LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[SSDD]

Like I said...I will wait for the observed, measured evidence....

And since no measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm has ever been made, your claim is bullshit.

We gave you many examples of radiation moving from a cold source to warmer objects.

No....you gave examples of how easily you are fooled...nothing more.

 

[jc456]

dude, the receiver is cooled. there is no other reason to cool it but to pull wavelengths that are cooler than a receiver termination at ambient temperature. without cooling it, you wouldn't see anything. sorry, that's just a fact.

dude, the receiver is cooled



Dude, is the receiver in the big horn or in the little shed?

dude, the receiver is cooled. i give two shits anything beyond that. without that, they read zip.

dude, the receiver is cooled.

And the antenna is warm.
Don't tell SSDD you've realized his error.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver. Cause it was cooled!!!! it's ok dude. I get your confusion.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver

The receiver? You mean the thing in the shed that read the photons that hit the warm antenna?

Yeah, that was awesome!

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna that I posted you the statement of. did you forget that already? that is a sign of dementia you know?

sensors with" helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, the receiver is cooled



Dude, is the receiver in the big horn or in the little shed?

dude, the receiver is cooled. i give two shits anything beyond that. without that, they read zip.

dude, the receiver is cooled.

And the antenna is warm.
Don't tell SSDD you've realized his error.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver. Cause it was cooled!!!! it's ok dude. I get your confusion.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver

The receiver? You mean the thing in the shed that read the photons that hit the warm antenna?

Yeah, that was awesome!

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna that I posted you the statement of. did you forget that already? that is a sign of dementia you know?

sensors with" helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna

You betcha. The signal bounces off the warm antenna into the cooled receiver in the shed. Shhh...don't tell.

that is a sign of dementia you know?

You have dementia? Is it related to your brain injury or in addition to your brain injury?

 

[jc456]

dude, the receiver is cooled. i give two shits anything beyond that. without that, they read zip.

dude, the receiver is cooled.

And the antenna is warm.
Don't tell SSDD you've realized his error.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver. Cause it was cooled!!!! it's ok dude. I get your confusion.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver

The receiver? You mean the thing in the shed that read the photons that hit the warm antenna?

Yeah, that was awesome!

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna that I posted you the statement of. did you forget that already? that is a sign of dementia you know?

sensors with" helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna

You betcha. The signal bounces off the warm antenna into the cooled receiver in the shed. Shhh...don't tell.

that is a sign of dementia you know?

You have dementia? Is it related to your brain injury or in addition to your brain injury?

yes sir warm to cold flow just as I said. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, the receiver is cooled.

And the antenna is warm.
Don't tell SSDD you've realized his error.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver. Cause it was cooled!!!! it's ok dude. I get your confusion.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver

The receiver? You mean the thing in the shed that read the photons that hit the warm antenna?

Yeah, that was awesome!

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna that I posted you the statement of. did you forget that already? that is a sign of dementia you know?

sensors with" helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna

You betcha. The signal bounces off the warm antenna into the cooled receiver in the shed. Shhh...don't tell.

that is a sign of dementia you know?

You have dementia? Is it related to your brain injury or in addition to your brain injury?

yes sir warm to cold flow just as I said. Thanks for proving my point.

Yup, those cold photons hitting that warm antenna...exactly your point. You're welcome.

 

[jc456]

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver. Cause it was cooled!!!! it's ok dude. I get your confusion.

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver

The receiver? You mean the thing in the shed that read the photons that hit the warm antenna?

Yeah, that was awesome!

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna that I posted you the statement of. did you forget that already? that is a sign of dementia you know?

sensors with" helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna

You betcha. The signal bounces off the warm antenna into the cooled receiver in the shed. Shhh...don't tell.

that is a sign of dementia you know?

You have dementia? Is it related to your brain injury or in addition to your brain injury?

yes sir warm to cold flow just as I said. Thanks for proving my point.

Yup, those cold photons hitting that warm antenna...exactly your point. You're welcome.

only point the warm photons hit was the cold sensor. but thanks for playing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you have no idea where the noise came from on the cooled receiver

The receiver? You mean the thing in the shed that read the photons that hit the warm antenna?

Yeah, that was awesome!

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna that I posted you the statement of. did you forget that already? that is a sign of dementia you know?

sensors with" helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

nope, the termination end where it's coupled to the antenna

You betcha. The signal bounces off the warm antenna into the cooled receiver in the shed. Shhh...don't tell.

that is a sign of dementia you know?

You have dementia? Is it related to your brain injury or in addition to your brain injury?

yes sir warm to cold flow just as I said. Thanks for proving my point.

Yup, those cold photons hitting that warm antenna...exactly your point. You're welcome.

only point the warm photons hit was the cold sensor. but thanks for playing.

You know that the "warm photons" in this case are still "colder" than the giant antenna sitting out there.

You knew that, right?

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said...I will wait for the observed, measured evidence....

And since no measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm has ever been made, your claim is bullshit.

We gave you many examples of radiation moving from a cold source to warmer objects.

No....you gave examples of how easily you are fooled...nothing more.

The only reason you say that is because you don't believe nor understand physics of the past 100 years. The people on this forum proved you wrong time and again.

 

[Billy_Bob]

it means they aren't there.

CMB photons weren't there and then, one day, suddenly, they were? Wow!

What changed?

nope they weren't there. If they were there, the warm instrument would have measured them. Dude, it is really simple.

nope they weren't there.

Penzias and Wilson measured something that wasn't ever there? How'd they do that?

If they were there, the warm instrument would have measured them.

Have you ever seen what their radio antenna looked like?

I know it was cooled, I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk egypt. And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.

BTW, when I have no cell service on my phone, are the waves really there and the phone just is saying nope ain't letting those in? too funny.

I know it was cooled,

They cooled the entire antenna? Are you sure?

I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk Egypt

New Jersey.

And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.

It's gigantic, how'd they cool it?​

Cosmic Background Radiation - Engineering and Technology History Wiki

"The CMB was discovered and measured in 1965 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who had been studying the “sky temperature.” Sky temperature describes the level of noise at different radio frequencies. It is required in the planning of satellite and other wireless communication systems because it enters receiving antennas along with communication signals. The measurement system devised by Penzias and Wilson consisted of antennas designed to minimize the radiation picked up from the ground, a traveling-wave maser amplifier, and helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

Correct:

Thy were getting interference in known reflective bands, at specific wavelengths, which are in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order wave length reflections. They used helium cooled instruments to remove these reflections causing noise.

You get a GOLD STAR!

 

[Crick]

The ANTENNAS WAS NOT COOLED and, as stated, the terminations were cooled to reduce noise, not to pass 2.7K photons. SSDD would claim that the CMB photons could not hit the antenna and thus would never get to the terminations, cooled or not. Looking at resonant frequencies is irrelevant in this argument as they have the same 2.7K origin.

 

[Billy_Bob]

you don't know that they did, now do you? you know that the receiver termination cooled received a signal. that's all.

you don't know that they did, now do you?

I don't know that the photons hit the warm antenna?
I'll refer back to my earlier questions,

Were you lying?
Or are you ignorant of how an antenna works?

dude, the receiver is cooled. there is no other reason to cool it but to pull wavelengths that are cooler than a receiver termination at ambient temperature. without cooling it, you wouldn't see anything. sorry, that's just a fact.

dude, the receiver is cooled



Dude, is the receiver in the big horn or in the little shed?

dude, the receiver is cooled. i give two shits anything beyond that. without that, they read zip.

dude, the receiver is cooled.

And the antenna is warm.
Don't tell SSDD you've realized his error.

You really don't know much about EM wave propagation, do you?
EM as a photon needs to be directed. Only the receiver need be cooled, the wave is collected and directed to the receiver by the horn.. Any emissions from the horns radiative output are easily identified and discarded. You have obviously never dealt with microwaves..

 

[Billy_Bob]

How long ago did you decide for yourself that you have it all figured out and decided to stop trying to learn anything new?

From: William Happer Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: David Burton
Dear David,

Some response are entered below in square brackets and upper case. Thanks for your interest!

Will

From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.

So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]

In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]

Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]

(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]

If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

Talk to Dr. Happer about that zero percent. I suppose he might explain to you how terribly wrong you are....In fact, the above email from him does just that.

I decided to drop this post here as the information in it was used to form the basic tents of our experiment. What we observed was a firm affirmation of Dr Happer's work. I want to thank SSDD for posting it up!

Dr Happer shows why LWIR can not warm the atmosphere absent water vapor. Our experiment confirmed his findings.

 

[Crick]

Dr Happer is not a well respected scientist in the field of climate change. From his Wikipedia article:

Climate change
Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that “Some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas”, but argues that “most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes.”[9] Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are “simply not true” and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures.[10] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[11] A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.[12]

In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life."[13] It was described by Ryan Chittum in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the editorial page.[14]

In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer asked for the fee from this work to be donated to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by Greenpeace. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[15]

Billy Boy, when the report of your experiment has been accepted for publication in a refereed science journal, you may have some evidence. Not before.

And, of course, you calling up a quote from Happer is an appeal to authority. Why you think quoting one scientist is more authoritative than quoting several hundred is beyond me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

nope they weren't there. If they were there, the warm instrument would have measured them. Dude, it is really simple.

nope they weren't there.

Penzias and Wilson measured something that wasn't ever there? How'd they do that?

If they were there, the warm instrument would have measured them.

Have you ever seen what their radio antenna looked like?

I know it was cooled, I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk egypt. And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.

BTW, when I have no cell service on my phone, are the waves really there and the phone just is saying nope ain't letting those in? too funny.

I know it was cooled,

They cooled the entire antenna? Are you sure?

I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk Egypt

New Jersey.

And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.

It's gigantic, how'd they cool it?​

Cosmic Background Radiation - Engineering and Technology History Wiki

"The CMB was discovered and measured in 1965 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who had been studying the “sky temperature.” Sky temperature describes the level of noise at different radio frequencies. It is required in the planning of satellite and other wireless communication systems because it enters receiving antennas along with communication signals. The measurement system devised by Penzias and Wilson consisted of antennas designed to minimize the radiation picked up from the ground, a traveling-wave maser amplifier, and helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

Correct:

Thy were getting interference in known reflective bands, at specific wavelengths, which are in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order wave length reflections. They used helium cooled instruments to remove these reflections causing noise.

You get a GOLD STAR!

You're not going to tell SSDD that the "colder" CMB photons hit the warmer antenna, are you?

He'll be heart broken.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr Happer is not a well respected scientist in the field of climate change. From his Wikipedia article:

Climate change
Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that “Some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas”, but argues that “most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes.”[9] Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are “simply not true” and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures.[10] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[11] A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.[12]

In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life."[13] It was described by Ryan Chittum in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the editorial page.[14]

In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer asked for the fee from this work to be donated to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by Greenpeace. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[15]

Billy Boy, when the report of your experiment has been accepted for publication in a refereed science journal, you may have some evidence. Not before.

And, of course, you calling up a quote from Happer is an appeal to authority. Why you think quoting one scientist is more authoritative than quoting several hundred is beyond me.

Too Funny; You have no idea what Happer was saying and you are acting like an authority on something you have no grasp of... Priceless..

 

[Crick]

Too Funny; You have no idea what Happer was saying and you are acting like an authority on something you have no grasp of... Priceless..

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't he say "IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY.

It seems that Dr Happer believes CO2 will warm the atmosphere, something you and SSDD and JC456 have been denying. Do you agree with him? He is, after all, your authority.

 

[IanC]

I decided to drop this post here as the information in it was used to form the basic tents of our experiment. What we observed was a firm affirmation of Dr Happer's work. I want to thank SSDD for posting it up!

Dr Happer shows why LWIR can not warm the atmosphere absent water vapor. Our experiment confirmed his findings.

"
If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY
"
That quote disputes your claim. Why don't you post up one that you thinks supports your claim?

 

[mamooth]

Assume the camera's photoreceptors are at 20C. Explain to us, in detail what happens as the camera looks at a 21C background, and then that background cools to 19C.

Already have...over and over

No, you haven't, not even once. I asked for the precise equations. You're refusing to give them, as you always do. Your theory is just unsubstantiated handwaving. If you want that Nobel Prize, you're going to need to quantify things exactly. And we need to pin you down to a single solid claim, so that we can argue against it.

since you go to the same flawed understanding over and over...the instrument only measures the rate of change and amount of change in the sensor array...if it is warming, it is receiving energy from the object it is pointed at...if it is cooling, it is losing energy to the object it is pointed at...cooling doesn't happen as rapidly as warming, therefore the image of a cooler object isn't as sharp as that of a warmer object...which is why the high end instruments are cooled...to get a sharper image across a wider range of temperatures.

Let's make it simpler for you, to make it harder for you to run. Forget about the specifics of the matter, as it doesn't matter what the matter is.

We have a speck of matter at 20C.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 19.999C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 20.001C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

For the sane people, it's easy. In both cases, the equation is A * sigma * T2^4 - A * sigma * T1^4. First term is heat absorbed from environment, second term is heat radiated out.

Now you do it. As you say the speck behaves differently in the each environment, you'll have to have separate equations for each case.

 

[jc456]

nope they weren't there.

Penzias and Wilson measured something that wasn't ever there? How'd they do that?

If they were there, the warm instrument would have measured them.

Have you ever seen what their radio antenna looked like?

I know it was cooled, I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk egypt. And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.

BTW, when I have no cell service on my phone, are the waves really there and the phone just is saying nope ain't letting those in? too funny.

I know it was cooled,

They cooled the entire antenna? Are you sure?

I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk Egypt

New Jersey.

And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.

It's gigantic, how'd they cool it?​

Cosmic Background Radiation - Engineering and Technology History Wiki

"The CMB was discovered and measured in 1965 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who had been studying the “sky temperature.” Sky temperature describes the level of noise at different radio frequencies. It is required in the planning of satellite and other wireless communication systems because it enters receiving antennas along with communication signals. The measurement system devised by Penzias and Wilson consisted of antennas designed to minimize the radiation picked up from the ground, a traveling-wave maser amplifier, and helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

Correct:

Thy were getting interference in known reflective bands, at specific wavelengths, which are in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order wave length reflections. They used helium cooled instruments to remove these reflections causing noise.

You get a GOLD STAR!

You're not going to tell SSDD that the "colder" CMB photons hit the warmer antenna, are you?

He'll be heart broken.

They definitely hit the cold probe, that’s all!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know it was cooled, I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk egypt. And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.

BTW, when I have no cell service on my phone, are the waves really there and the phone just is saying nope ain't letting those in? too funny.

I know it was cooled,

They cooled the entire antenna? Are you sure?

I know they had to be in the middle of bumfk Egypt

New Jersey.

And yes, I have seen their radio antenna.

It's gigantic, how'd they cool it?​

Cosmic Background Radiation - Engineering and Technology History Wiki

"The CMB was discovered and measured in 1965 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who had been studying the “sky temperature.” Sky temperature describes the level of noise at different radio frequencies. It is required in the planning of satellite and other wireless communication systems because it enters receiving antennas along with communication signals. The measurement system devised by Penzias and Wilson consisted of antennas designed to minimize the radiation picked up from the ground, a traveling-wave maser amplifier, and helium-cooled terminations to minimize the noise level of the measurement system."

Correct:

Thy were getting interference in known reflective bands, at specific wavelengths, which are in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order wave length reflections. They used helium cooled instruments to remove these reflections causing noise.

You get a GOLD STAR!

You're not going to tell SSDD that the "colder" CMB photons hit the warmer antenna, are you?

He'll be heart broken.

They definitely hit the cold probe, that’s all!

They didn't hit the warm antenna first?