Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[IanC]

Been through this with you as well...like rocks, the hairball, crick, and all other believers, you just can't seem to keep information that calls your belief into question in your mind..

And we've all gotten bored with making you cry and run, just to see you come back and tell the same debunked lies again. Is that your strategy, to wear everyone out through sheer repetition of your lies?

If the object is cooler than the thermopile, then the thermopile starts losing heat.

That's where your 'tard theory craters.

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

That is, point it at a cool cloud or cooler sky, it loses the same amount of heat.

Yet these cameras clearly show the termperature difference between cold clouds and cold sky.

Hence, your 'tard theory is clearly nonsense.

You've never even attempted to fix that gaping hole in your theory, the way that reality says it's a big steaming pile. Each time we point it out, you piss yourself and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you. And you're going to do it again now. Please proceed.

Seriously, you're an 'effin retard. You fail at instrumentation, physics, chemistry, statistics, logic ... you're the most well-rounded 'tard I've ever met. No matter what the topic is, you fail at it completely.

I blame the education system, which no doubt always told you how you were a special unique little snowflake, no matter how badly you screwed up. No one was ever willing to tell you the truth about what a total dumbshit you were.

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

 

[IanC]

Been through this with you as well...like rocks, the hairball, crick, and all other believers, you just can't seem to keep information that calls your belief into question in your mind..

And we've all gotten bored with making you cry and run, just to see you come back and tell the same debunked lies again. Is that your strategy, to wear everyone out through sheer repetition of your lies?

If the object is cooler than the thermopile, then the thermopile starts losing heat.

That's where your 'tard theory craters.

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

That is, point it at a cool cloud or cooler sky, it loses the same amount of heat.

Yet these cameras clearly show the termperature difference between cold clouds and cold sky.

Hence, your 'tard theory is clearly nonsense.

You've never even attempted to fix that gaping hole in your theory, the way that reality says it's a big steaming pile. Each time we point it out, you piss yourself and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you. And you're going to do it again now. Please proceed.

Seriously, you're an 'effin retard. You fail at instrumentation, physics, chemistry, statistics, logic ... you're the most well-rounded 'tard I've ever met. No matter what the topic is, you fail at it completely.

I blame the education system, which no doubt always told you how you were a special unique little snowflake, no matter how badly you screwed up. No one was ever willing to tell you the truth about what a total dumbshit you were.

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Do you feel that info said anything about one-way only flows of photons?

The article is good. It refutes SSDD'S position.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, this goes against 150 years of science. Who should I side with? Every scientific institutions on this planet or some message board posters.

Yep, I am such a dumbass for siding with the scientist.

 

[polarbear]

Been through this with you as well...like rocks, the hairball, crick, and all other believers, you just can't seem to keep information that calls your belief into question in your mind..

And we've all gotten bored with making you cry and run, just to see you come back and tell the same debunked lies again. Is that your strategy, to wear everyone out through sheer repetition of your lies?

If the object is cooler than the thermopile, then the thermopile starts losing heat.

That's where your 'tard theory craters.

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

That is, point it at a cool cloud or cooler sky, it loses the same amount of heat.

Yet these cameras clearly show the termperature difference between cold clouds and cold sky.

Hence, your 'tard theory is clearly nonsense.

You've never even attempted to fix that gaping hole in your theory, the way that reality says it's a big steaming pile. Each time we point it out, you piss yourself and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you. And you're going to do it again now. Please proceed.

Seriously, you're an 'effin retard. You fail at instrumentation, physics, chemistry, statistics, logic ... you're the most well-rounded 'tard I've ever met. No matter what the topic is, you fail at it completely.

I blame the education system, which no doubt always told you how you were a special unique little snowflake, no matter how badly you screwed up. No one was ever willing to tell you the truth about what a total dumbshit you were.

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

I suppose almost all of you believe that absorbed radiation has no other choice than to warm the material which absorbed it. And anyone who says different is being called an idiot by the forum photon experts.

 

[jc456]

Been through this with you as well...like rocks, the hairball, crick, and all other believers, you just can't seem to keep information that calls your belief into question in your mind..

And we've all gotten bored with making you cry and run, just to see you come back and tell the same debunked lies again. Is that your strategy, to wear everyone out through sheer repetition of your lies?

If the object is cooler than the thermopile, then the thermopile starts losing heat.

That's where your 'tard theory craters.

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

That is, point it at a cool cloud or cooler sky, it loses the same amount of heat.

Yet these cameras clearly show the termperature difference between cold clouds and cold sky.

Hence, your 'tard theory is clearly nonsense.

You've never even attempted to fix that gaping hole in your theory, the way that reality says it's a big steaming pile. Each time we point it out, you piss yourself and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you. And you're going to do it again now. Please proceed.

Seriously, you're an 'effin retard. You fail at instrumentation, physics, chemistry, statistics, logic ... you're the most well-rounded 'tard I've ever met. No matter what the topic is, you fail at it completely.

I blame the education system, which no doubt always told you how you were a special unique little snowflake, no matter how badly you screwed up. No one was ever willing to tell you the truth about what a total dumbshit you were.

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. none, nadda, zip, zero all make believe. Dude, I get it, it has to do that for your thought to be correct. just that your thought is not correct because, you have nothing that supports it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And we've all gotten bored with making you cry and run, just to see you come back and tell the same debunked lies again. Is that your strategy, to wear everyone out through sheer repetition of your lies?

That's where your 'tard theory craters.

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

That is, point it at a cool cloud or cooler sky, it loses the same amount of heat.

Yet these cameras clearly show the termperature difference between cold clouds and cold sky.

Hence, your 'tard theory is clearly nonsense.

You've never even attempted to fix that gaping hole in your theory, the way that reality says it's a big steaming pile. Each time we point it out, you piss yourself and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you. And you're going to do it again now. Please proceed.

Seriously, you're an 'effin retard. You fail at instrumentation, physics, chemistry, statistics, logic ... you're the most well-rounded 'tard I've ever met. No matter what the topic is, you fail at it completely.

I blame the education system, which no doubt always told you how you were a special unique little snowflake, no matter how badly you screwed up. No one was ever willing to tell you the truth about what a total dumbshit you were.

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. none, nadda, zip, zero all make believe. Dude, I get it, it has to do that for your thought to be correct. just that your thought is not correct because, you have nothing that supports it.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

 

[jc456]

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. none, nadda, zip, zero all make believe. Dude, I get it, it has to do that for your thought to be correct. just that your thought is not correct because, you have nothing that supports it.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

you have?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD says no radiation is ever produced that goes from cool to warm but this cannot explain the difference between something 1C cooler or 100C cooler. It necessitates a smart emitter or receptor that controls radiation by an unknown mechanism which defies the entropy laws.

And yet another one who doesn't have the slightest idea of how or why the instruments work...applying your terribly flawed understanding of thermodynamics to the instruments and in doing so, fooling yourself completely with said instrumentation.

Here, AGAIN...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors...Physics, Design, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The instrument works precisely on the very principles of thermodynamics that I have been arguing against fantasy believers like you and the rest of the wacko cadre of warmers and luke warmers. The do not operate on principles even slightly resembling the terribly flawed understanding of thermodynamics to which you and the rest of the wackos have fallen victim to....they operate on the principle of energy moving from warm to coo ONLY... When the device is pointed at a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off because it is loosing heat to the cooler object...the rate and amount of cooling is converted to a numerical temperature...if the device is pointed at a warmer object...the thermopile starts warming...because the object is losing heat to the thermopile...the rate and amount of warming is converted to a numerical temperature.

We have been arguing about this since you joined the board just after wirebender left.

The crux of the matter lies in how we view two objects at the same temperature. I say they both freely radiate at each other but it cancels out and there is no flow of heat. You say they both stop radiating, in defiance of entropy laws.

Actrually, I say that objects in a vacuum radiate according to their temperature and objects not in a vacuum radiate according to the temperature (s) of their surroundings as stated by the SB law...you seem unable to stop making up arguments for me.....why is it that you can't simply stick to what I say? I am direct...unambiguous...and always say what I mean to say.

 

[SSDD]

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

No...the obvious answer is no...the bulk of the atmosphere does not radiate at all...convection and conduction are kings where energy movement through the atmosphere is concerned...radiation is a bit player....only certain components in the atmosphere radiate...and they do nothing but hasten energy on its way to the TOA...they do not radiate back towards the warmer surface.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

The IR gun tells you whether the internal thermopile is warming or cooling relative to the temperature of the instrument itself...nothing more..if the ambient temperature is higher than the temperature of the instrument...the thermopile is warming...if the ambient temperature is lower than that of the instrument, the thermopile is cooling.

 

[IanC]

And we've all gotten bored with making you cry and run, just to see you come back and tell the same debunked lies again. Is that your strategy, to wear everyone out through sheer repetition of your lies?

That's where your 'tard theory craters.

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

That is, point it at a cool cloud or cooler sky, it loses the same amount of heat.

Yet these cameras clearly show the termperature difference between cold clouds and cold sky.

Hence, your 'tard theory is clearly nonsense.

You've never even attempted to fix that gaping hole in your theory, the way that reality says it's a big steaming pile. Each time we point it out, you piss yourself and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you. And you're going to do it again now. Please proceed.

Seriously, you're an 'effin retard. You fail at instrumentation, physics, chemistry, statistics, logic ... you're the most well-rounded 'tard I've ever met. No matter what the topic is, you fail at it completely.

I blame the education system, which no doubt always told you how you were a special unique little snowflake, no matter how badly you screwed up. No one was ever willing to tell you the truth about what a total dumbshit you were.

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

I suppose almost all of you believe that absorbed radiation has no other choice than to warm the material which absorbed it. And anyone who says different is being called an idiot by the forum photon experts.

Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.

 

[SSDD]

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

No.., heat is internal energy that is transferred to a physical system from outside the system because of a difference in temperature and does not result in work done by the system on its surroundings. Absorption of energy by a system as heat takes the form of increased kinetic energy of its molecules, thus resulting in an increase in temperature of the system. Heat is transferred from one system to another in the direction of higher to lower temperature

Simply making stuff up because it is what you believe is what warmers do..and pseudoscientists...and liars....there is no net exchange...it has not and never will be measured...net energy exchange only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

Here in the second decade of the 21st century, photons remain theoretical particles...I never fail to get a chuckle from people who talk about them as if they were not only real, but that they actually know what they are doing. The bottom line is that you don't even know whether photons exist or not...and you damned sure don't know what they are doing if they do exist...any suggestion on your part that you know either is nothing more than self delusion.

 

[SSDD]

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

Because they were made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...so they were only measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...turn off the cooling system in the instrument and just like closing a door, the measurement of downward radiation cuts off.

 

[SSDD]

Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.

So says the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy flow...net flow is fantasy.

 

[IanC]

SSDD says no radiation is ever produced that goes from cool to warm but this cannot explain the difference between something 1C cooler or 100C cooler. It necessitates a smart emitter or receptor that controls radiation by an unknown mechanism which defies the entropy laws.

And yet another one who doesn't have the slightest idea of how or why the instruments work...applying your terribly flawed understanding of thermodynamics to the instruments and in doing so, fooling yourself completely with said instrumentation.

Here, AGAIN...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors...Physics, Design, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The instrument works precisely on the very principles of thermodynamics that I have been arguing against fantasy believers like you and the rest of the wacko cadre of warmers and luke warmers. The do not operate on principles even slightly resembling the terribly flawed understanding of thermodynamics to which you and the rest of the wackos have fallen victim to....they operate on the principle of energy moving from warm to coo ONLY... When the device is pointed at a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off because it is loosing heat to the cooler object...the rate and amount of cooling is converted to a numerical temperature...if the device is pointed at a warmer object...the thermopile starts warming...because the object is losing heat to the thermopile...the rate and amount of warming is converted to a numerical temperature.

We have been arguing about this since you joined the board just after wirebender left.

The crux of the matter lies in how we view two objects at the same temperature. I say they both freely radiate at each other but it cancels out and there is no flow of heat. You say they both stop radiating, in defiance of entropy laws.

Actrually, I say that objects in a vacuum radiate according to their temperature and objects not in a vacuum radiate according to the temperature (s) of their surroundings as stated by the SB law...you seem unable to stop making up arguments for me.....why is it that you can't simply stick to what I say? I am direct...unambiguous...and always say what I mean to say.

Okay. I'll ask you yet again for a concise answer. Two objects, same temperature, do they continue to radiate according to their temperature or is the emission throttled down somehow?

My understanding is that they do continue to radiate but that the gains and losses even out for no net movement of heat.

You, on the other hand say radiation can only be created if it is traveling to a cooler object. How does the temperature of the receiving matter adjust the internal conditions of the emitting matter in such a way as to stop the emmision?

 

[SSDD]

Okay. I'll ask you yet again for a concise answer. Two objects, same temperature, do they continue to radiate according to their temperature or is the emission throttled down somehow?

I have given you a concise answer so many times now it is becoming comical for you to continue to ask...

Set T and Tc to the same temperature...now...what is the value of P? How much more concise can I get than that? It is the answer that the SB LAW gives you. I am afraid that it isn't my problem if you won't accept the answer that the equations associated with the physical law provide.

My understanding is that they do continue to radiate but that the gains and losses even out for no net movement of heat.

It is already demonstrated that your understanding is flawed...on the other thread I provided credible information to you that stated in clear unambiguous language that the instruments operated according to my understanding of the physical laws...not yours...but then, I don't try to interpret them..or add or subtract information that isn't there...I simply accept them at face value.

You, on the other hand say radiation can only be created if it is traveling to a cooler object. How does the temperature of the receiving matter adjust the internal conditions of the emitting matter in such a way as to stop the emmision?

Actually, that isn't what I say at all....but then you have a real problem simply arguing against what I say..you find that you must make up something then attribute it to me and then argue against that....ever wonder why you find that you must do that?

As to how? How does gravity work? We know much more about gravity than we do about energy transmission...so describe for me the fundamental mechanism of gravity.

I don't need to know how..or why....I only need know that every observation ever made tells us that energy movement is gross, not net and in the direction of warm to cool....which is exactly what the second law of thermodynamics states...net is a product of post modern belief in models over observation...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable...

 

[IanC]

Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.

So says the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy flow...net flow is fantasy.

Heat is the net flow from one object to another. Both objects are continuously radiating.

 

[SSDD]

Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.

So says the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy flow...net flow is fantasy.

Heat is the net flow from one object to another. Both objects are continuously radiating.

So you say...and who told you?...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. Me, I will stick with every observation and measurement ever made and the physical law as it is stated.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. none, nadda, zip, zero all make believe. Dude, I get it, it has to do that for your thought to be correct. just that your thought is not correct because, you have nothing that supports it.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

you have?

 

[IanC]

T1^4 - T2^4 equals zero if they are the same. That does not mean that T1 and T2 have a zero value.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

Because they were made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...so they were only measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...turn off the cooling system in the instrument and just like closing a door, the measurement of downward radiation cuts off.

Because they were made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere

I want to know how the cooler atmosphere "knows" not to emit toward the warmer surface and suddenly, with no exchange of information, "senses" that it is safe to emit downward because an instrument has just been cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere?

How does the atmosphere learn to emit downward in that case, at just that instant?

...turn off the cooling system in the instrument and just like closing a door, the measurement of downward radiation cuts off

Do you think that radiation ceases just because it's not measured? How quaint.