More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Billy_Bob]

Richard Lindzen Petition to President Trump: Withdraw from the UN Convention on Climate Change

"The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list."

Wow!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've been looking all over for the Tucker Carlson interview last night of Bill Nye.. Tucker eviscerated his argument and cornered him on his belief that realists and non-alarmist should be jailed. It was amazing to watch as Nye was taken apart..

'You Don't Know!': Tucker and Bill Nye Clash on Climate Change

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've been looking all over for the Tucker Carlson interview last night of Bill Nye.. Tucker eviscerated his argument and cornered him on his belief that realists and non-alarmist should be jailed. It was amazing to watch as Nye was taken apart..

Yeah, Bill is a clown.

Did he say that photons have a charge?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've been looking all over for the Tucker Carlson interview last night of Bill Nye.. Tucker eviscerated his argument and cornered him on his belief that realists and non-alarmist should be jailed. It was amazing to watch as Nye was taken apart..

Yeah, Bill is a clown.

Did he say that photons have a charge?

I am still waiting for you to show us what the photon is. Matter particle or electromagnetic wave... Until that is fully known, how it reacts, is subject to speculation, on both sides..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've been looking all over for the Tucker Carlson interview last night of Bill Nye.. Tucker eviscerated his argument and cornered him on his belief that realists and non-alarmist should be jailed. It was amazing to watch as Nye was taken apart..

Yeah, Bill is a clown.

Did he say that photons have a charge?

I am still waiting for you to show us what the photon is. Matter particle or electromagnetic wave... Until that is fully know, how it reacts, is subject to speculation, on both sides..

Tell you what, you show me it has a charge, and I'll get you some particle/wave info.

how it reacts, is subject to speculation

You're the only one here speculating it has a charge.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've been looking all over for the Tucker Carlson interview last night of Bill Nye.. Tucker eviscerated his argument and cornered him on his belief that realists and non-alarmist should be jailed. It was amazing to watch as Nye was taken apart..

Yeah, Bill is a clown.

Did he say that photons have a charge?

I am still waiting for you to show us what the photon is. Matter particle or electromagnetic wave... Until that is fully know, how it reacts, is subject to speculation, on both sides..

Tell you what, you show me it has a charge, and I'll get you some particle/wave info.

how it reacts, is subject to speculation

You're the only one here speculating it has a charge.

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possibly be right. Yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I. There is evidence supporting both views but you act like yours is the only one relevant..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've been looking all over for the Tucker Carlson interview last night of Bill Nye.. Tucker eviscerated his argument and cornered him on his belief that realists and non-alarmist should be jailed. It was amazing to watch as Nye was taken apart..

Yeah, Bill is a clown.

Did he say that photons have a charge?

I am still waiting for you to show us what the photon is. Matter particle or electromagnetic wave... Until that is fully know, how it reacts, is subject to speculation, on both sides..

Tell you what, you show me it has a charge, and I'll get you some particle/wave info.

how it reacts, is subject to speculation

You're the only one here speculating it has a charge.

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right. yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I. There is evidence supporting both views but you act like yours is the only one relevant..

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right.

You claim it has a charge. So prove it.

yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I.

You're the one with the ridiculous assumption, not me.

Show that a beam of light can be bent by a magnetic or electric field. Should be easy.

Or admit your talk about covailent (sic) bonds somehow preventing "cooler photons" from striking hotter matter was bs from the start.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've been looking all over for the Tucker Carlson interview last night of Bill Nye.. Tucker eviscerated his argument and cornered him on his belief that realists and non-alarmist should be jailed. It was amazing to watch as Nye was taken apart..

Yeah, Bill is a clown.

Did he say that photons have a charge?

I am still waiting for you to show us what the photon is. Matter particle or electromagnetic wave... Until that is fully know, how it reacts, is subject to speculation, on both sides..

Tell you what, you show me it has a charge, and I'll get you some particle/wave info.

how it reacts, is subject to speculation

You're the only one here speculating it has a charge.

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right. yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I. There is evidence supporting both views but you act like yours is the only one relevant..

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right.

You claim it has a charge. So prove it.

yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I.

You're the one with the ridiculous assumption, not me.

Show that a beam of light can be bent by a magnetic or electric field. Should be easy.

Or admit your talk about covailent (sic) bonds somehow preventing "cooler photons" from striking hotter matter was bs from the start.

I have the same level of proof YOU DO... LOL what a disingenuous tool..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, Bill is a clown.

Did he say that photons have a charge?

I am still waiting for you to show us what the photon is. Matter particle or electromagnetic wave... Until that is fully know, how it reacts, is subject to speculation, on both sides..

Tell you what, you show me it has a charge, and I'll get you some particle/wave info.

how it reacts, is subject to speculation

You're the only one here speculating it has a charge.

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right. yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I. There is evidence supporting both views but you act like yours is the only one relevant..

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right.

You claim it has a charge. So prove it.

yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I.

You're the one with the ridiculous assumption, not me.

Show that a beam of light can be bent by a magnetic or electric field. Should be easy.

Or admit your talk about covailent (sic) bonds somehow preventing "cooler photons" from striking hotter matter was bs from the start.

I have the same level of proof YOU DO... LOL what a disingenuous tool..

You claimed that light had a charge.
Why do I need any proof? You're pulling "theories" out of your ass to show that photons
emitted by 100K matter can't hit 101K matter because covailent (sic) bonds create fields to prevent that.

It's ridiculous. So provide the proof of any of your silly claims. Or run away. Again!

 

[polarbear]

I am still waiting for you to show us what the photon is. Matter particle or electromagnetic wave... Until that is fully know, how it reacts, is subject to speculation, on both sides..

Tell you what, you show me it has a charge, and I'll get you some particle/wave info.

how it reacts, is subject to speculation

You're the only one here speculating it has a charge.

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right. yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I. There is evidence supporting both views but you act like yours is the only one relevant..

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right.

You claim it has a charge. So prove it.

yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I.

You're the one with the ridiculous assumption, not me.

Show that a beam of light can be bent by a magnetic or electric field. Should be easy.

Or admit your talk about covailent (sic) bonds somehow preventing "cooler photons" from striking hotter matter was bs from the start.

I have the same level of proof YOU DO... LOL what a disingenuous tool..

You claimed that light had a charge.
Why do I need any proof? You're pulling "theories" out of your ass to show that photons
emitted by 100K matter can't hit 101K matter because covailent (sic) bonds create fields to prevent that.

It's ridiculous. So provide the proof of any of your silly claims. Or run away. Again!

If that (absorber) matter is CO2 instead of a black body then you need photons at specific wavelengths at the bands where CO2 is capable of absorbing radiation.
100 K matter does not just emit photons at these wavelengths, unless the emitter was also CO2.
But in all the radiation budget diagrams the emitter is the surface and the absorber is the gas above it. So it all comes down to the CO2 molar extinction coefficient at the wavelength that matters at 100 deg K. And then you still don`t have an handle on the changes which occur due to pressure variations etc.

 

[jc456]

I've been looking all over for the Tucker Carlson interview last night of Bill Nye.. Tucker eviscerated his argument and cornered him on his belief that realists and non-alarmist should be jailed. It was amazing to watch as Nye was taken apart..

'You Don't Know!': Tucker and Bill Nye Clash on Climate Change

it was magnificent

 

[jc456]

I am still waiting for you to show us what the photon is. Matter particle or electromagnetic wave... Until that is fully know, how it reacts, is subject to speculation, on both sides..

Tell you what, you show me it has a charge, and I'll get you some particle/wave info.

how it reacts, is subject to speculation

You're the only one here speculating it has a charge.

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right. yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I. There is evidence supporting both views but you act like yours is the only one relevant..

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right.

You claim it has a charge. So prove it.

yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I.

You're the one with the ridiculous assumption, not me.

Show that a beam of light can be bent by a magnetic or electric field. Should be easy.

Or admit your talk about covailent (sic) bonds somehow preventing "cooler photons" from striking hotter matter was bs from the start.

I have the same level of proof YOU DO... LOL what a disingenuous tool..

You claimed that light had a charge.
Why do I need any proof? You're pulling "theories" out of your ass to show that photons
emitted by 100K matter can't hit 101K matter because covailent (sic) bonds create fields to prevent that.

It's ridiculous. So provide the proof of any of your silly claims. Or run away. Again!

too funny son.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell you what, you show me it has a charge, and I'll get you some particle/wave info.

how it reacts, is subject to speculation

You're the only one here speculating it has a charge.

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right. yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I. There is evidence supporting both views but you act like yours is the only one relevant..

Again your thinking your view is right and no one else could possible be right.

You claim it has a charge. So prove it.

yet you have no facts to prove your assumption nor do I.

You're the one with the ridiculous assumption, not me.

Show that a beam of light can be bent by a magnetic or electric field. Should be easy.

Or admit your talk about covailent (sic) bonds somehow preventing "cooler photons" from striking hotter matter was bs from the start.

I have the same level of proof YOU DO... LOL what a disingenuous tool..

You claimed that light had a charge.
Why do I need any proof? You're pulling "theories" out of your ass to show that photons
emitted by 100K matter can't hit 101K matter because covailent (sic) bonds create fields to prevent that.

It's ridiculous. So provide the proof of any of your silly claims. Or run away. Again!

If that (absorber) matter is CO2 instead of a black body then you need photons at specific wavelengths at the bands where CO2 is capable of absorbing radiation.
100 K matter does not just emit photons at these wavelengths, unless the emitter was also CO2.
But in all the radiation budget diagrams the emitter is the surface and the absorber is the gas above it. So it all comes down to the CO2 molar extinction coefficient at the wavelength that matters at 100 deg K. And then you still don`t have an handle on the changes which occur due to pressure variations etc.

If that (absorber) matter is CO2 instead of a black body then you need photons at specific wavelengths at the bands where CO2 is capable of absorbing radiation.

Yup.

100 K matter does not just emit photons at these wavelengths, unless the emitter was also CO2.

That portion of the discussion concerns Bob's claim that radiation from cooler matter isn't allowed to hit warmer matter. For some reason, the covailent (sic) bonds of the target are able to measure the temperature of the emitter, decide if the emitter is cooler and repel the photons. For some reason, if the emitter was warmer, the photons are not repelled.

It might have something to do with his claim that photons are charged particles.

So it all comes down to the CO2 molar extinction coefficient at the wavelength that matters at 100 deg K.

Maybe you can help clarify this topic?

Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?
Are they repelled somehow? Is emission prevented?

 

[polarbear]

Gladly. This is an easy one:
Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?
Are they repelled somehow? Is emission prevented?
Of course they can, but what happens after that is a highly controversial topic amongst serious scientists that work in spectro analysis. And that is: what exactly is the molar extinction coefficient for CO2 at the R,Q and P branch:

Dr.Heinz Hug investigated this and concluded:
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gladly. This is an easy one:
Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?
Are they repelled somehow? Is emission prevented?
Of course they can, but what happens after that is a highly controversial topic amongst serious scientists that work in spectro analysis. And that is: what exactly is the molar extinction coefficient for CO2 at the R,Q and P branch:

Dr.Heinz Hug investigated this and concluded:
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?

Of course they can

Excellent!

SSDD and Bob are sad.

Thanks.

 

[jc456]

Gladly. This is an easy one:
Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?
Are they repelled somehow? Is emission prevented?
Of course they can, but what happens after that is a highly controversial topic amongst serious scientists that work in spectro analysis. And that is: what exactly is the molar extinction coefficient for CO2 at the R,Q and P branch:

Dr.Heinz Hug investigated this and concluded:
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?

Of course they can

Excellent!

SSDD and Bob are sad.

Thanks.

Why would they be sad?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gladly. This is an easy one:
Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?
Are they repelled somehow? Is emission prevented?
Of course they can, but what happens after that is a highly controversial topic amongst serious scientists that work in spectro analysis. And that is: what exactly is the molar extinction coefficient for CO2 at the R,Q and P branch:

Dr.Heinz Hug investigated this and concluded:
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?

Of course they can

Excellent!

SSDD and Bob are sad.

Thanks.

Why would they be sad?

Because another anti-warmer disagrees with their error filled claims.

 

[jc456]

Gladly. This is an easy one:
Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?
Are they repelled somehow? Is emission prevented?
Of course they can, but what happens after that is a highly controversial topic amongst serious scientists that work in spectro analysis. And that is: what exactly is the molar extinction coefficient for CO2 at the R,Q and P branch:

Dr.Heinz Hug investigated this and concluded:
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?

Of course they can

Excellent!

SSDD and Bob are sad.

Thanks.

Why would they be sad?

Because another anti-warmer disagrees with their error filled claims.

so?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gladly. This is an easy one:
Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?
Are they repelled somehow? Is emission prevented?
Of course they can, but what happens after that is a highly controversial topic amongst serious scientists that work in spectro analysis. And that is: what exactly is the molar extinction coefficient for CO2 at the R,Q and P branch:

Dr.Heinz Hug investigated this and concluded:
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?

Of course they can

Excellent!

SSDD and Bob are sad.

Thanks.

Why would they be sad?

Because another anti-warmer disagrees with their error filled claims.

so?

Exactly.

 

[polarbear]

Gladly. This is an easy one:
Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?
Are they repelled somehow? Is emission prevented?
Of course they can, but what happens after that is a highly controversial topic amongst serious scientists that work in spectro analysis. And that is: what exactly is the molar extinction coefficient for CO2 at the R,Q and P branch:

Dr.Heinz Hug investigated this and concluded:
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

Can photons travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter?

Of course they can

Excellent!

SSDD and Bob are sad.

Thanks.

Is that photon radiation in all directions the only thing you disagree with SSDD and Bob?
If it is, it`s as pointless feuding over it as this "barrier"

Because the bulk of the heat transfer in the lower altitudes happens by convection.
A BIC lighter flame also radiates heat in all directions but a bulb thermometer held a few inches beside it will barely register the heat, but could bust quickly if you hold it above the flame.
The StB equation clearly does not account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above, so why use it?
You could apply it if you were pointing an IR thermometer at the lighter measuring the heat radiation it would register pretty well the same from all angles...but now you did not have to heat the glass and the liquid you had to heat when you used a bulb thermometer, and actually transfered heat .
Then again if you would do this with a bulb thermometer on the ISS in a zero g environment it would not matter if the thermometer is above or beside the lighter.
But it would not take long for the flame to get snuffed out due to the lack of oxygen because convection needs gravity.
Anyway on earth we do have it and once the bulk of the heat is near the stratosphere it matters little what effect the CO2 had at the lower altitudes.
There you encounter a layer which has been warmed to 270K by UV absorption.
That is a stable inversion layer, meaning there is no more vertical mixing & convection.
The only way out is to radiate through it and at this point the StB equation does apply and fully accounts for the energy transfer.
So the CO2 is not the elephant in the room, it`s the sun and the (high energy) UV + the ozone concentration. That`s the radiation which is powerful enough to peel your skin like it happens to a boiled potato. It wasn`t the CO2 back radiation that cooked it if you did not use a sun screen.