More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[skookerasbil]

WOW...........found this on REALCLEAR this morning.................

Fossil fuel firms accused of renewable lobby takeover to push gas


Pronounced losing for the AGW k00ks................

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That implied that the reading was the photons.

Implied?

The design essentially consists of a lens to focus the infrared thermal radiation on to a detector, which converts the radiant power to an electrical signal

Looks like more than an implication. Is English your second language?

so you are indeed saying hot photon then? thanks.

Thermal radiation is neither hot nor cold. You're welcome.

and yet you read it on a digital IR thermo-doodle as temperature. hmmmmmmmmmm.

Yes, you can measure the energy of photons to calculate the temperature of their source.

so again you state that a photon has temperature. If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature and if back radiation was indeed there, the earth would be indeed be warmer and it isn't. or do you feel the earth is getting warmer?

so again you state that a photon has temperature

Nope. Not even once. The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature

It's clear you don't know the difference between temperature and energy. Another of your faults.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never implied photons were hot or cold. I said, many times, photons have energy.

So your latest idiocy is that a "hot photon" can't hit colder matter?

If so, how does the "hot photon" measure the temperature of the colder matter, before it hits?

I never implied photons were hot or cold. I said, many times, photons have energy.

Yep you did. The dude had a picture of a thermo-doodle with a temperature reading on it. and your words were:

I never implied photons were hot or cold. I said, many times, photons have energy.
your words. That implied that the reading was the photons. again it's in the link I provided.

That implied that the reading was the photons.

Implied?

The design essentially consists of a lens to focus the infrared thermal radiation on to a detector, which converts the radiant power to an electrical signal

Looks like more than an implication. Is English your second language?

so you are indeed saying hot photon then? thanks.

Thermal radiation is neither hot nor cold. You're welcome.

ther·mal
[ˈTHərməl]
ADJECTIVE

1. of or relating to heat.

NOUN

1. an upward current of warm air, used by gliders, balloons, and birds to gain height.

Temperature (sometimes called thermodynamic temperature) is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a system. Adding heat to a system causes its temperature to rise.

 

[jc456]

so you are indeed saying hot photon then? thanks.

Thermal radiation is neither hot nor cold. You're welcome.

and yet you read it on a digital IR thermo-doodle as temperature. hmmmmmmmmmm.

Yes, you can measure the energy of photons to calculate the temperature of their source.

so again you state that a photon has temperature. If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature and if back radiation was indeed there, the earth would be indeed be warmer and it isn't. or do you feel the earth is getting warmer?

so again you state that a photon has temperature

Nope. Not even once. The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature

It's clear you don't know the difference between temperature and energy. Another of your faults.

Nope. Not even once.--yes

The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

What's the source? if you say the atmosphere then there would be a hot spot, and ding, ding, ding, there isn't one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thermal radiation is neither hot nor cold. You're welcome.

and yet you read it on a digital IR thermo-doodle as temperature. hmmmmmmmmmm.

Yes, you can measure the energy of photons to calculate the temperature of their source.

so again you state that a photon has temperature. If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature and if back radiation was indeed there, the earth would be indeed be warmer and it isn't. or do you feel the earth is getting warmer?

so again you state that a photon has temperature

Nope. Not even once. The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature

It's clear you don't know the difference between temperature and energy. Another of your faults.

Nope. Not even once.--yes

The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

What's the source?

Any matter above 0K is a source.

 

[jc456]

and yet you read it on a digital IR thermo-doodle as temperature. hmmmmmmmmmm.

Yes, you can measure the energy of photons to calculate the temperature of their source.

so again you state that a photon has temperature. If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature and if back radiation was indeed there, the earth would be indeed be warmer and it isn't. or do you feel the earth is getting warmer?

so again you state that a photon has temperature

Nope. Not even once. The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature

It's clear you don't know the difference between temperature and energy. Another of your faults.

Nope. Not even once.--yes

The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

What's the source?

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, you can measure the energy of photons to calculate the temperature of their source.

so again you state that a photon has temperature. If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature and if back radiation was indeed there, the earth would be indeed be warmer and it isn't. or do you feel the earth is getting warmer?

so again you state that a photon has temperature

Nope. Not even once. The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature

It's clear you don't know the difference between temperature and energy. Another of your faults.

Nope. Not even once.--yes

The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

What's the source?

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

Yes, your confusion is both wide and deep.

 

[jc456]

so again you state that a photon has temperature. If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature and if back radiation was indeed there, the earth would be indeed be warmer and it isn't. or do you feel the earth is getting warmer?

so again you state that a photon has temperature

Nope. Not even once. The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature

It's clear you don't know the difference between temperature and energy. Another of your faults.

Nope. Not even once.--yes

The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

What's the source?

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

Yes, your confusion is both wide and deep.

and yet the observed is on my side. Wow, just post up your there evidencial stuff and we'll see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so again you state that a photon has temperature

Nope. Not even once. The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

If it is its energy, then it belongs to the photon therefore the photon has a temperature

It's clear you don't know the difference between temperature and energy. Another of your faults.

Nope. Not even once.--yes

The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

What's the source?

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

Yes, your confusion is both wide and deep.

and yet the observed is on my side. Wow, just post up your there evidencial stuff and we'll see.

You've observed us getting fried simply because all matter above 0K radiates?

Where did this happen? Post your evidence.

 

[jc456]

Nope. Not even once.--yes

The source has a temperature. The photon does not.

What's the source?

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

Yes, your confusion is both wide and deep.

and yet the observed is on my side. Wow, just post up your there evidencial stuff and we'll see.

You've observed us getting fried simply because all matter above 0K radiates?

Where did this happen? Post your evidence.

I did? hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement, but hey you play make believe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

Yes, your confusion is both wide and deep.

and yet the observed is on my side. Wow, just post up your there evidencial stuff and we'll see.

You've observed us getting fried simply because all matter above 0K radiates?

Where did this happen? Post your evidence.

I did? hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement, but hey you play make believe.

hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement,

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

 

[jc456]

well then we should be fried.

Yes, your confusion is both wide and deep.

and yet the observed is on my side. Wow, just post up your there evidencial stuff and we'll see.

You've observed us getting fried simply because all matter above 0K radiates?

Where did this happen? Post your evidence.

I did? hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement, but hey you play make believe.

hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement,

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

exactly!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, your confusion is both wide and deep.

and yet the observed is on my side. Wow, just post up your there evidencial stuff and we'll see.

You've observed us getting fried simply because all matter above 0K radiates?

Where did this happen? Post your evidence.

I did? hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement, but hey you play make believe.

hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement,

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

exactly!!!

I'm glad you're able to admit your error.

 

[jc456]

and yet the observed is on my side. Wow, just post up your there evidencial stuff and we'll see.

You've observed us getting fried simply because all matter above 0K radiates?

Where did this happen? Post your evidence.

I did? hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement, but hey you play make believe.

hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement,

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

exactly!!!

I'm glad you're able to admit your error.

I will if you prove it exists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've observed us getting fried simply because all matter above 0K radiates?

Where did this happen? Post your evidence.

I did? hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement, but hey you play make believe.

hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement,

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

exactly!!!

I'm glad you're able to admit your error.

I will if you prove it exists.

You want me to prove that matter above 0K emits energy?

 

[jc456]

I did? hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement, but hey you play make believe.

hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement,

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

exactly!!!

I'm glad you're able to admit your error.

I will if you prove it exists.

You want me to prove that matter above 0K emits energy?

I want you to show me that matter in the atmosphere does.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

hmmmmmmm don't recollect making that statement,

Any matter above 0K is a source.

well then we should be fried.

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

exactly!!!

I'm glad you're able to admit your error.

I will if you prove it exists.

You want me to prove that matter above 0K emits energy?

I want you to show me that matter in the atmosphere does.

Do you feel the SB Law doesn't apply to matter in the atmosphere?

 

[jc456]

All matter above 0K emits, so when were we fried?

exactly!!!

I'm glad you're able to admit your error.

I will if you prove it exists.

You want me to prove that matter above 0K emits energy?

I want you to show me that matter in the atmosphere does.

Do you feel the SB Law doesn't apply to matter in the atmosphere?

I already answered you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm glad you're able to admit your error.

I will if you prove it exists.

You want me to prove that matter above 0K emits energy?

I want you to show me that matter in the atmosphere does.

Do you feel the SB Law doesn't apply to matter in the atmosphere?

I already answered you.

Then I guess you should post your work showing the SB Law doesn't apply to the atmosphere.

You'd get nominated for a Nobel, at least.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well we finally thawed out here in Manitoba.
So I went outside to see if it was the sun that did it or all that "back radiation".

I used a laser thermometer which converts IR watts radiated to degrees C.
The sun had warmed the ground I stood on to +37 C which is a lot more than the +16C average used in Trenberth`s "energy budget" which zaps us with 333 watts/m^2 "back radiation"
Pointing the gun straight up at the clear sky it should have registered +3.8 C if there were 333 watts coming back down, but all I got was a bone chilling -18 C which corresponds to 237 watts.
So even with all that CO2 up there it`s still 100 watts/m^2 short of a climax scientist`s orgasm.

Conduction at ground level where air meets the warmer ground...(your registering ground temp) convection from water vapor in the air once warmed (your IR beam is bouncing off water vapor in the air)... and no measurement of what LWIR is doing (down welling) because your hand held device cant measure it.

Fooling yourself with equipment is easy to do.. However you have identified two elements in the atmospheres temperature. The question is, do you think that BBR (Black Body Radiation- LWIR) returning to the earths surface after being emitted from the surface (caused by CO2 or other gases) is capable of making up 170Wm^2 in the energy budget of the earth?

convection from water vapor in the air once warmed (your IR beam is bouncing off water vapor in the air)... and no measurement of what LWIR is doing (down welling)

IR beam? You think that device shoots a beam?
It captures photons. The energy of the photons gives a temperature reading.
It's measuring back radiation when pointed at the sky.

The device emits an IR beam it then determines temperature by the reflected LWIR which hits the sensor. The band width of the beam is the determining factor and the sensor is narrow band. It can not read broad spectrum DWLWIR by its design.

The device emits an IR beam

No it doesn't.

it then determines temperature by the reflected LWIR which hits the sensor.

How would a reflected beam tell you the temperature?

The band width of the beam is the determining factor

You're hurting our cause, you should probably stop.

There are two different types of IR thermometers. One requires a power emitted source the other does not..