In Support of the A in AGW

[jc456]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

 

[IanC]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

Why don't you put down in your own words some of the salient points? Not many people are going to read the PDF without some background material to see if it is interesting enough.

 

[jc456]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

Why don't you put down in your own words some of the salient points? Not many people are going to read the PDF without some background material to see if it is interesting enough.

why don't you post an experiment that shows back radiation? Why is it you and yours are always communicating one way here? I've given you information on why I don't believe in back radiation. I need go no further than point to an experiment that agrees with my point. In fairness you should reciprocate that with one that shows yours. Again, explain Venus on why the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface the complete opposite of earth yet there are feedback gases of yours there?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere.

The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C). Temperatures are cooler in the upper atmosphere, ranging from (minus 43 C) to (minus 173 C). - See more at: How Hot is Venus?

I already did and posted the link to the explanation and experiment. So now where is yours with your back radiation hypothesis testing?

You posted an experiment that shows atmosphere doesn't radiate? LOL!

I guess you didn't read the material I posted. Seems like if you really were interested, you would have actually read it. Oh well, the circle jerk with you is over, you have no evidence for your back radiation.

If you posted an experiment that showed the atmosphere doesn't radiate, I'm sure I looked at it and mocked your ignorance.

which means what? asked and answered. Now it again is your turn.

which means what?

Which means if you posted an experiment that showed the atmosphere doesn't radiate, I read it, pointed out its error or your error, or both.
And then I mocked your ignorance of physics.

 

[jc456]

I already did and posted the link to the explanation and experiment. So now where is yours with your back radiation hypothesis testing?

You posted an experiment that shows atmosphere doesn't radiate? LOL!

I guess you didn't read the material I posted. Seems like if you really were interested, you would have actually read it. Oh well, the circle jerk with you is over, you have no evidence for your back radiation.

If you posted an experiment that showed the atmosphere doesn't radiate, I'm sure I looked at it and mocked your ignorance.

which means what? asked and answered. Now it again is your turn.

which means what?

Which means if you posted an experiment that showed the atmosphere doesn't radiate, I read it, pointed out its error or your error, or both.
And then I mocked your ignorance of physics.

s0n you act like I care what you say here. I know you have no evidence to support your position. circle jerking on the message board seems to be your enjoyment. good for you. I'm done with your play calling.

 

[jc456]

In Support of the A in AGW

Already posted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

sure there is

Nope.

and I posted that as well.

Nope.

Two identical objects, one at 50K, the other at 100K.
Both radiating, the warmer 16 times as much as the cooler.
There is no violation when a photon from the cooler object hits the warmer object.

you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim.

The SB Law supports my claim above. And refutes your claims.

 

[jc456]

In Support of the A in AGW

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In Support of the A in AGW

Already posted.

Thanks. On page 4, he says,

"It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation"

Do you want to post anything else to refute your claims?

 

[jc456]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

Why don't you put down in your own words some of the salient points? Not many people are going to read the PDF without some background material to see if it is interesting enough.

here in my own words, I challenged the back radiation, I provided data from a peer reviewed scientist that the reason why an atmosphere would not radiate to the surface and yet, still absolutely nothing from these back radiation posters showing how it is possible. weight, volume, mass, gravity, convection, pressure, and still they have not shown how to violate the second law. hmmmmmmmmm

 

[jc456]

In Support of the A in AGW

Already posted.

Thanks. On page 4, he says,

"It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation"

Do you want to post anything else to refute your claims?

LOL radiation, not reradiation.

He likened it to adding water to a lake, water doesn't add in one spot it equals out across the lake.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In Support of the A in AGW

Already posted.

Thanks. On page 4, he says,

"It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation"

Do you want to post anything else to refute your claims?

LOL radiation, not reradiation.

radiation from the atmosphere

LOL! Your own source. Thanks.

 

[jc456]

In Support of the A in AGW

Already posted.

Thanks. On page 4, he says,

"It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation"

Do you want to post anything else to refute your claims?

LOL radiation, not reradiation.

radiation from the atmosphere

LOL! Your own source. Thanks.

Sun radiates right? guess where it comes from. Hahahahaahha let's see the back radiation.

 

[jc456]

Oh Todd, you still haven't provided any experimental validation so I'm just going to close this off as you have none.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In Support of the A in AGW

Already posted.

Thanks. On page 4, he says,

"It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation"

Do you want to post anything else to refute your claims?

LOL radiation, not reradiation.

radiation from the atmosphere

LOL! Your own source. Thanks.

Sun radiates right? guess where it comes from. Hahahahaahha let's see the back radiation.

Sun radiates right?

Yup. So does our atmosphere. Even your own source said so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh Todd, you still haven't provided any experimental validation so I'm just going to close this off as you have none.

you still haven't provided any experimental validation

"It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation"

Derp!

 

[IanC]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

Why don't you put down in your own words some of the salient points? Not many people are going to read the PDF without some background material to see if it is interesting enough.

why don't you post an experiment that shows back radiation? Why is it you and yours are always communicating one way here? I've given you information on why I don't believe in back radiation. I need go no further than point to an experiment that agrees with my point. In fairness you should reciprocate that with one that shows yours. Again, explain Venus on why the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface the complete opposite of earth yet there are feedback gases of yours there?

I think you have the wrong impression of my position here. I want you to bring up the salient points because I think it has some merit. Especially as it pertains to the the climate model's handling of energy movement in slabs of the atmosphere.

I just don't want to champion it because it has weaknesses of its own. That doesn't mean it has no merit.

Point out the thought provoking ideas that have been ignored so that people here can glimpse a different side of the argument. I, for one, am all ears. Prove that you are informed and persuasive by making a coherent case for your position and then do your best to defend it against criticisms.

 

[jc456]

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

Why don't you put down in your own words some of the salient points? Not many people are going to read the PDF without some background material to see if it is interesting enough.

why don't you post an experiment that shows back radiation? Why is it you and yours are always communicating one way here? I've given you information on why I don't believe in back radiation. I need go no further than point to an experiment that agrees with my point. In fairness you should reciprocate that with one that shows yours. Again, explain Venus on why the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface the complete opposite of earth yet there are feedback gases of yours there?

I think you have the wrong impression of my position here. I want you to bring up the salient points because I think it has some merit. Especially as it pertains to the the climate model's handling of energy movement in slabs of the atmosphere.

I just don't want to champion it because it has weaknesses of its own. That doesn't mean it has no merit.

Point out the thought provoking ideas that have been ignored so that people here can glimpse a different side of the argument. I, for one, am all ears. Prove that you are informed and persuasive by making a coherent case for your position and then do your best to defend it against criticisms.

have you read Mcauley. I found this today. I was reading your Quantum material. here's a read for you if you haven't.

Global Warming: Does CO2 Heat The Atmosphere? No ….

 

[IanC]

There is no violation.

sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.

Why don't you put down in your own words some of the salient points? Not many people are going to read the PDF without some background material to see if it is interesting enough.

why don't you post an experiment that shows back radiation? Why is it you and yours are always communicating one way here? I've given you information on why I don't believe in back radiation. I need go no further than point to an experiment that agrees with my point. In fairness you should reciprocate that with one that shows yours. Again, explain Venus on why the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface the complete opposite of earth yet there are feedback gases of yours there?

I think you have the wrong impression of my position here. I want you to bring up the salient points because I think it has some merit. Especially as it pertains to the the climate model's handling of energy movement in slabs of the atmosphere.

I just don't want to champion it because it has weaknesses of its own. That doesn't mean it has no merit.

Point out the thought provoking ideas that have been ignored so that people here can glimpse a different side of the argument. I, for one, am all ears. Prove that you are informed and persuasive by making a coherent case for your position and then do your best to defend it against criticisms.

have you read Mcauley. I found this today. I was reading your Quantum material. here's a read for you if you haven't.

Global Warming: Does CO2 Heat The Atmosphere? No ….

Sure, and Ira G has written similar articles. Like I told Wuwei-, the problem with using variations of the equipartition equations is that THERE IS a temperature gradient! That THERE IS a difference in the type and amount of radiation that goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at any height you want to measure. And if that is not enough, then there is the potential energy being stored in the gravity field that is not 'detectable' as temperature change.

 

[IanC]

A visual example from everyone's geometry past is a plane cutting through a cone to give the different curves. The two (or more) pieces match up exactly with their counterparts yet the cone IS changing size.