Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[IanC]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

That there are infrared photodetectors available?

That the energy in EMR goes up as the wavelength decreases?

You seem to be confusing blackbody radiation as only IR.



One of the biggest problems in getting people to understand atmospheric radiative physics is that a joule of solar shortwave is very different from a joule of terrestrial longwave. The Earth eats sunlight and shits out IR. Sunlight is very capable of causing change and doing work. IR is much less useful. Entropy is the key concept here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).

Cool story. Any link that backs up your feeling?

Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. --> strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C consuming energy = cooling of the warmer object.

Sounds ridiculous.

Actually its not ridicules... We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.

Actually its not ridicules...

Yes, the claim that a photon has a temperature is ridiculous.

We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.

Is this real research, or your "energy destroying tube" research?

Its basic physics of particle matter.

Enjoy your ignorance on this. You will never see what is being presented because you "believe". I refuse to go round and round in circles because of your inability to think critically.

Tell Me Todd, Every photon has a temperature (energy level given at time it is emitted). How do they all magically become all powerful and gain energy so they have the ability to warm a colder object than the one that emitted it?

Its basic physics of particle matter.

Excellent. Then you'll have no problem quickly posting 6 reputable sources that agree with your claim.

Tick-tock.

I refuse to go round and round in circles because of your inability to think critically.

Conveniently also refusing to post any backup.
Tell Me Todd, Every photon has a temperature

I disagree. Change my mind.
(energy level given at time it is emitted)

Not the same thing as temperature.

How do they all magically become all powerful and gain energy so they have the ability to warm a colder object than the one that emitted it?

Any links that agree with your claim that, "photons from cooler matter don't add energy to warmer matter when absorbed"?​

Its a very simple concept. LWIR from a black body contains very little energy.

Thanks for the picture and for ignoring all my questions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

That there are infrared photodetectors available?

That the energy in EMR goes up as the wavelength decreases?

You seem to be confusing blackbody radiation as only IR.



One of the biggest problems in getting people to understand atmospheric radiative physics is that a joule of solar shortwave is very different from a joule of terrestrial longwave. The Earth eats sunlight and shits out IR. Sunlight is very capable of causing change and doing work. IR is much less useful. Entropy is the key concept here.

You are the one confusing the actual effect as you can not define the wavelength you want claim is causing warming.

 

[IanC]

You are the one confusing the actual effect as you can not define the wavelength you want claim is causing warming.

I cannot be sure what youre saying because your comment is garbled.

I am saying that an object radiates at all times according to its temperature and emissivity.

I am saying that radiation falls into a wide range if the emissivity is anywhere close to unity. I also say that the range is almost identical for temperatures within say 15% of each other.

I am saying that a 15 micron photon emitted by an object at 100K is exactly the same as on emitted by a 1000K object.

An object can only be warmed by a different object's blackbody radiation if that second object is warmer than the first. Why? Because warmer objects produce more radiation, at a slightly higher average energy.

The colder object can slow the cooling of the warmer object if it is replacing an even cooler object.

If the warn object has a power supply, it will warm faster and reach a higher equilibrium temperature if the cool object is replacing an even colder object.

Those are my statements. Which ones do you disagree with? Stay on topic.

 

[toobfreak]

One of the biggest problems in getting people to understand atmospheric radiative physics

Oddly, I looked into universities that teach that specialized branch of physics known as Atmospheric Physics, and they regard Atmospheric Radiative Physics as THEORETICAL.

is that a joule of (blahblahblah wavelength) is very different from a joule of (blahblahblah wavelength).

Not qualified.
My professors would be interested to know how that is possible. The Joule is a common UNIT OF WORK. A joule can be measured in different ways or TYPES of work, but a joule is always still equal to a joule.

where kg is the kilogram, m is the meter, s is the second, N is the newton, Pa is the pascal, W is the watt, C is the coulomb, and V is the volt.
One joule can also be defined as work to:

• move or accelerate an object.
• kinetic energy released.
• raise or release a temperature.

While the Joule can be expressed in many different UNITS of work (erg, calorie, foot-pound, atm, kilowatt/hour, etc.), I think you need to qualify how one joule can be "different" from another simply based on the frequency of the energy or its source if both accomplish the same amount of work, then go on to say that it is a "big problem" getting people to understand it when you don't even bother to specify what "difference" you are referring to. Either you can qualify that statement to some degree of specificity or not; if you can't, then obviously you don't understand what you're talking about either.

The Earth eats sunlight and shits out IR.

But sunlight contains prodigious amounts of IR in it as well as UV. The Earth also reflects a lot of visible light, so again, rather vague and meaningless statement without your qualifying it contextually what you mean by "eats" and "shits out."

Sunlight is very capable of causing change and doing work.

OBVIOUSLY. Essentially, ALL WORK done on the Earth is driven directly or indirectly from energy of the Sun! Your point?

IR is much less useful.

HOW SO? IR is a component of sunlight! Again, you need to qualify what you mean in these snippets of half sentences rather than just throwing them out as if they are self-contained axiomatic truths!

Entropy is the key concept here.

Again, How so??? If it is so key a concept here, why do you not embellish on the dynamics to which you refer? Not sure how far you got through any sort of higher education without the ability to embellish by example and give work to show the proofs of your claims?

 

[IanC]

People like tubesucker just like to argue.

It is obvious that sunlight has way more uumph than IR. That they are treated equally is one of the reasons why climate models dont work right.

A useful example of how entropy can be used is focusing sunlight with a magnifying glass.

A while back someone claimed that you could use mirrors and lenses to heat a surface with sunlight so that it is hotter than the Sun. Did anyone spot the obvious fallacy?

 

[toobfreak]

People like tubesucker just like to argue.

No, just like to ask the needed obvious questions that need to be asked by any reasonable person. But nice of you to deflect again from ever answering any of them by always turning the discussion around to a personal ad hominem attack to try to evade the subject which tells me you don't have the answers.

It is obvious that sunlight has way more uumph than IR.

What is "uumph?" Is that a unit of energy? You mean because of frequency? Quantity? Percentage? Wouldn't that depend on what was receiving the energy and what it was sensitive to? What warms the oceans more, sunlight or heat?

That they are treated equally is one of the reasons why climate models dont work right.

But some models come within 8% of predicting observed events. How would treating them differently improve things, and why don't they model that way if you know this?

A useful example of how entropy can be used is focusing sunlight with a magnifying glass.

That is a fine abstract, but it bears explanation. HOW can entropy be used by focusing sunlight, WHERE does that occur in nature and WHAT is the useful relationship between that and climate change or global warming?

A while back someone claimed that you could use mirrors and lenses to heat a surface with sunlight so that it is hotter than the Sun. Did anyone spot the obvious fallacy?

The surface of the Sun is about 10,000°F. I didn't read that earlier but do please tell us what the obvious fallacy is?

 

[IanC]

The surface of the Sun is about 10,000°F. I didn't read that earlier but do please tell us what the obvious fallacy is?

If the sun can see the surface, then the surface can see the sun. If the surface was warmer than the sun then radiation energy would be moving towards the sun, not the other way around.

 

[toobfreak]

The surface of the Sun is about 10,000°F. I didn't read that earlier but do please tell us what the obvious fallacy is?

If the sun can see the surface, then the surface can see the sun. If the surface was warmer than the sun then radiation energy would be moving towards the sun, not the other way around.

So you are saying energy cannot move towards the Sun? What about when we set off a nuclear bomb? The Hiroshima bomb explosion was estimated to be well over 500,000°F. Certainly heat there moved towards the Sun? But if sunlight is concentrated by a magnifying glass as heat the Second Law of Thermodynamics puts the maximum temperature that can be achieved by concentrating sunlight as the temperature of the Sun's photosphere, about 9,980°F. Put simply, a magnifying glass cannot produce a heat energy through concentration greater than the source that drives it.

For a lens that takes an object at position p and focuses it to an image at position f, the magnification is supposed to be M=f/p. So, just get a shorter focal length lens and the spot size will get arbitrarily smaller, right? But this approximation for the magnification comes from the conservation of entendue. So if the lens has a radius r, then we can define an angle theta as p=arcsin(r/p) and an angle theta as f=arcsin(r/f) on each side of the lens. The conservation of etendue tells us the magnification will be: M=theta p/theta f. When you try to really focus the image down to a smaller spot size to create more heat, you won't be able to use the small angle approximation on the image side because the image sits very close to the lens now. And theta f can't get any bigger than π/2. So we get: M=2*theta p/π.

Right?

 

[IanC]

The surface of the Sun is about 10,000°F. I didn't read that earlier but do please tell us what the obvious fallacy is?

If the sun can see the surface, then the surface can see the sun. If the surface was warmer than the sun then radiation energy would be moving towards the sun, not the other way around.

So you are saying energy cannot move towards the Sun? What about when we set off a nuclear bomb? The Hiroshima bomb explosion was estimated to be well over 500,000°F. Certainly heat there moved towards the Sun? But if sunlight is concentrated by a magnifying glass as heat the Second Law of Thermodynamics puts the maximum temperature that can be achieved by concentrating sunlight as the temperature of the Sun's photosphere, about 9,980°F. Put simply, a magnifying glass cannot produce a heat energy through concentration greater than the source that drives it.

For a lens that takes an object at position p and focuses it to an image at position f, the magnification is supposed to be M=f/p. So, just get a shorter focal length lens and the spot size will get arbitrarily smaller, right? But this approximation for the magnification comes from the conservation of entendue. So if the lens has a radius r, then we can define an angle theta as p=arcsin(r/p) and an angle theta as f=arcsin(r/f) on each side of the lens. The conservation of etendue tells us the magnification will be: M=theta p/theta f. When you try to really focus the image down to a smaller spot size to create more heat, you won't be able to use the small angle approximation on the image side because the image sits very close to the lens now. And theta f can't get any bigger than π/2. So we get: M=2*theta p/π.

Right?

Etendue.

Thank you! It is always nice to have a name for a concept, if for no other reason than to know it actually exists.

If you were already familiar with the concept, why did you scoff when I described the sunlight reaching earth as highly ordered terrestrial radiation as slightly ordered and atmospheric radiation as totally diffuse?

 

[Wuwei]

So you are saying energy cannot move towards the Sun? What about when we set off a nuclear bomb? The Hiroshima bomb explosion was estimated to be well over 500,000°F. Certainly heat there moved towards the Sun? But if sunlight is concentrated by a magnifying glass as heat the Second Law of Thermodynamics puts the maximum temperature that can be achieved by concentrating sunlight as the temperature of the Sun's photosphere, about 9,980°F. Put simply, a magnifying glass cannot produce a heat energy through concentration greater than the source that drives it.

Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?

For a lens that takes an object at position p and focuses it to an image at position f, the magnification is supposed to be M=f/p. So, just get a shorter focal length lens and the spot size will get arbitrarily smaller, right? But this approximation for the magnification comes from the conservation of entendue. So if the lens has a radius r, then we can define an angle theta as p=arcsin(r/p) and an angle theta as f=arcsin(r/f) on each side of the lens. The conservation of etendue tells us the magnification will be: M=theta p/theta f. When you try to really focus the image down to a smaller spot size to create more heat, you won't be able to use the small angle approximation on the image side because the image sits very close to the lens now. And theta f can't get any bigger than π/2. So we get: M=2*theta p/π.

Right?

Entendue is a new one for me. I heard the proof resulted using Liouville's theorem which is more general version. IanC is right that the limits of lens concentration of energy can also be shown by considering entropy which has similar foundations as Lioville's theorem.

.

 

[IanC]

HOW SO? IR is a component of sunlight! Again, you need to qualify what you mean in these snippets of half sentences rather than just throwing them out as if they are self-contained axiomatic truths!

This is in response to me saying the earth eats sunshine and shits out IR, and that sunlight is capable of causing change and doing work while IR isnt.

Do you actually disagree with my sentiments or are you just looking to find fault in how I expressed them?

Do you feel that turnabout is fairplay because I pointed out that the terrestrial system is not closed and that the atmosphere is not the principal location of sunlight to IR? Did it make you feel stupid? Did you feel like you lost face?

Only you and BillyBob have claimed to be 'trained physicists'. You have claimed that your opinion is worth much more than the rest of us rubes, that we should hold you in esteem and defer to your authority. I, for one, am not buying it.

If you made a dozen insightful and useful comments for every one that contains a howler of a mistake then I would be far more gentle in my disagreement. But you are acting like an asshole, especially towards me.

Anyways, back to your point. You say IR is a component of sunlight. I agree that that is trivially true. What percentage of the power being received by the earth from the sun falls in the same IR range as is produced by the surface or atmosphere?

If you are claiming any amount over <1% then I think you should put up some evidence. If you agree that it is <1% why did you bring it up? Do you always go chasing after red herrings that are insignificant?

 

[SSDD]

Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?

What a concept...forming an argument based on what was actually said rather than butchering what was actually said, reinterpreting it and then arguing against that rather than what was actually said.

 

[toobfreak]

Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?

What a concept...forming an argument based on what was actually said rather than butchering what was actually said, reinterpreting it and then arguing against that rather than what was actually said.

I've only come back here SSDD to say that if anyone is coming to any of these "environmental" threads for science and facts on the dynamics of climate, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Threads here are just more POLITICS IN A DIFFERENT FORM:

• Wildly unproven and unsubstantiated or grossly inaccurate claims followed by personal attacks if you disagree rather than any verifiable data.
• Believers who claim they are deniers then argue with the deniers and agree with the believers.
• Vague statements and terminology that when you try to pin it down, ends up meaning whatever is needed at the moment rather than what is said.
• First cry that deniers are disrupting your thread when they offer hard scientific data, then rather than respond to it on topic, disrupt the thread with more personal blather.
  
• Same as with political threads, if you disagree, you're simply dismissed as a wildly uneducated oaf.
• Same as with political threads, when you try to pin anything down with hard data, the topic is merely deflected to something else. Usually strawman arguments.

No better than the professional arena, MMCC and the entire radiative theory survives only by shouting down and excluding those who would argue with conflicting and contradictory data not in whole agreement. Trying to find scientific consensus with any of the believers, you might as well chase a chicken in a circular coop. It's all just an adolescent game learned in grade school to protect a personal pet theory they have too much invested in to admit it's full of holes. If need be, "misinterpret" what was stated, put words in the other's mouth, then draw absurd conclusions about THEIR veracity attacking their credibility instead. Keep changing the subject.

NEVER directly answer any direct question and back it up with hard concise data. These are not the actions of science or scientists but politicians.

Life is too good to waste here. Professor Carlin said it best when he stated the universal axiomatic truth:

 

[IanC]

Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?

What a concept...forming an argument based on what was actually said rather than butchering what was actually said, reinterpreting it and then arguing against that rather than what was actually said.

I've only come back here SSDD to say that if anyone is coming to any of these "environmental" threads for science and facts on the dynamics of climate, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Threads here are just more POLITICS IN A DIFFERENT FORM:

• Wildly unproven and unsubstantiated or grossly inaccurate claims followed by personal attacks if you disagree rather than any verifiable data.
• Believers who claim they are deniers then argue with the deniers and agree with the believers.
• Vague statements and terminology that when you try to pin it down, ends up meaning whatever is needed at the moment rather than what is said.
• Same as with political threads, if you disagree, you're simply dismissed as a wildly uneducated oaf.
• Same as with political threads, when you try to pin anything down with hard data, the topic is merely deflected to something else. Usually strawman arguments.

No better than the professional arena, MMCC and the entire radiative theory survives only by shouting down and excluding those who would argue with conflicting and contradictory data not in whole agreement. Trying to find scientific consensus with any of the believers, you might as well chase a chicken in a circular coop. It's all just an adolescent game learned in grade school to protect a personal pet theory they have too much invested in to admit it's full of holes. If need be, "misinterpret" what was stated, put words in the other's mouth, then draw absurd conclusions about THEIR veracity attacking their credibility instead. Keep changing the subject.

NEVER directly answer any direct question and back it up with hard concise data. These are not the actions of science or scientists but politicians.

Life is too good to waste here. Professor Carlin said it best when he stated the universal axiomatic truth:
View attachment 262957

Crybaby.

Hypocrite.

Hypocritical crybaby.

Go on. Beat it.

 

[Wuwei]

Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?

What a concept...forming an argument based on what was actually said rather than butchering what was actually said, reinterpreting it and then arguing against that rather than what was actually said.

I've only come back here SSDD to say that if anyone is coming to any of these "environmental" threads for science and facts on the dynamics of climate, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Threads here are just more POLITICS IN A DIFFERENT FORM:

• Wildly unproven and unsubstantiated or grossly inaccurate claims followed by personal attacks if you disagree rather than any verifiable data.
• Believers who claim they are deniers then argue with the deniers and agree with the believers.
• Vague statements and terminology that when you try to pin it down, ends up meaning whatever is needed at the moment rather than what is said.
• Same as with political threads, if you disagree, you're simply dismissed as a wildly uneducated oaf.
• Same as with political threads, when you try to pin anything down with hard data, the topic is merely deflected to something else. Usually strawman arguments.

No better than the professional arena, MMCC and the entire radiative theory survives only by shouting down and excluding those who would argue with conflicting and contradictory data not in whole agreement. Trying to find scientific consensus with any of the believers, you might as well chase a chicken in a circular coop. It's all just an adolescent game learned in grade school to protect a personal pet theory they have too much invested in to admit it's full of holes. If need be, "misinterpret" what was stated, put words in the other's mouth, then draw absurd conclusions about THEIR veracity attacking their credibility instead. Keep changing the subject.

NEVER directly answer any direct question and back it up with hard concise data. These are not the actions of science or scientists but politicians.

Life is too good to waste here. Professor Carlin said it best when he stated the universal axiomatic truth:
View attachment 262957

Are you accusing IanC, SSDD, or both?

Your second point obviously refers only to "believers". Many of the "believers" even deniers here have argued with SSDD, BillyBob, JC not because their rejection of AGW, but because they are rejecting it for the wrong reasons - They are bastardizing science and doing exactly what you posted (except for your second item).



.

 

[SSDD]

Isn't that pretty much what IanC said?

What a concept...forming an argument based on what was actually said rather than butchering what was actually said, reinterpreting it and then arguing against that rather than what was actually said.

I've only come back here SSDD to say that if anyone is coming to any of these "environmental" threads for science and facts on the dynamics of climate, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Threads here are just more POLITICS IN A DIFFERENT FORM:

• Wildly unproven and unsubstantiated or grossly inaccurate claims followed by personal attacks if you disagree rather than any verifiable data.
• Believers who claim they are deniers then argue with the deniers and agree with the believers.
• Vague statements and terminology that when you try to pin it down, ends up meaning whatever is needed at the moment rather than what is said.
• Same as with political threads, if you disagree, you're simply dismissed as a wildly uneducated oaf.
• Same as with political threads, when you try to pin anything down with hard data, the topic is merely deflected to something else. Usually strawman arguments.

No better than the professional arena, MMCC and the entire radiative theory survives only by shouting down and excluding those who would argue with conflicting and contradictory data not in whole agreement. Trying to find scientific consensus with any of the believers, you might as well chase a chicken in a circular coop. It's all just an adolescent game learned in grade school to protect a personal pet theory they have too much invested in to admit it's full of holes. If need be, "misinterpret" what was stated, put words in the other's mouth, then draw absurd conclusions about THEIR veracity attacking their credibility instead. Keep changing the subject.

NEVER directly answer any direct question and back it up with hard concise data. These are not the actions of science or scientists but politicians.

Life is too good to waste here. Professor Carlin said it best when he stated the universal axiomatic truth:
View attachment 262957

Crybaby.

Hypocrite.

Hypocritical crybaby.

Go on. Beat it.

You didn't do much to defend your position there ian...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei, the skid mark, and the hairball...you usually don't resort to such tactics. Toobfreak had some pretty straight forward questions about your belief of how the greenhouse effect works...questions that your mathematical models should have been able to answer.

Why did you pretend that you didn't have any idea of what he was getting at?

 

[IanC]

You didn't do much to defend your position there ian...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei, the skid mark, and the hairball...you usually don't resort to such tactics. Toobfreak had some pretty straight forward questions about your belief of how the greenhouse effect works...questions that your mathematical models should have been able to answer.

Why did you pretend that you didn't have any idea of what he was getting at

Tubesucker is an asshole. I responded to most of his criticisms, he made no attempt to respond to my criticisms of his posts.

You are actually a lot like him. The difference is that I am accustomed to you.

So carry on. I won't bother asking anything from you because I know you dont respond to pointed questions that require on-topic concise answers.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You didn't do much to defend your position there ian...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei, the skid mark, and the hairball...you usually don't resort to such tactics. Toobfreak had some pretty straight forward questions about your belief of how the greenhouse effect works...questions that your mathematical models should have been able to answer.

Why did you pretend that you didn't have any idea of what he was getting at

Tubesucker is an asshole. I responded to most of his criticisms, he made no attempt to respond to my criticisms of his posts.

You are actually a lot like him. The difference is that I am accustomed to you.

So carry on. I won't bother asking anything from you because I know you dont respond to pointed questions that require on-topic concise answers.

I tried to show you correlation of wave to particle energy in a chart. Toobfreak tried to go into greater depth than I am willing to go with these matters in an attempt to show you that the measurement in Joules are quantified so that the particles can be compared. You ignored that.

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

 

[SSDD]

Tubesucker is an asshole. I responded to most of his criticisms, he made no attempt to respond to my criticisms of his posts.

I didn't see any valid criticism of his posts...All I saw was you pretending that you didn't have any idea what he was asking.

I believe that you just realized that if you pursued his line of questioning, you were going to come face to face with the failure of your models and you just couldn't do it.