how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

let's just look at two factors, solar and CO2.

people have always know that the sun is the biggest factor in determining the conditions on earth. once Hershel noticed there was a correlation between sunspots and wheat production we started to look for ways of quantifying it. proxy records suggest that there is a 0.7 correlation over the last few thousand years, which in turn suggests half the variance. lately we have better equipment to measure the solar input but typically just use the general TSI. we do not know the temperature neutral point of TSI. it is likely that the majority of the 20th century was above that point on average, leading to rising temps. in my own opinion an extra watt of TSI is much more capable of actually changing terrestrial conditions because it is highly ordered and high energy, as opposed to the nearly useless backradiation that cannot do much of anything besides counteract outgoing surface radiation.

CO2 has a poor correlation over long periods, eg the last 5000 years has seen a slow drop in temps even as CO2 has slowly increased. of course mankind has disturbed the natural amount of CO2 and that is a wildcard. even looking at the correlation of CO2/temp is difficult because temperature is also affecting CO2 concentration by causing it to be released from the oceans.

when you, itfitzme, take a simple correlation between CO2 and temp, but only over the last hundred years, and declare that it is responsible for 78.xxx percent of the temperature rise, you are fooling yourself and doing a disservice to others by saying your incomplete understanding is true because you can put math equations on the table.

there are many other factors besides solar and CO2. water in its many forms being one of the important ones. when you discount the other factors, and then compound your error by adding the discounted variance from the other factors into the CO2 variance it is properly called fraud.

No I'm not. I am recognizing that the 5000 year curve has discontinuities. Thr discontinuities indicated that something significamt changed. I'm doing a piecewise analysis based on recognizining where and what significantly changed.

I can do the same thing with gasoline prices. Real dollar gasoline prices were basically flat, going up with inflation, until about 1998. That was when China started ramping up in GDP growth on exports, production fueled by using fossil fuels. It is just that simple.

And I didn't stop at CO2 with 74%, I added in solar, el nino, volcano, sulfates, and ozone. As expected, with a muktivariate analysis, the R^2 for CO2 diminishes, as does the residual variance, as the others start picking up more and more of the variability in anomoly.

Calling it fraud deserves a fuck you.

I didn't charge money. It is how it is done, standard practice, and it is right. I haven't done the confidence interval for the slope. You can do that yourself. Like I said, I didn't get paid ti do it.

So fuck you. Or are we to accuse SSaDhD of fraud and lying for completely mangling SLoT?

Yourwork attributed most of the variance to CO2 and the rest of the variance to other GHGs. It should be easy to find, you spamed the board and various threads with it repeatedly.

No, you will find I updated it with additional info as I improved it. I started with a simple linear estimate of the time based extention. Then I added the regression. Then I added the multivariate when I found that. I simply improved the presentation as I found new graphics or revised the text.

That or when someones post warrented the exact same response. Why would I retype the same thing over again?

 

[flacaltenn]

No I'm not. I am recognizing that the 5000 year curve has discontinuities. Thr discontinuities indicated that something significamt changed. I'm doing a piecewise analysis based on recognizining where and what significantly changed.

I can do the same thing with gasoline prices. Real dollar gasoline prices were basically flat, going up with inflation, until about 1998. That was when China started ramping up in GDP growth on exports, production fueled by using fossil fuels. It is just that simple.

And I didn't stop at CO2 with 74%, I added in solar, el nino, volcano, sulfates, and ozone. As expected, with a muktivariate analysis, the R^2 for CO2 diminishes, as does the residual variance, as the others start picking up more and more of the variability in anomoly.

Calling it fraud deserves a fuck you.

I didn't charge money. It is how it is done, standard practice, and it is right. I haven't done the confidence interval for the slope. You can do that yourself. Like I said, I didn't get paid ti do it.

So fuck you. Or are we to accuse SSaDhD of fraud and lying for completely mangling SLoT?

Yourwork attributed most of the variance to CO2 and the rest of the variance to other GHGs. It should be easy to find, you spamed the board and various threads with it repeatedly.

No, you will find I updated it with additional info as I improved it. I started with a simple linear estimate of the time based extention. Then I added the regression. Then I added the multivariate when I found that. I simply improved the presentation as I found new graphics or revised the text.

That or when someones post warrented the exact same response. Why would I retype the same thing over again?

Sorry Dude.. Jig is about up.. Unless you are the guy who owns this website...

Excel Chart Misrepresents CO2 ? Temperature Relationship | Climate Charts & Graphs

He's the guy who wrote the R-script to generate your avatar.. Unless of course with all that aggressive extra work you did --- you didn't take the time to plot your own result...

Please quit while you're still barely likeable...

 

[gslack]

You rejected the explanation I gave above INCLUDING A PAGE from a standard Thermo TEXTBOOK.. Are you saying the TEXTBOOK is wrong? ((Attrib for the page is on the original weblink))..

DUDE your link was to science of doom website. Don't even try and claim it to a textbook it's right there in your link....

Source aside, just because something radiates to to another, warmer object, doesn't mean it can effect change in that object.. What part of this is escaping you?

You assume that if it radiates, it must effect change in a warmer object. When there is no evidence, even in your links, that any such thing must occur...

GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??

You keep trying to repeat the same thing and sidestep what I say... We do have a thermostat here. A natural one. Day and night, the seasons, solar variance, distance tothe sun, and the fact that GH gases are(thanks to convection) a lousy insulator but a very good method of transferring heat away from a source(convection again).

Which sounds more realistic to you.. Sun radiates to the surface, warms the surface, the surface heat warms the lower atmosphere, convection takes over the warmer atmosphere rises up away from the heat source, and then cools in the process until cold enough and starts to fall back towards the surface, where it collides with the rising warmer air and warms a bit until it gets close enough to the surface again to start the process over again.

OR, your theory that the sun warms the surface which warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface further due to back-radiation...

LOL, I'll take my theory all day.. Your's is an attempt to justify a theoretical concept of GH effect, where none is required, Mine is a realistic portrayal of how convection and the atmosphere on this planet works.

It may be statistically correct to assume some form of back-radiation at work, but it is realistically incorrect to assume it can effect noticeable change in it's warmer source.

Call it "net flow" till you are blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Be it net flow or absolute flow, the fact remains it's still a positive flow warmer to cooler, and there is no physical evidence to support any incidental back flow effecting noticeable change in the heat source.

I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics...

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink...
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence..

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy???

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya??

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

 

[flacaltenn]

DUDE your link was to science of doom website. Don't even try and claim it to a textbook it's right there in your link....

Source aside, just because something radiates to to another, warmer object, doesn't mean it can effect change in that object.. What part of this is escaping you?

You assume that if it radiates, it must effect change in a warmer object. When there is no evidence, even in your links, that any such thing must occur...

GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??

You keep trying to repeat the same thing and sidestep what I say... We do have a thermostat here. A natural one. Day and night, the seasons, solar variance, distance tothe sun, and the fact that GH gases are(thanks to convection) a lousy insulator but a very good method of transferring heat away from a source(convection again).

Which sounds more realistic to you.. Sun radiates to the surface, warms the surface, the surface heat warms the lower atmosphere, convection takes over the warmer atmosphere rises up away from the heat source, and then cools in the process until cold enough and starts to fall back towards the surface, where it collides with the rising warmer air and warms a bit until it gets close enough to the surface again to start the process over again.

OR, your theory that the sun warms the surface which warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface further due to back-radiation...

LOL, I'll take my theory all day.. Your's is an attempt to justify a theoretical concept of GH effect, where none is required, Mine is a realistic portrayal of how convection and the atmosphere on this planet works.

It may be statistically correct to assume some form of back-radiation at work, but it is realistically incorrect to assume it can effect noticeable change in it's warmer source.

Call it "net flow" till you are blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Be it net flow or absolute flow, the fact remains it's still a positive flow warmer to cooler, and there is no physical evidence to support any incidental back flow effecting noticeable change in the heat source.

I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics...

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink...
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence..

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy???

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya??

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

It simply DOES reduce the net flow.. Hot and cold objects EXCHANGE radiative energy.. The hot source kinda wins in the long run.. Any IR photons from the colder object will add to the heat energy of the hotter landing spot. There is not a microprocessor on board that tells a photon ANYTHING about temperature.

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Not really for cond/conv, ((although I did comment that statistical violations of the 2nd Law CAN exist temporarily under certain conditions)).. But we're discussing the 3rd major mode of heat transfer here.. (Radiative) Asked you and SSDD to comment on the 2 examples I posted a page or so now back.. BOTH of you took a pass. Didn't get YOUR explanation why I can read temperatures on my IR thermometer of something COLDER than than the measurement tool.. Wanna take a crack at it NOW? I'll find you the post number.

Second example was 2 identical bars in a vacuum heated to equilibrium at 100degF. Do they STOP emitting IR radiation because the neighboring bar is the SAME temp? Of course they don't...

Questions for your "theory" are at ----- http://www.usmessageboard.com/7545096-post2133.html


Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

REALLY??? So you don't see the quote on that page that says..

"This cooling is associated with a reduction in the internal energy stored by the solid and is a direct consequence of the emission of thermal radiation from the surface. In turn, the surface will intercept and absorb radiation originating from the surroundings. However if Ts > Tamb, the net heat transfer rate by radiation qrad.net is FROM the surface and the surface will cool until Ts reaches Tamb.

We associate thermal radiation with the rate at which energy is emitted by matter as a result of its finite temperature. At this moment thermal radiation is being emitted by ALL the matter that surrounds you: by the furniture and walls of the room..........

There's no qualification about the temperature of the SOURCE is there?? "The surface will intercept and ABSORB radiation originating from the surroundings.. "


In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

I did .. Go to the questions I posed in the post link above. I'd love to hear how YOUR theory handles those explanations..

 

[IanC]

DUDE your link was to science of doom website. Don't even try and claim it to a textbook it's right there in your link....

Source aside, just because something radiates to to another, warmer object, doesn't mean it can effect change in that object.. What part of this is escaping you?

You assume that if it radiates, it must effect change in a warmer object. When there is no evidence, even in your links, that any such thing must occur...

GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??

You keep trying to repeat the same thing and sidestep what I say... We do have a thermostat here. A natural one. Day and night, the seasons, solar variance, distance tothe sun, and the fact that GH gases are(thanks to convection) a lousy insulator but a very good method of transferring heat away from a source(convection again).

Which sounds more realistic to you.. Sun radiates to the surface, warms the surface, the surface heat warms the lower atmosphere, convection takes over the warmer atmosphere rises up away from the heat source, and then cools in the process until cold enough and starts to fall back towards the surface, where it collides with the rising warmer air and warms a bit until it gets close enough to the surface again to start the process over again.

OR, your theory that the sun warms the surface which warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface further due to back-radiation...

LOL, I'll take my theory all day.. Your's is an attempt to justify a theoretical concept of GH effect, where none is required, Mine is a realistic portrayal of how convection and the atmosphere on this planet works.

It may be statistically correct to assume some form of back-radiation at work, but it is realistically incorrect to assume it can effect noticeable change in it's warmer source.

Call it "net flow" till you are blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Be it net flow or absolute flow, the fact remains it's still a positive flow warmer to cooler, and there is no physical evidence to support any incidental back flow effecting noticeable change in the heat source.

I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics...

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink...
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence..

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy???

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya??

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

equilibrium temperature is a function of input minus output. where is the extra input into the surface coming from if not the atmosphere? why are you ducking the question?

if a wire has two opposing forces the electrons will flow in the direction of the larger force. not at the rate of only the stronger force but proportionall to the net force. the virtual photons are still moving in both directions and transferring their energy to electrons independently of the opposing force. photons are only affected by interacting with matter, not other photons. interference patterns can be present but only in the presence of matter. a magnetic field can polarize light but only if it is in the region of either the emitter, or the receiver, not in the open space between them. this is because photons do not transfer energy except in the presence of matter.

thermal radiation in an object that is conducting heat is going in all directions, as is demanded by physical laws that say radiative emission from kinetic energy has no preferred direction. you need to separate kinetic interactions from radiative ones. one is mechanical and is mostly property of matter, the other is quantum emission and is mostly a property of photons. photons can exist in the same space as another photon, particles of matter cannot.



edit- back convection? convection can go in any direction but it is mostly up or down because it is a function of gravity. it is also made up of particles of matter so it is a net force mechanism because matter cannot be in the same space as other matter. radiation does not have the same limitations.

 

[IanC]

I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics...

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink...
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence..

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy???

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya??

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

It simply DOES reduce the net flow.. Hot and cold objects EXCHANGE radiative energy.. The hot source kinda wins in the long run.. Any IR photons from the colder object will add to the heat energy of the hotter landing spot. There is not a microprocessor on board that tells a photon ANYTHING about temperature.

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Not really for cond/conv, ((although I did comment that statistical violations of the 2nd Law CAN exist temporarily under certain conditions)).. But we're discussing the 3rd major mode of heat transfer here.. (Radiative) Asked you and SSDD to comment on the 2 examples I posted a page or so now back.. BOTH of you took a pass. Didn't get YOUR explanation why I can read temperatures on my IR thermometer of something COLDER than than the measurement tool.. Wanna take a crack at it NOW? I'll find you the post number.

Second example was 2 identical bars in a vacuum heated to equilibrium at 100degF. Do they STOP emitting IR radiation because the neighboring bar is the SAME temp? Of course they don't...

Questions for your "theory" are at ----- http://www.usmessageboard.com/7545096-post2133.html


Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

REALLY??? So you don't see the quote on that page that says..

"This cooling is associated with a reduction in the internal energy stored by the solid and is a direct consequence of the emission of thermal radiation from the surface. In turn, the surface will intercept and absorb radiation originating from the surroundings. However if Ts > Tamb, the net heat transfer rate by radiation qrad.net is FROM the surface and the surface will cool until Ts reaches Tamb.

We associate thermal radiation with the rate at which energy is emitted by matter as a result of its finite temperature. At this moment thermal radiation is being emitted by ALL the matter that surrounds you: by the furniture and walls of the room..........

There's no qualification about the temperature of the SOURCE is there?? "The surface will intercept and ABSORB radiation originating from the surroundings.. "


In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

I did .. Go to the questions I posed in the post link above. I'd love to hear how YOUR theory handles those explanations..

he cannot and will not answer because he knows that if he gives specific answers it will quickly lead to absurdities. general talking points and ad homs are all they have.

nature is elegantly simple in her design. send energy out in all directions, some of it will escape.

 

[IanC]

No I'm not. I am recognizing that the 5000 year curve has discontinuities. Thr discontinuities indicated that something significamt changed. I'm doing a piecewise analysis based on recognizining where and what significantly changed.

I can do the same thing with gasoline prices. Real dollar gasoline prices were basically flat, going up with inflation, until about 1998. That was when China started ramping up in GDP growth on exports, production fueled by using fossil fuels. It is just that simple.

And I didn't stop at CO2 with 74%, I added in solar, el nino, volcano, sulfates, and ozone. As expected, with a muktivariate analysis, the R^2 for CO2 diminishes, as does the residual variance, as the others start picking up more and more of the variability in anomoly.

Calling it fraud deserves a fuck you.

I didn't charge money. It is how it is done, standard practice, and it is right. I haven't done the confidence interval for the slope. You can do that yourself. Like I said, I didn't get paid ti do it.

So fuck you. Or are we to accuse SSaDhD of fraud and lying for completely mangling SLoT?

Yourwork attributed most of the variance to CO2 and the rest of the variance to other GHGs. It should be easy to find, you spamed the board and various threads with it repeatedly.

No, you will find I updated it with additional info as I improved it. I started with a simple linear estimate of the time based extention. Then I added the regression. Then I added the multivariate when I found that. I simply improved the presentation as I found new graphics or revised the text.

That or when someones post warrented the exact same response. Why would I retype the same thing over again?

if you improved the one post that you repeated dozens of times; good, at least you are moving in the right direction. you simply repeated it when I originally questioned its veracity because of undisclosed variables. you said I was wrong but now you appreciate that there is more than GHGs involved with climate, and that only taking CO2 and temperature into account is a fool's game even if you can concoct mathematics that exaggerate the correlation. presumably you also now understand that substantial causation is also off the table.

 

[gslack]

I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics...

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink...
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence..

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy???

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya??

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

It simply DOES reduce the net flow.. Hot and cold objects EXCHANGE radiative energy.. The hot source kinda wins in the long run.. Any IR photons from the colder object will add to the heat energy of the hotter landing spot. There is not a microprocessor on board that tells a photon ANYTHING about temperature.

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Not really for cond/conv, ((although I did comment that statistical violations of the 2nd Law CAN exist temporarily under certain conditions)).. But we're discussing the 3rd major mode of heat transfer here.. (Radiative) Asked you and SSDD to comment on the 2 examples I posted a page or so now back.. BOTH of you took a pass. Didn't get YOUR explanation why I can read temperatures on my IR thermometer of something COLDER than than the measurement tool.. Wanna take a crack at it NOW? I'll find you the post number.

Second example was 2 identical bars in a vacuum heated to equilibrium at 100degF. Do they STOP emitting IR radiation because the neighboring bar is the SAME temp? Of course they don't...

Questions for your "theory" are at ----- http://www.usmessageboard.com/7545096-post2133.html


Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

REALLY??? So you don't see the quote on that page that says..

"This cooling is associated with a reduction in the internal energy stored by the solid and is a direct consequence of the emission of thermal radiation from the surface. In turn, the surface will intercept and absorb radiation originating from the surroundings. However if Ts > Tamb, the net heat transfer rate by radiation qrad.net is FROM the surface and the surface will cool until Ts reaches Tamb.

We associate thermal radiation with the rate at which energy is emitted by matter as a result of its finite temperature. At this moment thermal radiation is being emitted by ALL the matter that surrounds you: by the furniture and walls of the room..........

There's no qualification about the temperature of the SOURCE is there?? "The surface will intercept and ABSORB radiation originating from the surroundings.. "


In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

I did .. Go to the questions I posed in the post link above. I'd love to hear how YOUR theory handles those explanations..

WHY? your questions do not in any way negate or disprove my statements...

But here ya go... Your questions..

"Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"???? "-flac...

Are you reading the flow from warmer to colder? Seriously is that what your thermometer is reading? Or is it the change in temperature itself. OR in this example from wikkipedia...

Infrared thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes, especially near ambient temperatures, false readings will be obtained indicating incorrect temperature. This is most often due to other thermal radiation reflected from the object being measured, but having its source elsewhere, like a hotter wall or other object nearby - even the person holding the thermometer can be an error source in some cases. It can also be due to an incorrect emissivity on the emissivity control or a combination of the two possibilities.

According to wikki they can be used for various purposes but somehow proving back-radiation isn't one of them... Hmmm...

Infrared thermometers can be used to serve a wide variety of temperature monitoring functions. A few examples provided to this article include:
Detecting clouds for remote telescope operation
Checking mechanical equipment or electrical circuit breaker boxes or outlets for hot spots
Checking heater or oven temperature, for calibration and control purposes
Detecting hot spots / performing diagnostics in electrical circuit board manufacturing
Checking for hot spots in fire fighting situations
Monitoring materials in process of heating and cooling, for research and development or manufacturing quality control situations

Simple dude show me the text book which states it being a fact and we are done.. Shouldn't be too hard if it's as factual and obvious as you claim...

Your next question...

"2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?"

Sure they may radiate at one another, BUT... And please pay attention this time because you keep ignoring this point.... DO THEY EFFECT CHANGE IN THEIR HEAT SOURCE? OR ONE ANOTHER?

NO!

And why? Because the nature of blackbody radiation, or thermal equilibrium achieved by both bodies negating any gain in temperature from one another..

But hey, Don't take my word for it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature T surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature T on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium. The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[20][21] Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body. This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature T, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature T.[22]

You are circle-talking, pretending that because something can radiate towards it's source, that means it can effect change in that source. It's a false assumption. Mathematically it should, but due to QM or Quantum theory being incomplete (the math behind it), reality and real world experience shows it doesn't effect change in the source.. See the problem yet?

You like Ian and so many others learned to do the math through a process, but you didn't learn to question it or think through what it means in application. Hence your attempt to use an IR thermometer to prove backradiation. If it were really that simple, there wouldn't be a case against it would there... It would be in the text books wouldn't it.. Well it's not and the reason is it's a mathematical concept which doesn't stand up to real world observation..

NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???

Please, if you can't answer it fine, just don't ignore it and try to make up my position for me... It's getting old..

BTW.. "kinda wins in the long run." LOL are you serious.. It wins but you aren't gonna admit it so you try and justify it with that ? ROFL

 

[gslack]

I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics...

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink...
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence..

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy???

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya??

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

equilibrium temperature is a function of input minus output. where is the extra input into the surface coming from if not the atmosphere? why are you ducking the question?

if a wire has two opposing forces the electrons will flow in the direction of the larger force. not at the rate of only the stronger force but proportionall to the net force. the virtual photons are still moving in both directions and transferring their energy to electrons independently of the opposing force. photons are only affected by interacting with matter, not other photons. interference patterns can be present but only in the presence of matter. a magnetic field can polarize light but only if it is in the region of either the emitter, or the receiver, not in the open space between them. this is because photons do not transfer energy except in the presence of matter.

thermal radiation in an object that is conducting heat is going in all directions, as is demanded by physical laws that say radiative emission from kinetic energy has no preferred direction. you need to separate kinetic interactions from radiative ones. one is mechanical and is mostly property of matter, the other is quantum emission and is mostly a property of photons. photons can exist in the same space as another photon, particles of matter cannot.



edit- back convection? convection can go in any direction but it is mostly up or down because it is a function of gravity. it is also made up of particles of matter so it is a net force mechanism because matter cannot be in the same space as other matter. radiation does not have the same limitations.

No ducking by me Ian, you are the dancing bear who runs everytime you have to defend spencers position... Not a word from you until flac came to your rescue... LOL..

Back-convection would flow back to it's warmer source silly... That's the second time you tried to play obtuse to get by.. Grow up Ian, that's just as silly as your "decides to emit" Bullshit... Warmer air rises, colder air falls, hence back-convection would allow the opposite.. DOesn't exist dumbass..

Virtual photons? LOL, why not stick with actual photons schmuck? LOL, your BS requires you to delve ever deeper into theory and you don't see a problem yet? LOL, tell ya what you prove that virtual photons flow both ways in a circuit okay... Get back with me..

ROFL.. You are too ridiculous for words Ian..

 

[gslack]

BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...

Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation

And to show another example.. I did a google search for the words "Back-radiation proof'. here's the list I got..

back-radiation proof - Google Search

What I got was a list that contained spencer and science of doom first and second respectively (no shock there) and then in third was my link above, followed by a mass of links to various sites and articles that for the most part call the concept of back-radiation a mathematical concept or possibility that does not stand up to observation in reality..

Disagree with me all you want, but the world seems to disagree with you and Ian.. Pretty blatantly too..

 

[IanC]

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

equilibrium temperature is a function of input minus output. where is the extra input into the surface coming from if not the atmosphere? why are you ducking the question?

if a wire has two opposing forces the electrons will flow in the direction of the larger force. not at the rate of only the stronger force but proportionall to the net force. the virtual photons are still moving in both directions and transferring their energy to electrons independently of the opposing force. photons are only affected by interacting with matter, not other photons. interference patterns can be present but only in the presence of matter. a magnetic field can polarize light but only if it is in the region of either the emitter, or the receiver, not in the open space between them. this is because photons do not transfer energy except in the presence of matter.

thermal radiation in an object that is conducting heat is going in all directions, as is demanded by physical laws that say radiative emission from kinetic energy has no preferred direction. you need to separate kinetic interactions from radiative ones. one is mechanical and is mostly property of matter, the other is quantum emission and is mostly a property of photons. photons can exist in the same space as another photon, particles of matter cannot.



edit- back convection? convection can go in any direction but it is mostly up or down because it is a function of gravity. it is also made up of particles of matter so it is a net force mechanism because matter cannot be in the same space as other matter. radiation does not have the same limitations.

No ducking by me Ian, you are the dancing bear who runs everytime you have to defend spencers position... Not a word from you until flac came to your rescue... LOL..

Back-convection would flow back to it's warmer source silly... That's the second time you tried to play obtuse to get by.. Grow up Ian, that's just as silly as your "decides to emit" Bullshit... Warmer air rises, colder air falls, hence back-convection would allow the opposite.. DOesn't exist dumbass..

Virtual photons? LOL, why not stick with actual photons schmuck? LOL, your BS requires you to delve ever deeper into theory and you don't see a problem yet? LOL, tell ya what you prove that virtual photons flow both ways in a circuit okay... Get back with me..

ROFL.. You are too ridiculous for words Ian..

photons that pass electromagnetic force are virtual photons that don't exist unless there are both an emitter and an absorber. they carry the additional property of being either attractive or repulsive. reactive photons cease to exist when their lifespan is exceeded, a la the uncertainty principle. that is why the field stays intact until something draws power from it. radiative photons are emitted just to lose energy and are complete even without an absorber.

there are dozens if not hundreds of pages of me arguing with wirebender, polar bear and SSDD about Spencer thought experiment. it is a little unreasonable to say I have ducked the issue. and I answered their questions while I seldom got direct responses from them.

BTW, I like your cut and paste about objects at the same temperature. they fully radiate in all directions but because there is no excess in any direction they stay the same temp. wow, exactly as I have been stating for years. in the case of earth, the temp is not quite equal but the radiation/backradiation is the cause of lowered loss to outer space.

if you want me to answer anymore questions will you at least return the courtesy?

perhaps you could start with why the earth's surface isn't cooling dramatically because of the large discrepancy between solar input and surface output.

 

[IanC]

BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...

Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation

And to show another example.. I did a google search for the words "Back-radiation proof'. here's the list I got..

back-radiation proof - Google Search

What I got was a list that contained spencer and science of doom first and second respectively (no shock there) and then in third was my link above, followed by a mass of links to various sites and articles that for the most part call the concept of back-radiation a mathematical concept or possibility that does not stand up to observation in reality..

Disagree with me all you want, but the world seems to disagree with you and Ian.. Pretty blatantly too..

is that Claes' harmonic reflection paper that gives the exact same numbers as 'standard' physics, just with a convoluted new layer of complexity? or is it something new? Claes Johnson is considered a bit of a crank by just about everyone, but good luck to him.

back radiation is a descriptive term that is only useful for describing the situation. back radiation is simply radiation. just like reverse racism is simply racism, but it gives more information about the parties involved.

 

[IanC]

Jen- you might want to research the increased water vapour thing a bit more carefully. just sayin'

 

[itfitzme]

Yourwork attributed most of the variance to CO2 and the rest of the variance to other GHGs. It should be easy to find, you spamed the board and various threads with it repeatedly.

No, you will find I updated it with additional info as I improved it. I started with a simple linear estimate of the time based extention. Then I added the regression. Then I added the multivariate when I found that. I simply improved the presentation as I found new graphics or revised the text.

That or when someones post warrented the exact same response. Why would I retype the same thing over again?

if you improved the one post that you repeated dozens of times; good, at least you are moving in the right direction. you simply repeated it when I originally questioned its veracity because of undisclosed variables. you said I was wrong but now you appreciate that there is more than GHGs involved with climate, and that only taking CO2 and temperature into account is a fool's game even if you can concoct mathematics that exaggerate the correlation. presumably you also now understand that substantial causation is also off the table.

Yeah, the same thing could be said about this long conversation about backradiation and SLoT. The difference, I'm smart enough to know that you have to start somewhere and then build from there. It doesn't matter where you start except isn't it damned nice that someone else already figured it out and it is CO2 and other GHGs that account for the climate variabiltiy.

You can look at backradiation, then foolishly reject it because it's not enough. The go off to clouds, and choke on that because you can't get precise enough data. Then look at whatever, rejecting things all along the way because not one is enough to account for everything. That is fools errand.

And no, causation isn't off the table. I'm just going to watch you guys foolishly chase after some mythical blackswan. Because, there isn't a thing, even blackbody radiation, that isn't subject to your rediculous "correlation isn't causation" bs.

You will be here for the next decade and you will never calculate/model your way into it. In the end, after all is done, you still have to meld the physical models with the statistics to put the whole thing together.

Ever puzzle piece, that you have tossed on the floor, you will be looking under the rug for.

 

[gslack]

equilibrium temperature is a function of input minus output. where is the extra input into the surface coming from if not the atmosphere? why are you ducking the question?

if a wire has two opposing forces the electrons will flow in the direction of the larger force. not at the rate of only the stronger force but proportionall to the net force. the virtual photons are still moving in both directions and transferring their energy to electrons independently of the opposing force. photons are only affected by interacting with matter, not other photons. interference patterns can be present but only in the presence of matter. a magnetic field can polarize light but only if it is in the region of either the emitter, or the receiver, not in the open space between them. this is because photons do not transfer energy except in the presence of matter.

thermal radiation in an object that is conducting heat is going in all directions, as is demanded by physical laws that say radiative emission from kinetic energy has no preferred direction. you need to separate kinetic interactions from radiative ones. one is mechanical and is mostly property of matter, the other is quantum emission and is mostly a property of photons. photons can exist in the same space as another photon, particles of matter cannot.



edit- back convection? convection can go in any direction but it is mostly up or down because it is a function of gravity. it is also made up of particles of matter so it is a net force mechanism because matter cannot be in the same space as other matter. radiation does not have the same limitations.

No ducking by me Ian, you are the dancing bear who runs everytime you have to defend spencers position... Not a word from you until flac came to your rescue... LOL..

Back-convection would flow back to it's warmer source silly... That's the second time you tried to play obtuse to get by.. Grow up Ian, that's just as silly as your "decides to emit" Bullshit... Warmer air rises, colder air falls, hence back-convection would allow the opposite.. DOesn't exist dumbass..

Virtual photons? LOL, why not stick with actual photons schmuck? LOL, your BS requires you to delve ever deeper into theory and you don't see a problem yet? LOL, tell ya what you prove that virtual photons flow both ways in a circuit okay... Get back with me..

ROFL.. You are too ridiculous for words Ian..

photons that pass electromagnetic force are virtual photons that don't exist unless there are both an emitter and an absorber. they carry the additional property of being either attractive or repulsive. reactive photons cease to exist when their lifespan is exceeded, a la the uncertainty principle. that is why the field stays intact until something draws power from it. radiative photons are emitted just to lose energy and are complete even without an absorber.

there are dozens if not hundreds of pages of me arguing with wirebender, polar bear and SSDD about Spencer thought experiment. it is a little unreasonable to say I have ducked the issue. and I answered their questions while I seldom got direct responses from them.

BTW, I like your cut and paste about objects at the same temperature. they fully radiate in all directions but because there is no excess in any direction they stay the same temp. wow, exactly as I have been stating for years. in the case of earth, the temp is not quite equal but the radiation/backradiation is the cause of lowered loss to outer space.

if you want me to answer anymore questions will you at least return the courtesy?

perhaps you could start with why the earth's surface isn't cooling dramatically because of the large discrepancy between solar input and surface output.

The first bolded part, SO what? It does not prove the existence of back-anything and especially not back-conduction. If it did, it would be a simple matter to actually prove back-radiation wouldn't it. text books would have it in there and so on. Yet there is no such proof because like back-radiation and any other mathematical possibility that doesn't show in real world observation, it just either doesn't effect change in the energy source/object, or it doesn't happen anyway take your pick... Simple prove it exists by showing it in the real world observation, otherwise it's a mathematical construct to explain another mathematical concept that although may be sound mathematically, somehow isn't sound in real world observation... Best to get a grip and realize the difference between known and proven fact, and theoretical/mathematical concept or theory..

Second bolded part... You run everytime your chain of thinking ends in you being wrong Ian, you do it all the time... Sure you argued it for pages and walked away at the same point you were going in, incorrect in the application of your thinking in reality. Again you are sound on the math, but not sound in what it means or applies in reality... The fact you see QM and genral Quantum theory, and all that goes with them as established fact despite even the fathers of the theory stating it being incomplete.. It's a theory, get over it.. Just because a mathematical equation states your ass can catch fire in your chair, it's not a fact it will.. Jesus dude..

Third bolded part.. Already answered your questions to my knowledge you had another one? Please ask it again, but if it's a repeat of one already answered, prepare to get the same response I already gave for it..

Sure, as I said previously, the atmosphere slows heat loss. That isn't proof of back-radiation, it's proof of the inherent thermal properties of the atmosphere. Meaning it takes time to transfer the heat out from the surface; clouds, so-called GH gases, thermal transfer, and the inherent time/energy use in each transfer.. Simple. No back-radiation needed..

 

[gslack]

BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...

Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation

And to show another example.. I did a google search for the words "Back-radiation proof'. here's the list I got..

back-radiation proof - Google Search

What I got was a list that contained spencer and science of doom first and second respectively (no shock there) and then in third was my link above, followed by a mass of links to various sites and articles that for the most part call the concept of back-radiation a mathematical concept or possibility that does not stand up to observation in reality..

Disagree with me all you want, but the world seems to disagree with you and Ian.. Pretty blatantly too..

is that Claes' harmonic reflection paper that gives the exact same numbers as 'standard' physics, just with a convoluted new layer of complexity? or is it something new? Claes Johnson is considered a bit of a crank by just about everyone, but good luck to him.

back radiation is a descriptive term that is only useful for describing the situation. back radiation is simply radiation. just like reverse racism is simply racism, but it gives more information about the parties involved.

Claes Johnson, prof of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.. LOLnow he's a quack by your standard? Get a grip Ian you're a web forum poster not a published scientist, and in no position to deny his credibility.. WHere did you get that nonsense? Oh wait I know it was either SPencer or science of doom right? yeah we know... Pathetic...

The simple fact is, whether you like Johnson or not, there still is no physical proof of back-radiation or back-anything.. LOL the fact you tried to use virtual photons as proof of back-conduction is beyond silly..

And now back-radiation is just a descriptive term... LOL almost didn't even hear your backpeddling that time Ian, so quite, so nonchalant. Nice try but it's a descriptive term to make a physical case for something that doesn't exist anywhere but theoretical mathematics... ROFL.

 

[itfitzme]

Try this, page 91, statistical mechanics

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

It comes down to basically, given the nature of quantum mechanics, the photon has a probabitity of being emitted at a given time at a given frequency given the temperature of the body.

No need for some other body to be coupled across space.

And as IanC notes, when it's two bodies, the net flow is the difference between the two.

 

[IanC]

BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...

Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation

And to show another example.. I did a google search for the words "Back-radiation proof'. here's the list I got..

back-radiation proof - Google Search

What I got was a list that contained spencer and science of doom first and second respectively (no shock there) and then in third was my link above, followed by a mass of links to various sites and articles that for the most part call the concept of back-radiation a mathematical concept or possibility that does not stand up to observation in reality..

Disagree with me all you want, but the world seems to disagree with you and Ian.. Pretty blatantly too..

is that Claes' harmonic reflection paper that gives the exact same numbers as 'standard' physics, just with a convoluted new layer of complexity? or is it something new? Claes Johnson is considered a bit of a crank by just about everyone, but good luck to him.

back radiation is a descriptive term that is only useful for describing the situation. back radiation is simply radiation. just like reverse racism is simply racism, but it gives more information about the parties involved.

Claes Johnson, prof of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.. LOLnow he's a quack by your standard? Get a grip Ian you're a web forum poster not a published scientist, and in no position to deny his credibility.. WHere did you get that nonsense? Oh wait I know it was either SPencer or science of doom right? yeah we know... Pathetic...

The simple fact is, whether you like Johnson or not, there still is no physical proof of back-radiation or back-anything.. LOL the fact you tried to use virtual photons as proof of back-conduction is beyond silly..

And now back-radiation is just a descriptive term... LOL almost didn't even hear your backpeddling that time Ian, so quite, so nonchalant. Nice try but it's a descriptive term to make a physical case for something that doesn't exist anywhere but theoretical mathematics... ROFL.

No back pedaling. Physics simply considers backradiation to be radiatiion. It is only a new term in the lexicon of popular speech, not a scientific term. Did you not understand that?

Virtual photons make up EM fields. The photons become real if they find another particle to exchange energy with. This is important for electron flow in a wire but inconsequential in most atmospheric radiation. Store security gates are a common example using virtual photons. The alarm sounds when something draws power.

 

[gslack]

Try this, page 91, statistical mechanics

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

It comes down to basically, given the nature of quantum mechanics, the photon has a probabitity of being emitted at a given time at a given frequency given the temperature of the body.

No need for some other body to be coupled across space.

And as IanC notes, when it's two bodies, the net flow is the difference between the two.

Yes, yes, yes, all well and good we have seen the theoretical reasoning behind it, now can you prove it? Can you even supply a text book which states back-radiation as a known and proven fact? I looked all through that text book your Science of doom site referenced and didn't find a thing on back-radiation but obviously you, Ian, and the AGW pseudo-scientists/enviro-rockstars know better. So please pony up this evidence.. That's evidence not theory..

BTW, I noticed you still avoid answering my question... So I ask again, because the dancing is ridiculous now... Just because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, what makes you certain it will effect change in it's greater source?

Please answer it or not, but continued avoidance while accusing me of not answering your questions is tedious...

 

[gslack]

is that Claes' harmonic reflection paper that gives the exact same numbers as 'standard' physics, just with a convoluted new layer of complexity? or is it something new? Claes Johnson is considered a bit of a crank by just about everyone, but good luck to him.

back radiation is a descriptive term that is only useful for describing the situation. back radiation is simply radiation. just like reverse racism is simply racism, but it gives more information about the parties involved.

Claes Johnson, prof of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.. LOLnow he's a quack by your standard? Get a grip Ian you're a web forum poster not a published scientist, and in no position to deny his credibility.. WHere did you get that nonsense? Oh wait I know it was either SPencer or science of doom right? yeah we know... Pathetic...

The simple fact is, whether you like Johnson or not, there still is no physical proof of back-radiation or back-anything.. LOL the fact you tried to use virtual photons as proof of back-conduction is beyond silly..

And now back-radiation is just a descriptive term... LOL almost didn't even hear your backpeddling that time Ian, so quite, so nonchalant. Nice try but it's a descriptive term to make a physical case for something that doesn't exist anywhere but theoretical mathematics... ROFL.

No back pedaling. Physics simply considers backradiation to be radiatiion. It is only a new term in the lexicon of popular speech, not a scientific term. Did you not understand that?

Virtual photons make up EM fields. The photons become real if they find another particle to exchange energy with. This is important for electron flow in a wire but inconsequential in most atmospheric radiation. Store security gates are a common example using virtual photons. The alarm sounds when something draws power.

Really? Why isn't part of the text books? For example the text book flac cried about? Not in there anywhere at all. So why is that? because it's a theoretical construct created to answer another theoretical inconsistency between the macro, and sub-atomic/atomic areas...

LOL, theory really is fact to you isn't it... Once again this proves back-conduction how? See the problem yet? The theory is unsound, and in an attempt to make it sound you resort to ever more theoretical constructs to answer for it.. The fact is IF(a very big IF) back-radiation existed beyond mathematical constructs, than it would be in every single physics text book, but it's not. Not to mention your latest excuse.. Now you support back-conduction?? LOL get over it Ian... In the natural world back conduction doesn't exist any more than back radiation...

All you got is loosely interpreted mathematical concepts that although mathematically sound to our understanding, do not jibe in real world observation..

I'll lend you a hand... Virtual photons - definition of Virtual photons by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

virtual particle
n.
A subatomic particle whose existence violates the principle of conservation of energy but is allowed to exist for a short time by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

virtual particle
A short-lived subatomic particle whose existence briefly violates the principle of conservation of energy. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics allows violations of conservation of energy for short periods, meaning that even a physical system with zero energy can spontaneously produce energetic particles. The more energy a virtual particle has, the shorter its existence. Interactions between normal particles and virtual particles play a crucial role in quantum field theory analyses of interactions between real particles. See also Casimir effectFeynman diagramvacuum fluctuation

Seems you are missing the point of virtual particles bud.. Not to mention it's still very much a theory...

http://www.theqxci.com/promorpheus/qxci_promorpheus_8.pdf

VIRTUAL PHOTONS
Modern physics has encountered many particles other than electrons, protons and neutrons. Modern
quantum physicists have come up with some bizarre ideas of the nature of subatomic reality.
There are many radically different ideas of the nature of subatomic reality, but all seem to parallel the idea
that the human mind and the human intervention are a deep part of the construct of any type of physics. Isaacs
pointed out that the human being might be the solution for quantum physics, and the human brain's potential of
understanding the situation might be because of its solution of the events.

All of that... Basically telling you it's a theory.. Not a fact.. get it? Don't believe me? Fine don't... But there is a large world out there, and a big part of that real world realizes the difference between fact and theory, especially when the theory doesn't stand up to real world observations..

The world of science isn't settled or decided upon by internet entrepreneurs selling a book, or PR sites selling you a theory as fact. And certainly no scientist will rely on the internet to prove his theory or call anything fact before it's proven...