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

[IanC]

No I won't drop it, because it's true.. You are a liar and a fraud. One minute you claim the mathematical chops to criticize and diminish work from MIT. And the next you claim you're no expert and didn't claim to be. Obviously you think you are, but so far when tested you are found lacking.

My original post on the issue was indeed correct, and this again confirms it. You assume to know everything about something without even reading it, and instead of admitting your mistake you try this same old tired song and dance..

Again, you're a liar and a fraud. You lied about my previous posts, you lied about the relevancy of the experiment on both that and this discussion, and now when it's shown true again, you blame me for it..

Worthless...Completely lacking of any ethical backbone..

whatever.

I suppose you think that studying snail shells will 'unlock' new secrets of the golden ratio, or perhaps analyzing the arrangement of flower petals will bring new insights into number theory. personally I just think Mother nature likes to use mathematical themes in her work, even if they are often less than precise. the walkers are like that. not very precise and it takes a lot of work to make them simulate quantum like actions. but they are very cool to watch.

And here we see you change your position on it again...

So Ian which is it? Do you think the MIT experiment is a valid one or nonsense? You seem to be floundering on it. Can't even show a backbone when it comes to your own opinion. Pathetic...

Thanks Ian, it's been a real hoot watching you dance..ROFL

why do you think I have changed my opinion? I was hoping that you would have an opinion on an interesting topic that you brought up. apparently I was wrong.

do you want to know why I think you are a dweller on the wrong side of the bell curve? you never have any of your own opinions, you never synthesize a new idea from other ideas, you never hop to related subjects. in other words you are just a bore.

feel free to jump back into your usual spew of ad homs, but really, I would rather hear why you think walkers are realistically linked to QM. perhaps you have more info that you could link to that shows more experiments. I didnt see any actual data on the their 'double slit' walker experiment. got any? can you deflect the walker with a gentle puff of air? what were the initial angles for the two walkers to capture each other in a 'quantum ring'? have you seen any of those other videos of amazing patterns using harmonics in a liquid? hahaha, who am I kidding. you only found the French experiment by a random google search, and you didnt even know what it was about until I posted the videos.

 

[flacaltenn]

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

The issue isn't if GH gases can react to long wave IR, and shed some of that heat back out. The problem is whether or not that IR radiated from the GH Gases can warm the already warmer surface, its source. The second laws states no, but the warmers seem to think it can anyway without violating the 2nd law, or with bending it somehow depending on who you ask.

I suspect this is way above your pay grade, but here is why "the warmers" are correct.

The Amazing Case of ?Back Radiation? ? Part Three | The Science of Doom

I think it's hysterical that you publish THAT PARTICULAR blog.. Because the guy behind it COMPLETELY agrees with my assessment of back-radiation from colder to warmer objects. But as a "warmer" egghead, he's having a really hard time selling all this juvenile thermo modeling of the atmosphere that his team is pushing..

So I'm supposed to be humbled by a guy who agrees with every word I've said about this topic??

You're a hoot junior....

Thanks for validating everything I've said... Just to recap -- Every post I've made in this thread is IN DEFENSE of the basic physics of the GreenHouse Theory.. Did you get that part?

We have yet to start revealing my feelings about the 20 acres of horseshit that is CAGW dogma.. You will learn I NEVER sacrifice science to be one of those mouth-breathing, fundie bible thumping opponents that you imagine I am.. And what about it IF I thump a bible or mouth-breathe? Is that still relevent?

 

[polarbear]

When people use terms like "magnifying light", like IanC does, then you know for sure, that they never took 1 single physics lesson or are too stupid to comprehend the lesson that covered optics.
Here we have both, the mamooth idiot and IanC saying that you can magnify the "highly ordered sunlight" but not diffuse light.
...and then they do just that, the mamooth idiot does it with a light bulb (=diffuse light) in a room with white walls (which would diffuse light that was collimated)
and IanC does it with the CO2 back radiation....so does the IPCC with Roy Spencer snake oil "physics" that wind up with more h*c/ λ on a surface
than it would have got without CO2 back radiation from the σ * T^4 source feeding into the entire system.

B.t.w IanC. People who did take physics call the "highly ordered sunlight" not "highly ordered", they call it collimated light.

Then, first of all "magnifying" in optics is done with diffuse light and is expressed as the magnifying factor, which is the ratio of of an object`s apparent size
and it`s true size when viewed through a collimator, which can be a lens or a parabolic mirror.
But in no way is light "magnified" as IanC would have it with "highly ordered sunlight"

Then, in no way are there more photons/time (=watts) in a room with white walls than an X-watt light bulb can supply as photons/time as the mamooth idiot
who also makes "ink molecules" would have it.
Such a room only appears to be brighter to the human eye than a room with off-white walls.
You could in fact make some locations in a room receive more photons per m^2 (=brighter) if you reflect light from a different m^2 surface (B)
and direct it to that spot (A). ...but nothing was gained. The only thing that did happen was that a portion of the light that would have propagated (as diffuse light) from the m^2 reflecting surface(B) into different directions had been re-directed onto a spot (A) and all you got was a smaller spread to fewer m^2
Reducing the number of square meters for the same amount of σ * T^4 (energy) still leaves you with the same amount of energy in the whole system and not one iota more.
Not even a mirror anywhere in this room can increase what you got as σ * T^4 from the source to begin with.
In fact it would not even matter if you painted the walls or the light bulb with black soot...
The room only appears "darker" to the human eye but would be just as bright as before,... if you looked at it in the infrared spectrum .
It is astonishing just how stupid people that claim they know something about physics can be.
I can make a room with white walls just as dark to the human eye with a 100 watt UV light source as a room with black walls with a 100 watt light source that emits light in the spectral range which is visual to the human eye.

Good thing that mentally impotent morons like these are restricted to write internet forum crap and aren`t out there pretending to be engineers, else we would not just pay greenhouse gas taxes, we would start paying with our lives being near a nuclear power plant that was designed by such mamooth idiots.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW PMZ:

Did you catch the sloppy science aspect of that guy's conclusions about measuring the absorption of Downward Re-Radiation? Or was that beyond YOUR paygrade?

 

[flacaltenn]

When people use terms like "magnifying light", like IanC does, then you know for sure, that they never took 1 single physics lesson or are too stupid to comprehend the lesson that covered optics.
Here we have both, the mamooth idiot and IanC saying that you can magnify the "highly ordered sunlight" but not diffuse light.
...and then they do just that, the mamooth idiot does it with a light bulb (=diffuse light) in a room with white walls (which would diffuse light that was collimated)
and IanC does it with the CO2 back radiation....so does the IPCC with Roy Spencer snake oil "physics" that wind up with more h*c/ λ on a surface
than it would have got without CO2 back radiation from the σ * T^4 source feeding into the entire system.

B.t.w IanC. People who did take physics call the "highly ordered sunlight" not "highly ordered", they call it collimated light.

Then, first of all "magnifying" in optics is done with diffuse light and is expressed as the magnifying factor, which is the ratio of of an object`s apparent size
and it`s true size when viewed through a collimator, which can be a lens or a parabolic mirror.
But in no way is light "magnified" as IanC would have it with "highly ordered sunlight"

Then, in no way are there more photons/time (=watts) in a room with white walls than an X-watt light bulb can supply as photons/time as the mamooth idiot
who also makes "ink molecules" would have it.
Such a room only appears to be brighter to the human eye than a room with off-white walls.
You could in fact make some locations in a room receive more photons per m^2 (=brighter) if you reflect light from a different m^2 surface (B)
and direct it to that spot (A). ...but nothing was gained. The only thing that did happen was that a portion of the light that would have propagated (as diffuse light) from the m^2 reflecting surface(B) into different directions had been re-directed onto a spot (A) and all you got was a smaller spread to fewer m^2
Reducing the number of square meters for the same amount of σ * T^4 (energy) still leaves you with the same amount of energy in the whole system and not one iota more.
Not even a mirror anywhere in this room can increase what you got as σ * T^4 from the source to begin with.
In fact it would not even matter if you painted the walls or the light bulb with black soot...
The room only appears "darker" to the human eye but would be just as bright as before,... if you looked at it in the infrared spectrum .
It is astonishing just how stupid people that claim they know something about physics can be.
I can make a room with white walls just as dark to the human eye with a 100 watt UV light source as a room with black walls with a 100 watt light source that emits light in the spectral range which is visual to the human eye.

Good thing that mentally impotent morons like these are restricted to write internet forum crap and aren`t out there pretending to be engineers, else we would not just pay greenhouse gas taxes, we would start paying with our lives being near a nuclear power plant that was designed by such mamooth idiots.

As the tundra-bound Crusty Crab that you are -- I'd expect you to rant more and think less about the obvious.. Nobody is CREATING ENERGY by painting a wall. ((Although our Obama selected science advisor comes close when he suggests that we all paint our roofs white to save energy -- QED))

I just came back from a client deep into large industrial LED lighting. They had mocked-up a couple supermarket aisles to take photometer measurements of various lighting situations. He was getting dissapointing readings in this grand effort and decided to change the floor from grey concrete to nice light colored tile. Not so amazingly, you could begin to read the content labels on the cereal boxes..

So --- with black walls, DUHHHH --- photons are absorbed and not available for diffuse re-reflection to all other points in the room. Energy has been REDISTRIBUTED by positioning of absorbers. Or reflectors, or mirrors or what have you. You might even say the camera sites on the photometer had been MAGNIFIED just as if you put an intensifier on it.

So let's drop that gnarly tongue-lashing and move on to black body radiation and back radiation.

and IanC does it with the CO2 back radiation....so does the IPCC with Roy Spencer snake oil "physics" that wind up with more h*c/ λ on a surface
than it would have got without CO2 back radiation from the σ * T^4 source feeding into the entire system.

You've just made a circular argument. Back radiation doesn't exist (in your mind) so the ONLY energy source is the Black Body stuff coming from the surface. Sorry Charlie, it's for real. IR is Re-radiated (in all directions) from the warmed gases in the lower tropo and even THO they might be cooler than the surface, they can't put the brakes on and refuse to be absorbed by the earth's surface. Net energy exchange is still skyward. But you can't stop radiative energy from impinging on a warmer object.

In a relative sense, the temp diff between surface and lower tropo is not that great. In fact, on a given day, the lower tropo CAN BE WARMER than the surface. That's how complicated it is and how RIDICULOUS biblical pronouncements like the TrenBerth diagram are...

Now I have my doubts about the numbers and even the definitions in the TrenBerth diagram and I sense it's horribly wrong and frail. Primarily because it presumes to detect a MINUTE DIFF in energy exchange when it is a kindergarten construct that doesn't know whether it's night or day, summer or winter, Fiji or Siberia, water or concrete, snowing or clear. All those GUESSES averaged over time and the entire globe could never POSSIBLY detect a 2w/m2 contribution from CO2.

NEVER EVER EVER...

So it had to be either fudging, lucky guess or willful manipulation of the data. I chose the latter for sure.

I am so certain about this that when and if I retire -- if this whole AGW carp hasn't putrified, I'm going back to the Ivy Halls to redo the Trenberth cartoon.. I swear it...

 

[polarbear]

Here is another example just how utterly retarded these morons who think they can lecture us in physisc really are

Molecule absorbs backradiation photon, jumps to higher vibrational state. It's not complicated. You've just got this emotional block. You don't understand because you willfully don't want to understand.

Molecule can only absorb a photon at a higher frequency than itself. Lower frequencies are not absorbed.

Oh, my lord! Imagine anyone claiming a knowledge of physics saying that! What a howler!! You've got it exactly ass-backwards!!

Bohr atom

According to Bohr theory, which accurately predicts the energy levels for one-electron atoms like H, He+, Li2+, the energy of an electron in the nth energy level is given by:

The energy levels predicted by Bohr theory for the H atom are shown below:

Energy Levels in the Bohr Atomand Electronic Transitions of the Balmer Series

The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!

The same holds for molecules -- it just becomes more complex to calculate!
.

He is looking at the Bohr diagram which depicts how much more energy it takes to raise electrons that are closer to a nucleus at the n=1 shell to a higher orbital than for those are are more distant at the n=4 shell from the nucleus...which require less energy to go into a higher energy orbital the larger the distance or the shell is from the nucleus.
According to him Bohr said :
"The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"

As if!!!What Bohr said was thatouter shell electrons require less energy to do their quantum leap than inner shell electrons.
This moron has electrons going gradually with less and less energy to a " next energy level" as it was when nobody ever even heard about quantum physics and quantum leaps.
By saying that he also figured that during this process electrons from shell #1 wind up in the next higher shell number, because only then would such an electron require less energy .
And then crown his stupidity with the ultimate stupidity:
"It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"

Like fuck "must it absorb" lower frequencies.
An electron in that shell will absorb at the exact same wavelength as it did before it did a quantum leap and then emits this energy quantum as a photon you moron.

"or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"

They do...all you have to do is heat a substance to the plasma state, like that big bright thing in the sky that keeps you from freezing you idiot.

But when I said to IanC with his retarded red star to white star "back radiation", that a plasma can`t absorb photons of that particular lower wavelength when the corresponding "ground state" electrons are missing after the substance was ionized ...IanC, the mamooth ink molecule idiot and you, the "quantum physisc expert" insisted that it can...
Yeah right...
Bohr, Einstein and all the other physicists would roll over in their graves hearing that,...because the only way that would work if the remaining inner shell electrons could absorb longer wavelength light after the outer shell electrons that ionization had removed.
The only way that could happen if you can stuff electrons from a lower shell number to a higher shell number.
How exactly is that supposed to happen ?
It could not possibly get any funnier than that, including the choice of your avatar

Oh, my lord! Imagine anyone claiming a knowledge of physics saying that! What a howler!! You've got it exactly ass-backwards!!

 

[polarbear]

When people use terms like "magnifying light", like IanC does, then you know for sure, that they never took 1 single physics lesson or are too stupid to comprehend the lesson that covered optics.
Here we have both, the mamooth idiot and IanC saying that you can magnify the "highly ordered sunlight" but not diffuse light.
...and then they do just that, the mamooth idiot does it with a light bulb (=diffuse light) in a room with white walls (which would diffuse light that was collimated)
and IanC does it with the CO2 back radiation....so does the IPCC with Roy Spencer snake oil "physics" that wind up with more h*c/ λ on a surface
than it would have got without CO2 back radiation from the σ * T^4 source feeding into the entire system.

B.t.w IanC. People who did take physics call the "highly ordered sunlight" not "highly ordered", they call it collimated light.

Then, first of all "magnifying" in optics is done with diffuse light and is expressed as the magnifying factor, which is the ratio of of an object`s apparent size
and it`s true size when viewed through a collimator, which can be a lens or a parabolic mirror.
But in no way is light "magnified" as IanC would have it with "highly ordered sunlight"

Then, in no way are there more photons/time (=watts) in a room with white walls than an X-watt light bulb can supply as photons/time as the mamooth idiot
who also makes "ink molecules" would have it.
Such a room only appears to be brighter to the human eye than a room with off-white walls.
You could in fact make some locations in a room receive more photons per m^2 (=brighter) if you reflect light from a different m^2 surface (B)
and direct it to that spot (A). ...but nothing was gained. The only thing that did happen was that a portion of the light that would have propagated (as diffuse light) from the m^2 reflecting surface(B) into different directions had been re-directed onto a spot (A) and all you got was a smaller spread to fewer m^2
Reducing the number of square meters for the same amount of σ * T^4 (energy) still leaves you with the same amount of energy in the whole system and not one iota more.
Not even a mirror anywhere in this room can increase what you got as σ * T^4 from the source to begin with.
In fact it would not even matter if you painted the walls or the light bulb with black soot...
The room only appears "darker" to the human eye but would be just as bright as before,... if you looked at it in the infrared spectrum .
It is astonishing just how stupid people that claim they know something about physics can be.
I can make a room with white walls just as dark to the human eye with a 100 watt UV light source as a room with black walls with a 100 watt light source that emits light in the spectral range which is visual to the human eye.

Good thing that mentally impotent morons like these are restricted to write internet forum crap and aren`t out there pretending to be engineers, else we would not just pay greenhouse gas taxes, we would start paying with our lives being near a nuclear power plant that was designed by such mamooth idiots.

As the tundra-bound Crusty Crab that you are -- I'd expect you to rant more and think less about the obvious.. Nobody is CREATING ENERGY by painting a wall. ((Although our Obama selected science advisor comes close when he suggests that we all paint our roofs white to save energy -- QED))

I just came back from a client deep into large industrial LED lighting. They had mocked-up a couple supermarket aisles to take photometer measurements of various lighting situations. He was getting dissapointing readings in this grand effort and decided to change the floor from grey concrete to nice light colored tile. Not so amazingly, you could begin to read the content labels on the cereal boxes..

So --- with black walls, DUHHHH --- photons are absorbed and not available for diffuse re-reflection to all other points in the room. Energy has been REDISTRIBUTED by positioning of absorbers. Or reflectors, or mirrors or what have you. You might even say the camera sites on the photometer had been MAGNIFIED just as if you put an intensifier on it.

So let's drop that gnarly tongue-lashing and move on to black body radiation and back radiation.

and IanC does it with the CO2 back radiation....so does the IPCC with Roy Spencer snake oil "physics" that wind up with more h*c/ λ on a surface
than it would have got without CO2 back radiation from the σ * T^4 source feeding into the entire system.

You've just made a circular argument. Back radiation doesn't exist (in your mind) so the ONLY energy source is the Black Body stuff coming from the surface. Sorry Charlie, it's for real. IR is Re-radiated (in all directions) from the warmed gases in the lower tropo and even THO they might be cooler than the surface, they can't put the brakes on and refuse to be absorbed by the earth's surface. Net energy exchange is still skyward. But you can't stop radiative energy from impinging on a warmer object.

In a relative sense, the temp diff between surface and lower tropo is not that great. In fact, on a given day, the lower tropo CAN BE WARMER than the surface. That's how complicated it is and how RIDICULOUS biblical pronouncements like the TrenBerth diagram are...

Now I have my doubts about the numbers and even the definitions in the TrenBerth diagram and I sense it's horribly wrong and frail. Primarily because it presumes to detect a MINUTE DIFF in energy exchange when it is a kindergarten construct that doesn't know whether it's night or day, summer or winter, Fiji or Siberia, water or concrete, snowing or clear. All those GUESSES averaged over time and the entire globe could never POSSIBLY detect a 2w/m2 contribution from CO2.

NEVER EVER EVER...

So it had to be either fudging, lucky guess or willful manipulation of the data. I chose the latter for sure.

I am so certain about this that when and if I retire -- if this whole AGW carp hasn't putrified, I'm going back to the Ivy Halls to redo the Trenberth cartoon.. I swear it...

And yet another moron to the 3.rd power chimes in.
You haven`t got the slightest clue what I did say about back radiation.
And are the same order of magnitude idiot as the mamooth idiot:

They had mocked-up a couple supermarket aisles to take photometer measurements of various lighting situations. He was getting dissapointing readings in this grand effort and decided to change the floor from grey concrete to nice light colored tile. Not so amazingly, you could begin to read the content labels on the cereal boxes..

Read again what I said:
Such a room only appears to be brighter to the human eye than a room with off-white walls.

The room only appears "darker" to the human eye but would be just as bright as before,... if you looked at it in the infrared spectrum .
It is astonishing just how stupid people that claim they know something about physics can be.
I can make a room with white walls just as dark to the human eye with a 100 watt UV light source as a room with black walls with a 100 watt light source that emits light in the spectral range which is visual to the human eye.

So what kind of "photometer" did you use?
I`m pretty sure it was for the (human eye) visual range and not for snake eye visual range.
Unbelievable just how stupid people of your stripe can be. You can`t comprehend anything beyond what your eyes can see, no matter if that`s infrared or UV light...or photons in general.
So tell me if you could read these labels in your supermarket with white tiles if I would light it up with 10 times the # of watts with UV light instead of what you had with your " industrial LED lighting."
That`s almost as funny as the "numan quantum physics" version.
Photons "disappeared" just as soon as you or your Walmart photometer can`t see them any more.
I suggest you start rewriting every physics law concerning light absorption and emission , especially all those that cover black body radiation

So --- with black walls, DUHHHH --- photons are absorbed and not available for diffuse re-reflection

 

[mamooth]

Here we have both, the mamooth idiot and IanC saying that you can magnify the "highly ordered sunlight" but not diffuse light.

This is very basic optics/antenna theory, and you fail totally at it.

A parabolic reflector, like a solar oven, can only focus parallel electromagnetic rays. In practice, parallel rays are those coming from a distant point source, like the solar oven pointed at the sun, or like a satellite dish pointed at a satellite.

Diffuse radiation, not being parallel, won't get focused. The solar oven doesn't focus and concentrate hazy light from clouds, or backradiation that is coming in from all over the atmosphere in all directions. Same with a lot of lenses. A magnifying glass can burn things by focusing the sun's rays, but try it on a hazy day, and it doesn't focus anything.

Then, in no way are there more photons/time (=watts) in a room with white walls than an X-watt light bulb can supply as photons/time as the mamooth idiot
who also makes "ink molecules" would have it. Such a room only appears to be brighter to the human eye than a room with off-white walls.

The light meters disagree with you strongly. Reality says you're so full of crap that your eyes are turning brown.

Of course there are more photons flying through the air. That's why the light meter reads more. And it doesn't violate conservation of energy. In the example I gave before, white walls that reflect 80% mean 5 times the light intensity in the room. And since only 20% of that energy gets absorbed with each bounce, the energy flow is exactly balanced.

In contrast, PolarBear's retard physics wildly violates conservation of energy. In his peculiar version of reality, a light bulb would put out 100 watts, the white walls would absorb 20 watts, and the other 80 watts would just magically vanish into some mystery dimension.

As far as his Bohr atom stuff goes, I don't think anyone knows or cares what PolarBear is babbling about. He stinks at clear communication, something required of engineers. He rambles out a bunch of vague handwaving and insults, but never comes close to making a point.

 

[PMZ]

Now you're getting facetious.. And I don't have enough free time to play guru to your rope-a-dope. You might go ask those idiot moron cousins of yours that want to harness the EM energy from our Moon to power their homes at night with photovoltaics.. Its got to do with our Boltzman radiation that leaves the atmosphere and an exercise in geometry.. You can even do it.. ((in a week or so))

If the light arrives there and is absorbed --- it contributes to heating.. Got it???? Good...

When will you notify the science world that you've repealed the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Haven't repealed the thermal direction of transfer part of the 2nd law. NET energy transfers will be from Hot to Cold. But that's a THERMAL gradient. Photons don't obey thermal gradients. You on the other hand might find me a Thermo textbook that says """"when RADIATIVE (that's key) energy flows from a cold body to a hot body, the warmer body MUST REJECT the radiation from the colder body or be cited for violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"""

Happy hunting son...

In the meantime, you better inform your AGW pals that there is no such as "down dwelling regenerated IR" in the TrenBerth analysis. Because last time I checked --- there it was --- 333W/m2. IR from the cool sky being redirected to the warmer surface of earth contributing to dreaded global warming. Care to explain that to me??

"Haven't repealed the thermal direction of transfer part of the 2nd law. NET energy transfers will be from Hot to Cold. But that's a THERMAL gradient."

It's an ENERGY gradient. Remember entropy?

When I started posting many years ago I had a couple of goals. One was to learn as much as possible, another was to dig into the aspect of American culture that I thought was putting our two centuries of progress at risk. Media motivated extremism. At the time I never expected our national energy policy to be a very important aspect of that.

As my exploration of our present culture proceeded, I found, to my surprise, that our energy policy was perhaps the most telling example of our growing political dysfunction. And, being a retired engineer, it was a field that I had above average expertise in.

I also learned that media motivated extremists became that way because they were cultivated by gradual exposure to an interlocking foundation of easy to swallow lies built gradually into monumental lies. The old frog in the pot theory.

In energy terms, the monumental issue today stemed from a casual thought that Rush expressed decades ago that it was blatant egoism that puny mankind could impact the world even if they tried. That was an easy to buy lie then, that his minions have chosen never to back off of.

It has been interesting to observe that what is unarguable in the big picture, has been dragged into a swamp of detail by people choosing teams of scientists to root for, on issues that they personally are educationally ilequipped to understand. Exactly the same I suppose of spectators telling LaBron James how to play basketball.

So, here we are. Facing the largest project ever undertaken by humanity, the conversion to sustainable energy. Spending billions of dollars and hundreds, soon to be thousands, of lives, each year on the consequences of not moving faster, arguing about whether or not to move faster, with the only winners being the media political evangelist entertainers.

My chosen role is to post provacably, hoping to stir up thinking to some new more profound level that will knock people off their well established and unchangeable thrones and into new thought processes that will be productive.

Bottom line is that you are correct of course about the 2ond law being satisfied by net heat transfer, which comes from the high energy body radiating more to the lower energy body than vice versa. Perhaps there are one or two others out there who learned that also from the debate.

And perhaps someone else who learned from it, that learning, not winning, is the product of debate.

 

[mamooth]

The room only appears "darker" to the human eye but would be just as bright as before,... if you looked at it in the infrared spectrum.

This is one of your dumber claims, and that's saying something.

According to your idiot theory, 100% of the energy absorbed by the wall is re-emitted as IR and beamed directionally back into the room.

Of course, by your new groundbreaking perfect emission theory, the emitted IR should then hit the walls again, along with the newly generated visible light. Meaning twice the energy, and twice the IR perfectly emitted again. And then three times, and four times, and so on, until the walls glow red hot and the room catches on fire. All from that one light bulb. That's the PolarBear theory.

Non-retards, of course, know the walls will simply conduct away most of the energy, and very little will be re-emitted as IR. And that it's simply not relevant to the issue. It doesn't matter what spectrum you choose. Visible, UV, IR, it doesn't matter. If the walls reflect that spectrum, then the amount of light in the air of that spectrum will be multiplied. It has to, to satisfy conservation of energy.

 

[polarbear]

No wonder so many fifth grade school kids start looking smarter than supposedly educated adults, like the "numan"s, "IanC"s, mamooth idiots and now this shopping center interior decorator/"light expert".
Even kids in a kindergarten know why a white wall looks white, why a red wall looks red why a green wall looks green and why a blue wall looks blue...and a few grades later they hear about "RGB" and how color TV`s work using red green and blue dots to make up all the rest of the light human eyes can see.
But here we got an entire group of idiots that figure that there must be more photons per m^2 if they can read a label better and if they can`t then there are less photons.
According to them photons disappear when you shine a red light on a red text and have trouble reading it...or if you place a blue object in front of a blue wall and have to look twice before you can make it out.
The latest moron that joined in has a whole spectrum of photons "disappearing" with grey concrete....doing away with every almost equation that are the foundation of every AGW computer model that changes a portion of the incoming sunlight to infrared which water vapor and CO2 can absorb.
And their "proof" is that you can read labels better in a white room than in a room with a different wall color.
Amazing...and all the while the rest of us are wasting our time calculating how much extra 15 µm IR a +0.8 C "anomaly" can produce and 380 ppm CO2 can radiate back, if the albedo # these models use are accurate etc etc.
Meanwhile it`s all so simple when you use flucklaterminology, "mamooth ink molecule water chemistry", "numan physics" and IanC wordsmith cop outs.
According to the latest "expert" that just chimed in photons only exist if you can see them and the ones you can`t simply don`t exist, which you can prove with a Walmart "photometer" and white tiles
@ the fucked in the head Siamese cat:
By the way...You keep saying I`m stalking you...
so why the fuck are you pasting your cat shit in here every time seconds after you spotted me posting something?
Are you trying to "stalk" me or something?..fuck you are a psychopath and a retarded one to boot !

 

[mamooth]

But here we got an entire group of idiots that figure that there must be more photons per m^2 if they can read a label better and if they can`t then there are less photons.

That would be because it's true. Non-retards understand that having more light makes it easier to read. It's funny watching you go into these idiot contortions, trying to deny something that everyone else learned way before kindergarten. You could just say "oops, I was wrong", but you're emotionally incapable of that, so ever deeper into the stupid hole you now dig.

According to them photons disappear when you shine a red light on a red text and have trouble reading it...or if you place a blue object in front of a blue wall and have to look twice before you can make it out.

Lose the red herrings. Spectrum has zilch to do with anything we're discussing here. It doesn't matter what wavelength you use. If the walls reflect whatever wavelength you're using, then the light level of that wavelength in the room will increase.

(Notice how even your loyal lickspittles don't want to jump up on this stupid wagon with you? That should give you a clue about how stupid you look.)

And by the way, sniveling about how mean I am won't get me to stop tearing you to pieces. That just encourages me.

 

[flacaltenn]

But here we got an entire group of idiots that figure that there must be more photons per m^2 if they can read a label better and if they can`t then there are less photons.

That would be because it's true. Non-retards understand that having more light makes it easier to read. It's funny watching you go into these idiot contortions, trying to deny something that everyone else learned way before kindergarten. You could just say "oops, I was wrong", but you're emotionally incapable of that, so ever deeper into the stupid hole you now dig.

According to them photons disappear when you shine a red light on a red text and have trouble reading it...or if you place a blue object in front of a blue wall and have to look twice before you can make it out.

Lose the red herrings. Spectrum has zilch to do with anything we're discussing here. It doesn't matter what wavelength you use. If the walls reflect whatever wavelength you're using, then the light level of that wavelength in the room will increase.

(Notice how even your loyal lickspittles don't want to jump up on this stupid wagon with you? That should give you a clue about how stupid you look.)

And by the way, sniveling about how mean I am won't get me to stop tearing you to pieces. That just encourages me.

Unfortunately, the Crusty Crab caught ME and you being inexact.. And of course, used that opportunity to pummel us instead of engaging in anything truely useful..

The problem is our sloppy accounting for photons. In your example, if 20% of photons are absorbed by a white wall, we neglect to account for the wavelength conversion that occurs when the energy is RE-Emitted by white wall as IR longwave photons.

The deal is -- a black wall reduces EM emissions to HEAT faster than a white wall. And as such removes VISIBLE photons (and indeed the sum total of all photon energy) faster from the area. And for all practical purposes, changes the distribution of VISIBLE photons in the area.

So Mr. Krabbe -- we all know this. There is no advantage to trying to trip us on not being entirely rigorous. I agree - i was somewhat sloppy, but not incapable of doing it completely correct.

Mammoth is happy to simply have more visible light, which is true, but what that has to do with back-radiated IR is beyond me..

Now can we get to why you want to deny that the atmosphere is exchanging photon energy with the surface even IF it's usually cooler? If the BLACK WALL is emitting long wave energy to ALL objects in the room --- are some of them IMMUNE from being heated because they are warmer than the wall?

 

[gslack]

whatever.

I suppose you think that studying snail shells will 'unlock' new secrets of the golden ratio, or perhaps analyzing the arrangement of flower petals will bring new insights into number theory. personally I just think Mother nature likes to use mathematical themes in her work, even if they are often less than precise. the walkers are like that. not very precise and it takes a lot of work to make them simulate quantum like actions. but they are very cool to watch.

And here we see you change your position on it again...

So Ian which is it? Do you think the MIT experiment is a valid one or nonsense? You seem to be floundering on it. Can't even show a backbone when it comes to your own opinion. Pathetic...

Thanks Ian, it's been a real hoot watching you dance..ROFL

why do you think I have changed my opinion? I was hoping that you would have an opinion on an interesting topic that you brought up. apparently I was wrong.

do you want to know why I think you are a dweller on the wrong side of the bell curve? you never have any of your own opinions, you never synthesize a new idea from other ideas, you never hop to related subjects. in other words you are just a bore.

feel free to jump back into your usual spew of ad homs, but really, I would rather hear why you think walkers are realistically linked to QM. perhaps you have more info that you could link to that shows more experiments. I didnt see any actual data on the their 'double slit' walker experiment. got any? can you deflect the walker with a gentle puff of air? what were the initial angles for the two walkers to capture each other in a 'quantum ring'? have you seen any of those other videos of amazing patterns using harmonics in a liquid? hahaha, who am I kidding. you only found the French experiment by a random google search, and you didnt even know what it was about until I posted the videos.

Ian you just accused the guy who you claim makes most of what he says up, of being unimaginative, lacking creativity, and unoriginal.. LOL, I ask again Ian, which is it this time? Am I too stupid to be creative or am I offering interesting things to talk about?

The article I cited explains the significance of the respective experiments. You want to know why I think they are relevant? Well I think they are relevant because MIT thinks they are relevant, and you obviously do not understand the concept of duality. Your weak attempt to treat photons as particles and ignore their wave-like properties, shows how little you understand this beyond an equation.

So Ian your latest bit of nonsense is that they aren't completely accurate to Quantum Mechanics. Really? And you come to this conclusion by ignoring my article from MIT and posting a video from a tv show? Why not argue what I posted rather than what you decide you can defend? It's your video Ian, not mine..

Yeah, Ian you are that transparent. The article from MIT I posted busted you, so you go and grab a video whose validity you feel you can challenge, and then argue it's merits.. What about my article you are trying to argue against? Well you can't argue against that because it explains itself right away.

Thats why I think so little of you Ian. You have enough small bits of knowledge to see your mistake, but rather than admit it, you try and dismiss it and keep on talking.

 

[gslack]

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

The issue isn't if GH gases can react to long wave IR, and shed some of that heat back out. The problem is whether or not that IR radiated from the GH Gases can warm the already warmer surface, its source. The second laws states no, but the warmers seem to think it can anyway without violating the 2nd law, or with bending it somehow depending on who you ask.

Remember that independent of RE-RADIATED IR to the surface, these gases have warmed themselves from the up-going long wave IR.. This alone is enough to reduce the thermal gradient thru the Tropo. But also, there is Thermodynamic convection going on causing warm air at the surface to rise and colder air to sink creating a TRUE thermal path for heat to conduct directly.

What I'm saying is that RADIATED IR CAN AND DOES flow independent of the temp diff. So there is a "back-radiation" going on..

But the NET ENERGY EXCHANGE will be from warmer to colder. Which is LARGELY the direct thermal path due to convection/conduction and the more plentiful IR generated by the warmer Black Body Earth.. No Thermo law violated or harmed.

Realize also because of the complexity of convection in the Tropo, the air aloft is not ALWAYS colder than the surface. Our ability to peg the numbers in the TrenBerth diagram is HIGHLY suspect. Particularly when Trenberth has all of the re-radiated IR reaching the surface and none reflected. In fact, someone needs to explain to me where EXACTLY is the direct THERMAL exchange due to convection/conduction in that diagram...

Agreed on all points, (especially the Trenberth issues) but with one added distinction.

There is a loss of it's useful energy at each transfer and the work being done. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but that does not mean it can be re-used indefinitely in the same system. The problem IMHO, is that the GH theory requires that we assume the "backradiation" or Down-welling long wave IR, to be usable to create additional heat from the surface. Despite the fact that in all other findings and experiments there is no evidence of this possibility, in this one case they claim it is so despite no hard evidence that it does happen.

They assume that the energy must go somewhere, be used somehow, because it cannot be created nor destroyed. The fact the energy exists is clear, the concept it can create change in a system from whence it came is highly suspect IMHO.

What happens to electricity in an electrical device? Well after it's used to do it's work,that energy is transferred/transformed into heat, which warms the device,leading to the thermal and themodynamic mechanisms to do their respective jobs. That device cannot use that heat to do more work, because it's usefulness to that system is done. Just as the surface cannot use the DWLIR or backradiation to do more warming.

 

[flacaltenn]

When will you notify the science world that you've repealed the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Haven't repealed the thermal direction of transfer part of the 2nd law. NET energy transfers will be from Hot to Cold. But that's a THERMAL gradient. Photons don't obey thermal gradients. You on the other hand might find me a Thermo textbook that says """"when RADIATIVE (that's key) energy flows from a cold body to a hot body, the warmer body MUST REJECT the radiation from the colder body or be cited for violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"""

Happy hunting son...

In the meantime, you better inform your AGW pals that there is no such as "down dwelling regenerated IR" in the TrenBerth analysis. Because last time I checked --- there it was --- 333W/m2. IR from the cool sky being redirected to the warmer surface of earth contributing to dreaded global warming. Care to explain that to me??

"Haven't repealed the thermal direction of transfer part of the 2nd law. NET energy transfers will be from Hot to Cold. But that's a THERMAL gradient."

It's an ENERGY gradient. Remember entropy?

When I started posting many years ago I had a couple of goals. One was to learn as much as possible, another was to dig into the aspect of American culture that I thought was putting our two centuries of progress at risk. Media motivated extremism. At the time I never expected our national energy policy to be a very important aspect of that.

As my exploration of our present culture proceeded, I found, to my surprise, that our energy policy was perhaps the most telling example of our growing political dysfunction. And, being a retired engineer, it was a field that I had above average expertise in.

I also learned that media motivated extremists became that way because they were cultivated by gradual exposure to an interlocking foundation of easy to swallow lies built gradually into monumental lies. The old frog in the pot theory.

In energy terms, the monumental issue today stemed from a casual thought that Rush expressed decades ago that it was blatant egoism that puny mankind could impact the world even if they tried. That was an easy to buy lie then, that his minions have chosen never to back off of.

It has been interesting to observe that what is unarguable in the big picture, has been dragged into a swamp of detail by people choosing teams of scientists to root for, on issues that they personally are educationally ilequipped to understand. Exactly the same I suppose of spectators telling LaBron James how to play basketball.

So, here we are. Facing the largest project ever undertaken by humanity, the conversion to sustainable energy. Spending billions of dollars and hundreds, soon to be thousands, of lives, each year on the consequences of not moving faster, arguing about whether or not to move faster, with the only winners being the media political evangelist entertainers.

My chosen role is to post provacably, hoping to stir up thinking to some new more profound level that will knock people off their well established and unchangeable thrones and into new thought processes that will be productive.

Bottom line is that you are correct of course about the 2ond law being satisfied by net heat transfer, which comes from the high energy body radiating more to the lower energy body than vice versa. Perhaps there are one or two others out there who learned that also from the debate.

And perhaps someone else who learned from it, that learning, not winning, is the product of debate.

Good for you.. I'll drink to that. In fact, just between you and me, I give "rep points" based on whether I learn anything from another poster. NOT on whether someone wins or whines or wimps out.

And like you -- one of my interests is in the misinformation and mischaracterization of what's been called "alternative or sustainable energy".. There's a whole lot of eco-fraud being committed by the folks who are trying to sell it.. Hope you're not one of those.

 

[flacaltenn]

Agreed on all points, (especially the Trenberth issues) but with one added distinction.

There is a loss of it's useful energy at each transfer and the work being done. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but that does not mean it can be re-used indefinitely in the same system. The problem IMHO, is that the GH theory requires that we assume the "backradiation" or Down-welling long wave IR, to be usable to create additional heat from the surface. Despite the fact that in all other findings and experiments there is no evidence of this possibility, in this one case they claim it is so despite no hard evidence that it does happen.

They assume that the energy must go somewhere, be used somehow, because it cannot be created nor destroyed. The fact the energy exists is clear, the concept it can create change in a system from whence it came is highly suspect IMHO.

What happens to electricity in an electrical device? Well after it's used to do it's work,that energy is transferred/transformed into heat, which warms the device,leading to the thermal and themodynamic mechanisms to do their respective jobs. That device cannot use that heat to do more work, because it's usefulness to that system is done. Just as the surface cannot use the DWLIR or backradiation to do more warming.

Seems to me there SHOULD be some hard evidence of this DWN LWave IR.. PMZ just linked to this site where a study confirmed the Black Body UP IR from a cotton field in CA

The Amazing Case of ?Back Radiation? ? Part Three | The Science of Doom

and then Dr of Doom just waves his hands and says "if the DWN LRIR was being reflected from the surface, it would boost the UP measurement considerably and we don't see it being reflected".. Well -- that's not science, because he's ASSUMING that the DWN IR exists, while attempting to prove it exists. And surprisingly, I looked at the ORIGINAL study and there was hand-waving about their up-looking meters getting sprayed with pesticides, but no measurements.

Shouldn't be too hard. You got to look AT NIGHT to isolate the DWN IR re-radiated by the tropo and not the solar irradiance. I'd be appalled if this was not done. But the OTHER PROBLEM is that Black Body theoretical calculations ONLY APPLY to bodies in thermal equilibrium.. Categorically, the earth is NOT in equilibrium during most of day (if ever). So if youre looking for a couple degree signature by ASSUMING the value of BB radiation, it's not accurate enough.

Don't fret too much that the energy goes back to the source it came from. That's the way radiative thermal bounces around. If it's emitted from GHGases in the tropo (it is) and if it reaches the surface (some of it does), then some of it WILL BE ABSORBED if it matches the absorption spectra of the BBody. And it contributes to heating. The question is --- is it anywhere near the estimate in the TrenBerth cartoon. Part of the problem with the cartoon is that the values are for a world-wide daily POWER budget, not an ENERGY budget and when everything eventually goes to heat as you observed, the earth is a resevoir of heat energy. Storage implies ENERGY (with a W-Hr, not a W/m2 label) and that creates a problem in balancing the Energy budget by simply measuring instantaneous flows of Power.

You've got me interested enough to go look for hard measurements. If someone can save time -- it would be appreciated..

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe there is back-radiation. I DOUBT it is the 333W/m2 and almost as much as the black body radiation going out. If TrenBerth is LITERAL about 396W/m2 going out radiation wise, that MAY BE the correct Black Body number, but there is NO WAY it overwhelms the convection/conduction numbers that appear to be only 1/3 or so of the Radiated heat. Not intuitive at all. MOST all practical bodies have conduction/convection overwhelming the radiated IR as long as there is a viable thermal conductive path. Am I wrong?

Are you believing that when a Cold Front comes thru that the quick lowering of surface temp due to convection/conduction is STILL insignificant to the RADIATED component thru IR? I don't believe it.

BTW IANC:: You posted in another thread about the numbers not even adding (I think)

THe balance in the cartoon goes like --->> ((396 - 333) + 80 + 17) is almost equal to (161) except for the miraculously fortunate 1W/m2 heating.. Yeah right -- it's that good? No. It's that mangled...

 

[mamooth]

Mammoth is happy to simply have more visible light, which is true, but what that has to do with back-radiated IR is beyond me..

The issue all arose from a claim of the sort that, because the energy flux going back and forth inside the atmospheric system added up to more than 100%, backradiation was "creating energy" and was therefore impossible.

The white room was an example to illustrate the incorrectness of such a claim. For conservation of energy, energy flux internal to the system doesn't matter, only the energy in and out of the system does.

 

[gslack]

Agreed on all points, (especially the Trenberth issues) but with one added distinction.

There is a loss of it's useful energy at each transfer and the work being done. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but that does not mean it can be re-used indefinitely in the same system. The problem IMHO, is that the GH theory requires that we assume the "backradiation" or Down-welling long wave IR, to be usable to create additional heat from the surface. Despite the fact that in all other findings and experiments there is no evidence of this possibility, in this one case they claim it is so despite no hard evidence that it does happen.

They assume that the energy must go somewhere, be used somehow, because it cannot be created nor destroyed. The fact the energy exists is clear, the concept it can create change in a system from whence it came is highly suspect IMHO.

What happens to electricity in an electrical device? Well after it's used to do it's work,that energy is transferred/transformed into heat, which warms the device,leading to the thermal and themodynamic mechanisms to do their respective jobs. That device cannot use that heat to do more work, because it's usefulness to that system is done. Just as the surface cannot use the DWLIR or backradiation to do more warming.

Seems to me there SHOULD be some hard evidence of this DWN LWave IR.. PMZ just linked to this site where a study confirmed the Black Body UP IR from a cotton field in CA

The Amazing Case of ?Back Radiation? ? Part Three | The Science of Doom

and then Dr of Doom just waves his hands and says "if the DWN LRIR was being reflected from the surface, it would boost the UP measurement considerably and we don't see it being reflected".. Well -- that's not science, because he's ASSUMING that the DWN IR exists, while attempting to prove it exists. And surprisingly, I looked at the ORIGINAL study and there was hand-waving about their up-looking meters getting sprayed with pesticides, but no measurements.

Shouldn't be too hard. You got to look AT NIGHT to isolate the DWN IR re-radiated by the tropo and not the solar irradiance. I'd be appalled if this was not done. But the OTHER PROBLEM is that Black Body theoretical calculations ONLY APPLY to bodies in thermal equilibrium.. Categorically, the earth is NOT in equilibrium during most of day (if ever). So if youre looking for a couple degree signature by ASSUMING the value of BB radiation, it's not accurate enough.

Don't fret too much that the energy goes back to the source it came from. That's the way radiative thermal bounces around. If it's emitted from GHGases in the tropo (it is) and if it reaches the surface (some of it does), then some of it WILL BE ABSORBED if it matches the absorption spectra of the BBody. And it contributes to heating. The question is --- is it anywhere near the estimate in the TrenBerth cartoon. Part of the problem with the cartoon is that the values are for a world-wide daily POWER budget, not an ENERGY budget and when everything eventually goes to heat as you observed, the earth is a resevoir of heat energy. Storage implies ENERGY (with a W-Hr, not a W/m2 label) and that creates a problem in balancing the Energy budget by simply measuring instantaneous flows of Power.

You've got me interested enough to go look for hard measurements. If someone can save time -- it would be appreciated..

I don't think backradiation, at least the type being pushed by AGW theory is able to effect even more heat to it's warmer source. Energy used to make heat once (at the surface) and then used to warm the GH gas, and then somehow has enough useful energy left to effect warming its source It seems not only suspect within the 2nd law but also seems to ignore conservation of energy.

An insulator does not warm a source of heat, it merely slows heat loss. Somehow the warmers seems to assume that insulated heat sources can warm beyond the levels of their energy output so long as that insulation is sufficient. The atmosphere in particular, being a gas, with convection is a poor insulator, and as temperature increases the insulating capabilities of gases weaken as the level of convection increases. Meaning of course, that as temperatures in the atmosphere increase, their ability to slow heat loss decreases, and convection increases. The more GH gases (especially susceptible to IR or heat) added the faster the heat can be dissipated through natural convection.

The logic would lend itself to more of a cooling effect than a warming. But that doesn't seem to fit in with observed data any more than warming does. The only certainty here is that we in fact cannot be certain for either case.

We have correlation of GH gases and after a rather long delayed response a rise in in temperature using various forensic research methods. We have roughly 150 years of varying degrees of reliability, showing an overall slow increase in temperature. We also have shorter term measurements using satellites and surface stations that are at some points showing warming and some points showing neither warming or cooling. But we don't have any quantified evidence that GH gases actually are able to the job that AGW theory attributes them.

Wouldn't logic dictate that GH gases act on the whole, more like that of a heat dissipation system than that of an IR recycling system? If the heated atmosphere does as heated gases do and rises above and away from its heated source, as convection would allow, then as it rises it spends some of that energy attained from the source to do this task, and as it rises what left would indeed follow the 2nd law and flow out to the upper cooler atmosphere and eventually out into space.

AND as we add more GH gases to the atmosphere,those gases allow for faster heat dissipation leading to a net cooling effect. The cooling effect would be limited as temperature decreases. As temperatures decrease the effective insulating properties in gases increases. As that happens the insulating properties of gases will slow the remaining heat loss, and over time lead to net warming.

The point being that it is all interconnected. No one thing will be the tipping point in either direction. The planets fail-safe for lack of a better term. The more GH gases in the atmosphere, the more quickly heat is dissipated away from the surface, the warmer the surface becomes the warmer the atmosphere will become. As the atmosphere warms the insulating properties in gases lose their capabilities due to natural convection and that allows greater amounts of heat to escape. The more heat escapes the surface cools, then the atmosphere cools, making the gases insulating properties more effective, the gases then insulate the planet better allowing for the process to begin again.

The one single, main source in the entire system is the sun. As the sun or its energy input to us (however it may change) goes so will go the temperature of this planet. Adding or removing GH gases the way we do and on the timescale we could mange would at worst case scenario increase the speed in which the climate changes, but that will still be limited by the level of energy from the sun. GH gases are not a driver of climate, they are an effect of warming and cooling which feeds back into the system according to the natural radiative, insulative and convective properties of this planets system. Adding more GH gases alone will not drive climate without something else happening with the energy coming in from it's source. The natural processes when taken as a whole prohibit this. The sun dictates climate on this planet.