmission? And what happens to that energy? Is the IR laser WARMER than the ground? Does it CARE???

So, if it reaches and reflects, where does it go? It has to go back up. I didn't know CO2 absorbed IR waves.

I said ABSORBED or reflected. Most is absorbed. Because MOST matter absorbs IR.. And IF a molecule EMITS IRed at a certain energy and frequency (which CO2 does) -- it will absorb at that same frequency..

In fact, the Earth itself has a certain band of heat generated IR that it EMITS in order to cool itself..

This is an out right lie, link for this bull shit??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions.

Greg

No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

yup

All these non scientific folks want to ramble about energy flowing from a cold molecule to a warmer molecule.

That is like saying the heater in the room gets warmed by the cooler objects in it's surroundings.

Simple concept, I am sure there is tons of accepted scientific research to illustrate and support that assertion.

If someone would just kindly provide one of those linky thingys for that it would be fucking great, especially since they keep making the same asinine assertions.

i have posted several over the years

simply ignored

Right that is why you are posting the same one now??

Do you know how fucking moronic you sound??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I notice you are good at talking shit, would you like to try the actual subject or is that above your pay grade??

 

[Crick]

Can I ask, DOCTOR Doom-n-Gloom, just in general terms, of what your science education consists?

 

[gtopa1]

All matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions.
Even if it's radiating toward warmer matter.

Are we clear on the basics yet?

yep agree, however, the radiation toward the surface does not heat jack.

So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions.

Greg

No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.

This might help you understand.

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.

Of course, in the context of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, both radiation and conduction processes are the same in the sense at the NET flow of energy is always “downhill”, from warmer temperatures to cooler temperatures.

But, if ANY flow of energy “uphill” is totally repulsive to you, maybe you can just think of the flow of IR energy being in only one direction, but with it’s magnitude being related to the relative temperature difference between the two objects. The result will still be the same: The presence of a cooler object can STILL cause a warmer object to become even hotter.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07...ts-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

Is this what you would like to see??

Greg

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Can I ask, DOCTOR Doom-n-Gloom, just in general terms, of what your science education consists?

Lot more than yours ..........