More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Billy_Bob]

A PhD demanding CONTEXT! this is refreshing...

"Although there is endless reporting and commentary about the danger of global warming, there is no mention of the data supporting the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis because no such data exist. Discussion always diverts to such matters as modelling, sea-level changes, weather events, reef bleaching, melting ice caps or any of a myriad other phenomena in which changes have been observed.


If you study nature you will always observe change, but these changes must be seen in their proper context. All of these changing phenomena may (or may not) be signs of warming. But signs of warming are precisely what one would expect to see at the peak of a warming cycle and they tell us absolutely nothing about the cause of the warming. To test the hypothesis that it is carbon dioxide that is causing the warming we must turn to carbon dioxide and temperature data: and they show that whatever the cause of the warming is, it is not carbon dioxide, whose warming effect, such as it is, is clearly outweighed by natural factors."

ENVIRONMENT Core of climate science is in the real-world data

 

[IanC]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Surface tension evaporation

What's that?

Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Lost by what? How?

how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans

Who said it did? Where? Why does it have to?

...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Flat wrong about what? From what post? Be specific.

Billybob- tell us again why you think the complete and immediate absorption of IR within the first millimetre of water is inefficient. Surely having all the energy concentrated in a small volume of water causes a greater local effect than if it were spread out over a centimeter or metre?

Going in the opposite direction, IR from the surface to the atmosphere, any energy not captured quickly is soon lost to space, and therefore really is inefficient at warming the atmosphere.

The difference between the two directions is obvious. EMR going into the oceans cannot escape, it all gets absorbed sooner or later no matter how poorly any particular wavelength is capable of being absorbed. Poorly absorbed light buries the energy deeper into the water making it harder to get out again.

I guess we need to go back to high school level science for a bit.

Water tension boundary. Fill a cup until it is full and then slowly add drop after drop until the glass is over full yet water is above the rim in a bubble shape. This is called surface tension. It is the molecular bond that water molecules have with each other and the evaporation of water which creates a thin skin of particulate matter and water in its fluid/vapor state.

This boundary is about 10 microns thick. When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere. This cools the water below more than the skin was warmed to create the reaction.

It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temperatures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967; Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996; Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002]

If you are concerned about transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean, get yourself an electrical heat gun and hold it over a bucket of water at about 16 inches for 5 minutes. Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension. NO heat transfer period.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.

When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere.

Yes, when water evaporates, the remaining water cools.
So now that we know the IR adds energy to the Earth system, what was your point again?

Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension.

The fact that you think surface tension prevents heat transfer is interesting.
Did you come up with that on your own?

Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way

One-way?
Photons can only travel from the ocean to the atmosphere, never from the atmosphere to the ocean?
Does your theory involve some sort of electromagnetic shield?

You don't understand residency time or when energy is released within the water cycle.

I refuse to argue the circular logic you and Ian like to spout about energy flow. Your belief appears fundamentally wrong as evidenced by the physical laws and observations. You can hypothesize all you want but I will no longer play your circular games. A colder object can not warm a warmer one.

You don't understand residency time or when energy is released within the water cycle.

What have I posted that makes you feel that?

I refuse to argue the circular logic you and Ian like to spout about energy flow.

Obviously. Because you'd say stupid stuff about energy fields blocking photons from cooler matter.

Your belief appears fundamentally wrong as evidenced by the physical laws and observations.

Which laws and observations conflict with my beliefs?

A colder object can not warm a warmer one.

But we're not talking about that.
We're talking about what happens when photons hit matter.

Get back to me when you have observed physical evidence that a cooler object can warm a warmer one.. Until then, you can argue with yourself over "net" energy flow hypothesis..

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

Get back to me when you have observed physical evidence that a cooler object can warm a warmer one..

As soon as you prove your claim that photons from cooler matter cannot hit warmer matter.

the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

The "higher pressure" of hotter photons repels the "cooler photons"? Really?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

His ignorance is painful.

Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

SSDD's idiotic claims about equilibrium are unique.
I wonder why he's never posted anything backing his "all radiating ceases at equilibrium" idiocy?
I wonder if Billy agrees with that claim?

Do you Billy?

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

We are talking EM ENERGY not visible light..

But keep talking yourself in circles.. Its funny that you don't even understand basic EM wave emissions and what we call WAVE CANCELLATION. Your hypothetical "photon" is actually Electromagnetic waves. They propagate and they can be dampened much like two hoses facing each other..

But continue to show me you have little understanding of the inner workings of our atmosphere and energy movement.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

His ignorance is painful.

Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

SSDD's idiotic claims about equilibrium are unique.
I wonder why he's never posted anything backing his "all radiating ceases at equilibrium" idiocy?
I wonder if Billy agrees with that claim?

Do you Billy?

LOL... Both of you are clueless.. your hypothetical premises have a whole lot of holes... Let me know when you get some empirical evidence to prove your assertions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

His ignorance is painful.

Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

SSDD's idiotic claims about equilibrium are unique.
I wonder why he's never posted anything backing his "all radiating ceases at equilibrium" idiocy?
I wonder if Billy agrees with that claim?

Do you Billy?

LOL... Both of you are clueless.. your hypothetical premises have a whole lot of holes... Let me know when you get some empirical evidence to prove your assertions.

your hypothetical premises have a whole lot of holes

Which premises?

 

[IanC]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

We are talking EM ENERGY not visible light..

But keep talking yourself in circles.. Its funny that you don't even understand basic EM wave emissions and what we call WAVE CANCELLATION. Your hypothetical "photon" is actually Electromagnetic waves. They propagate and they can be dampened much like two hoses facing each other..

But continue to show me you have little understanding of the inner workings of our atmosphere and energy movement.

I never said visible light. I used the generic term 'light'. If you would prefer me to use EMR, consider it done, and respond accordingly.

EMR does not interact with other EMR, it interacts with matter.

A magnetic field (carried by virtual photons) has the ability to polarize some wavelengths of light. Discovered by experiment and measurement, replicated over and over again, know to be true. Does this prove my above statement wrong?

On the contrary. An experiment using a light source, light detector, evacuated tube to connect them, and a moveable magnet to produce the magnetic field provided very interesting results. When the magnet was close to the light source the beam of light was polarized. As the magnet was moved away from the light source the polarization was progressively reduced to nothing. As the magnet started approaching the detector, the polarization reappeared and became progressively stronger. What an amazing result!

Polarization happens when EITHER the light source OR the detector was exposed to a magnetic field! But in the middle, where there was no matter for the light to interact with, the light was unaffected.

 

[IanC]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

His ignorance is painful.

Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

SSDD's idiotic claims about equilibrium are unique.
I wonder why he's never posted anything backing his "all radiating ceases at equilibrium" idiocy?
I wonder if Billy agrees with that claim?

Do you Billy?

LOL... Both of you are clueless.. your hypothetical premises have a whole lot of holes... Let me know when you get some empirical evidence to prove your assertions.

specifically point out some of these 'holes'. I do a much better job of responding to explicit points, rather than the blanket insult of 'clueless'.

I can back up my statements. I may not be totally correct in all cases but it is more that my statements are incomplete than wrong. There are always confounding factors that need to be taken into account as you move from general physics principles to actual measurements of reality. The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of tidal forces. It speeds up after a big earthquake.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

His ignorance is painful.

Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

SSDD's idiotic claims about equilibrium are unique.
I wonder why he's never posted anything backing his "all radiating ceases at equilibrium" idiocy?
I wonder if Billy agrees with that claim?

Do you Billy?

LOL... Both of you are clueless.. your hypothetical premises have a whole lot of holes... Let me know when you get some empirical evidence to prove your assertions.

You never answered, do you believe "all radiating ceases at equilibrium"?

 

[skookerasbil]

Big reason nobody is caring about the science..........

Perception of climate change

1. James Hansena,1,
2. Makiko Satoa, and
3. Reto Ruedyb

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/37/E2415.full




Unfortunately for the AGW k00ks, they just cant connect the dots on this kind of stuff. They point to "the science' as if its gonna change attitudes. Ummmm..............its not. Hasn't budged in 20+ years despite widespread bomb throwing from the AGW nutters. Well duh..........people hear this stuff but continue to walk out there door by mid-fall and are forced to run back into the house to find the nut sack/camel toe warmers. So everything the religion says isn't matching what people are feeling year, after year, after year, after year, after year...............

Offuckingcourse climate change is going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on peoples worry-about list.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

We are talking EM ENERGY not visible light..

But keep talking yourself in circles.. Its funny that you don't even understand basic EM wave emissions and what we call WAVE CANCELLATION. Your hypothetical "photon" is actually Electromagnetic waves. They propagate and they can be dampened much like two hoses facing each other..

But continue to show me you have little understanding of the inner workings of our atmosphere and energy movement.

I never said visible light. I used the generic term 'light'. If you would prefer me to use EMR, consider it done, and respond accordingly.

EMR does not interact with other EMR, it interacts with matter.

A magnetic field (carried by virtual photons) has the ability to polarize some wavelengths of light. Discovered by experiment and measurement, replicated over and over again, know to be true. Does this prove my above statement wrong?

On the contrary. An experiment using a light source, light detector, evacuated tube to connect them, and a moveable magnet to produce the magnetic field provided very interesting results. When the magnet was close to the light source the beam of light was polarized. As the magnet was moved away from the light source the polarization was progressively reduced to nothing. As the magnet started approaching the detector, the polarization reappeared and became progressively stronger. What an amazing result!

Polarization happens when EITHER the light source OR the detector was exposed to a magnetic field! But in the middle, where there was no matter for the light to interact with, the light was unaffected.

Funny:

You admit that energy can be present and not affect that which it passes through yet some how CO2 LWIR is magical and can affect everything in earth atmosphere.. Until you can show me how LWIR interacts differently than empirical evidence shows, good luck with your AGW Hypothesis... You have over 237 failed modeling attempts that prove your theroy false and your understanding flawed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

His ignorance is painful.

Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

SSDD's idiotic claims about equilibrium are unique.
I wonder why he's never posted anything backing his "all radiating ceases at equilibrium" idiocy?
I wonder if Billy agrees with that claim?

Do you Billy?

LOL... Both of you are clueless.. your hypothetical premises have a whole lot of holes... Let me know when you get some empirical evidence to prove your assertions.

specifically point out some of these 'holes'. I do a much better job of responding to explicit points, rather than the blanket insult of 'clueless'.

I can back up my statements. I may not be totally correct in all cases but it is more that my statements are incomplete than wrong. There are always confounding factors that need to be taken into account as you move from general physics principles to actual measurements of reality. The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of tidal forces. It speeds up after a big earthquake.

EM waves are affected by magnetism, and opposing waves in differing polarities. There are many in our atmosphere that are not accounted for and the reason they use "net" transfer equations such as SB does.

When you ignore your conductor (that which expends energy to create work) or the lack there of, you could have billions of joules in our atmosphere and the earth would still cool.

 

[IanC]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

We are talking EM ENERGY not visible light..

But keep talking yourself in circles.. Its funny that you don't even understand basic EM wave emissions and what we call WAVE CANCELLATION. Your hypothetical "photon" is actually Electromagnetic waves. They propagate and they can be dampened much like two hoses facing each other..

But continue to show me you have little understanding of the inner workings of our atmosphere and energy movement.

I never said visible light. I used the generic term 'light'. If you would prefer me to use EMR, consider it done, and respond accordingly.

EMR does not interact with other EMR, it interacts with matter.

A magnetic field (carried by virtual photons) has the ability to polarize some wavelengths of light. Discovered by experiment and measurement, replicated over and over again, know to be true. Does this prove my above statement wrong?

On the contrary. An experiment using a light source, light detector, evacuated tube to connect them, and a moveable magnet to produce the magnetic field provided very interesting results. When the magnet was close to the light source the beam of light was polarized. As the magnet was moved away from the light source the polarization was progressively reduced to nothing. As the magnet started approaching the detector, the polarization reappeared and became progressively stronger. What an amazing result!

Polarization happens when EITHER the light source OR the detector was exposed to a magnetic field! But in the middle, where there was no matter for the light to interact with, the light was unaffected.

Funny:

You admit that energy can be present and not affect that which it passes through yet some how CO2 LWIR is magical and can affect everything in earth atmosphere.. Until you can show me how LWIR interacts differently than empirical evidence shows, good luck with your AGW Hypothesis... You have over 237 failed modeling attempts that prove your theroy false and your understanding flawed.

Be specific in your criticisms.

I claim CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation produced by the surface. True or false?

This energy is then thermalized into the total energy of the atmosphere by molecular collision, leaving only the amount of reemited 15 micron defined by the temperature of the atmosphere. True or false?

15 micron radiation is swapped back and forth in the atmosphere until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density is low enough that the photon can escape to space without being reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule. True or false?

The amount of radiation absorbed at the surface boundary is greater than the amount released at the emission height. The difference of energy between the two is the amount available to add to the stored energy in the atmosphere, which then needs to find another pathway out of the system. True or false?

I am only concerned with the CO2 influence so stay on topic. I am not defending climate models other than to claim CO2 has a warming influence, based on known principles of physics.

 

[IanC]

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

Once created, a photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. Photons do NOT interact with other photons. Any number of photons can occupy a single point in space, regardless of their direction or wavelength.

A photon emitted from the Earth in the direction of the Sun will be absorbed by the Sun, if there is no other matter to react with along the path. A million photons traveling along the same path in the opposite direction will not affect the single photon headed towards the Sun.

There is no cancelling out in radiation. There are gross flows in both directions, and a net flow that is able to effect change.

The gross flow in either direction can be quantified but not used in isolation because they are happening simultaneously. Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

This statement illustrates Billybob's fundamental misunderstanding of the properties of light.

His ignorance is painful.

Two objects at the same temperature are both radiating at each other but there is no change because there is no net flow.

SSDD's idiotic claims about equilibrium are unique.
I wonder why he's never posted anything backing his "all radiating ceases at equilibrium" idiocy?
I wonder if Billy agrees with that claim?

Do you Billy?

LOL... Both of you are clueless.. your hypothetical premises have a whole lot of holes... Let me know when you get some empirical evidence to prove your assertions.

specifically point out some of these 'holes'. I do a much better job of responding to explicit points, rather than the blanket insult of 'clueless'.

I can back up my statements. I may not be totally correct in all cases but it is more that my statements are incomplete than wrong. There are always confounding factors that need to be taken into account as you move from general physics principles to actual measurements of reality. The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of tidal forces. It speeds up after a big earthquake.

EM waves are affected by magnetism, and opposing waves in differing polarities. There are many in our atmosphere that are not accounted for and the reason they use "net" transfer equations such as SB does.

When you ignore your conductor (that which expends energy to create work) or the lack there of, you could have billions of joules in our atmosphere and the earth would still cool.

I am unwilling to try to decipher this gibberish. Restate it in a comprehensible form.

 

[IanC]

There are two boundaries for CO2. A crisp one at the surface where all the surface produced 15 micron radiation is absorbed in the first ten metres. And a diffuse second one where the radiation escapes to space rather than getting reabsorbed.

Sandwiched in between is an area where 15 micron radiation is produced proportionally to the atmospheric temperature but completely reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules. Any thin layer is in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) but on a larger scale there is adiabatic lapse rate that causes cooling with increased height.

CO2 warms the atmosphere at the surface boundary by absorbing radiation that would otherwise directly escape to space. This energy is added to the stored total energy of the atmosphere by molecular collisions. Any reemission of 15 micron radiation is still stuck in the atmosphere, less a tiny amount sent back to the surface.

The amount of energy absorbed at the first boundary is much greater than the amount released at the second boundary because the temperature controls the amount of radiation, and it is much cooler high above where it is released.

We can argue about what happens to that extra energy. But not that it is there because of CO2.

 

[SSDD]

The effect that CO2 has on atmospheric temperatures is zero or less. That remains true till such time as you can show me a measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

You claim it is happening at ambient temperature, then you should be able to show measurements made with instruments at ambient temperature. If it is happening at a magnitude great enough to alter the global temperature, then you damned well should be able to measure it with instruments at ambient temperature...if you can't measure it when it is supposedly happening at that magnitude, then it simply isn't happening.

 

[skookerasbil]

On the Climate-Industrial Complex............

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_climate-industrial_complex.html

 

[skookerasbil]

Guys.....not for nothing but this debate on energy absorption and global temperatures is starting to resemble a group navel contemplation session.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

American leaders should read their official climate science report
Posted on 27 November 2017 by John Abraham
The United States Global Change Research Program recently released a report on the science of climate change and its causes. The report is available for anyone to read; it was prepared by top scientists, and it gives an overview of the most up to date science.

If you want to understand climate change and a single document that summarizes what we know, this is your chance. This report is complete, readily understandable, and accessible. It discusses what we know, how we know it, how confident we are, and how likely certain events are to happen if we continue on our business-as-usual path.


To summarize, our Earth has warmed nearly 2°F (1°C) since the beginning of the 20th century. Today’s Earth is the warmest it has ever been in the history of modern civilization.