More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Derp signifies the utter stupidity of your post.

I know 12 year olds with a firmer grasp of physics than you.
You're harming our cause. You should be ashamed.

good for you, now just post up your back radiation evidence and let's call it a day. You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

BTW, I have no idea your cause. Mine is AGW doesn't exist.

View attachment 76700

You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

It's true, photons traveling from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface heat up the surface.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000? What's the difference between the two, 800. LMFAO. wow. BTW, that doesn't make your point at all. And Science of Doom is a warmist site. So I trust nothing from there. Especially when they can't subtract 1900 from 1000 and get 900. Funny funny and I'm laughing quite hard. Bet you missed that one.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000?

1900 incoming. Weird, because you claim it's zero.

And Science of Doom is a warmist site.

Radiation and Climate

View attachment 76703

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

Science of Doom, hmm read in this link the conversation between him and another in this link:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW Myth of Reradiation:

and you can go here:

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

If that's the case, you have something in common with them.

Thanks. It shows that 15%, outbound, absorbed by the atmosphere.
Pesky facts. LOL!

 

[jc456]

good for you, now just post up your back radiation evidence and let's call it a day. You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

BTW, I have no idea your cause. Mine is AGW doesn't exist.

View attachment 76700

You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

It's true, photons traveling from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface heat up the surface.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000? What's the difference between the two, 800. LMFAO. wow. BTW, that doesn't make your point at all. And Science of Doom is a warmist site. So I trust nothing from there. Especially when they can't subtract 1900 from 1000 and get 900. Funny funny and I'm laughing quite hard. Bet you missed that one.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000?

1900 incoming. Weird, because you claim it's zero.

And Science of Doom is a warmist site.

Radiation and Climate

View attachment 76703

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

Science of Doom, hmm read in this link the conversation between him and another in this link:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW Myth of Reradiation:

and you can go here:

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

If that's the case, you have something in common with them.

View attachment 76731

Thanks. It shows that 15%, outbound, absorbed by the atmosphere.
Pesky facts. LOL!

Right? Pesky things like 19 minus 10 is 9.

And then there's these sites that recognize the myth.

Planetary Vision: The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

and many many more at the bottom of the page. So, your infatuation with me is funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 76700

You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

It's true, photons traveling from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface heat up the surface.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000? What's the difference between the two, 800. LMFAO. wow. BTW, that doesn't make your point at all. And Science of Doom is a warmist site. So I trust nothing from there. Especially when they can't subtract 1900 from 1000 and get 900. Funny funny and I'm laughing quite hard. Bet you missed that one.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000?

1900 incoming. Weird, because you claim it's zero.

And Science of Doom is a warmist site.

Radiation and Climate

View attachment 76703

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

Science of Doom, hmm read in this link the conversation between him and another in this link:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW Myth of Reradiation:

and you can go here:

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

If that's the case, you have something in common with them.

View attachment 76731

Thanks. It shows that 15%, outbound, absorbed by the atmosphere.
Pesky facts. LOL!

Right? Pesky things like 19 minus 10 is 9.

And then there's these sites that recognize the myth.

Planetary Vision: The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

and many many more at the bottom of the page. So, your infatuation with me is funny.

19, still larger than zero.

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

An object can warm through the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

There you go. Your own link refutes your silly claim.

However, an object passively warmed can't warm the object providing the warmth. Were this to be so energy could be multiplied for no extra input merely by having objects mutually radiate EMR.

Darn it, now your link confuses addition and subtraction with multiplication.

 

[jc456]

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000? What's the difference between the two, 800. LMFAO. wow. BTW, that doesn't make your point at all. And Science of Doom is a warmist site. So I trust nothing from there. Especially when they can't subtract 1900 from 1000 and get 900. Funny funny and I'm laughing quite hard. Bet you missed that one.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000?

1900 incoming. Weird, because you claim it's zero.

And Science of Doom is a warmist site.

Radiation and Climate

View attachment 76703

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

Science of Doom, hmm read in this link the conversation between him and another in this link:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW Myth of Reradiation:

and you can go here:

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

If that's the case, you have something in common with them.

View attachment 76731

Thanks. It shows that 15%, outbound, absorbed by the atmosphere.
Pesky facts. LOL!

Right? Pesky things like 19 minus 10 is 9.

And then there's these sites that recognize the myth.

Planetary Vision: The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

and many many more at the bottom of the page. So, your infatuation with me is funny.

19, still larger than zero.

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

An object can warm through the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

There you go. Your own link refutes your silly claim.

However, an object passively warmed can't warm the object providing the warmth. Were this to be so energy could be multiplied for no extra input merely by having objects mutually radiate EMR.

Darn it, now your link confuses addition and subtraction with multiplication.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun. And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth and yep multiplier.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000?

1900 incoming. Weird, because you claim it's zero.

And Science of Doom is a warmist site.

Radiation and Climate

View attachment 76703

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

Science of Doom, hmm read in this link the conversation between him and another in this link:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW Myth of Reradiation:

and you can go here:

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

If that's the case, you have something in common with them.

View attachment 76731

Thanks. It shows that 15%, outbound, absorbed by the atmosphere.
Pesky facts. LOL!

Right? Pesky things like 19 minus 10 is 9.

And then there's these sites that recognize the myth.

Planetary Vision: The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

and many many more at the bottom of the page. So, your infatuation with me is funny.

19, still larger than zero.

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

An object can warm through the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

There you go. Your own link refutes your silly claim.

However, an object passively warmed can't warm the object providing the warmth. Were this to be so energy could be multiplied for no extra input merely by having objects mutually radiate EMR.

Darn it, now your link confuses addition and subtraction with multiplication.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun. And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth and yep multiplier.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun.

Funny that you think Stefan-Boltzmann would lead to "a runaway scenario".

And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun

Well of course any photon from Earth striking the Sun would heat it.

and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth

But of course if the Sun was warmer it would radiate more at the Earth. Simple physics.

 

[jc456]

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

Science of Doom, hmm read in this link the conversation between him and another in this link:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW Myth of Reradiation:

and you can go here:

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

If that's the case, you have something in common with them.

View attachment 76731

Thanks. It shows that 15%, outbound, absorbed by the atmosphere.
Pesky facts. LOL!

Right? Pesky things like 19 minus 10 is 9.

And then there's these sites that recognize the myth.

Planetary Vision: The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

and many many more at the bottom of the page. So, your infatuation with me is funny.

19, still larger than zero.

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

An object can warm through the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

There you go. Your own link refutes your silly claim.

However, an object passively warmed can't warm the object providing the warmth. Were this to be so energy could be multiplied for no extra input merely by having objects mutually radiate EMR.

Darn it, now your link confuses addition and subtraction with multiplication.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun. And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth and yep multiplier.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun.

Funny that you think Stefan-Boltzmann would lead to "a runaway scenario".

And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun

Well of course any photon from Earth striking the Sun would heat it.

and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth

But of course if the Sun was warmer it would radiate more at the Earth. Simple physics.

yep and never stop. That's why it isn't happening that way. So, still no proof of back radiation. Zip. Sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

If that's the case, you have something in common with them.

View attachment 76731

Thanks. It shows that 15%, outbound, absorbed by the atmosphere.
Pesky facts. LOL!

Right? Pesky things like 19 minus 10 is 9.

And then there's these sites that recognize the myth.

Planetary Vision: The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

and many many more at the bottom of the page. So, your infatuation with me is funny.

19, still larger than zero.

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

An object can warm through the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

There you go. Your own link refutes your silly claim.

However, an object passively warmed can't warm the object providing the warmth. Were this to be so energy could be multiplied for no extra input merely by having objects mutually radiate EMR.

Darn it, now your link confuses addition and subtraction with multiplication.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun. And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth and yep multiplier.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun.

Funny that you think Stefan-Boltzmann would lead to "a runaway scenario".

And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun

Well of course any photon from Earth striking the Sun would heat it.

and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth

But of course if the Sun was warmer it would radiate more at the Earth. Simple physics.

yep and never stop. That's why it isn't happening that way. So, still no proof of back radiation. Zip. Sorry.

yep and never stop.

Only when the Sun runs out of fuel.

That's why it isn't happening that way.

But it is and it does. Unless you've refuted Stefan-Boltzmann somehow......

So, still no proof of back radiation.

Incoming long-wave, right there. Sorry.

 

[jc456]

Right? Pesky things like 19 minus 10 is 9.

And then there's these sites that recognize the myth.

Planetary Vision: The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

and many many more at the bottom of the page. So, your infatuation with me is funny.

19, still larger than zero.

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

An object can warm through the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

There you go. Your own link refutes your silly claim.

However, an object passively warmed can't warm the object providing the warmth. Were this to be so energy could be multiplied for no extra input merely by having objects mutually radiate EMR.

Darn it, now your link confuses addition and subtraction with multiplication.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun. And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth and yep multiplier.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun.

Funny that you think Stefan-Boltzmann would lead to "a runaway scenario".

And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun

Well of course any photon from Earth striking the Sun would heat it.

and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth

But of course if the Sun was warmer it would radiate more at the Earth. Simple physics.

yep and never stop. That's why it isn't happening that way. So, still no proof of back radiation. Zip. Sorry.

yep and never stop.

Only when the Sun runs out of fuel.

That's why it isn't happening that way.

But it is and it does. Unless you've refuted Stefan-Boltzmann somehow......

So, still no proof of back radiation.

View attachment 76745

Incoming long-wave, right there. Sorry.

Where is the link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

19, still larger than zero.

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

An object can warm through the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

There you go. Your own link refutes your silly claim.

However, an object passively warmed can't warm the object providing the warmth. Were this to be so energy could be multiplied for no extra input merely by having objects mutually radiate EMR.

Darn it, now your link confuses addition and subtraction with multiplication.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun. And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth and yep multiplier.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun.

Funny that you think Stefan-Boltzmann would lead to "a runaway scenario".

And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun

Well of course any photon from Earth striking the Sun would heat it.

and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth

But of course if the Sun was warmer it would radiate more at the Earth. Simple physics.

yep and never stop. That's why it isn't happening that way. So, still no proof of back radiation. Zip. Sorry.

yep and never stop.

Only when the Sun runs out of fuel.

That's why it isn't happening that way.

But it is and it does. Unless you've refuted Stefan-Boltzmann somehow......

So, still no proof of back radiation.

View attachment 76745

Incoming long-wave, right there. Sorry.

Where is the link?

Sensible Heat, Latent Heat and Radiation

Where's yours? The one that refutes Stefan-Boltzmann.

 

[jc456]

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun. And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth and yep multiplier.

funny you don't understand it would be a runaway scenario and the earth would become a sun.

Funny that you think Stefan-Boltzmann would lead to "a runaway scenario".

And the earth would therefore have to heat the sun

Well of course any photon from Earth striking the Sun would heat it.

and then the sun would then get warmer and radiate more at the earth

But of course if the Sun was warmer it would radiate more at the Earth. Simple physics.

yep and never stop. That's why it isn't happening that way. So, still no proof of back radiation. Zip. Sorry.

yep and never stop.

Only when the Sun runs out of fuel.

That's why it isn't happening that way.

But it is and it does. Unless you've refuted Stefan-Boltzmann somehow......

So, still no proof of back radiation.

View attachment 76745

Incoming long-wave, right there. Sorry.

Where is the link?

Sensible Heat, Latent Heat and Radiation

Where's yours? The one that refutes Stefan-Boltzmann.

Posted

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Todd.............JC............check it out............

The definitive article on why the alarmists are losing so big................


Global-Warming Alarmists, You're Doing It Wrong


Kinda sums up this thread in one article.


And Im laughing.............

 

[jc456]

Here is another authors summary of Greenhouse Effect based on a Paper by the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist
by Jonathan Gardner
The link to the paper is also in Gardner summary. notice the word perpetual that he uses, I came to the same conclusion as he did if there were indeed a greenhouse effect. hmmmmmm.

"The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is another authors summary of Greenhouse Effect based on a Paper by the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist
by Jonathan Gardner
The link to the paper is also in Gardner summary. notice the word perpetual that he uses, I came to the same conclusion as he did if there were indeed a greenhouse effect. hmmmmmm.

"The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is."

The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth.

Thanks, that's funny. It's nice that you found someone else as confused about the SB Law as you.

My car parked in the Sun with the windows rolled up knows more about the Greenhouse Effect than that joker.

notice the word perpetual that he uses

I noticed he's a moron. Confusing conduction with radiation. Just sad.

Here's more of his silliness.

Let me help the lay-person understand why the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist and can never exist.

At the very simplest, consider a hot cup of water sitting on a counter top at room temperature. What happens? The counter top and surrounding air warms slightly, but the cup of water cool to room temperature. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. As long as there is heat transfer, the two bodies will come to an equilibrium in temperature. We don’t have to even think about what mechanism of heat transfer exists, we simply have to know that two bodies have different temperatures to know that they will come to an equilibrium. Rather, (as I explain in the appendix below), that a body will eventually emit as much heat as it absorbs.

What people who preach the “Greenhouse Effect” want us to believe is that you can put some kind of insulator between the hot water and the counter top that will keep the water hot indefinitely, or even make it hotter than it was before. Such an insulator doesn’t exist, nor can it. At best, you can slow down the heat transfer process to a crawl, but the water will still cool. The best insulator we have—thermoses—do nothing more than slow down the heat transfer.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

I've never seen anyone claim an insulator could make the water hotter than before, but it's possible, the global warmers have idiots on their side as well, so I guess it's possible that some idiot claimed that.

But notice in the bolded sentence, he admits something can slow the escape of heat.
Like a greenhouse, or a layer of greenhouse gasses. LOL!

 

[jc456]

Here is another authors summary of Greenhouse Effect based on a Paper by the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist
by Jonathan Gardner
The link to the paper is also in Gardner summary. notice the word perpetual that he uses, I came to the same conclusion as he did if there were indeed a greenhouse effect. hmmmmmm.

"The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is."

The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth.

Thanks, that's funny. It's nice that you found someone else as confused about the SB Law as you.

My car parked in the Sun with the windows rolled up knows more about the Greenhouse Effect than that joker.

notice the word perpetual that he uses

I noticed he's a moron. Confusing conduction with radiation. Just sad.

Here's more of his silliness.

Let me help the lay-person understand why the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist and can never exist.

At the very simplest, consider a hot cup of water sitting on a counter top at room temperature. What happens? The counter top and surrounding air warms slightly, but the cup of water cool to room temperature. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. As long as there is heat transfer, the two bodies will come to an equilibrium in temperature. We don’t have to even think about what mechanism of heat transfer exists, we simply have to know that two bodies have different temperatures to know that they will come to an equilibrium. Rather, (as I explain in the appendix below), that a body will eventually emit as much heat as it absorbs.

What people who preach the “Greenhouse Effect” want us to believe is that you can put some kind of insulator between the hot water and the counter top that will keep the water hot indefinitely, or even make it hotter than it was before. Such an insulator doesn’t exist, nor can it. At best, you can slow down the heat transfer process to a crawl, but the water will still cool. The best insulator we have—thermoses—do nothing more than slow down the heat transfer.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

I've never seen anyone claim an insulator could make the water hotter than before, but it's possible, the global warmers have idiots on their side as well, so I guess it's possible that some idiot claimed that.

But notice in the bolded sentence, he admits something can slow the escape of heat.
Like a greenhouse, or a layer of greenhouse gasses. LOL!

yep, in that link there is this statement:

"Something in Physics that is called an “Effect” should have plenty of papers written to defend it. After all, “Effects” are not only based on sound theories, but observed in nature. Why could Herman and Pielke not direct us to those papers? Because those papers do not exist, and never will."

dude, I keep finding more and more information that back radiation is a dream concept. You've taken the bait. Sorry friend, as the blogger writes and I agree with is. Why not post up the papers that defend Effect?

And the dude was referring to an insulator for the water, not the earth. Again, that is heat and not IR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is another authors summary of Greenhouse Effect based on a Paper by the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist
by Jonathan Gardner
The link to the paper is also in Gardner summary. notice the word perpetual that he uses, I came to the same conclusion as he did if there were indeed a greenhouse effect. hmmmmmm.

"The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is."

You sure you want to use the guy as a source?

Regardless, we all know that while energy may transfer from a cold body to a warmer one, HEAT cannot, unless some external work is put into the system somehow.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

I hate when that happens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is another authors summary of Greenhouse Effect based on a Paper by the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist
by Jonathan Gardner
The link to the paper is also in Gardner summary. notice the word perpetual that he uses, I came to the same conclusion as he did if there were indeed a greenhouse effect. hmmmmmm.

"The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is."

The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth.

Thanks, that's funny. It's nice that you found someone else as confused about the SB Law as you.

My car parked in the Sun with the windows rolled up knows more about the Greenhouse Effect than that joker.

notice the word perpetual that he uses

I noticed he's a moron. Confusing conduction with radiation. Just sad.

Here's more of his silliness.

Let me help the lay-person understand why the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist and can never exist.

At the very simplest, consider a hot cup of water sitting on a counter top at room temperature. What happens? The counter top and surrounding air warms slightly, but the cup of water cool to room temperature. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. As long as there is heat transfer, the two bodies will come to an equilibrium in temperature. We don’t have to even think about what mechanism of heat transfer exists, we simply have to know that two bodies have different temperatures to know that they will come to an equilibrium. Rather, (as I explain in the appendix below), that a body will eventually emit as much heat as it absorbs.

What people who preach the “Greenhouse Effect” want us to believe is that you can put some kind of insulator between the hot water and the counter top that will keep the water hot indefinitely, or even make it hotter than it was before. Such an insulator doesn’t exist, nor can it. At best, you can slow down the heat transfer process to a crawl, but the water will still cool. The best insulator we have—thermoses—do nothing more than slow down the heat transfer.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

I've never seen anyone claim an insulator could make the water hotter than before, but it's possible, the global warmers have idiots on their side as well, so I guess it's possible that some idiot claimed that.

But notice in the bolded sentence, he admits something can slow the escape of heat.
Like a greenhouse, or a layer of greenhouse gasses. LOL!

yep, in that link there is this statement:

"Something in Physics that is called an “Effect” should have plenty of papers written to defend it. After all, “Effects” are not only based on sound theories, but observed in nature. Why could Herman and Pielke not direct us to those papers? Because those papers do not exist, and never will."

dude, I keep finding more and more information that back radiation is a dream concept. You've taken the bait. Sorry friend, as the blogger writes and I agree with is. Why not post up the papers that defend Effect?

And the dude was referring to an insulator for the water, not the earth. Again, that is heat and not IR.

“Effects” are not only based on sound theories, but observed in nature.

Right, I burn my hands on the steering wheel of my car, because the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist.

And the dude was referring to an insulator for the water, not the earth.

Are you saying his "hot cup of water = the Earth" wasn't a precise comparison?

dude, I keep finding more and more information that back radiation is a dream concept.

I'm sure you do, because you're not alone in your idiocy.

 

[jc456]

Here is another authors summary of Greenhouse Effect based on a Paper by the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist
by Jonathan Gardner
The link to the paper is also in Gardner summary. notice the word perpetual that he uses, I came to the same conclusion as he did if there were indeed a greenhouse effect. hmmmmmm.

"The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is."

You sure you want to use the guy as a source?

Regardless, we all know that while energy may transfer from a cold body to a warmer one, HEAT cannot, unless some external work is put into the system somehow.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

I hate when that happens.

And, don't understand your point. That doesn't mean there is any energy moving from CO2 to the surface, it is merely that energy can transfer. You have to have energy. Again, you can't supply us with any material that proves CO2. I quoted the reference once already. So post up what doesn't exist.

 

[jc456]

Here is another authors summary of Greenhouse Effect based on a Paper by the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist
by Jonathan Gardner
The link to the paper is also in Gardner summary. notice the word perpetual that he uses, I came to the same conclusion as he did if there were indeed a greenhouse effect. hmmmmmm.

"The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is."

The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth.

Thanks, that's funny. It's nice that you found someone else as confused about the SB Law as you.

My car parked in the Sun with the windows rolled up knows more about the Greenhouse Effect than that joker.

notice the word perpetual that he uses

I noticed he's a moron. Confusing conduction with radiation. Just sad.

Here's more of his silliness.

Let me help the lay-person understand why the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist and can never exist.

At the very simplest, consider a hot cup of water sitting on a counter top at room temperature. What happens? The counter top and surrounding air warms slightly, but the cup of water cool to room temperature. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. As long as there is heat transfer, the two bodies will come to an equilibrium in temperature. We don’t have to even think about what mechanism of heat transfer exists, we simply have to know that two bodies have different temperatures to know that they will come to an equilibrium. Rather, (as I explain in the appendix below), that a body will eventually emit as much heat as it absorbs.

What people who preach the “Greenhouse Effect” want us to believe is that you can put some kind of insulator between the hot water and the counter top that will keep the water hot indefinitely, or even make it hotter than it was before. Such an insulator doesn’t exist, nor can it. At best, you can slow down the heat transfer process to a crawl, but the water will still cool. The best insulator we have—thermoses—do nothing more than slow down the heat transfer.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

I've never seen anyone claim an insulator could make the water hotter than before, but it's possible, the global warmers have idiots on their side as well, so I guess it's possible that some idiot claimed that.

But notice in the bolded sentence, he admits something can slow the escape of heat.
Like a greenhouse, or a layer of greenhouse gasses. LOL!

yep, in that link there is this statement:

"Something in Physics that is called an “Effect” should have plenty of papers written to defend it. After all, “Effects” are not only based on sound theories, but observed in nature. Why could Herman and Pielke not direct us to those papers? Because those papers do not exist, and never will."

dude, I keep finding more and more information that back radiation is a dream concept. You've taken the bait. Sorry friend, as the blogger writes and I agree with is. Why not post up the papers that defend Effect?

And the dude was referring to an insulator for the water, not the earth. Again, that is heat and not IR.

“Effects” are not only based on sound theories, but observed in nature.

Right, I burn my hands on the steering wheel of my car, because the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist.

And the dude was referring to an insulator for the water, not the earth.

Are you saying his "hot cup of water = the Earth" wasn't a precise comparison?

dude, I keep finding more and more information that back radiation is a dream concept.

I'm sure you do, because you're not alone in your idiocy.

I'm sure you do, because you're not alone in your idiocy.
And yet you still have produced nothing to prove Effect. Dude I have much much more. There are many many and those who did in 1909, so this isn't new. Just post us up the Effects evidence. I'm sure many would be amazed if you did.

 

[jc456]

Here is another authors summary of Greenhouse Effect based on a Paper by the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist
by Jonathan Gardner
The link to the paper is also in Gardner summary. notice the word perpetual that he uses, I came to the same conclusion as he did if there were indeed a greenhouse effect. hmmmmmm.

"The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is."

The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth.

Thanks, that's funny. It's nice that you found someone else as confused about the SB Law as you.

My car parked in the Sun with the windows rolled up knows more about the Greenhouse Effect than that joker.

notice the word perpetual that he uses

I noticed he's a moron. Confusing conduction with radiation. Just sad.

Here's more of his silliness.

Let me help the lay-person understand why the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist and can never exist.

At the very simplest, consider a hot cup of water sitting on a counter top at room temperature. What happens? The counter top and surrounding air warms slightly, but the cup of water cool to room temperature. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. As long as there is heat transfer, the two bodies will come to an equilibrium in temperature. We don’t have to even think about what mechanism of heat transfer exists, we simply have to know that two bodies have different temperatures to know that they will come to an equilibrium. Rather, (as I explain in the appendix below), that a body will eventually emit as much heat as it absorbs.

What people who preach the “Greenhouse Effect” want us to believe is that you can put some kind of insulator between the hot water and the counter top that will keep the water hot indefinitely, or even make it hotter than it was before. Such an insulator doesn’t exist, nor can it. At best, you can slow down the heat transfer process to a crawl, but the water will still cool. The best insulator we have—thermoses—do nothing more than slow down the heat transfer.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

I've never seen anyone claim an insulator could make the water hotter than before, but it's possible, the global warmers have idiots on their side as well, so I guess it's possible that some idiot claimed that.

But notice in the bolded sentence, he admits something can slow the escape of heat.
Like a greenhouse, or a layer of greenhouse gasses. LOL!

yep, in that link there is this statement:

"Something in Physics that is called an “Effect” should have plenty of papers written to defend it. After all, “Effects” are not only based on sound theories, but observed in nature. Why could Herman and Pielke not direct us to those papers? Because those papers do not exist, and never will."

dude, I keep finding more and more information that back radiation is a dream concept. You've taken the bait. Sorry friend, as the blogger writes and I agree with is. Why not post up the papers that defend Effect?

And the dude was referring to an insulator for the water, not the earth. Again, that is heat and not IR.

“Effects” are not only based on sound theories, but observed in nature.

Right, I burn my hands on the steering wheel of my car, because the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist.

And the dude was referring to an insulator for the water, not the earth.

Are you saying his "hot cup of water = the Earth" wasn't a precise comparison?

dude, I keep finding more and more information that back radiation is a dream concept.

I'm sure you do, because you're not alone in your idiocy.

BTW,
Right, I burn my hands on the steering wheel of my car, because the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist.
Because your steering wheel was heated by sunlight and got hot. That is what the sun actually does, it warms the planet. without it we wouldn't be here. And your steering wheel absorbs the suns energy. Doh, there's the word. LOL dude, nice try. you can't prove your position.

 

[jc456]

The Fallacy of Trapped Heat
"Daily temperatures could be as low as 20 F, or sometimes only 50 F, at the winter cold end. Sometimes winter days were about 30 F peak, sometimes 70 F. It all depended on how much sun we got and if a polar cold air mass landed on our heads. The mobile polar air could knock us down about 10 F. The rest was solar and heat loss. Warmer air could put us up 10 F, but if the next day was poor in sun, we got cold. Overall, the warmth of the day was strongly driven by daily solar heating, moderately by movement of air masses. Water uniformly made things colder. (When a storm would come, it was always cold rain, or hail, and occasional snow; never a warm tropical rain). Here in Florida, we have a warm tropical rain; but even that knocks the temperature down several degrees in minutes.

So again, where is all the heat “trapped”?"