New Study Finds that Present CO2 Levels are Capable of Melting Large Portions of East and West Antar

[IanC]

Warming of the surface is directly caused by the Sun. Warming of the surface by the atmosphere is indirect, caused by reducing heat loss from the surface.

The equilibrium temperature of any object is a function of energy input minus energy output. Changing either flow affects the temperature.

Is it correct to say the atmosphere warms the surface? That depends on your interpretation of the verb 'to warm'. Imprecision of terminology is always a problem when people ignore the context. All heat is energy, but not all energy is heat. Vacuum is a term that SSDD uses for what would probably be better described as a void. Communication is difficult when the two parties are not trying to understand the other viewpoint, and are actively splitting hairs by purposely using different definitions of words to disagree.

 

[SSDD]

I do love it when your sources refute your claims and support my claims.

Hahahaha. And they always do. SSDD has such a small selection of references to choose from that he has to pick the ones that disagree with him the least, not ones that support him.

What is funny ian is that you think that paper disagrees with me and somehow makes your point. I guess either you can't read, or no matter what you read, you twist in your mind so that it does agree with you. There were several key phrases in that paper that you managed to skip right over and somehow decide that the paper agrees with you.

For example:

I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.

There is a section in which he speaks as if backradiation actually exists, but he ends the section with this statement:

The above explanation is only a theoretical explanation.

He goes on, in the experiment to say...and to demonstrate via actual observation and measurement:

As soon as we focus our radiometers or IR thermometers towards the sky in an angle of 90° with respect to the surface, we measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, not any backradiation from the atmosphere.

1. Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.
   
   In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.
   
   The recorded values correspond to a combination of radiation[12] which is an average made by the instruments from a series of instantaneous measurements of globules of air moving up, stratus clouds, water vapor present in the atmosphere, and dust particles.

1. 
   
   In short ian, he actually proves your backradiation myth wrong...he proves that it does not exist...he proves that people who believe radiometers, pyrogeometers, etc, are measuring back radiation are fooling themselves with instrumentation....
   

 

[SSDD]

You think photons from one body cancel photons from another body?
This is why we mock you.

You asked for the definition of equilibrium..I provided a couple...I didn't make them up...I just copied and pasted them...they jibe with the equation associated with the SB law when an object is radiating into something other than an empty vacuum at 0 K. Your interpretation, on the other hand doesn't agree with either the equation or the definition of equilibrium...and you believe you are mocking me?...you are a laughing stock...you believe in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over actual observation....how much more stupid can one person get?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I do love it when your sources refute your claims and support my claims.

Hahahaha. And they always do. SSDD has such a small selection of references to choose from that he has to pick the ones that disagree with him the least, not ones that support him.

What is funny ian is that you think that paper disagrees with me and somehow makes your point. I guess either you can't read, or no matter what you read, you twist in your mind so that it does agree with you. There were several key phrases in that paper that you managed to skip right over and somehow decide that the paper agrees with you.

For example:

I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.

There is a section in which he speaks as if backradiation actually exists, but he ends the section with this statement:

The above explanation is only a theoretical explanation.

He goes on, in the experiment to say...and to demonstrate via actual observation and measurement:

As soon as we focus our radiometers or IR thermometers towards the sky in an angle of 90° with respect to the surface, we measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, not any backradiation from the atmosphere.

1. Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.
   
   In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.
   
   The recorded values correspond to a combination of radiation[12] which is an average made by the instruments from a series of instantaneous measurements of globules of air moving up, stratus clouds, water vapor present in the atmosphere, and dust particles.

1. 
   
   In short ian, he actually proves your backradiation myth wrong...he proves that it does not exist...he proves that people who believe radiometers, pyrogeometers, etc, are measuring back radiation are fooling themselves with instrumentation....

As soon as we focus our radiometers or IR thermometers towards the sky in an angle of 90° with respect to the surface, we measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, not any backradiation from the atmosphere.

Ummmm....how do you measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, if radiation isn't moving from there to the radiometer on the ground?

 

[SSDD]

Did you notice the underlined sentence? The sentence that agrees the atmosphere emits downward? DERP!

Yes...I noticed...it is saying that there is no back radiation...you completely misrepresent a single sentence in an effort to make the paper agree with you and ignore statement after statement saying explicitly that there is no back radiation.. typical cultist.

I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.

As soon as we focus our radiometers or IR thermometers towards the sky in an angle of 90° with respect to the surface, we measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, not any backradiation from the atmosphere.

1. Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.
   
   In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.
   
   The recorded values correspond to a combination of radiation[12] which is an average made by the instruments from a series of instantaneous measurements of globules of air moving up, stratus clouds, water vapor present in the atmosphere, and dust particles.

Guess like ian, you simply aren't bright enough to read a paper and understand what it says....that is because you guys feel the need to interpret everything rather than simply read what it says.

Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation

limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.

As I already pointed out..you are a liar...I can't help but notice that you didn't bother to paste his clarification of that statement. Here, let me help you out. The next sentence says:

In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.

He stated as clearly as possible that the instruments are not measuring back radiation and still you don't seem to be able to grasp what he is saying. As I have always said...talking to you is like talking to a 5 year old. You simply can't grasp even the simplest concept.

 

[SSDD]

So weird.
I do love it when your sources refute your claims and support my claims.

Delusion must be your middle name...the whole experiment refuted the idea that pyrogeometers etc were measuring backradiation...

This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules of rarified hot air at 6 to 30 km in altitude (corresponding to upper troposphere and stratosphere) that transfer thermal radiation towards cooler volumes of air.

Transferring radiation to cooler volumes of air is not back radiating anything. Not to worry, I didn't expect that you would understand it anyway...and even if you did, I expected you would deny observed measured evidence in favor of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models like any true cultist.

the whole experiment refuted the idea that pyrogeometers etc were measuring backradiation...

This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules of rarified hot air at 6 to 30 km in altitude

Quick question, how does a radiometer on the ground measure thermal radiation of something 6 to 30 km in altitude?

I expected you would deny observed measured evidence

Like you ignored this observed measured evidence?

View attachment 142260

LOL!

As was pointed out to you, that isn't a measurement of back radiation...it is an example of climate science, and a select cadre of brain dead robots being fooled by instrumentation. Congratulations...you made the cadre.

 

[SSDD]

Ummmm....how do you measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, if radiation isn't moving from there to the radiometer on the ground?

That goes to understanding how the instrument works...he went into an explanation of how they work, but I guess that was all way over your head as well. There is plenty of information on such instruments out there although I doubt that it would do you much good to look at it...you can't grasp what is being said and it would probably only make your head hurt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think photons from one body cancel photons from another body?
This is why we mock you.

You asked for the definition of equilibrium..I provided a couple...I didn't make them up...I just copied and pasted them...they jibe with the equation associated with the SB law when an object is radiating into something other than an empty vacuum at 0 K. Your interpretation, on the other hand doesn't agree with either the equation or the definition of equilibrium...and you believe you are mocking me?...you are a laughing stock...you believe in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over actual observation....how much more stupid can one person get?

Did you ever find a source that agrees with your claim that objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?

Your interpretation, on the other hand doesn't agree with either the equation or the definition of equilibrium...

Mine only agrees with Einstein, Planck, Kirchoff...your solo interpretation says they're wrong.

...and you believe you are mocking me?...

Yes, I'm mocking you and your all-knowing photons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you notice the underlined sentence? The sentence that agrees the atmosphere emits downward? DERP!

Yes...I noticed...it is saying that there is no back radiation...you completely misrepresent a single sentence in an effort to make the paper agree with you and ignore statement after statement saying explicitly that there is no back radiation.. typical cultist.

I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.

As soon as we focus our radiometers or IR thermometers towards the sky in an angle of 90° with respect to the surface, we measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, not any backradiation from the atmosphere.

1. Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.
   
   In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.
   
   The recorded values correspond to a combination of radiation[12] which is an average made by the instruments from a series of instantaneous measurements of globules of air moving up, stratus clouds, water vapor present in the atmosphere, and dust particles.

Guess like ian, you simply aren't bright enough to read a paper and understand what it says....that is because you guys feel the need to interpret everything rather than simply read what it says.

Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation

limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.

As I already pointed out..you are a liar...I can't help but notice that you didn't bother to paste his clarification of that statement. Here, let me help you out. The next sentence says:

In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.

He stated as clearly as possible that the instruments are not measuring back radiation and still you don't seem to be able to grasp what he is saying. As I have always said...talking to you is like talking to a 5 year old. You simply can't grasp even the simplest concept.

Did you notice the underlined sentence? The sentence that agrees the atmosphere emits downward? DERP

Yes...I noticed...it is saying that there is no back radiation

This argument is unphysical because the thermal radiation emitted by the atmosphere is never higher than the thermal radiation emitted by the surface

That says they're emitting toward each other...at the same time. DERP!

you completely misrepresent a single sentence in an effort to make the paper agree with you

When your own source clearly disagrees with you, multiple times.....I laugh.

 

[SSDD]

[

Did you ever find a source that agrees with your claim that objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?

The definitions I gave you said nothing about the objects in equilibrium radiating...that is just one more "interpretation" on your part to get a statement to say something other than what it says. Don't worry, it appears to just be your nature...idiots will be idiots.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you notice the underlined sentence? The sentence that agrees the atmosphere emits downward? DERP!

Yes...I noticed...it is saying that there is no back radiation...you completely misrepresent a single sentence in an effort to make the paper agree with you and ignore statement after statement saying explicitly that there is no back radiation.. typical cultist.

I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.

As soon as we focus our radiometers or IR thermometers towards the sky in an angle of 90° with respect to the surface, we measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, not any backradiation from the atmosphere.

1. Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.
   
   In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.
   
   The recorded values correspond to a combination of radiation[12] which is an average made by the instruments from a series of instantaneous measurements of globules of air moving up, stratus clouds, water vapor present in the atmosphere, and dust particles.

Guess like ian, you simply aren't bright enough to read a paper and understand what it says....that is because you guys feel the need to interpret everything rather than simply read what it says.

Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation

limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.

As I already pointed out..you are a liar...I can't help but notice that you didn't bother to paste his clarification of that statement. Here, let me help you out. The next sentence says:

In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.

He stated as clearly as possible that the instruments are not measuring back radiation and still you don't seem to be able to grasp what he is saying. As I have always said...talking to you is like talking to a 5 year old. You simply can't grasp even the simplest concept.

As I already pointed out..you are a liar...I can't help but notice that you didn't bother to paste his clarification of that statement.

He measures radiation emitted "from cirri and globules of air at different heights" , 6 km to 30km.
The supposed clarification does not change his ground based instrument measuring radiation from high in the atmosphere.
You never explained how he does that if there is no radiation from high in the atmosphere.

He stated as clearly as possible that the instruments are not measuring back radiation

Right. Radiation from 30km, to the ground, but it's not back radiation, it's front radiation. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So weird.
I do love it when your sources refute your claims and support my claims.

Delusion must be your middle name...the whole experiment refuted the idea that pyrogeometers etc were measuring backradiation...

This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules of rarified hot air at 6 to 30 km in altitude (corresponding to upper troposphere and stratosphere) that transfer thermal radiation towards cooler volumes of air.

Transferring radiation to cooler volumes of air is not back radiating anything. Not to worry, I didn't expect that you would understand it anyway...and even if you did, I expected you would deny observed measured evidence in favor of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models like any true cultist.

the whole experiment refuted the idea that pyrogeometers etc were measuring backradiation...

This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules of rarified hot air at 6 to 30 km in altitude

Quick question, how does a radiometer on the ground measure thermal radiation of something 6 to 30 km in altitude?

I expected you would deny observed measured evidence

Like you ignored this observed measured evidence?

View attachment 142260

LOL!

As was pointed out to you, that isn't a measurement of back radiation...it is an example of climate science, and a select cadre of brain dead robots being fooled by instrumentation. Congratulations...you made the cadre.

As was pointed out to you, that isn't a measurement of back radiation

What do you want to call the radiation that is being measured? IR is fine with me.

Quick question, how does a radiometer on the ground measure thermal radiation of something 6 to 30 km in altitude?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ummmm....how do you measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, if radiation isn't moving from there to the radiometer on the ground?

That goes to understanding how the instrument works...he went into an explanation of how they work, but I guess that was all way over your head as well. There is plenty of information on such instruments out there although I doubt that it would do you much good to look at it...you can't grasp what is being said and it would probably only make your head hurt.

That goes to understanding how the instrument works...

Great. How, without incoming radiation to measure? Spell it out. Use small words, Bob is listening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Did you ever find a source that agrees with your claim that objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?

The definitions I gave you said nothing about the objects in equilibrium radiating...that is just one more "interpretation" on your part to get a statement to say something other than what it says. Don't worry, it appears to just be your nature...idiots will be idiots.

The definitions I gave you said nothing about the objects in equilibrium radiating

I know. You're alone in your misinterpretation. Ever find anyone who agrees with you?

 

[SSDD]

[

Did you ever find a source that agrees with your claim that objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?

The definitions I gave you said nothing about the objects in equilibrium radiating...that is just one more "interpretation" on your part to get a statement to say something other than what it says. Don't worry, it appears to just be your nature...idiots will be idiots.

The definitions I gave you said nothing about the objects in equilibrium radiating

I know. You're alone in your misinterpretation. Ever find anyone who agrees with you?

Since you seem to think that it said something that it didn't...you are the one interpreting...you are reading things into the statement that weren't in the statement....that is called interpreting. I take the statement at face value because it agrees with me..I don't need to change it in any way....you, on the other hand do.

And having people agree with me isn't important to me. I don't need someone to agree with me in order to feel validated...I don't follow people because I need to feel like part of a group. It didn't bother me in the least when I disagreed with practically every doctor on earth when I said that my stomach ulcers were not due to stress...nor did it bother me to be in opposition to the same group when I refused to take statin drugs for cholesterol........turns out I was right both times....and I am right this time as well....observation and measurement support me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models support you...no contest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So weird.
I do love it when your sources refute your claims and support my claims.

Delusion must be your middle name...the whole experiment refuted the idea that pyrogeometers etc were measuring backradiation...

This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules of rarified hot air at 6 to 30 km in altitude (corresponding to upper troposphere and stratosphere) that transfer thermal radiation towards cooler volumes of air.

Transferring radiation to cooler volumes of air is not back radiating anything. Not to worry, I didn't expect that you would understand it anyway...and even if you did, I expected you would deny observed measured evidence in favor of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models like any true cultist.

This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules of rarified hot air at 6 to 30 km in altitude (corresponding to upper troposphere and stratosphere) that transfer thermal radiation towards cooler volumes of air.

You've discovered that hot air rises. LOL!

And that radiometers on the ground can measure the temperature of this rising hot air, because it radiates. Duh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Did you ever find a source that agrees with your claim that objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?

The definitions I gave you said nothing about the objects in equilibrium radiating...that is just one more "interpretation" on your part to get a statement to say something other than what it says. Don't worry, it appears to just be your nature...idiots will be idiots.

The definitions I gave you said nothing about the objects in equilibrium radiating

I know. You're alone in your misinterpretation. Ever find anyone who agrees with you?

Since you seem to think that it said something that it didn't...you are the one interpreting...you are reading things into the statement that weren't in the statement....that is called interpreting. I take the statement at face value because it agrees with me..I don't need to change it in any way....you, on the other hand do.

And having people agree with me isn't important to me. I don't need someone to agree with me in order to feel validated...I don't follow people because I need to feel like part of a group. It didn't bother me in the least when I disagreed with practically every doctor on earth when I said that my stomach ulcers were not due to stress...nor did it bother me to be in opposition to the same group when I refused to take statin drugs for cholesterol........turns out I was right both times....and I am right this time as well....observation and measurement support me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models support you...no contest.

Since you seem to think that it said something that it didn't...you are the one interpreting

You said that objects at equilibrium cease radiating. That is your misinterpretation of SB.

I don't follow people because I need to feel like part of a group.

If you have proof that my group, Einstein, Planck and Kirchoff are wrong, please publish your work.

 

[SSDD]

And that radiometers on the ground can measure the temperature of this rising hot air, because it radiates. Duh.

I see you don't know how the instruments work...at that altitude, the air would be cooler than at ground level....the internal thermopile would be losing heat..that is it would be cooling off. The amount and rate of cooling is converted to an electrical signal which runs through a model and produces a temperature. Thermopiles work via warming them or cooling them...if the target is warmer than the thermopile, it heats up...the amount and rate of warming produces an electrical signal which is converted to a temperature...if the target is cooler, then the thermopile cools off...again, the amount and rate of cooling is converted to an electrical signal and then converted to a temperature.

It is little wonder that you are easily fooled by instrumentation...you don't have the first clue as to how they work. Like I said, there is plenty of information on the web that you could read to learn such basics, but again, it would probably just make your head hurt.

 

[SSDD]

You said that objects at equilibrium cease radiating. That is your misinterpretation of SB.

I said, if you set T and Tc to the same number, P=0....P is the radiating power of the radiator. Zero has a specific mathematical meaning. Your interpretation is not the same as the actual equation...I take the equation, and all the observations, and measurements ever made regarding it at face value...two way energy movement has never been observed, or measured...you favor the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model over reality...I favor reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that radiometers on the ground can measure the temperature of this rising hot air, because it radiates. Duh.

I see you don't know how the instruments work...at that altitude, the air would be cooler than at ground level....the internal thermopile would be losing heat..that is it would be cooling off. The amount and rate of cooling is converted to an electrical signal which runs through a model and produces a temperature. Thermopiles work via warming them or cooling them...if the target is warmer than the thermopile, it heats up...the amount and rate of warming produces an electrical signal which is converted to a temperature...if the target is cooler, then the thermopile cools off...again, the amount and rate of cooling is converted to an electrical signal and then converted to a temperature.

It is little wonder that you are easily fooled by instrumentation...you don't have the first clue as to how they work. Like I said, there is plenty of information on the web that you could read to learn such basics, but again, it would probably just make your head hurt.

I see you don't know how the instruments work...at that altitude, the air would be cooler than at ground level....the internal thermopile would be losing heat..that is it would be cooling off.

Of course it would cool off. And as your own source said, "This experiment demonstrates that radiometers record thermal radiation of floating globules"
Measuring radiation. Weird.

It is little wonder that you are easily fooled by instrumentation...you don't have the first clue as to how they work.

And yet, every source you post to educate me, ends up disagreeing with your claims and agreeing with mine.