In summary...

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is nothing fuzzy at all about actual observation, and measurement...when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to support your beliefs, let me know...till then, they are based upon nothing more that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

nothing fuzzy at all about actual observation and measurement? Now you are declaring the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to be a hoax as well?

Everyone who has taken high school physics knows about the double slit experiment. Light appears to go right through the solid middle . The same applies to electrons but the slits have to be closer together.

If you surreptitiously try to measure the photons or electrons before they reach the slits then nothing gets through. The act of measurement 'puts them to the test' and their probability function as a wave condenses into a particle.

All measured and observed thousands of times by neophyte physicists around the world.

except for back radiation.

back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs. somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that the instruments are faulty in some way, or that the radiation from the atmosphere blinks off and on via some magical Maxwell's Daemon that tests the temperature everywhere in the universe and makes decisions on whether molecules are allowed to emit or not

no back radiation has not been measured. that's incorrect.

Why? Does it not exist? Or does it exist but can't be measured?

 

[jc456]

nothing fuzzy at all about actual observation and measurement? Now you are declaring the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to be a hoax as well?

Everyone who has taken high school physics knows about the double slit experiment. Light appears to go right through the solid middle . The same applies to electrons but the slits have to be closer together.

If you surreptitiously try to measure the photons or electrons before they reach the slits then nothing gets through. The act of measurement 'puts them to the test' and their probability function as a wave condenses into a particle.

All measured and observed thousands of times by neophyte physicists around the world.

except for back radiation.

back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs. somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that the instruments are faulty in some way, or that the radiation from the atmosphere blinks off and on via some magical Maxwell's Daemon that tests the temperature everywhere in the universe and makes decisions on whether molecules are allowed to emit or not

no back radiation has not been measured. that's incorrect.

says who? SSDD?

what do YOU think is being measured by hand held IRTs?

do you really think the photographs I posted of institutions built to study downwelling atmospheric radiations are bogus, and their published data is fabricated?

it isn't back radiation no evidence to prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everyone who has taken high school physics knows about the double slit experiment. Light appears to go right through the solid middle . The same applies to electrons but the slits have to be closer together.

If you surreptitiously try to measure the photons or electrons before they reach the slits then nothing gets through. The act of measurement 'puts them to the test' and their probability function as a wave condenses into a particle.

All measured and observed thousands of times by neophyte physicists around the world.

except for back radiation.

back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs. somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that the instruments are faulty in some way, or that the radiation from the atmosphere blinks off and on via some magical Maxwell's Daemon that tests the temperature everywhere in the universe and makes decisions on whether molecules are allowed to emit or not

no back radiation has not been measured. that's incorrect.

says who? SSDD?

what do YOU think is being measured by hand held IRTs?

do you really think the photographs I posted of institutions built to study downwelling atmospheric radiations are bogus, and their published data is fabricated?

it isn't back radiation no evidence to prove it.

Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface isn't back radiation?
Then what is it?

 

[IanC]

Everyone who has taken high school physics knows about the double slit experiment. Light appears to go right through the solid middle . The same applies to electrons but the slits have to be closer together.

If you surreptitiously try to measure the photons or electrons before they reach the slits then nothing gets through. The act of measurement 'puts them to the test' and their probability function as a wave condenses into a particle.

All measured and observed thousands of times by neophyte physicists around the world.

except for back radiation.

back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs. somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that the instruments are faulty in some way, or that the radiation from the atmosphere blinks off and on via some magical Maxwell's Daemon that tests the temperature everywhere in the universe and makes decisions on whether molecules are allowed to emit or not

no back radiation has not been measured. that's incorrect.

says who? SSDD?

what do YOU think is being measured by hand held IRTs?

do you really think the photographs I posted of institutions built to study downwelling atmospheric radiations are bogus, and their published data is fabricated?

it isn't back radiation no evidence to prove it.

In your mind, is 'backradiation' somehow different than plain radiation?

Did you read SSDD's link to the IRT manufacturer's statement on how they use radiation in the same bands as the Atmospheric Window? Do you agree that they can measure the ambient temp when pointed sideways? How much do you have to tilt the IR gun until the radiation blinks out?

Do you actually understand how anything works or is the world just an unexplained mystery to you?

Are incandescent, florescent and LED bulbs just sources of light to you or do you see them as totally different mechanisms . Why are their efficiencies so different? Which one is really not like the others? Are you ever curious enough to find things out just because? Does it ever bother you when you notice that you don't seem to grasp the idea behind stuff? Ever marvel at the Golden Ratio popping up in nature, or the amazing usefulness of the square root of negative one, even though it doesn't actually exist?

jc, we may both be humans but I think we live in different worlds.

 

[SSDD]

In your mind, is 'backradiation' somehow different than plain radiation?

By definition ian, back radiation is radiation that has left a radiator, being reflected back to, and being absorbed by the radiator, further warming the radiator which in turn then radiates more energy.....a loop upon which a perpetual energy machine may be manufactured...

It doesn't happen...EVER....no observation of it ever happening spontaneously....no measurement of it ever happening spontaneously. Back radiation is a fantasy which only exists in flawed mathematical models.

 

[SSDD]

I pointed out to those of us who actually believe in physics that there is a fuzzy boundary where the rules of the macroscopic world break down and the quantum world takes over. At an almost unbelievably tiny scale. This comment was not for you as you have already declared Quantum mechanics to be bogus.

There is nothing fuzzy at all about actual observation, and measurement...when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to support your beliefs, let me know...till then, they are based upon nothing more that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

nothing fuzzy at all about actual observation and measurement? Now you are declaring the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to be a hoax as well?

Again, when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten so as to support your beliefs...let me know...till that time, they support my position.

 

[SSDD]

[


back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs.

No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

[


says who? SSDD?

what do YOU think is being measured by hand held IRTs?

What is being measured by an IRT is a temperature change of an internal thermopile, which is then interpreted by a mathematical model.... if you believe it is measuring anything else, then you are being fooled by instrumentation...and being fooled by instrumentation...and flawed models is rampant in climate science..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In your mind, is 'backradiation' somehow different than plain radiation?

By definition ian, back radiation is radiation that has left a radiator, being reflected back to, and being absorbed by the radiator, further warming the radiator which in turn then radiates more energy.....a loop upon which a perpetual energy machine may be manufactured...

It doesn't happen...EVER....no observation of it ever happening spontaneously....no measurement of it ever happening spontaneously. Back radiation is a fantasy which only exists in flawed mathematical models.

radiation that has left a radiator, being reflected back to, and being absorbed by the radiator, further warming the radiator

Not "further warming" simply slower cooling.

no observation of it ever happening spontaneously....no measurement of it ever happening spontaneously.

Observed and measured here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[


back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs.

No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.

radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...

Love your on-off switch for your "smart photons".
DERP.

 

[IanC]

[


back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs.

No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.

The radiation is always there. Whether instruments are cooled to remove local background interference or use a different method to do so doesn't change the fact that the signal is there to be measured.

 

[SSDD]

[


back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs.

No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.

The radiation is always there. Whether instruments are cooled to remove local background interference or use a different method to do so doesn't change the fact that the signal is there to be measured.

So you say...but isn't it odd that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument even though according to you and your warmer wacko buds, there is twice as much of it coming from the atmosphere as there is coming from the sun...isn't that odd...do you think instruments must be cooled to measure incoming energy from the sun, even though it is only half as much as you claim coming from the atmosphere?...are you really unable to see the disconnect from reality in your thinking, and your belief?

 

[IanC]

[


back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs.

No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.

The radiation is always there. Whether instruments are cooled to remove local background interference or use a different method to do so doesn't change the fact that the signal is there to be measured.

So you say...but isn't it odd that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument even though according to you and your warmer wacko buds, there is twice as much of it coming from the atmosphere as there is coming from the sun...isn't that odd...do you think instruments must be cooled to measure incoming energy from the sun, even though it is only half as much as you claim coming from the atmosphere?...are you really unable to see the disconnect from reality in your thinking, and your belief?

Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

I want you to see where the extra 200+ watts of energy comes from. It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine what would happen to the Earth if sunlight was suddenly cut off. The Earth would still radiate so it would start to cool everywhere. The oceans would start to freeze and the currents would dwindle until it was solid ice. The atmosphere would cool and the height would shrink until nothing was left except a frozen crust on the surface.

If you then turned the Sun back on, the atmosphere would rise again the oceans would thaw, etc.

So what happened there? A massive amount of energy was released during freezing, and a massive amount of energy was absorbed during thawing.

The extra 200+ watts comes from the massive amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans.

The present Earth, as seen from space is very close to equilibrium. The energy coming in is equal to the energy leaving, to a fraction of 1%.

But that does not define the pathways of how the energy enters and leaves the system. The surface has no special significance other than it is the boundary between compressible and non compressible fluids. The surface can be at a wide range of temperatures depending on local conditions. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

Every 'parcel' of matter that is macroscopic has a temperature that is defined by its initial state, and it will warm or cool depending on the net input of energy in minus energy out. For compressible fluids this is accomplished by radiation and molecular collisions. Non compressible fluids use the more complex and efficient method of lattice vibrations known as conduction.

The atmosphere is only there because of energy stored as kinetic movement and potential energy in a gravity field. All objects in the universe are striving to shed energy and achieve the ground state of zero degrees Kelvin and centre of gravity.

To attempt this goal the atmosphere gives off blackbody radiation powered by its stored kinetic and potential energy. Excitation and emission of GHGs is merely a subset of this process.

The IR radiation given off by the atmosphere goes in all directions therefore some of it strikes the surface. This is the missing 200+ watts.

The surface temperature is a function of its initial state of stored energy, and warms or cools depending on the net amount of energy input minus energy output.



jc, this is the explanation, as simple as I could make it. Take a minute or an hour to try and understand the basic principles involved.

 

[SSDD]

Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

Your willingness to be fooled by instrumentation...or ignore what the instrumentation says distracts you from the big picture...that being, that reality does not jibe with the models the instrumentation that is fooling you are based on...if you are so interested in your 200 watts, then look to a hypothesis that accounts for it in a way that meshes with reality...look to jell bring and N&Z...they are on to the truth even if they aren't there yet...they don't need a fudge factor to make their ideas work on this planet...or any other planet with an atmosphere...

 

[jc456]

[


back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs.

No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.

The radiation is always there. Whether instruments are cooled to remove local background interference or use a different method to do so doesn't change the fact that the signal is there to be measured.

So you say...but isn't it odd that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument even though according to you and your warmer wacko buds, there is twice as much of it coming from the atmosphere as there is coming from the sun...isn't that odd...do you think instruments must be cooled to measure incoming energy from the sun, even though it is only half as much as you claim coming from the atmosphere?...are you really unable to see the disconnect from reality in your thinking, and your belief?

Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

I want you to see where the extra 200+ watts of energy comes from. It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine what would happen to the Earth if sunlight was suddenly cut off. The Earth would still radiate so it would start to cool everywhere. The oceans would start to freeze and the currents would dwindle until it was solid ice. The atmosphere would cool and the height would shrink until nothing was left except a frozen crust on the surface.

If you then turned the Sun back on, the atmosphere would rise again the oceans would thaw, etc.

So what happened there? A massive amount of energy was released during freezing, and a massive amount of energy was absorbed during thawing.

The extra 200+ watts comes from the massive amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans.

The present Earth, as seen from space is very close to equilibrium. The energy coming in is equal to the energy leaving, to a fraction of 1%.

But that does not define the pathways of how the energy enters and leaves the system. The surface has no special significance other than it is the boundary between compressible and non compressible fluids. The surface can be at a wide range of temperatures depending on local conditions. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

Every 'parcel' of matter that is macroscopic has a temperature that is defined by its initial state, and it will warm or cool depending on the net input of energy in minus energy out. For compressible fluids this is accomplished by radiation and molecular collisions. Non compressible fluids use the more complex and efficient method of lattice vibrations known as conduction.

The atmosphere is only there because of energy stored as kinetic movement and potential energy in a gravity field. All objects in the universe are striving to shed energy and achieve the ground state of zero degrees Kelvin and centre of gravity.

To attempt this goal the atmosphere gives off blackbody radiation powered by its stored kinetic and potential energy. Excitation and emission of GHGs is merely a subset of this process.

The IR radiation given off by the atmosphere goes in all directions therefore some of it strikes the surface. This is the missing 200+ watts.

The surface temperature is a function of its initial state of stored energy, and warms or cools depending on the net amount of energy input minus energy output.



jc, this is the explanation, as simple as I could make it. Take a minute or an hour to try and understand the basic principles involved.

so Ian, if you're explanation was indeed factual with back radiation, I didn't think oceans could be penetrated by the back radiation from what I've read on the subject. And since the earth is comprised of 70% water, where do you get the doubled wattage from, cause it can't be the water.

 

[IanC]

[


back radiation has been measured by many types of instruments, in many parts of the world, by many institutions, as well as by amateurs with simple handheld IRTs.

No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.

The radiation is always there. Whether instruments are cooled to remove local background interference or use a different method to do so doesn't change the fact that the signal is there to be measured.

So you say...but isn't it odd that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument even though according to you and your warmer wacko buds, there is twice as much of it coming from the atmosphere as there is coming from the sun...isn't that odd...do you think instruments must be cooled to measure incoming energy from the sun, even though it is only half as much as you claim coming from the atmosphere?...are you really unable to see the disconnect from reality in your thinking, and your belief?

Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

I want you to see where the extra 200+ watts of energy comes from. It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine what would happen to the Earth if sunlight was suddenly cut off. The Earth would still radiate so it would start to cool everywhere. The oceans would start to freeze and the currents would dwindle until it was solid ice. The atmosphere would cool and the height would shrink until nothing was left except a frozen crust on the surface.

If you then turned the Sun back on, the atmosphere would rise again the oceans would thaw, etc.

So what happened there? A massive amount of energy was released during freezing, and a massive amount of energy was absorbed during thawing.

The extra 200+ watts comes from the massive amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans.

The present Earth, as seen from space is very close to equilibrium. The energy coming in is equal to the energy leaving, to a fraction of 1%.

But that does not define the pathways of how the energy enters and leaves the system. The surface has no special significance other than it is the boundary between compressible and non compressible fluids. The surface can be at a wide range of temperatures depending on local conditions. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

Every 'parcel' of matter that is macroscopic has a temperature that is defined by its initial state, and it will warm or cool depending on the net input of energy in minus energy out. For compressible fluids this is accomplished by radiation and molecular collisions. Non compressible fluids use the more complex and efficient method of lattice vibrations known as conduction.

The atmosphere is only there because of energy stored as kinetic movement and potential energy in a gravity field. All objects in the universe are striving to shed energy and achieve the ground state of zero degrees Kelvin and centre of gravity.

To attempt this goal the atmosphere gives off blackbody radiation powered by its stored kinetic and potential energy. Excitation and emission of GHGs is merely a subset of this process.

The IR radiation given off by the atmosphere goes in all directions therefore some of it strikes the surface. This is the missing 200+ watts.

The surface temperature is a function of its initial state of stored energy, and warms or cools depending on the net amount of energy input minus energy output.



jc, this is the explanation, as simple as I could make it. Take a minute or an hour to try and understand the basic principles involved.

so Ian, if you're explanation was indeed factual with back radiation, I didn't think oceans could be penetrated by the back radiation from what I've read on the subject. And since the earth is comprised of 70% water, where do you get the doubled wattage from, cause it can't be the water.

What a dolt you are.

I tried to get you to understand how the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy, and why the atmosphere radiates (part of which is in the direction of the surface), and your retort is the radiation can't penetrate past the skin of the oceans.

Why do I bother?

Fine. Go wallow in your ignorance.

 

[jc456]

No it hasn't ian...radiation coming from the atmosphere towards the earth has been measured with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the earth...which isn't back radiation...it is radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...everyting else is a case of an idiot being fooled by his instrumentation.

The radiation is always there. Whether instruments are cooled to remove local background interference or use a different method to do so doesn't change the fact that the signal is there to be measured.

So you say...but isn't it odd that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument even though according to you and your warmer wacko buds, there is twice as much of it coming from the atmosphere as there is coming from the sun...isn't that odd...do you think instruments must be cooled to measure incoming energy from the sun, even though it is only half as much as you claim coming from the atmosphere?...are you really unable to see the disconnect from reality in your thinking, and your belief?

Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

I want you to see where the extra 200+ watts of energy comes from. It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine what would happen to the Earth if sunlight was suddenly cut off. The Earth would still radiate so it would start to cool everywhere. The oceans would start to freeze and the currents would dwindle until it was solid ice. The atmosphere would cool and the height would shrink until nothing was left except a frozen crust on the surface.

If you then turned the Sun back on, the atmosphere would rise again the oceans would thaw, etc.

So what happened there? A massive amount of energy was released during freezing, and a massive amount of energy was absorbed during thawing.

The extra 200+ watts comes from the massive amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans.

The present Earth, as seen from space is very close to equilibrium. The energy coming in is equal to the energy leaving, to a fraction of 1%.

But that does not define the pathways of how the energy enters and leaves the system. The surface has no special significance other than it is the boundary between compressible and non compressible fluids. The surface can be at a wide range of temperatures depending on local conditions. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

Every 'parcel' of matter that is macroscopic has a temperature that is defined by its initial state, and it will warm or cool depending on the net input of energy in minus energy out. For compressible fluids this is accomplished by radiation and molecular collisions. Non compressible fluids use the more complex and efficient method of lattice vibrations known as conduction.

The atmosphere is only there because of energy stored as kinetic movement and potential energy in a gravity field. All objects in the universe are striving to shed energy and achieve the ground state of zero degrees Kelvin and centre of gravity.

To attempt this goal the atmosphere gives off blackbody radiation powered by its stored kinetic and potential energy. Excitation and emission of GHGs is merely a subset of this process.

The IR radiation given off by the atmosphere goes in all directions therefore some of it strikes the surface. This is the missing 200+ watts.

The surface temperature is a function of its initial state of stored energy, and warms or cools depending on the net amount of energy input minus energy output.



jc, this is the explanation, as simple as I could make it. Take a minute or an hour to try and understand the basic principles involved.

so Ian, if you're explanation was indeed factual with back radiation, I didn't think oceans could be penetrated by the back radiation from what I've read on the subject. And since the earth is comprised of 70% water, where do you get the doubled wattage from, cause it can't be the water.

What a dolt you are.

I tried to get you to understand how the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy, and why the atmosphere radiates (part of which is in the direction of the surface), and your retort is the radiation can't penetrate past the skin of the oceans.

Why do I bother?

Fine. Go wallow in your ignorance.

well I wallow in the observed factual.

 

[IanC]

The radiation is always there. Whether instruments are cooled to remove local background interference or use a different method to do so doesn't change the fact that the signal is there to be measured.

So you say...but isn't it odd that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument even though according to you and your warmer wacko buds, there is twice as much of it coming from the atmosphere as there is coming from the sun...isn't that odd...do you think instruments must be cooled to measure incoming energy from the sun, even though it is only half as much as you claim coming from the atmosphere?...are you really unable to see the disconnect from reality in your thinking, and your belief?

Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

I want you to see where the extra 200+ watts of energy comes from. It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine what would happen to the Earth if sunlight was suddenly cut off. The Earth would still radiate so it would start to cool everywhere. The oceans would start to freeze and the currents would dwindle until it was solid ice. The atmosphere would cool and the height would shrink until nothing was left except a frozen crust on the surface.

If you then turned the Sun back on, the atmosphere would rise again the oceans would thaw, etc.

So what happened there? A massive amount of energy was released during freezing, and a massive amount of energy was absorbed during thawing.

The extra 200+ watts comes from the massive amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans.

The present Earth, as seen from space is very close to equilibrium. The energy coming in is equal to the energy leaving, to a fraction of 1%.

But that does not define the pathways of how the energy enters and leaves the system. The surface has no special significance other than it is the boundary between compressible and non compressible fluids. The surface can be at a wide range of temperatures depending on local conditions. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

Every 'parcel' of matter that is macroscopic has a temperature that is defined by its initial state, and it will warm or cool depending on the net input of energy in minus energy out. For compressible fluids this is accomplished by radiation and molecular collisions. Non compressible fluids use the more complex and efficient method of lattice vibrations known as conduction.

The atmosphere is only there because of energy stored as kinetic movement and potential energy in a gravity field. All objects in the universe are striving to shed energy and achieve the ground state of zero degrees Kelvin and centre of gravity.

To attempt this goal the atmosphere gives off blackbody radiation powered by its stored kinetic and potential energy. Excitation and emission of GHGs is merely a subset of this process.

The IR radiation given off by the atmosphere goes in all directions therefore some of it strikes the surface. This is the missing 200+ watts.

The surface temperature is a function of its initial state of stored energy, and warms or cools depending on the net amount of energy input minus energy output.



jc, this is the explanation, as simple as I could make it. Take a minute or an hour to try and understand the basic principles involved.

so Ian, if you're explanation was indeed factual with back radiation, I didn't think oceans could be penetrated by the back radiation from what I've read on the subject. And since the earth is comprised of 70% water, where do you get the doubled wattage from, cause it can't be the water.

What a dolt you are.

I tried to get you to understand how the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy, and why the atmosphere radiates (part of which is in the direction of the surface), and your retort is the radiation can't penetrate past the skin of the oceans.

Why do I bother?

Fine. Go wallow in your ignorance.

well I wallow in the observed factual.

What observed factual are you talking about?

Are you now denying the observed measurements of the emissivity of water? Done by uncooled instruments of the same basic design as documented in SSDD'S link ?

Water absorbs and emits various bands of IR at an emissivity of 0.95-0.99. a perfect blackbody is defined as 1.00 but is only theoretical.

 

[jc456]

So you say...but isn't it odd that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument even though according to you and your warmer wacko buds, there is twice as much of it coming from the atmosphere as there is coming from the sun...isn't that odd...do you think instruments must be cooled to measure incoming energy from the sun, even though it is only half as much as you claim coming from the atmosphere?...are you really unable to see the disconnect from reality in your thinking, and your belief?

Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

I want you to see where the extra 200+ watts of energy comes from. It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine what would happen to the Earth if sunlight was suddenly cut off. The Earth would still radiate so it would start to cool everywhere. The oceans would start to freeze and the currents would dwindle until it was solid ice. The atmosphere would cool and the height would shrink until nothing was left except a frozen crust on the surface.

If you then turned the Sun back on, the atmosphere would rise again the oceans would thaw, etc.

So what happened there? A massive amount of energy was released during freezing, and a massive amount of energy was absorbed during thawing.

The extra 200+ watts comes from the massive amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans.

The present Earth, as seen from space is very close to equilibrium. The energy coming in is equal to the energy leaving, to a fraction of 1%.

But that does not define the pathways of how the energy enters and leaves the system. The surface has no special significance other than it is the boundary between compressible and non compressible fluids. The surface can be at a wide range of temperatures depending on local conditions. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

Every 'parcel' of matter that is macroscopic has a temperature that is defined by its initial state, and it will warm or cool depending on the net input of energy in minus energy out. For compressible fluids this is accomplished by radiation and molecular collisions. Non compressible fluids use the more complex and efficient method of lattice vibrations known as conduction.

The atmosphere is only there because of energy stored as kinetic movement and potential energy in a gravity field. All objects in the universe are striving to shed energy and achieve the ground state of zero degrees Kelvin and centre of gravity.

To attempt this goal the atmosphere gives off blackbody radiation powered by its stored kinetic and potential energy. Excitation and emission of GHGs is merely a subset of this process.

The IR radiation given off by the atmosphere goes in all directions therefore some of it strikes the surface. This is the missing 200+ watts.

The surface temperature is a function of its initial state of stored energy, and warms or cools depending on the net amount of energy input minus energy output.



jc, this is the explanation, as simple as I could make it. Take a minute or an hour to try and understand the basic principles involved.

so Ian, if you're explanation was indeed factual with back radiation, I didn't think oceans could be penetrated by the back radiation from what I've read on the subject. And since the earth is comprised of 70% water, where do you get the doubled wattage from, cause it can't be the water.

What a dolt you are.

I tried to get you to understand how the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy, and why the atmosphere radiates (part of which is in the direction of the surface), and your retort is the radiation can't penetrate past the skin of the oceans.

Why do I bother?

Fine. Go wallow in your ignorance.

well I wallow in the observed factual.

What observed factual are you talking about?

Are you now denying the observed measurements of the emissivity of water? Done by uncooled instruments of the same basic design as documented in SSDD'S link ?

Water absorbs and emits various bands of IR at an emissivity of 0.95-0.99. a perfect blackbody is defined as 1.00 but is only theoretical.

so, what I posted was that if one believes in back radiation, which I don't, but if one does, then that IR cannot be absorbed by the oceans or water period. I never stated that water can't absorb sun's input radiation.

 

[IanC]

Your fixation on instrumentation distracts you from seeing the big picture.

I want you to see where the extra 200+ watts of energy comes from. It is a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine what would happen to the Earth if sunlight was suddenly cut off. The Earth would still radiate so it would start to cool everywhere. The oceans would start to freeze and the currents would dwindle until it was solid ice. The atmosphere would cool and the height would shrink until nothing was left except a frozen crust on the surface.

If you then turned the Sun back on, the atmosphere would rise again the oceans would thaw, etc.

So what happened there? A massive amount of energy was released during freezing, and a massive amount of energy was absorbed during thawing.

The extra 200+ watts comes from the massive amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans.

The present Earth, as seen from space is very close to equilibrium. The energy coming in is equal to the energy leaving, to a fraction of 1%.

But that does not define the pathways of how the energy enters and leaves the system. The surface has no special significance other than it is the boundary between compressible and non compressible fluids. The surface can be at a wide range of temperatures depending on local conditions. The same can be said for the atmosphere.

Every 'parcel' of matter that is macroscopic has a temperature that is defined by its initial state, and it will warm or cool depending on the net input of energy in minus energy out. For compressible fluids this is accomplished by radiation and molecular collisions. Non compressible fluids use the more complex and efficient method of lattice vibrations known as conduction.

The atmosphere is only there because of energy stored as kinetic movement and potential energy in a gravity field. All objects in the universe are striving to shed energy and achieve the ground state of zero degrees Kelvin and centre of gravity.

To attempt this goal the atmosphere gives off blackbody radiation powered by its stored kinetic and potential energy. Excitation and emission of GHGs is merely a subset of this process.

The IR radiation given off by the atmosphere goes in all directions therefore some of it strikes the surface. This is the missing 200+ watts.

The surface temperature is a function of its initial state of stored energy, and warms or cools depending on the net amount of energy input minus energy output.



jc, this is the explanation, as simple as I could make it. Take a minute or an hour to try and understand the basic principles involved.

so Ian, if you're explanation was indeed factual with back radiation, I didn't think oceans could be penetrated by the back radiation from what I've read on the subject. And since the earth is comprised of 70% water, where do you get the doubled wattage from, cause it can't be the water.

What a dolt you are.

I tried to get you to understand how the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy, and why the atmosphere radiates (part of which is in the direction of the surface), and your retort is the radiation can't penetrate past the skin of the oceans.

Why do I bother?

Fine. Go wallow in your ignorance.

well I wallow in the observed factual.

What observed factual are you talking about?

Are you now denying the observed measurements of the emissivity of water? Done by uncooled instruments of the same basic design as documented in SSDD'S link ?

Water absorbs and emits various bands of IR at an emissivity of 0.95-0.99. a perfect blackbody is defined as 1.00 but is only theoretical.

so, what I posted was that if one believes in back radiation, which I don't, but if one does, then that IR cannot be absorbed by the oceans or water period. I never stated that water can't absorb sun's input radiation.

No, what you're saying is that you are too fucking stupid to understand even the most basic of concepts.

Hahahaha, I told you water has an emissivity of .95 and over for the IR emitted both by the surface and the atmosphere. Documented, observed, empirical. You then said water cannot absorb the vary same radiation that we were talking about. And then made a crazy accusation that someone said you didn't believe water absorbed sunlight radiation. Hahahaha, boy are you ever confused. How do you function in reality? I certainly hope someone takes care of you.

Perhaps you just don't understand the term emissivity. It pertains to what kind of radiation can be absorbed or emitted by a substance. The emission exactly equals absorption, obviously.