Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[RollingThunder]

Sorry thunder, you glassy eyed chanters are the ones who constantly get it wrong...Do you think that the energy reaching the outer atmosphere is the same as the energy reaching the surface of the earth?...

"Diffuse sky radiation is solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface after having been scattered from the direct solar beam by molecules or suspensoids in the atmosphere. It is also called skylight, diffuse skylight, or sky radiation and is the reason for changes in the color of the sky."

Pretty much yes, you poor confused moron....direct sunlight is only slightly diminished in intensity while passing through the atmosphere.

Sorry thunder, but once again...you are wrong...there is reason that were you able to expose yourself to direct sunlight above the atmosphere, you would be chicken fried in seconds and yet, here on the surface, you can bask in it all day if you like...there is a great deal of difference between the character of sunlight at the top of the atmosphere and down here on the surface...grasping at straws trying to save a failed point is classic thunder..

Sorry, SSoooDDumb, but you are wrong for about the millionth time on this forum.

I said that direct sunlight is diminished passing through the atmosphere....more so at certain frequencies of light.....the air filters out most of the ultraviolet, for example, which is the primary cause of sunburn.

You are stupidly and utterly confused by the scattering of some small part of the sun's energy by the air molecules, causing the sky to glow blue.

In fact, most of the energy from the sun reaches the Earth's surface....as I said.

"Of the ~340 W/m² of solar radiation received by the Earth (at the top of the atmosphere), an average of ~77 W/m² is reflected back to space by clouds and the atmosphere..."
- Wikipedia

I'm not really sure what you imagine your point to be anyway, you poor confused retard.

 

[SSDD]

I said that direct sunlight is diminished passing through the atmosphere....more so at certain frequencies of light.....the air filters out most of the ultraviolet, for example, which is the primary cause of sunburn.

You are stupidly and utterly confused by the scattering of some small part of the sun's energy by the air molecules, causing the sky to glow blue.

Sorry thunder, but again, you couldn't be more wrong...but then that is to be expected.

In fact, most of the energy from the sun reaches the Earth's surface....as I said.

Like I said before...you don't have a clue...47% of the sunlight that is incident at the top of the atmosphere reaches the surface...and it is diffuse by the time it reaches the surface..

I'm not really sure what you imagine your point to be anyway, you poor confused retard.

So you have no idea what the point is...but have ranted on about the topic for all these posts?...why does that not surprise me?

 

[polarbear]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

 

[jc456]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

dude you'll never get them to agree with you. They all believe 1500C can warm 2000C. You've done a very commendable write up and explanation. but alas, you will still be arguing that 1500C can't heat 2000C above 2000C

 

[IanC]

Didn't we beat this to death with the 100W light bulb adding outside energy to a room radiating at 400W?

The process of redistributing energy by passive radiation is different than adding adding energy.

An object has a theoretical maximum temperature defined by the heat source but is always less. Throw a pillow over a light bulb and it will warm up but never reach the temp of the filament. Turn off the light and passive radiation will cause all the objects to move towards the same temperature.

A piece of steel warmed by an OA torch will cool when the torch is turned off by transferring energy to the environment. If the environment is a propane flame then it will cool more slowly until it matches the propane temp. Turn off the propane and it will again lose passive radiation to the environment and cool.

Conflating active heating and passive redistribution of heat is disingenuous.

 

[jc456]

Didn't we beat this to death with the 100W light bulb adding outside energy to a room radiating at 400W?

The process of redistributing energy by passive radiation is different than adding adding energy.

An object has a theoretical maximum temperature defined by the heat source but is always less. Throw a pillow over a light bulb and it will warm up but never reach the temp of the filament. Turn off the light and passive radiation will cause all the objects to move towards the same temperature.

A piece of steel warmed by an OA torch will cool when the torch is turned off by transferring energy to the environment. If the environment is a propane flame then it will cool more slowly until it matches the propane temp. Turn off the propane and it will again lose passive radiation to the environment and cool.

Conflating active heating and passive redistribution of heat is disingenuous.

the object lesson from before was the 100W making the 400W warmer. Your current write up is fine with me. The 400W room would cool to 100W and if you turned that source off, it would cool to the ambient temperature outside. Even your explanation of the piece of steel is accurate. holy fk.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.

It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2.

 

[jc456]

Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect.

"Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect

The fakes boxed themselves into a corner claiming greenhouse gasses heat the upper atmosphere (for several screwy reasons), while there is no way to get the cold air up there to heat the surface of the earth. So they claim "back radiation" moves the heat downward. The whole concept is scientifically perverse.

The thickness of the fake zone of emission would need to be known. No one has even mentioned its thickness, as if it were a surface."

 

[polarbear]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.

It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.
It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.
In the real world the gas at T2 is gone just as fast as the torch blows it at the steel and then some.
Net effect is that you were heating the propane combustion product with the hotter steel and the combustion gas that you just heated to a higher temperature is gone and has been replaced by the gas at the initial temperature the torch produced at the same time + much cooler ambient air due to convection.
Don`t confuse this process with a refractory oven where the internal contents have no other way than to radiate against the mantle that stays in place and that process uses internal heating not external which would have to penetrate the mantle from the outside like the sun has to penetrate through the atmosphere.
That ↓path does not happen without any heat transfer either

Plot 1 is the radiance spanning the 15μm CO2 absorption showing the radiance at 5700 K.
Plot 2 is the radiance at 288 K.
So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight that miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation.
And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it,....because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.
So the prize question comes down to how much (EXACTLY)...and that`s the problem....which is circumvented by these simplistic energy budgets that simply add radiation flux assuming material characteristics that do not match reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.

It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.
It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.
In the real world the gas at T2 is gone just as fast as the torch blows it at the steel and then some.
Net effect is that you were heating the propane combustion product with the hotter steel and the combustion gas that you just heated to a higher temperature is gone and has been replaced by the gas at the initial temperature the torch produced at the same time + much cooler ambient air due to convection.
Don`t confuse this process with a refractory oven where the internal contents have no other way than to radiate against the mantle that stays in place and that process uses internal heating not external which would have to penetrate the mantle from the outside like the sun has to penetrate through the atmosphere.
That ↓path does not happen without any heat transfer either

Plot 1 is the radiance spanning the 15μm CO2 absorption showing the radiance at 5700 K.
Plot 2 is the radiance at 288 K.
So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight that miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation.
And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it,....because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.
So the prize question comes down to how much (EXACTLY)...and that`s the problem....which is circumvented by these simplistic energy budgets that simply add radiation flux assuming material characteristics that do not match reality.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?

So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight

I would never tell you that!

miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation

What are you proving by showing that incoming LWIR is absorbed by CO2?

And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it

Not all of it. Some of it.

because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.

Of course not. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to outgoing LWIR.

 

[polarbear]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.

It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.
It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.
In the real world the gas at T2 is gone just as fast as the torch blows it at the steel and then some.
Net effect is that you were heating the propane combustion product with the hotter steel and the combustion gas that you just heated to a higher temperature is gone and has been replaced by the gas at the initial temperature the torch produced at the same time + much cooler ambient air due to convection.
Don`t confuse this process with a refractory oven where the internal contents have no other way than to radiate against the mantle that stays in place and that process uses internal heating not external which would have to penetrate the mantle from the outside like the sun has to penetrate through the atmosphere.
That ↓path does not happen without any heat transfer either

Plot 1 is the radiance spanning the 15μm CO2 absorption showing the radiance at 5700 K.
Plot 2 is the radiance at 288 K.
So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight that miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation.
And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it,....because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.
So the prize question comes down to how much (EXACTLY)...and that`s the problem....which is circumvented by these simplistic energy budgets that simply add radiation flux assuming material characteristics that do not match reality.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?

So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight

I would never tell you that!

miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation

What are you proving by showing that incoming LWIR is absorbed by CO2?

And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it

Not all of it. Some of it.

because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.

Of course not. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to outgoing LWIR.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?
I did not say greenhouse gasses I said propane torch combustion products.
If you want to apply it to air, including the greenhouse gasses then a cubic meter of air which has been heated by the surface does not stay there either. Maybe you should arrange for a ride in a glider, they routinely look for thermals.
But you may not like it once you find out how violent these often are. All it takes is a surface like a plowed farm field surrounded by green space and the glider with you and the pilot in it gets hammered with updrafts that lift your combined weight at climb rates exceeding 2500 feet per minute...Depending on current weather conditions you can keep climbing to altitudes in short order where you succumb to hypoxia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.

It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.
It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.
In the real world the gas at T2 is gone just as fast as the torch blows it at the steel and then some.
Net effect is that you were heating the propane combustion product with the hotter steel and the combustion gas that you just heated to a higher temperature is gone and has been replaced by the gas at the initial temperature the torch produced at the same time + much cooler ambient air due to convection.
Don`t confuse this process with a refractory oven where the internal contents have no other way than to radiate against the mantle that stays in place and that process uses internal heating not external which would have to penetrate the mantle from the outside like the sun has to penetrate through the atmosphere.
That ↓path does not happen without any heat transfer either

Plot 1 is the radiance spanning the 15μm CO2 absorption showing the radiance at 5700 K.
Plot 2 is the radiance at 288 K.
So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight that miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation.
And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it,....because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.
So the prize question comes down to how much (EXACTLY)...and that`s the problem....which is circumvented by these simplistic energy budgets that simply add radiation flux assuming material characteristics that do not match reality.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?

So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight

I would never tell you that!

miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation

What are you proving by showing that incoming LWIR is absorbed by CO2?

And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it

Not all of it. Some of it.

because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.

Of course not. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to outgoing LWIR.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?
I did not say greenhouse gasses I said propane torch combustion products.
If you want to apply it to air, including the greenhouse gasses then a cubic meter of air which has been heated by the surface does not stay there either. Maybe you should arrange for a ride in a glider they look for thermals.
But you may not like it once you find out how violent these often are. All it takes is a surface like a plowed farm field surrounded by green space and the glider with you and the pilot in it gets hammered with updrafts that lift your combined weight at climb rates exceeding 2500 feet per minute...Depending on current weather conditions you can keep climbing to altitudes in short order where you succumb to hypoxia.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses hover over the Earth.
I thought we were talking about 2 examples of things slowing loss of heat?

 

[polarbear]

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.

It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.
It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.
In the real world the gas at T2 is gone just as fast as the torch blows it at the steel and then some.
Net effect is that you were heating the propane combustion product with the hotter steel and the combustion gas that you just heated to a higher temperature is gone and has been replaced by the gas at the initial temperature the torch produced at the same time + much cooler ambient air due to convection.
Don`t confuse this process with a refractory oven where the internal contents have no other way than to radiate against the mantle that stays in place and that process uses internal heating not external which would have to penetrate the mantle from the outside like the sun has to penetrate through the atmosphere.
That ↓path does not happen without any heat transfer either

Plot 1 is the radiance spanning the 15μm CO2 absorption showing the radiance at 5700 K.
Plot 2 is the radiance at 288 K.
So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight that miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation.
And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it,....because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.
So the prize question comes down to how much (EXACTLY)...and that`s the problem....which is circumvented by these simplistic energy budgets that simply add radiation flux assuming material characteristics that do not match reality.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?

So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight

I would never tell you that!

miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation

What are you proving by showing that incoming LWIR is absorbed by CO2?

And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it

Not all of it. Some of it.

because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.

Of course not. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to outgoing LWIR.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?
I did not say greenhouse gasses I said propane torch combustion products.
If you want to apply it to air, including the greenhouse gasses then a cubic meter of air which has been heated by the surface does not stay there either. Maybe you should arrange for a ride in a glider they look for thermals.
But you may not like it once you find out how violent these often are. All it takes is a surface like a plowed farm field surrounded by green space and the glider with you and the pilot in it gets hammered with updrafts that lift your combined weight at climb rates exceeding 2500 feet per minute...Depending on current weather conditions you can keep climbing to altitudes in short order where you succumb to hypoxia.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses hover over the Earth.
I thought we were talking about 2 examples of things slowing loss of heat?

Greenhouse gasses hover? They are an integral component of air and not separated + "hover" means maintaining position and altitude. Air that`s heated does not.
If you figure somehow that a helicopter that is supposed to hover over a position to rescue somebody means that it`s okay to "hover" the way you define it I pity the victim.

 

[polarbear]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?
Okay before I`ll answer that let`s go back to the welding & propane torch because it also deals with the same process. For the sake of convenience let`s use round numbers.
The welding torch is capable to reach 2000 C and the propane/air torch only 1500 C
The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.
If the ambient T is increased then the steel T will eventually approach the 2000 C maximum.
But even if the ambient is at a temperature that you can get out of the propane torch the steel will not get hotter than 2000 C.
As to your question does the StB equation calculate energy lost and never energy gained,...
The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux. Flux is directional and in physics that`s called the Poynting vector.
Since the 2 variable elements are assumed to be normal and not metamaterials that vector has a positive value which means in turn that the flux is transferring energy from mass at T1 to mass at T2 which is at the lower temperature. In the process mass at T2 gains energy which is supplied by mass at T1, but there is no overall gain in energy. For that to happen you need a third element in the equation and since the original StB equation does not have one you need to apply the same equation using the third element T3 to get the flux from T3 to T2 and then the new T2 to get the flux from it to T1. Finally you have to apply the equation again to determine the flux from the mass at the new T1 out into space.
It`s not as simple as adding a portion of E from mass at T2 back to the E of the mass at T1 and then solving for temperature as the climate "scientists" have you believe is applicable.
That`s why they have to insist that a colder body can warm a warmer one while the only way that can be achieved is with metamaterials that have highly unusual properties and Carbon dioxide isn`t one of them.

dude you'll never get them to agree with you. They all believe 1500C can warm 2000C. You've done a very commendable write up and explanation. but alas, you will still be arguing that 1500C can't heat 2000C above 2000C

I know they won`t no matter what. But the Toddster guy who is insisting on his opinion to which he is entitled to does deserve some credit for refraining from name calling etc

 

[polarbear]

Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect.

"Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect

The fakes boxed themselves into a corner claiming greenhouse gasses heat the upper atmosphere (for several screwy reasons), while there is no way to get the cold air up there to heat the surface of the earth. So they claim "back radiation" moves the heat downward. The whole concept is scientifically perverse.

The thickness of the fake zone of emission would need to be known. No one has even mentioned its thickness, as if it were a surface."

Whatever they can`t or won`t specify they substitute by so called "average" values. Thus they come up with an average solar irradiance, temperature, cloud cover, albedo and material characteristics for the entire planet.
As if we won`t need head & street lights because we have at all time and everywhere average sunlight. If this average garbage were legitimate then CO2 must also be able to make up for a hot spot with a below normal cold spot, allowing for currently claimed anomalies somewhere else. The CO2 needs to be at least as smart as a smart bomb.
If it can`t then the averaging method is disqualified from being accurate and ranks in that metric way down there with carpet bombing for lack of accuracy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The steel never gets quite to 2000 C because it looses heat to the ambient.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.

It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2.

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.
It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.
In the real world the gas at T2 is gone just as fast as the torch blows it at the steel and then some.
Net effect is that you were heating the propane combustion product with the hotter steel and the combustion gas that you just heated to a higher temperature is gone and has been replaced by the gas at the initial temperature the torch produced at the same time + much cooler ambient air due to convection.
Don`t confuse this process with a refractory oven where the internal contents have no other way than to radiate against the mantle that stays in place and that process uses internal heating not external which would have to penetrate the mantle from the outside like the sun has to penetrate through the atmosphere.
That ↓path does not happen without any heat transfer either

Plot 1 is the radiance spanning the 15μm CO2 absorption showing the radiance at 5700 K.
Plot 2 is the radiance at 288 K.
So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight that miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation.
And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it,....because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.
So the prize question comes down to how much (EXACTLY)...and that`s the problem....which is circumvented by these simplistic energy budgets that simply add radiation flux assuming material characteristics that do not match reality.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?

So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight

I would never tell you that!

miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation

What are you proving by showing that incoming LWIR is absorbed by CO2?

And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it

Not all of it. Some of it.

because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.

Of course not. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to outgoing LWIR.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?
I did not say greenhouse gasses I said propane torch combustion products.
If you want to apply it to air, including the greenhouse gasses then a cubic meter of air which has been heated by the surface does not stay there either. Maybe you should arrange for a ride in a glider they look for thermals.
But you may not like it once you find out how violent these often are. All it takes is a surface like a plowed farm field surrounded by green space and the glider with you and the pilot in it gets hammered with updrafts that lift your combined weight at climb rates exceeding 2500 feet per minute...Depending on current weather conditions you can keep climbing to altitudes in short order where you succumb to hypoxia.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses hover over the Earth.
I thought we were talking about 2 examples of things slowing loss of heat?

Greenhouse gasses hover? They are an integral component of air and not separated + "hover" means maintaining position and altitude. Air that`s heated does not.
If you figure somehow that a helicopter that is supposed to hover over a position to rescue somebody means that it`s okay to "hover" the way you define it I pity the victim.

if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

Hover was your word.

 

[mamooth]

PolarBear is right about the torch case. You're essentially introducing a cooler stream of matter into a warmer system, a 2000F stream being injected into a 3000F system. Hence, the system cools.

However, it's a red herring that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, as a cooler stream of matter is _not_ being injected into the earth's climate system. Energy is being injected, not cooler matter, and energy can only warm the system.

 

[jc456]

PolarBear is right about the torch case. You're essentially introducing a cooler stream of matter into a warmer system, a 2000F stream being injected into a 3000F system. Hence, the system cools.

However, it's a red herring that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, as a cooler stream of matter is _not_ being injected into the earth's climate system. Energy is being injected, not cooler matter, and energy can only warm the system.

and yet there is not evidence of your wet dream. none, zip, squat juice.

Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect.


"The fakes boxed themselves into a corner claiming greenhouse gasses heat the upper atmosphere (for several screwy reasons), while there is no way to get the cold air up there to heat the surface of the earth. So they claim "back radiation" moves the heat downward. The whole concept is scientifically perverse.

The thickness of the fake zone of emission would need to be known. No one has even mentioned its thickness, as if it were a surface."

 

[jc456]

Would the propane torch slow the loss of "heat to the ambient"?

The equation has 2 elements that are variables which are T1 and T2 where T1 > T2 and it solves for Energy flux.
It can solve for loss for T1. It can also solve the gain for T2
Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.
In the real world the gas at T2 is gone just as fast as the torch blows it at the steel and then some.
Net effect is that you were heating the propane combustion product with the hotter steel and the combustion gas that you just heated to a higher temperature is gone and has been replaced by the gas at the initial temperature the torch produced at the same time + much cooler ambient air due to convection.
Don`t confuse this process with a refractory oven where the internal contents have no other way than to radiate against the mantle that stays in place and that process uses internal heating not external which would have to penetrate the mantle from the outside like the sun has to penetrate through the atmosphere.
That ↓path does not happen without any heat transfer either

Plot 1 is the radiance spanning the 15μm CO2 absorption showing the radiance at 5700 K.
Plot 2 is the radiance at 288 K.
So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight that miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation.
And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it,....because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.
So the prize question comes down to how much (EXACTLY)...and that`s the problem....which is circumvented by these simplistic energy budgets that simply add radiation flux assuming material characteristics that do not match reality.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?

So if you increase CO2 don`t try and tell me that there is next to no 15μm IR in the down dwelling sunlight

I would never tell you that!

miles and miles of a path length with increased CO2 strips from the solar radiation

What are you proving by showing that incoming LWIR is absorbed by CO2?

And once what is left of the sunlight and does get down there through clouds etc, heating the surface not all of that heat is transferred via radiation to the air above it

Not all of it. Some of it.

because air is not a black body that can absorb everything radiated by T1 from the surface to the air at T2 as per StB.

Of course not. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to outgoing LWIR.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't "just stay there and hover over" the Earth?
I did not say greenhouse gasses I said propane torch combustion products.
If you want to apply it to air, including the greenhouse gasses then a cubic meter of air which has been heated by the surface does not stay there either. Maybe you should arrange for a ride in a glider they look for thermals.
But you may not like it once you find out how violent these often are. All it takes is a surface like a plowed farm field surrounded by green space and the glider with you and the pilot in it gets hammered with updrafts that lift your combined weight at climb rates exceeding 2500 feet per minute...Depending on current weather conditions you can keep climbing to altitudes in short order where you succumb to hypoxia.

Sure the propane torch would slow the loss of heat of the hotter steel if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses hover over the Earth.
I thought we were talking about 2 examples of things slowing loss of heat?

Greenhouse gasses hover? They are an integral component of air and not separated + "hover" means maintaining position and altitude. Air that`s heated does not.
If you figure somehow that a helicopter that is supposed to hover over a position to rescue somebody means that it`s okay to "hover" the way you define it I pity the victim.

if the combustion gas plume of that torch would just stay there and hover over the steel but it won`t and that`s the difference between the real world and an alternate reality that does not exist.

In the real world, greenhouse gasses are always in the atmosphere where they are always slowing the loss of IR to space.

Hover was your word.

where do those greenhouse gases of yours go?

 

[polarbear]

PolarBear is right about the torch case. You're essentially introducing a cooler stream of matter into a warmer system, a 2000F stream being injected into a 3000F system. Hence, the system cools.

However, it's a red herring that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, as a cooler stream of matter is _not_ being injected into the earth's climate system. Energy is being injected, not cooler matter, and energy can only warm the system.

So the "energy" in the colder down drafts is heating the ground?