In summary...

[IanC]

Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL

Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.

conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.

And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates? You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you? If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

Conduction is not the same as radiation.

Why not?

Mediated by matter.

I don't feel comfortable trying to explain because I don't really understand it. Try googling 'phonons'.

 

[IanC]

doesn't the magnet contain matter?

Yes it does but it isn't in the path of the light beam.

 

[jc456]

Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.

conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.

And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates? You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you? If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

Conduction is not the same as radiation.

Why not?

Mediated by matter.

I don't feel comfortable trying to explain because I don't really understand it. Try googling 'phonons'.

I did google it and they are considered the same here:

Thermal Energy Transfer: Conduction, Convection, Radiation | Online Homework Help | SchoolWorkHelper

• "All things are made up of molecules
• When things get heated, they absorb heat energy
• With more energy, molecules are able to move faster
• When molecules move faster, the temperature rises

What is Thermal Energy???

• Thermal Energy is energy resulting from the motion of particles
• It is a form of kinetic energy and is transferred as heat
• Thermal Energy Transfer can occur by three methods:
• Conduction
• Convection
• Radiation

 

[IanC]

You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.

Tell me ian,,,what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 do you really think we are responsible for?

And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.

So you are saying that man made CO2 is more magic than natural CO2? Is IR perhaps more attracted to man made CO2 than it is to natural CO2?...maybe IR becomes addicted to manmade CO2 and must get to it no matter what the cost? Come on Ian...how much further out there can you get?

I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

there are three natural isotopes of carbon, 12 13 14 MW. carbon 14 has a half life of about 6000 years so it is absent in fossil fuels. I cannot remember which isotope of carbon was studied after the above ground nuclear bombs but they were also useful in studying the recycling of carbon. I am sure this is an incomplete list. perhaps you should look into it.

I have not thought about the emissivity differences of the various carbon isotopes that could be incorporated into CO2 molecules. doubtful that it is noticeable unless you look pretty close.

 

[jc456]

You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.

Tell me ian,,,what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 do you really think we are responsible for?

And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.

So you are saying that man made CO2 is more magic than natural CO2? Is IR perhaps more attracted to man made CO2 than it is to natural CO2?...maybe IR becomes addicted to manmade CO2 and must get to it no matter what the cost? Come on Ian...how much further out there can you get?

I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

there are three natural isotopes of carbon, 12 13 14 MW. carbon 14 has a half life of about 6000 years so it is absent in fossil fuels. I cannot remember which isotope of carbon was studied after the above ground nuclear bombs but they were also useful in studying the recycling of carbon. I am sure this is an incomplete list. perhaps you should look into it.

I have not thought about the emissivity differences of the various carbon isotopes that could be incorporated into CO2 molecules. doubtful that it is noticeable unless you look pretty close.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

 

[IanC]

You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.

Tell me ian,,,what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 do you really think we are responsible for?

And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.

So you are saying that man made CO2 is more magic than natural CO2? Is IR perhaps more attracted to man made CO2 than it is to natural CO2?...maybe IR becomes addicted to manmade CO2 and must get to it no matter what the cost? Come on Ian...how much further out there can you get?

I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

there are three natural isotopes of carbon, 12 13 14 MW. carbon 14 has a half life of about 6000 years so it is absent in fossil fuels. I cannot remember which isotope of carbon was studied after the above ground nuclear bombs but they were also useful in studying the recycling of carbon. I am sure this is an incomplete list. perhaps you should look into it.

I have not thought about the emissivity differences of the various carbon isotopes that could be incorporated into CO2 molecules. doubtful that it is noticeable unless you look pretty close.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

 

[jc456]

You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.

Tell me ian,,,what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 do you really think we are responsible for?

And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.

So you are saying that man made CO2 is more magic than natural CO2? Is IR perhaps more attracted to man made CO2 than it is to natural CO2?...maybe IR becomes addicted to manmade CO2 and must get to it no matter what the cost? Come on Ian...how much further out there can you get?

I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

there are three natural isotopes of carbon, 12 13 14 MW. carbon 14 has a half life of about 6000 years so it is absent in fossil fuels. I cannot remember which isotope of carbon was studied after the above ground nuclear bombs but they were also useful in studying the recycling of carbon. I am sure this is an incomplete list. perhaps you should look into it.

I have not thought about the emissivity differences of the various carbon isotopes that could be incorporated into CO2 molecules. doubtful that it is noticeable unless you look pretty close.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part? how many parts?

 

[IanC]

conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.

And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates? You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you? If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

Conduction is not the same as radiation.

Why not?

Mediated by matter.

I don't feel comfortable trying to explain because I don't really understand it. Try googling 'phonons'.

I did google it and they are considered the same here:

Thermal Energy Transfer: Conduction, Convection, Radiation | Online Homework Help | SchoolWorkHelper

• "All things are made up of molecules
• When things get heated, they absorb heat energy
• With more energy, molecules are able to move faster
• When molecules move faster, the temperature rises

What is Thermal Energy???

• Thermal Energy is energy resulting from the motion of particles
• It is a form of kinetic energy and is transferred as heat
• Thermal Energy Transfer can occur by three methods:
• Conduction
• Convection
• Radiation

I suggest you google phonons, and you come back with Homework Helper!!!! hahahaha.

Definition
A phonon is a quantum mechanical description of an elementary vibrational motion in which a lattice of atoms or molecules uniformly oscillates at a single frequency.[2] In classical mechanics this designates a normal mode of vibration. Normal modes are important because any arbitrary lattice vibration can be considered to be a superposition of these elementary vibration modes (cf. Fourier analysis). While normal modes are wave-like phenomena in classical mechanics, phonons have particle-like properties too, in a way related to the wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics. Phonon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

obviously we are working on different levels of complexity.

 

[IanC]

You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.

Tell me ian,,,what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 do you really think we are responsible for?

And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.

So you are saying that man made CO2 is more magic than natural CO2? Is IR perhaps more attracted to man made CO2 than it is to natural CO2?...maybe IR becomes addicted to manmade CO2 and must get to it no matter what the cost? Come on Ian...how much further out there can you get?

I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

there are three natural isotopes of carbon, 12 13 14 MW. carbon 14 has a half life of about 6000 years so it is absent in fossil fuels. I cannot remember which isotope of carbon was studied after the above ground nuclear bombs but they were also useful in studying the recycling of carbon. I am sure this is an incomplete list. perhaps you should look into it.

I have not thought about the emissivity differences of the various carbon isotopes that could be incorporated into CO2 molecules. doubtful that it is noticeable unless you look pretty close.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part? how many parts?

give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.

 

[jc456]

Tell me ian,,,what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 do you really think we are responsible for?

So you are saying that man made CO2 is more magic than natural CO2? Is IR perhaps more attracted to man made CO2 than it is to natural CO2?...maybe IR becomes addicted to manmade CO2 and must get to it no matter what the cost? Come on Ian...how much further out there can you get?

I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

there are three natural isotopes of carbon, 12 13 14 MW. carbon 14 has a half life of about 6000 years so it is absent in fossil fuels. I cannot remember which isotope of carbon was studied after the above ground nuclear bombs but they were also useful in studying the recycling of carbon. I am sure this is an incomplete list. perhaps you should look into it.

I have not thought about the emissivity differences of the various carbon isotopes that could be incorporated into CO2 molecules. doubtful that it is noticeable unless you look pretty close.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part? how many parts?

give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.

do you know how much the oceans have warmed? The temps differ around the globe. they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot. so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?

 

[IanC]

I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

there are three natural isotopes of carbon, 12 13 14 MW. carbon 14 has a half life of about 6000 years so it is absent in fossil fuels. I cannot remember which isotope of carbon was studied after the above ground nuclear bombs but they were also useful in studying the recycling of carbon. I am sure this is an incomplete list. perhaps you should look into it.

I have not thought about the emissivity differences of the various carbon isotopes that could be incorporated into CO2 molecules. doubtful that it is noticeable unless you look pretty close.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part? how many parts?

give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.

do you know how much the oceans have warmed? The temps differ around the globe. they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot. so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?

You're a fucking retard. Do you even know why I asked you if the oceans have warmed?

 

[SSDD]

I

We live in the world of matter and even light has a speed limit. We can only guess at the world of light speed but we can observe and measure light in our reference frame. The observations and measurements don't match up with SSDD's peculiar version of physics.

No ian...every observation ever made matches up with what I think re: the second law...what you think, on the other hand remains unobserved, untestable, and unmeasurable...and only exists within the realm of mathematical models.

 

[SSDD]

I think the burning of fossil fuels, etc is responsible for the majority of the increase of CO2 from 280-400 ppm. what do you think?

It doesn't matter since CO2 can't cause warming beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates? You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you? If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

Conduction is not the same as radiation.

Why not?

Mediated by matter.

I don't feel comfortable trying to explain because I don't really understand it. Try googling 'phonons'.

I did google it and they are considered the same here:

Thermal Energy Transfer: Conduction, Convection, Radiation | Online Homework Help | SchoolWorkHelper

• "All things are made up of molecules
• When things get heated, they absorb heat energy
• With more energy, molecules are able to move faster
• When molecules move faster, the temperature rises

What is Thermal Energy???

• Thermal Energy is energy resulting from the motion of particles
• It is a form of kinetic energy and is transferred as heat
• Thermal Energy Transfer can occur by three methods:
• Conduction
• Convection
• Radiation

I suggest you google phonons, and you come back with Homework Helper!!!! hahahaha.

Definition
A phonon is a quantum mechanical description of an elementary vibrational motion in which a lattice of atoms or molecules uniformly oscillates at a single frequency.[2] In classical mechanics this designates a normal mode of vibration. Normal modes are important because any arbitrary lattice vibration can be considered to be a superposition of these elementary vibration modes (cf. Fourier analysis). While normal modes are wave-like phenomena in classical mechanics, phonons have particle-like properties too, in a way related to the wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics. Phonon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

obviously we are working on different levels of complexity.

so I'm not understanding your point here and the relationship between radiation and conduction. I see no difference mentioned in the wiki phonon definition.

 

[SSDD]

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

you know as well as I do that a great deal of natural CO2 is indistinguishable from man made...even from the isotopes resulting from burning petroleum....but you are perfectly willing to lie and mislead if you believe it will convince someone to join you on the magical mystery CO2 bus.

 

[SSDD]

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

Conduction is not the same as radiation.

Why not?

Mediated by matter.

I don't feel comfortable trying to explain because I don't really understand it. Try googling 'phonons'.

I did google it and they are considered the same here:

Thermal Energy Transfer: Conduction, Convection, Radiation | Online Homework Help | SchoolWorkHelper

• "All things are made up of molecules
• When things get heated, they absorb heat energy
• With more energy, molecules are able to move faster
• When molecules move faster, the temperature rises

What is Thermal Energy???

• Thermal Energy is energy resulting from the motion of particles
• It is a form of kinetic energy and is transferred as heat
• Thermal Energy Transfer can occur by three methods:
• Conduction
• Convection
• Radiation

I suggest you google phonons, and you come back with Homework Helper!!!! hahahaha.

Definition
A phonon is a quantum mechanical description of an elementary vibrational motion in which a lattice of atoms or molecules uniformly oscillates at a single frequency.[2] In classical mechanics this designates a normal mode of vibration. Normal modes are important because any arbitrary lattice vibration can be considered to be a superposition of these elementary vibration modes (cf. Fourier analysis). While normal modes are wave-like phenomena in classical mechanics, phonons have particle-like properties too, in a way related to the wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics. Phonon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

obviously we are working on different levels of complexity.

so I'm not understanding your point here and the relationship between radiation and conduction. I see no difference mentioned in the wiki phonon definition.

He is grasping....it is clear that he never really considered the fact that since time and distance to a photon = zero...there is really no difference between radiation and conduction...energy moving via radiation doesn't need to "know" in which direction the cooler region is any more than energy moving along a heated bar of steel needs to know which direction is the cooler region...

At this point, he is just denying and reaching for straws...perhaps he is smart enough that it just might be dawning upon him that he has been wrong all along....and maybe he will give up his belief in the mythical magical properties of CO2.

 

[jc456]

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part? how many parts?

give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.

do you know how much the oceans have warmed? The temps differ around the globe. they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot. so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?

You're a fucking retard. Do you even know why I asked you if the oceans have warmed?

I really don't care why you asked me why the oceans warmed. I'm an individual and as such don't need to play your games. you think you're this smart goody too shoe climate dude and you're just a hack that believes CO2 warms something and you have absolutely no evidence to support that. tricks won't work here bubba. I know the oceans warm due to the sun and that's it. temperatures vary around the globe currents carry warm water. and on and on. have fun with your game, but I don't play. by the way, you still haven't actually stated why conduction and radiation are different. anytime though if you think you have something in another toy box.

 

[IanC]

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

Conduction is not the same as radiation.

Why not?

Mediated by matter.

I don't feel comfortable trying to explain because I don't really understand it. Try googling 'phonons'.

I did google it and they are considered the same here:

Thermal Energy Transfer: Conduction, Convection, Radiation | Online Homework Help | SchoolWorkHelper

• "All things are made up of molecules
• When things get heated, they absorb heat energy
• With more energy, molecules are able to move faster
• When molecules move faster, the temperature rises

What is Thermal Energy???

• Thermal Energy is energy resulting from the motion of particles
• It is a form of kinetic energy and is transferred as heat
• Thermal Energy Transfer can occur by three methods:
• Conduction
• Convection
• Radiation

I suggest you google phonons, and you come back with Homework Helper!!!! hahahaha.

Definition
A phonon is a quantum mechanical description of an elementary vibrational motion in which a lattice of atoms or molecules uniformly oscillates at a single frequency.[2] In classical mechanics this designates a normal mode of vibration. Normal modes are important because any arbitrary lattice vibration can be considered to be a superposition of these elementary vibration modes (cf. Fourier analysis). While normal modes are wave-like phenomena in classical mechanics, phonons have particle-like properties too, in a way related to the wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics. Phonon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

obviously we are working on different levels of complexity.

so I'm not understanding your point here and the relationship between radiation and conduction. I see no difference mentioned in the wiki phonon definition.

hahahahaha. okay

from your link-

• Radiation does not require a medium to transfer energy

from wiki conduction-

Thermal conduction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thermal conduction is the transfer of heat (internal energy) by microscopic collisions of particles and movement of electrons within a body. The microscopically colliding objects, that include molecules, atoms, and electrons, transfer disorganized microscopic kinetic and potential energy, jointly known as internal energy. Conduction takes place in all phases of matter, such as solids, liquids, gases and plasmas. The rate at which energy is conducted as heat between two bodies is a function of the temperature difference (temperature gradient) between the two bodies and the properties of the conductive medium through which the heat is transferred. Thermal conduction was originally called diffusion.

Heat spontaneously flows from a hotter to a colder body. For example, heat is conducted from the hotplate of an electric stove to the bottom of a saucepan in contact with it. In the absence of an external driving energy source to the contrary, within a body or between bodies, temperature differences decay over time, and thermal equilibrium is approached, temperature becoming more uniform.

In conduction, the heat flow is within and through the body itself. In contrast, in heat transfer by thermal radiation, the transfer is often between bodies, which may be separated spatially. Also possible is transfer of heat by a combination of conduction and thermal radiation. In convection, internal energy is carried between bodies by a moving material carrier. In solids, conduction is mediated by the combination of vibrations and collisions of molecules, of propagation and collisions of phonons, and of diffusion and collisions offree electrons. In gases and liquids, conduction is due to the collisions and diffusion of molecules during their random motion. Photons in this context do not collide with one another, and so heat transport by electromagnetic radiation is conceptually distinct from heat conduction by microscopic diffusion and collisions of material particles and phonons. But the distinction is often not easily observed, unless the material is semi-transparent.

radiation does not need a medium. conduction does.

does this clear anything up for you? are you actually trying to understand any of this?

edit- the money quote is lost in the quote function-

In conduction, the heat flow is within and through the body itself. In contrast, in heat transfer by thermal radiation, the transfer is often between bodies, which may be separated spatially. Also possible is transfer of heat by a combination of conduction and thermal radiation. In convection, internal energy is carried between bodies by a moving material carrier. In solids, conduction is mediated by the combination of vibrations and collisions of molecules, of propagation and collisions of phonons, and of diffusion and collisions offree electrons. In gases and liquids, conduction is due to the collisions and diffusion of molecules during their random motion. Photons in this context do not collide with one another, and so heat transport by electromagnetic radiation is conceptually distinct from heat conduction by microscopic diffusion and collisions of material particles and phonons. But the distinction is often not easily observed, unless the material is semi-transparent.

 

[SSDD]

[

radiation does not need a medium. conduction does.

does this clear anything up for you? are you actually trying to understand any of this?

And what force causes energy conducting through a material to migrate towards cooler regions...and what force prevents it form trying to move back towards the warmer region?....what might that force be...and does it only work inside matter...or is it at work everywhere?

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha. how on earth did you come to that conclusion? certainly not from my comments.

isotope studies show that the increase is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. isotope studies also show the residence time of CO2 as it cycles through various types of sinks.

grow a brain.

so in other words you can't prove anything about CO2 with what made up the extra 120 PPM. right? just admit it. It doesn't make you a bad boy or anything. you don't know, like no one knows.

in part? how many parts?

give me your estimate of how much the oceans have warmed. if you say zero or less then all of the extra CO2 is manmade.

do you know how much the oceans have warmed? The temps differ around the globe. they can cause el ninos if the warmth goes to a specific spot. so what is it you think you know here?

When the arctic ice melts in the summer, does it make the oceans cooler or warmer?

You're a fucking retard. Do you even know why I asked you if the oceans have warmed?

I really don't care why you asked me why the oceans warmed. I'm an individual and as such don't need to play your games. you think you're this smart goody too shoe climate dude and you're just a hack that believes CO2 warms something and you have absolutely no evidence to support that. tricks won't work here bubba. I know the oceans warm due to the sun and that's it. temperatures vary around the globe currents carry warm water. and on and on. have fun with your game, but I don't play. by the way, you still haven't actually stated why conduction and radiation are different. anytime though if you think you have something in another toy box.

the temperature of the oceans is important because CO2 comes out of solution and is released when seawater warms. a warming ocean adds to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

my statements are typically curt and idea dense, with the basic idea implied by context. I am sorry that you cannot keep up.