More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

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..

One requires a power emitted source

Link?

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Laughing%20his.gif.html'][/URL]


Hey JC.............looks like you and I aren't the only ones freezing our asses off!!!



Coldest May in DC in almost 140 years!!


[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/05/23/washington-d-c-s-worst-may-ever-explained/"]D.C.’s worst May ever, explained[/URL]

 

[jc456]

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.

No, no you post yours. You never have in here it's the piece you seem to always miss.

 

[jc456]

']

[/URL]']Hey JC.............looks like you and I aren't the only ones freezing our asses off!!!

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']Coldest May in DC in almost 140 years!!

[/URL]']

[/URL]'][/URL]
D.C.’s worst May ever, explained

What, no back radiation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

No, no you post yours. You never have in here it's the piece you seem to always miss.

Stefan-Boltzmann law | physics

 

[skookerasbil]

w0w.........I knew the climate compute models were were wrong sometimes but dang..........the models are historically a joke!!!

Climate Models - Beautifully Inaccurate - Climate Dispatch

 

[Billy_Bob]

Reality kicking the AGW crowd in the Ass...

Introducing the global warming speedometer

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reality kicking the AGW crowd in the Ass...

Ever find proof of the thermometer that shoots a beam at the target?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Reality kicking the AGW crowd in the Ass...

Ever find proof of the thermometer that shoots a beam at the target?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwjjiue-3vbMAhVP92MKHT8GAkQQFghbMAQ&url=http://www.micro-epsilon.com/download/products/_temperature/dax--thermoMETER-CTtrans--en-us.html&usg=AFQjCNEEAqhOLKS0jc6ITxGTeeS6I8Barw&cad=rja

Here is an industrial one...


Here is the Fluke hand held... Its IR output allows me to see phase variance in electrical control panels and allows me to see minute changes in temperature that adversely affect computers and other sensitive equipment,

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjjiue-3vbMAhVP92MKHT8GAkQQFghVMAM&url=http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/application-notes/pdf/thermometers/electrical-applications-for-infrared-thermometers_an.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEydKvFaJObKvEdQ6Lzh5n_XH3IJw

The IR output gives the unit a controlled base to derive its temperature analysis and EM field levels from. This also allows the unit to see changes in EM field output at very precise measurements.

LWIR is a EM wave field

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Go camp in desert. When you freezing your buns off -- you'll PRAY for a cloud to roll over. WHY? Because it's generally warmer at night when the atmos is LOCALLY cloudy.. That's back rad.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Go camp in desert. When you freezing your buns off -- you'll PRAY for a cloud to roll over. WHY? Because it's generally warmer at night when the atmos is LOCALLY cloudy.. That's back rad.

Nope...that's just water vapor in the air actually holding heat....water can do that while CO2 simply can't...no clouds are necessary...in a humid area, it makes little difference whether there are clouds or not....it isn't back radiation because back radiation doesn't exist...

 

[jc456]

Check this Scientist out Dr Hans Jelbring, Peer reviewed paper in 2003.

Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass

"PREFACE by Hans Jelbring 2-1- 2012
My 2003 E&E article (peer reviewed) was strictly applying 1st principle physics relating to a model atmosphere. Very strong conclusions can be made about such a model atmosphere and less strong ones about our real atmosphere. This was not discussed for reaching a maximum of simplicity and clarity approaching an educated but laymen audience. However, an investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.

THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
Hans Jelbring 2003

ABSTRACT
The main reason for claiming a scientific basis for “Anthropogenic Greenhouse
Warming (AGW )” is related to the use of “radiative energy flux models” as a
major tool for describing vertical energy fluxes within the atmosphere. Such
models prescribe that the temperature difference between a planetary surface and
the planetary average black body radiation temperature (commonly called the
Greenhouse Effect, GE) is caused almost exclusively by the so called greenhouse
gases. Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as
mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of
ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal
proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary
atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that
the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.
Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere. In
a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced
GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere
bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW,
accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and
probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes
causing climate change."

 

[flacaltenn]

Reality kicking the AGW crowd in the Ass...

Ever find proof of the thermometer that shoots a beam at the target?

Well now -- it DOES shoot a beam at targets, but that's for pointing accuracy of the device. Which is important because those meters all have different and limited angles of view. (Because it's an optical receiver). So it you're measuring the IR from tiny electronic components -- you want one with a very NARROW field of view so you're not "averaging" the temperature from cooler objects like the PC board.

I just measured my bench supply at 114degF. It measures 114degF with the laser guide taped over also..



So when Dr Roy pointed his IR gun at the sky to "prove" back rad from clouds, he was actually "averaging" both clouded and cloudless sky because of the large optical acceptance angle. But -- still will show a difference.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Go camp in desert. When you freezing your buns off -- you'll PRAY for a cloud to roll over. WHY? Because it's generally warmer at night when the atmos is LOCALLY cloudy.. That's back rad.

Nope...that's just water vapor in the air actually holding heat....water can do that while CO2 simply can't...no clouds are necessary...in a humid area, it makes little difference whether there are clouds or not....it isn't back radiation because back radiation doesn't exist...

'Fraid not guy.. The effect is immediate and noticeable. Even from cloud decks at 10,000 feet. You go put a 2 or 4 degree hotter object 10,000 feet away and see what "heat" propagates to you in a matter of minutes by only the thermo means of conduction and convection. It's the 3rd form of heat propagation -- which is radiation. Same type of EM energy that warms the planet in the FIRST place from a sun 93 Mill Miles away thru a TOTAL VACUUM..

Again -- you never took the follow-up on Radiative Transfers. Not doing this shit again. You remain purposely stupid at YOUR peril -- not mine..

 

[skookerasbil]

The AGW k00ks just posted up a thread about the "two meters"..........Im still laughing. Thought it was a thread about the Special Olympics.

 

[skookerasbil]

A lot of great science stuff on this thread of late.........seems to me it further cements what the non-religious already know: Nobody knows dick about the dynamics of the climate in 2016. Decades more research needs to be done........and thousands of scientists concur ( all fake scientists according to the AGW k00ks )

 

[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.

Go camp in desert. When you freezing your buns off -- you'll PRAY for a cloud to roll over. WHY? Because it's generally warmer at night when the atmos is LOCALLY cloudy.. That's back rad.

Nope...that's just water vapor in the air actually holding heat....water can do that while CO2 simply can't...no clouds are necessary...in a humid area, it makes little difference whether there are clouds or not....it isn't back radiation because back radiation doesn't exist...

Nope...that's just water vapor in the air actually holding heat....

Holding the heat? How would that keep you warmer?
Unless it could radiate back to you. You sub-moronic twit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reality kicking the AGW crowd in the Ass...

Ever find proof of the thermometer that shoots a beam at the target?

Well now -- it DOES shoot a beam at targets, but that's for pointing accuracy of the device. Which is important because those meters all have different and limited angles of view. (Because it's an optical receiver). So it you're measuring the IR from tiny electronic components -- you want one with a very NARROW field of view so you're not "averaging" the temperature from cooler objects like the PC board.

I just measured my bench supply at 114degF. It measures 114degF with the laser guide taped over also..



So when Dr Roy pointed his IR gun at the sky to "prove" back rad from clouds, he was actually "averaging" both clouded and cloudless sky because of the large optical acceptance angle. But -- still will show a difference.

Yes, I knew that. I was questioning BillyBob's idea that they all measure temp by bouncing an IR beam off a target, as if that would be useful.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The AGW k00ks just posted up a thread about the "two meters"..........Im still laughing. Thought it was a thread about the Special Olympics.

But enough about JC and SSDD.

 

[skookerasbil]

Almost 5,000 posts on this thread s0ns!!! And the "views"..........at laughable levels.

The ENVIRONMENT forum.........dominated by skeptics!!!