Climate change

[jc456]

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

Solubility in water at various temperatures
Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure[9]
Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per
100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
1 °C 1.646 0.3213
2 °C 1.584 0.3091
3 °C 1.527 0.2978
4 °C 1.473 0.2871
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
6 °C 1.377 0.2681
7 °C 1.331 0.2589
8 °C 1.282 0.2492
9 °C 1.237 0.2403
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
11 °C 1.154 0.2239
12 °C 1.117 0.2165
13 °C 1.083 0.2098
14 °C 1.050 0.2032
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
16 °C 0.985 0.1903
17 °C 0.956 0.1845

Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per

100 ml H2O
18 °C 0.928 0.1789
19 °C 0.902 0.1737
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
21 °C 0.854 0.1640
22 °C 0.829 0.1590
23 °C 0.804 0.1540
24 °C 0.781 0.1493
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
26 °C 0.738 0.1406
27 °C 0.718 0.1366
28 °C 0.699 0.1327
29 °C 0.682 0.1292
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
35 °C 0.592 0.1105
40 °C 0.530 0.0973
45 °C 0.479 0.0860
50 °C 0.436 0.0761
60 °C 0.359 0.0576

Is that what you're after??

Greg

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

Solubility in water at various temperatures
Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure[9]
Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per
100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
1 °C 1.646 0.3213
2 °C 1.584 0.3091
3 °C 1.527 0.2978
4 °C 1.473 0.2871
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
6 °C 1.377 0.2681
7 °C 1.331 0.2589
8 °C 1.282 0.2492
9 °C 1.237 0.2403
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
11 °C 1.154 0.2239
12 °C 1.117 0.2165
13 °C 1.083 0.2098
14 °C 1.050 0.2032
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
16 °C 0.985 0.1903
17 °C 0.956 0.1845

Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per

100 ml H2O
18 °C 0.928 0.1789
19 °C 0.902 0.1737
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
21 °C 0.854 0.1640
22 °C 0.829 0.1590
23 °C 0.804 0.1540
24 °C 0.781 0.1493
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
26 °C 0.738 0.1406
27 °C 0.718 0.1366
28 °C 0.699 0.1327
29 °C 0.682 0.1292
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
35 °C 0.592 0.1105
40 °C 0.530 0.0973
45 °C 0.479 0.0860
50 °C 0.436 0.0761
60 °C 0.359 0.0576

Is that what you're after??

Greg

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

 

[jc456]

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

Solubility in water at various temperatures
Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure[9]
Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per
100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
1 °C 1.646 0.3213
2 °C 1.584 0.3091
3 °C 1.527 0.2978
4 °C 1.473 0.2871
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
6 °C 1.377 0.2681
7 °C 1.331 0.2589
8 °C 1.282 0.2492
9 °C 1.237 0.2403
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
11 °C 1.154 0.2239
12 °C 1.117 0.2165
13 °C 1.083 0.2098
14 °C 1.050 0.2032
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
16 °C 0.985 0.1903
17 °C 0.956 0.1845

Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per

100 ml H2O
18 °C 0.928 0.1789
19 °C 0.902 0.1737
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
21 °C 0.854 0.1640
22 °C 0.829 0.1590
23 °C 0.804 0.1540
24 °C 0.781 0.1493
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
26 °C 0.738 0.1406
27 °C 0.718 0.1366
28 °C 0.699 0.1327
29 °C 0.682 0.1292
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
35 °C 0.592 0.1105
40 °C 0.530 0.0973
45 °C 0.479 0.0860
50 °C 0.436 0.0761
60 °C 0.359 0.0576

Is that what you're after??

Greg

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid. And again it goes back to cold to hot movement. Also pressure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

Solubility in water at various temperatures
Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure[9]
Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per
100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
1 °C 1.646 0.3213
2 °C 1.584 0.3091
3 °C 1.527 0.2978
4 °C 1.473 0.2871
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
6 °C 1.377 0.2681
7 °C 1.331 0.2589
8 °C 1.282 0.2492
9 °C 1.237 0.2403
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
11 °C 1.154 0.2239
12 °C 1.117 0.2165
13 °C 1.083 0.2098
14 °C 1.050 0.2032
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
16 °C 0.985 0.1903
17 °C 0.956 0.1845

Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per

100 ml H2O
18 °C 0.928 0.1789
19 °C 0.902 0.1737
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
21 °C 0.854 0.1640
22 °C 0.829 0.1590
23 °C 0.804 0.1540
24 °C 0.781 0.1493
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
26 °C 0.738 0.1406
27 °C 0.718 0.1366
28 °C 0.699 0.1327
29 °C 0.682 0.1292
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
35 °C 0.592 0.1105
40 °C 0.530 0.0973
45 °C 0.479 0.0860
50 °C 0.436 0.0761
60 °C 0.359 0.0576

Is that what you're after??

Greg

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid. And again it goes back to cold to hot movement. Also pressure.

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.

That's your problem. You don't see the conflict between your positions.

And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.

What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

Also pressure.

Photons putting pressure on other photons?

 

[jc456]

Is that what you're after??

Greg

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid. And again it goes back to cold to hot movement. Also pressure.

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.

That's your problem. You don't see the conflict between your positions.

And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.

What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

Also pressure.

Photons putting pressure on other photons?

yep, it's how convection on the planet works. It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems. Yep.


What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid. And again it goes back to cold to hot movement. Also pressure.

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.

That's your problem. You don't see the conflict between your positions.

And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.

What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

Also pressure.

Photons putting pressure on other photons?

yep, it's how convection on the planet works. It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems. Yep.


What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

 

[jc456]

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid. And again it goes back to cold to hot movement. Also pressure.

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.

That's your problem. You don't see the conflict between your positions.

And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.

What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

Also pressure.

Photons putting pressure on other photons?

yep, it's how convection on the planet works. It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems. Yep.


What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid. And again it goes back to cold to hot movement. Also pressure.

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.

That's your problem. You don't see the conflict between your positions.

And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.

What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

Also pressure.

Photons putting pressure on other photons?

yep, it's how convection on the planet works. It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems. Yep.


What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

 

[jc456]

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid. And again it goes back to cold to hot movement. Also pressure.

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.

That's your problem. You don't see the conflict between your positions.

And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.

What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

Also pressure.

Photons putting pressure on other photons?

yep, it's how convection on the planet works. It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems. Yep.


What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.

That's your problem. You don't see the conflict between your positions.

And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.

What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

Also pressure.

Photons putting pressure on other photons?

yep, it's how convection on the planet works. It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems. Yep.


What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

 

[jc456]

yep, it's how convection on the planet works. It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems. Yep.


What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

you asked for a name and I gave you one. Didn't need a link.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

you asked for a name and I gave you one. Didn't need a link.

Yeah, thanks for showing me another idiot, besides SSDD, who has no clue about radiation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

Solubility in water at various temperatures
Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure[9]
Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per
100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
1 °C 1.646 0.3213
2 °C 1.584 0.3091
3 °C 1.527 0.2978
4 °C 1.473 0.2871
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
6 °C 1.377 0.2681
7 °C 1.331 0.2589
8 °C 1.282 0.2492
9 °C 1.237 0.2403
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
11 °C 1.154 0.2239
12 °C 1.117 0.2165
13 °C 1.083 0.2098
14 °C 1.050 0.2032
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
16 °C 0.985 0.1903
17 °C 0.956 0.1845

Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per

100 ml H2O
18 °C 0.928 0.1789
19 °C 0.902 0.1737
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
21 °C 0.854 0.1640
22 °C 0.829 0.1590
23 °C 0.804 0.1540
24 °C 0.781 0.1493
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
26 °C 0.738 0.1406
27 °C 0.718 0.1366
28 °C 0.699 0.1327
29 °C 0.682 0.1292
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
35 °C 0.592 0.1105
40 °C 0.530 0.0973
45 °C 0.479 0.0860
50 °C 0.436 0.0761
60 °C 0.359 0.0576

Is that what you're after??

Greg

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

No, do you? LOL!

You may mean "tipping point".

Nope.

Solubility in water at various temperatures
Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure[9]
Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per
100 ml H2O
0 °C 1.713 0.3346
1 °C 1.646 0.3213
2 °C 1.584 0.3091
3 °C 1.527 0.2978
4 °C 1.473 0.2871
5 °C 1.424 0.2774
6 °C 1.377 0.2681
7 °C 1.331 0.2589
8 °C 1.282 0.2492
9 °C 1.237 0.2403
10 °C 1.194 0.2318
11 °C 1.154 0.2239
12 °C 1.117 0.2165
13 °C 1.083 0.2098
14 °C 1.050 0.2032
15 °C 1.019 0.1970
16 °C 0.985 0.1903
17 °C 0.956 0.1845

Temperature ‡Dissolved
CO2 volume
per volume H2O grams CO2 per

100 ml H2O
18 °C 0.928 0.1789
19 °C 0.902 0.1737
20 °C 0.878 0.1688
21 °C 0.854 0.1640
22 °C 0.829 0.1590
23 °C 0.804 0.1540
24 °C 0.781 0.1493
25 °C 0.759 0.1449
26 °C 0.738 0.1406
27 °C 0.718 0.1366
28 °C 0.699 0.1327
29 °C 0.682 0.1292
30 °C 0.655 0.1257
35 °C 0.592 0.1105
40 °C 0.530 0.0973
45 °C 0.479 0.0860
50 °C 0.436 0.0761
60 °C 0.359 0.0576

Is that what you're after??

Greg

Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.

seems she agrees with me. And again, you can't prove back radiation. If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.

She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......

And again, you can't prove back radiation.

You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?

So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is absolutely correct.

 

[jc456]

yep, it's how convection on the planet works. It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems. Yep.


What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

'towards earth'. my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

'towards earth'. my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.

my position is it doesn't make it to the surface

What stops it?

or the troposphere

Why not?

 

[jc456]

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

'towards earth'. my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.

my position is it doesn't make it to the surface

What stops it?

or the troposphere

Why not?

Why not?
a colder body cannot heat a warmer body.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

'towards earth'. my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.

my position is it doesn't make it to the surface

What stops it?

or the troposphere

Why not?

Why not?
a colder body cannot heat a warmer body.

Who said it did?

The warmer body radiates more than the colder body.
So even though the cold air radiates toward the warmer ground, the warm ground is still losing more heat toward the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

'towards earth'. my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.

my position is it doesn't make it to the surface

What stops it?

or the troposphere

Why not?

Why not?
a colder body cannot heat a warmer body.

Who said it did?

The warmer body radiates more than the colder body.
So even though the cold air radiates toward the warmer ground, the warm ground is still losing more heat toward the atmosphere.

agree completely

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

'towards earth'. my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.

my position is it doesn't make it to the surface

What stops it?

or the troposphere

Why not?

Why not?
a colder body cannot heat a warmer body.

Who said it did?

The warmer body radiates more than the colder body.
So even though the cold air radiates toward the warmer ground, the warm ground is still losing more heat toward the atmosphere.

agree completely

Great.
That means your claim (and SSDD's) that back radiation does not exist is not backed up by the laws of thermodynamics.

So what stops the energy emitted by the CO2 in the atmosphere from hitting the ground?