More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[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.

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.

Is that photon radiation in all directions the only thing you disagree with SSDD and Bob?

No. I just think that's one of their larger physics errors.
It leads them to invent "smart photons" and "covailent (sic) bonds" that create fields that deflect cooler photons.

Because the bulk of the heat transfer in the lower altitudes happens by convection.

Awesome.

The StB equation clearly does not account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above, so why use it?

Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above"?

 

[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?

Exactly.

I know, why I said it.

 

[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.

Is that photon radiation in all directions the only thing you disagree with SSDD and Bob?

No. I just think that's one of their larger physics errors.
It leads them to invent "smart photons" and "covailent (sic) bonds" that create fields that deflect cooler photons.

Because the bulk of the heat transfer in the lower altitudes happens by convection.

Awesome.

The StB equation clearly does not account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above, so why use it?

Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above"?

I am really enjoying this dialog, mainly because you don`t deflect & refrain from spiking it with insults.I don`t really have the time to read everything that is posted here and have some trouble understanding how a simple thing like heat transfer can stray so far from reality.
If Google could crawl the USMB as it is able to do it with most of the other web pages then I would type in the search parameters "SSDD filetype: php intext:smart photons"
That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him. Not having this information I assume it is much more likely that the latter was the case.
You asked:
Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above?
"It" being the StB equation, here is an example "who" is using it:
ATM S 211 - Notes
3) How does the Earth get rid of that energy?
By emitting radiation. That's the only way an isolated planet like the Earth can get rid of energy.
Not exactly totally false, because it`s true for the outer boundary, the stratosphere.
But there is no mention of convection as a heat transfer component in the troposphere:

I don`t see it, do you?
That`s probably the reason why SSDD used it to start this thread.
I don`t really care how many mistakes he made in the past because I don`t know anybody who never made any mistakes and I had the privilege to encounter some very very smart people in my line of work...which also included climate scientists at the Astro Lab near the North Pole.
I can upload pictures of that if you want to see them. The instrument benches are far beyond of what they got at Mauna Loa

 

[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.

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.

Is that photon radiation in all directions the only thing you disagree with SSDD and Bob?

No. I just think that's one of their larger physics errors.
It leads them to invent "smart photons" and "covailent (sic) bonds" that create fields that deflect cooler photons.

Because the bulk of the heat transfer in the lower altitudes happens by convection.

Awesome.

The StB equation clearly does not account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above, so why use it?

Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above"?

I am really enjoying this dialog, mainly because you don`t deflect & refrain from spiking it with insults.I don`t really have the time to read everything that is posted here and have some trouble understanding how a simple thing like heat transfer can stray so far from reality.
If Google could crawl the USMB as it is able to do it with most of the other web pages then I would type in the search parameters "SSDD filetype: php intext:smart photons"
That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him. Not having this information I assume it is much more likely that the latter was the case.
You asked:
Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above?
"It" being the StB equation, here is an example "who" is using it:
ATM S 211 - Notes
3) How does the Earth get rid of that energy?
By emitting radiation. That's the only way an isolated planet like the Earth can get rid of energy.
Not exactly totally false, because it`s true for the outer boundary, the stratosphere.
But there is no mention of convection as a heat transfer component in the troposphere:

I don`t see it, do you?
That`s probably the reason why SSDD used it to start this thread.
I don`t really care how many mistakes he made in the past because I don`t know anybody who never made any mistakes and I had the privilege to encounter some very very smart people in my line of work...which also included climate scientists at the Astro Lab near the North Pole.
I can upload pictures of that if you want to see them

That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him.

His claim was that photons are simply not emitted by cooler matter toward warmer matter.
That sounds like it requires either intelligent emitters or intelligent photons.

Perhaps you can think of a third way?

 

[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.

Is that photon radiation in all directions the only thing you disagree with SSDD and Bob?

No. I just think that's one of their larger physics errors.
It leads them to invent "smart photons" and "covailent (sic) bonds" that create fields that deflect cooler photons.

Because the bulk of the heat transfer in the lower altitudes happens by convection.

Awesome.

The StB equation clearly does not account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above, so why use it?

Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above"?

I am really enjoying this dialog, mainly because you don`t deflect & refrain from spiking it with insults.I don`t really have the time to read everything that is posted here and have some trouble understanding how a simple thing like heat transfer can stray so far from reality.
If Google could crawl the USMB as it is able to do it with most of the other web pages then I would type in the search parameters "SSDD filetype: php intext:smart photons"
That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him. Not having this information I assume it is much more likely that the latter was the case.
You asked:
Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above?
"It" being the StB equation, here is an example "who" is using it:
ATM S 211 - Notes
3) How does the Earth get rid of that energy?
By emitting radiation. That's the only way an isolated planet like the Earth can get rid of energy.
Not exactly totally false, because it`s true for the outer boundary, the stratosphere.
But there is no mention of convection as a heat transfer component in the troposphere:

I don`t see it, do you?
That`s probably the reason why SSDD used it to start this thread.
I don`t really care how many mistakes he made in the past because I don`t know anybody who never made any mistakes and I had the privilege to encounter some very very smart people in my line of work...which also included climate scientists at the Astro Lab near the North Pole.
I can upload pictures of that if you want to see them

That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him.

His claim was that photons are simply not emitted by cooler matter toward warmer matter.
That sounds like it requires either intelligent emitters or intelligent photons.

Perhaps you can think of a third way?

Yes I can. That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that. So what? Can you name somebody who never made a mistake? Why even go there?
It was a lot more interesting when you were discussing what process accounts for the bulk of the heat transfer in the troposphere.
Do you want to continue that or were you just looking for a wedge to crack SSDD & Bob etc?
They knew all along that IanC, I and many other skeptics never argued that matter above 0 K can not emit photons in all directions. But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1). All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).
To warm it up you need another heat source(#3) at a higher temperature(than #2) to get to more watts in at less watts out for #2...until it reaches a temperature where (#2)watts in is the same as (#2) watts out.
That`s established physics and has been proven to be so with experiments that can reproduce the same results over and over again...that`s why its a thermodynamic law & not just a theory.
And no it does not violate the 2nd T.D. law because the additional energy did come from a hotter source.
Are you Okay with that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Is that photon radiation in all directions the only thing you disagree with SSDD and Bob?

No. I just think that's one of their larger physics errors.
It leads them to invent "smart photons" and "covailent (sic) bonds" that create fields that deflect cooler photons.

Because the bulk of the heat transfer in the lower altitudes happens by convection.

Awesome.

The StB equation clearly does not account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above, so why use it?

Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above"?

I am really enjoying this dialog, mainly because you don`t deflect & refrain from spiking it with insults.I don`t really have the time to read everything that is posted here and have some trouble understanding how a simple thing like heat transfer can stray so far from reality.
If Google could crawl the USMB as it is able to do it with most of the other web pages then I would type in the search parameters "SSDD filetype: php intext:smart photons"
That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him. Not having this information I assume it is much more likely that the latter was the case.
You asked:
Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above?
"It" being the StB equation, here is an example "who" is using it:
ATM S 211 - Notes
3) How does the Earth get rid of that energy?
By emitting radiation. That's the only way an isolated planet like the Earth can get rid of energy.
Not exactly totally false, because it`s true for the outer boundary, the stratosphere.
But there is no mention of convection as a heat transfer component in the troposphere:

I don`t see it, do you?
That`s probably the reason why SSDD used it to start this thread.
I don`t really care how many mistakes he made in the past because I don`t know anybody who never made any mistakes and I had the privilege to encounter some very very smart people in my line of work...which also included climate scientists at the Astro Lab near the North Pole.
I can upload pictures of that if you want to see them

That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him.

His claim was that photons are simply not emitted by cooler matter toward warmer matter.
That sounds like it requires either intelligent emitters or intelligent photons.

Perhaps you can think of a third way?

Yes I can. That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that. So what? Can you name somebody who never made a mistake? Why even go there?
It was a lot more interesting when you were discussing what process accounts for the bulk of the heat transfer in the troposphere.
Do you want to continue that or were you just looking for a wedge to crack SSDD & Bob etc?
They knew all along that IanC, I and many other skeptics never argued that matter above 0 K can not emit photons in all directions. But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1). All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).
To warm it up you need another heat source(#3) at a higher temperature(than #2) to get to more watts in at less watts out for #2...until it reaches a temperature where (#2)watts in is the same as (#2) watts out.
That`s established physics and has been proven to be so with experiments that can reproduce the same results over and over again...that`s why its a thermodynamic law & not just a theory.
And no it does not violate the 2nd T.D. law because the additional energy did come from a hotter source.
Are you Okay with that?

That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that.

Obviously.

Can you name somebody who never made a mistake?

I can't name someone who made such a silly mistake, and years later, keeps building upon it to defend his "mistake", despite all the science that disagrees with his claim.
He's even gone so far as to say the photons can predict the future, before deciding where they'll travel.

But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1).

I'm more interested in the idea that the warmer matter cools more slowly due to radiation from the cooler matter.

All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).

How? Some sort of dimmer switch dialing back the radiation?

 

[polarbear]

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.

Is that photon radiation in all directions the only thing you disagree with SSDD and Bob?

No. I just think that's one of their larger physics errors.
It leads them to invent "smart photons" and "covailent (sic) bonds" that create fields that deflect cooler photons.

Because the bulk of the heat transfer in the lower altitudes happens by convection.

Awesome.

The StB equation clearly does not account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above, so why use it?

Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above"?

I am really enjoying this dialog, mainly because you don`t deflect & refrain from spiking it with insults.I don`t really have the time to read everything that is posted here and have some trouble understanding how a simple thing like heat transfer can stray so far from reality.
If Google could crawl the USMB as it is able to do it with most of the other web pages then I would type in the search parameters "SSDD filetype: php intext:smart photons"
That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him. Not having this information I assume it is much more likely that the latter was the case.
You asked:
Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above?
"It" being the StB equation, here is an example "who" is using it:
ATM S 211 - Notes
3) How does the Earth get rid of that energy?
By emitting radiation. That's the only way an isolated planet like the Earth can get rid of energy.
Not exactly totally false, because it`s true for the outer boundary, the stratosphere.
But there is no mention of convection as a heat transfer component in the troposphere:

I don`t see it, do you?
That`s probably the reason why SSDD used it to start this thread.
I don`t really care how many mistakes he made in the past because I don`t know anybody who never made any mistakes and I had the privilege to encounter some very very smart people in my line of work...which also included climate scientists at the Astro Lab near the North Pole.
I can upload pictures of that if you want to see them

That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him.

His claim was that photons are simply not emitted by cooler matter toward warmer matter.
That sounds like it requires either intelligent emitters or intelligent photons.

Perhaps you can think of a third way?

Yes I can. That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that. So what? Can you name somebody who never made a mistake? Why even go there?
It was a lot more interesting when you were discussing what process accounts for the bulk of the heat transfer in the troposphere.
Do you want to continue that or were you just looking for a wedge to crack SSDD & Bob etc?
They knew all along that IanC, I and many other skeptics never argued that matter above 0 K can not emit photons in all directions. But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1). All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).
To warm it up you need another heat source(#3) at a higher temperature(than #2) to get to more watts in at less watts out for #2...until it reaches a temperature where (#2)watts in is the same as (#2) watts out.
That`s established physics and has been proven to be so with experiments that can reproduce the same results over and over again...that`s why its a thermodynamic law & not just a theory.
And no it does not violate the 2nd T.D. law because the additional energy did come from a hotter source.
Are you Okay with that?

That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that.

Obviously.

Can you name somebody who never made a mistake?

I can't name someone who made such a silly mistake, and years later, keeps building upon it to defend his "mistake", despite all the science that disagrees with his claim.
He's even gone so far as to say the photons can predict the future, before deciding where they'll travel.

But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1).

I'm more interested in the idea that the warmer matter cools more slowly due to radiation from the cooler matter.

All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).

How? Some sort of dimmer switch dialing back the radiation?

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!
Do you just want to play silly word games or are you looking for a new way to phrase the StB equation in a non algebraic worded format?
I suppose you have a way of showing me the portion of the energy that came from #1 when #2 is at watts in = watts out. If you do you better explain why #1 has also increased while that was going on...instead of decreasing as it should have if it supplied that portion.
The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold, no way to twist it the other way around...unless each photon that was emitted came with a birth certificate that radiation budget skeptics should accept! Wow now we even got a "photon birther " controversy on top of smart photons

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that photon radiation in all directions the only thing you disagree with SSDD and Bob?

No. I just think that's one of their larger physics errors.
It leads them to invent "smart photons" and "covailent (sic) bonds" that create fields that deflect cooler photons.

Because the bulk of the heat transfer in the lower altitudes happens by convection.

Awesome.

The StB equation clearly does not account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above, so why use it?

Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above"?

I am really enjoying this dialog, mainly because you don`t deflect & refrain from spiking it with insults.I don`t really have the time to read everything that is posted here and have some trouble understanding how a simple thing like heat transfer can stray so far from reality.
If Google could crawl the USMB as it is able to do it with most of the other web pages then I would type in the search parameters "SSDD filetype: php intext:smart photons"
That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him. Not having this information I assume it is much more likely that the latter was the case.
You asked:
Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above?
"It" being the StB equation, here is an example "who" is using it:
ATM S 211 - Notes
3) How does the Earth get rid of that energy?
By emitting radiation. That's the only way an isolated planet like the Earth can get rid of energy.
Not exactly totally false, because it`s true for the outer boundary, the stratosphere.
But there is no mention of convection as a heat transfer component in the troposphere:

I don`t see it, do you?
That`s probably the reason why SSDD used it to start this thread.
I don`t really care how many mistakes he made in the past because I don`t know anybody who never made any mistakes and I had the privilege to encounter some very very smart people in my line of work...which also included climate scientists at the Astro Lab near the North Pole.
I can upload pictures of that if you want to see them

That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him.

His claim was that photons are simply not emitted by cooler matter toward warmer matter.
That sounds like it requires either intelligent emitters or intelligent photons.

Perhaps you can think of a third way?

Yes I can. That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that. So what? Can you name somebody who never made a mistake? Why even go there?
It was a lot more interesting when you were discussing what process accounts for the bulk of the heat transfer in the troposphere.
Do you want to continue that or were you just looking for a wedge to crack SSDD & Bob etc?
They knew all along that IanC, I and many other skeptics never argued that matter above 0 K can not emit photons in all directions. But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1). All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).
To warm it up you need another heat source(#3) at a higher temperature(than #2) to get to more watts in at less watts out for #2...until it reaches a temperature where (#2)watts in is the same as (#2) watts out.
That`s established physics and has been proven to be so with experiments that can reproduce the same results over and over again...that`s why its a thermodynamic law & not just a theory.
And no it does not violate the 2nd T.D. law because the additional energy did come from a hotter source.
Are you Okay with that?

That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that.

Obviously.

Can you name somebody who never made a mistake?

I can't name someone who made such a silly mistake, and years later, keeps building upon it to defend his "mistake", despite all the science that disagrees with his claim.
He's even gone so far as to say the photons can predict the future, before deciding where they'll travel.

But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1).

I'm more interested in the idea that the warmer matter cools more slowly due to radiation from the cooler matter.

All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).

How? Some sort of dimmer switch dialing back the radiation?

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!
Do you just want to play silly word games or are you looking for a new way to phrase the StB equation in a non algebraic worded format?
I suppose you have a way of showing me the portion of the energy that came from #1 when #2 is at watts in = watts out. If you do you better explain why #1 has also increased while that was going on...instead of decreasing as it should have if it supplied that portion.
The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold, no way to twist it the other way around...unless each photon that was emitted came with a birth certificate that radiation budget skeptics should accept! Wow now we even got a "photon birther " controversy on top of smart photons

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!

Does the warmer body emit more slowly? Or not?

The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold

Yup. Even while both are emitting.

 

[polarbear]

I am really enjoying this dialog, mainly because you don`t deflect & refrain from spiking it with insults.I don`t really have the time to read everything that is posted here and have some trouble understanding how a simple thing like heat transfer can stray so far from reality.
If Google could crawl the USMB as it is able to do it with most of the other web pages then I would type in the search parameters "SSDD filetype: php intext:smart photons"
That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him. Not having this information I assume it is much more likely that the latter was the case.
You asked:
Who uses it to "account for the bulk of the heat transfer from below to above?
"It" being the StB equation, here is an example "who" is using it:
ATM S 211 - Notes
3) How does the Earth get rid of that energy?
By emitting radiation. That's the only way an isolated planet like the Earth can get rid of energy.
Not exactly totally false, because it`s true for the outer boundary, the stratosphere.
But there is no mention of convection as a heat transfer component in the troposphere:

I don`t see it, do you?
That`s probably the reason why SSDD used it to start this thread.
I don`t really care how many mistakes he made in the past because I don`t know anybody who never made any mistakes and I had the privilege to encounter some very very smart people in my line of work...which also included climate scientists at the Astro Lab near the North Pole.
I can upload pictures of that if you want to see them

That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him.

His claim was that photons are simply not emitted by cooler matter toward warmer matter.
That sounds like it requires either intelligent emitters or intelligent photons.

Perhaps you can think of a third way?

Yes I can. That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that. So what? Can you name somebody who never made a mistake? Why even go there?
It was a lot more interesting when you were discussing what process accounts for the bulk of the heat transfer in the troposphere.
Do you want to continue that or were you just looking for a wedge to crack SSDD & Bob etc?
They knew all along that IanC, I and many other skeptics never argued that matter above 0 K can not emit photons in all directions. But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1). All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).
To warm it up you need another heat source(#3) at a higher temperature(than #2) to get to more watts in at less watts out for #2...until it reaches a temperature where (#2)watts in is the same as (#2) watts out.
That`s established physics and has been proven to be so with experiments that can reproduce the same results over and over again...that`s why its a thermodynamic law & not just a theory.
And no it does not violate the 2nd T.D. law because the additional energy did come from a hotter source.
Are you Okay with that?

That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that.

Obviously.

Can you name somebody who never made a mistake?

I can't name someone who made such a silly mistake, and years later, keeps building upon it to defend his "mistake", despite all the science that disagrees with his claim.
He's even gone so far as to say the photons can predict the future, before deciding where they'll travel.

But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1).

I'm more interested in the idea that the warmer matter cools more slowly due to radiation from the cooler matter.

All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).

How? Some sort of dimmer switch dialing back the radiation?

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!
Do you just want to play silly word games or are you looking for a new way to phrase the StB equation in a non algebraic worded format?
I suppose you have a way of showing me the portion of the energy that came from #1 when #2 is at watts in = watts out. If you do you better explain why #1 has also increased while that was going on...instead of decreasing as it should have if it supplied that portion.
The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold, no way to twist it the other way around...unless each photon that was emitted came with a birth certificate that radiation budget skeptics should accept! Wow now we even got a "photon birther " controversy on top of smart photons

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!

Does the warmer body emit more slowly? Or not?

The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold

Yup. Even while both are emitting.

What kind of question is that?...:
Does the warmer body emit more slowly? Or not?
Like do the photons the warmer body emits move more slowly or not?
The last time I checked the settled science, photons still moved at the speed of light.
But I can`t be 100% certain that Bill Nye, the science guy did not revise that since then.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would tell me if he made a post about photons being smart or if it was somebody else who coined that phrase in order to cul de sac him.

His claim was that photons are simply not emitted by cooler matter toward warmer matter.
That sounds like it requires either intelligent emitters or intelligent photons.

Perhaps you can think of a third way?

Yes I can. That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that. So what? Can you name somebody who never made a mistake? Why even go there?
It was a lot more interesting when you were discussing what process accounts for the bulk of the heat transfer in the troposphere.
Do you want to continue that or were you just looking for a wedge to crack SSDD & Bob etc?
They knew all along that IanC, I and many other skeptics never argued that matter above 0 K can not emit photons in all directions. But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1). All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).
To warm it up you need another heat source(#3) at a higher temperature(than #2) to get to more watts in at less watts out for #2...until it reaches a temperature where (#2)watts in is the same as (#2) watts out.
That`s established physics and has been proven to be so with experiments that can reproduce the same results over and over again...that`s why its a thermodynamic law & not just a theory.
And no it does not violate the 2nd T.D. law because the additional energy did come from a hotter source.
Are you Okay with that?

That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that.

Obviously.

Can you name somebody who never made a mistake?

I can't name someone who made such a silly mistake, and years later, keeps building upon it to defend his "mistake", despite all the science that disagrees with his claim.
He's even gone so far as to say the photons can predict the future, before deciding where they'll travel.

But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1).

I'm more interested in the idea that the warmer matter cools more slowly due to radiation from the cooler matter.

All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).

How? Some sort of dimmer switch dialing back the radiation?

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!
Do you just want to play silly word games or are you looking for a new way to phrase the StB equation in a non algebraic worded format?
I suppose you have a way of showing me the portion of the energy that came from #1 when #2 is at watts in = watts out. If you do you better explain why #1 has also increased while that was going on...instead of decreasing as it should have if it supplied that portion.
The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold, no way to twist it the other way around...unless each photon that was emitted came with a birth certificate that radiation budget skeptics should accept! Wow now we even got a "photon birther " controversy on top of smart photons

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!

Does the warmer body emit more slowly? Or not?

The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold

Yup. Even while both are emitting.

What kind of question is that?...:
Does the warmer body emit more slowly? Or not?
Like do the photons the warmer body emits move more slowly or not?
The last time I checked the settled science, photons still moved at the speed of light.
But I can`t be 100% certain that Bill Nye, the science guy did not revise that since then.

Like do the photons the warmer body emits move more slowly or not?

Does it emit photons more slowly, not slower photons.

 

[Billy_Bob]

New study shows why calling people “climate deniers” is not just counterproductive, but stupid too

One of the most common forms of incivility and hostility in the climate change debate is the use of derogatory names, which people who hold opposing viewpoints use to refer to those with whom they disagree. While a certain element of debate focuses on the evidence brought forward by debate participants, the antagonism is frequently more personal and related to reducing the legitimacy or status of the other individual in question. These labels identify individuals at either ends of an extreme spectrum—either those who believein climate change (also known by labels such as warmists), or those who deny or are skeptical of various elements relating to climate change (usually climate change science, but not necessarily). There are rarely labels that describe those who are apathetic about climate change, or who have no fixed viewpoint. The section below explores the types of labels used in the climate debate in more detail.

If you resort to name calling your position is so weak it is nonexistent..

 

[polarbear]

Yes I can. That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that. So what? Can you name somebody who never made a mistake? Why even go there?
It was a lot more interesting when you were discussing what process accounts for the bulk of the heat transfer in the troposphere.
Do you want to continue that or were you just looking for a wedge to crack SSDD & Bob etc?
They knew all along that IanC, I and many other skeptics never argued that matter above 0 K can not emit photons in all directions. But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1). All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).
To warm it up you need another heat source(#3) at a higher temperature(than #2) to get to more watts in at less watts out for #2...until it reaches a temperature where (#2)watts in is the same as (#2) watts out.
That`s established physics and has been proven to be so with experiments that can reproduce the same results over and over again...that`s why its a thermodynamic law & not just a theory.
And no it does not violate the 2nd T.D. law because the additional energy did come from a hotter source.
Are you Okay with that?

That 3rd way is called "he made a mistake" when he said that.

Obviously.

Can you name somebody who never made a mistake?

I can't name someone who made such a silly mistake, and years later, keeps building upon it to defend his "mistake", despite all the science that disagrees with his claim.
He's even gone so far as to say the photons can predict the future, before deciding where they'll travel.

But we all argue that the warmer matter(#2) does not get any warmer from the cooler matter(#1).

I'm more interested in the idea that the warmer matter cools more slowly due to radiation from the cooler matter.

All it does is diminish the rate of cooling of the warmer body(#2).

How? Some sort of dimmer switch dialing back the radiation?

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!
Do you just want to play silly word games or are you looking for a new way to phrase the StB equation in a non algebraic worded format?
I suppose you have a way of showing me the portion of the energy that came from #1 when #2 is at watts in = watts out. If you do you better explain why #1 has also increased while that was going on...instead of decreasing as it should have if it supplied that portion.
The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold, no way to twist it the other way around...unless each photon that was emitted came with a birth certificate that radiation budget skeptics should accept! Wow now we even got a "photon birther " controversy on top of smart photons

Some sort of dimmer switch..come on!

Does the warmer body emit more slowly? Or not?

The overall energy transfer was from hot to cold

Yup. Even while both are emitting.

What kind of question is that?...:
Does the warmer body emit more slowly? Or not?
Like do the photons the warmer body emits move more slowly or not?
The last time I checked the settled science, photons still moved at the speed of light.
But I can`t be 100% certain that Bill Nye, the science guy did not revise that since then.

Like do the photons the warmer body emits move more slowly or not?

Does it emit photons more slowly, not slower photons.

Haven`t we been there before?
No? Okay let`s do it again, the way the science guy would explain it to a 5th grade kid.
We got a big round ball that emits photons. Lets assign the letter E to the quantity it does emit.
The big round ball is surrounded by CO2 which absorbs some of E, lets call that quantity the letter A. The CO2 radiates 1/2 of A back to the big round ball inside. Right?
The other 1/2 of A is radiated out and away. Right?
So only E- A/2 makes it through. Right?
Now let`s see if "it" emits photons more slowly, "it" being the big round ball surrounded by CO2:
E for "it" = E -A/2 + A/2
See now what happens if you ignore the other really big round ball, the sun?

 

[polarbear]

That`s the problem, these idiots can not pick the right equations to arrange a functional assembly.

Instead of fixing the tooling that makes nails like this:

They " fix " the process by pre- bending the steel pins the opposite way to make a straight nail.
They call that "input data correction" , but they don`t want to make straight nails, so they keep on pre-bending till the right fix is in and the nail they produce looks like a hockey stick:

 

[skookerasbil]

So much winning gents............and now even more!!!

Trump issues executive orders on HBCUs, environmental regulations

My big ? is......why would anybody want to be on the side where all you do is lose? Ive always suspected that on some level, progressives really do hate themselves.

 

[JoeNormal]

More bad news for the climate crusading nutters.......


Less people than ever believe in global warming!!!


What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express


As Ive said many times and been 100% accurate......nobody cares about the science!!

Yup, it's a sad commentary on how stupid people are.

 

[skookerasbil]

Billy......dude.........Im stil laughing my ass off with that link you posted on the top of this page. Hysterical stuff.........been saying this as an observer for years.........like who couldn't figure that out??

More stooped.........these lunkheads think this stuff will change the dynamic............


Carbon Dioxide Could Reach 410 PPM This Month
By Brian Kahn

2762 1272 7

• Published: March 6th, 2017

A never-ending stream of carbon pollution ensures that each year the world continues to break records for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This year will be no different.

Like a rite of spring, carbon dioxide is poised to cruise pass the previous mark set last year and reach heights unseen in human history. In the coming weeks, carbon dioxide will start to breach the 410 parts per million threshold on a daily basis at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The monthly average for May could come close to topping 410 ppm, too, according to the U.K. Met Office’s inaugural carbon dioxide forecast, released last week.



http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-dioxide-410-ppm-21223?


How may times have we seen this in the last 20 years?

 

[jc456]

Billy......dude.........Im stil laughing my ass off with that link you posted on the top of this page. Hysterical stuff.........been saying this as an observer for years.........like who couldn't figure that out??

More stooped.........these lunkheads think this stuff will change the dynamic............


Carbon Dioxide Could Reach 410 PPM This Month
By Brian Kahn

2762 1272 7

• Published: March 6th, 2017

A never-ending stream of carbon pollution ensures that each year the world continues to break records for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This year will be no different.

Like a rite of spring, carbon dioxide is poised to cruise pass the previous mark set last year and reach heights unseen in human history. In the coming weeks, carbon dioxide will start to breach the 410 parts per million threshold on a daily basis at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The monthly average for May could come close to topping 410 ppm, too, according to the U.K. Met Office’s inaugural carbon dioxide forecast, released last week.



http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-dioxide-410-ppm-21223?


How may times have we seen this in the last 20 years?

Each year

 

[skookerasbil]

More AGW k00k losing.............

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Will-the-Approaching-Cold-Impact-the-Cherry-Blossoms--415898463.html

 

[skookerasbil]

OMG......funnier than frog in a glass of milk >> http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2017/goodbye-gravy-train-president-tells-state-department-to-cut-over-50-of-u-n-funding.html?utm_source=fn2-1

 

[skookerasbil]

We talk frequently about winning in here but this truly is EPIC WINNING>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-28/trump-sign-energy-independence-order-killing-obamas-climate-change-initiatives