Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

[SSDD]

Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?

I already have....the very fact that you believe that a photon must be smart in order to follow the laws of physics puts you in the mental midget category...I guess you think rocks that fall are smart enough to go down rather than up...and water that flows downhill must be smart enough to go down...and air in a punctured tire must be smart in order to go out of the puncture hole...you have said it over and over and it just highlights how stupid and or fundamentally dishonest you are.

 

[SSDD]

Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?

The AGWCult BELIEVES that heat radiates from cooler to warmer, it just has to!

It is one of their most fundamental claims even though it has never been observed or measured.

 

[SSDD]

Oh my, Frankie Boy has just added smart photons to his hollow moon. Hey, SSDD, are you going to reciprocate, and post something supporting the hollow moon nonsense?

The AGWCult BELIEVES that heat radiates from cooler to warmer, it just has to!

hey Frank, it seems they believe in the smart photon.

They believe in the rebellious, law breaking photon which disregards the laws of physics...the photon that has fallen under the evil influence of CO2..

 

[SSDD]

And the claims that there is no measured evidence for such things as 'back radiation' is foolish as well. Back radiation is simply radiation. Every substance above absolute zero gives off radiation, in all directions, because of kinetic molecular collisions.

And still no observed, measured examples of back radiation...talk talk talk but not the first measured example....all your evidence is nothing more than the output of unprovable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models.

We can, and have, measured the radiation coming back from the atmosphere. It is significant and without it there would be no life here because it would be too cold.

The only direct measurements of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the surface are made with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere...so in effect, the radiation is not even moving towards the surface....it is moving towards the cooler instrument.

 

[Old Rocks]

Given the posts you have put up, I have hardly ever bothered to argue with you on the subject, your depth of ignorance, willful ignorance, was just to great to try to correct. Ian has done a very good job pointing out the errors in your arguements.

 

[SSDD]

Define your terms. Radiation transfers energy from one place to another, and is independent of temperature once it is formed. 'Heat' is a much more complicated entity and only travels from warm to cool. Radiation- all times, all directions. Heat (depending on how it is defined)- always from warm to cold.

Is heat a form of radiation or is it just the evidence, or residue, or fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another? The answer is important and the inability of science to provide an answer goes straight to the heart of your belief...and belief is precisely what it s as you have no empirical evidence upon which to base your claims.

 

[IanC]

Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.

They're smart enough to follow their laws

Exactly. That's why SSDDs claims are so ludicrous.

And the claims that there is no measured evidence for such things as 'back radiation' is foolish as well. Back radiation is simply radiation. Every substance above absolute zero gives off radiation, in all directions, because of kinetic molecular collisions.

Temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output. The surface receives 165W of solar energy. The temperature is 15C which means it gives off 400W. Where does the extra energy come from? The back radiation from the atmosphere.

Why is the atmosphere warm enough to return part of its energy to the surface? Solar input, both directly and indirectly from the surface. An atmosphere without GHGs would still be warmer than space and return some energy to the surface. With GHGs it is warmer still, and returns more, because some surface energy from radiation does not directly escape at the speed of light.

We can, and have, measured the radiation coming back from the atmosphere. It is significant and without it there would be no life here because it would be too cold.

The Greenhouse Effect is both real and necessary.


Fortunately the main GHG, water vapour, works as both a heater (absorbing radiation) and cooler (evaporation, convection, clouds and latent heat). The balance between these two functions is what has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilock's Zone' for billions of years.

Except there have been brief excursions that were very detrimental to life at the time. Snowball earth from too little GHGs in the atmosphere, the P-T extinction, and others, from too much GHGs in the atmosphere. And the present increase in GHGs is proceeding at a rate unmatched by any in the geological past according to paleo-climatologists. And we have many, many giga-ton of CH4 clathrates in our oceans. Probably won't come out. We sincerely hope.

Do you actually believe all these wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom that you are always regurgitating? A tonne of conclusions from a thimble full of evidence. And yet you are always so certain. And so unwilling to even consider looking at evidence going in another direction. I cannot converse with you. You only have talking point, endlessly repeated, and no intelligent thought to back them up.

 

[jc456]

Given the posts you have put up, I have hardly ever bothered to argue with you on the subject, your depth of ignorance, willful ignorance, was just to great to try to correct. Ian has done a very good job pointing out the errors in your arguments.

concession, thanks. I see you can't prove any of the claims of LWIR or that CO2 can cause warmer temps.

 

[SSDD]

Except there have been brief excursions that were very detrimental to life at the time. Snowball earth from too little GHGs in the atmosphere, the P-T extinction, and others, from too much GHGs in the atmosphere. And the present increase in GHGs is proceeding at a rate unmatched by any in the geological past according to paleo-climatologists. And we have many, many giga-ton of CH4 clathrates in our oceans. Probably won't come out. We sincerely hope.

Got anything like actual evidence to support that claim? Best estimates are that about 600 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm/

 

[SSDD]

Explain what you mean by heat and radiation. Do you even understand that they are different concepts? One is a complex function of a system with huge numbers of constituents, the other is a simple function of molecules shedding energy.

So which is it Ian? Is heat a form of energy....or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another...the answer matters and science doesn't know at this point which calls all your claims and pretend "knowledge" into question. Youre just making it up as you go.

 

[SSDD]

Given the posts you have put up, I have hardly ever bothered to argue with you on the subject, your depth of ignorance, willful ignorance, was just to great to try to correct. Ian has done a very good job pointing out the errors in your arguements.

All Ian has done is bring his faith into high relief...like you, he takes a great deal on faith when observation is in direct opposition to what he believes.

 

[IanC]

Define your terms. Radiation transfers energy from one place to another, and is independent of temperature once it is formed. 'Heat' is a much more complicated entity and only travels from warm to cool. Radiation- all times, all directions. Heat (depending on how it is defined)- always from warm to cold.

Is heat a form of radiation or is it just the evidence, or residue, or fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another? The answer is important and the inability of science to provide an answer goes straight to the heart of your belief...and belief is precisely what it s as you have no empirical evidence upon which to base your claims.

You are just as bad as Old Rocks.

Radiation is one of the most thoroughly investigated subjects in science. Much of our technology is based on odd results at the edge that are seldom, if ever, found in nature.

Heat is an amorphous concept heavily dependent on how you define it, or what you're studying. If I say one thing you will simply reframe the question. You make a declarative statement first, and then I will respond.

 

[IanC]

Given the posts you have put up, I have hardly ever bothered to argue with you on the subject, your depth of ignorance, willful ignorance, was just to great to try to correct. Ian has done a very good job pointing out the errors in your arguements.

All Ian has done is bring his faith into high relief...like you, he takes a great deal on faith when observation is in direct opposition to what he believes.

What observations are in direct opposition?

For example, the Pause does not disprove the warming influence of CO2 as a GHG. It is highly likely to be there, whether temps are increasing, decreasing or neutral. There are too many unknown factors also involved.

I have no problem with the basic, well supported concept of CO2 as a GHG. I have many problems with WV as a feedback that triples the CO2 influence.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.

They're smart enough to follow their laws

Exactly. That's why SSDDs claims are so ludicrous.

And the claims that there is no measured evidence for such things as 'back radiation' is foolish as well. Back radiation is simply radiation. Every substance above absolute zero gives off radiation, in all directions, because of kinetic molecular collisions.

Temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output. The surface receives 165W of solar energy. The temperature is 15C which means it gives off 400W. Where does the extra energy come from? The back radiation from the atmosphere.

Why is the atmosphere warm enough to return part of its energy to the surface? Solar input, both directly and indirectly from the surface. An atmosphere without GHGs would still be warmer than space and return some energy to the surface. With GHGs it is warmer still, and returns more, because some surface energy from radiation does not directly escape at the speed of light.

We can, and have, measured the radiation coming back from the atmosphere. It is significant and without it there would be no life here because it would be too cold.

The Greenhouse Effect is both real and necessary.


Fortunately the main GHG, water vapour, works as both a heater (absorbing radiation) and cooler (evaporation, convection, clouds and latent heat). The balance between these two functions is what has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilock's Zone' for billions of years.

Except there have been brief excursions that were very detrimental to life at the time. Snowball earth from too little GHGs in the atmosphere, the P-T extinction, and others, from too much GHGs in the atmosphere. And the present increase in GHGs is proceeding at a rate unmatched by any in the geological past according to paleo-climatologists. And we have many, many giga-ton of CH4 clathrates in our oceans. Probably won't come out. We sincerely hope.

Do you actually believe all these wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom that you are always regurgitating? A tonne of conclusions from a thimble full of evidence. And yet you are always so certain. And so unwilling to even consider looking at evidence going in another direction. I cannot converse with you. You only have talking point, endlessly repeated, and no intelligent thought to back them up.

OK, Ian, name the wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom I have made.

Remember Dr. Hanses's 1981 paper in which he predicted more droughts and the opening of the Northwest Passage in this century? And he was castigated even by many scientists as an 'alarmist'. Yet the Passage opened for the first time in 2007. He was far too conservative.

As for the clathrates, they are a known fact. And we do not know how much heat it would require to set them off. Richad Alley thinks that we are safe for the foreseeable future from that. But we really don't know. Is that wild ass guesses? A proclamation of doom?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.

They're smart enough to follow their laws

Exactly. That's why SSDDs claims are so ludicrous.

And the claims that there is no measured evidence for such things as 'back radiation' is foolish as well. Back radiation is simply radiation. Every substance above absolute zero gives off radiation, in all directions, because of kinetic molecular collisions.

Temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output. The surface receives 165W of solar energy. The temperature is 15C which means it gives off 400W. Where does the extra energy come from? The back radiation from the atmosphere.

Why is the atmosphere warm enough to return part of its energy to the surface? Solar input, both directly and indirectly from the surface. An atmosphere without GHGs would still be warmer than space and return some energy to the surface. With GHGs it is warmer still, and returns more, because some surface energy from radiation does not directly escape at the speed of light.

We can, and have, measured the radiation coming back from the atmosphere. It is significant and without it there would be no life here because it would be too cold.

The Greenhouse Effect is both real and necessary.


Fortunately the main GHG, water vapour, works as both a heater (absorbing radiation) and cooler (evaporation, convection, clouds and latent heat). The balance between these two functions is what has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilock's Zone' for billions of years.

Except there have been brief excursions that were very detrimental to life at the time. Snowball earth from too little GHGs in the atmosphere, the P-T extinction, and others, from too much GHGs in the atmosphere. And the present increase in GHGs is proceeding at a rate unmatched by any in the geological past according to paleo-climatologists. And we have many, many giga-ton of CH4 clathrates in our oceans. Probably won't come out. We sincerely hope.

It's odd that for a group so completely convinced you've eliminated all variables save for trace amounts of GHG you STILL in 20 years, don't have one single fucking repeatable lab experiment demonstrating your hypothesis.

Why is that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyone arguing for smart photons has some basic misconceptions in physics.

They're smart enough to follow their laws

Exactly. That's why SSDDs claims are so ludicrous.

And the claims that there is no measured evidence for such things as 'back radiation' is foolish as well. Back radiation is simply radiation. Every substance above absolute zero gives off radiation, in all directions, because of kinetic molecular collisions.

Temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output. The surface receives 165W of solar energy. The temperature is 15C which means it gives off 400W. Where does the extra energy come from? The back radiation from the atmosphere.

Why is the atmosphere warm enough to return part of its energy to the surface? Solar input, both directly and indirectly from the surface. An atmosphere without GHGs would still be warmer than space and return some energy to the surface. With GHGs it is warmer still, and returns more, because some surface energy from radiation does not directly escape at the speed of light.

We can, and have, measured the radiation coming back from the atmosphere. It is significant and without it there would be no life here because it would be too cold.

The Greenhouse Effect is both real and necessary.


Fortunately the main GHG, water vapour, works as both a heater (absorbing radiation) and cooler (evaporation, convection, clouds and latent heat). The balance between these two functions is what has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilock's Zone' for billions of years.

Except there have been brief excursions that were very detrimental to life at the time. Snowball earth from too little GHGs in the atmosphere, the P-T extinction, and others, from too much GHGs in the atmosphere. And the present increase in GHGs is proceeding at a rate unmatched by any in the geological past according to paleo-climatologists. And we have many, many giga-ton of CH4 clathrates in our oceans. Probably won't come out. We sincerely hope.

Do you actually believe all these wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom that you are always regurgitating? A tonne of conclusions from a thimble full of evidence. And yet you are always so certain. And so unwilling to even consider looking at evidence going in another direction. I cannot converse with you. You only have talking point, endlessly repeated, and no intelligent thought to back them up.

OK, Ian, name the wild ass guesses and proclamations of doom I have made.

Remember Dr. Hanses's 1981 paper in which he predicted more droughts and the opening of the Northwest Passage in this century? And he was castigated even by many scientists as an 'alarmist'. Yet the Passage opened for the first time in 2007. He was far too conservative.

As for the clathrates, they are a known fact. And we do not know how much heat it would require to set them off. Richad Alley thinks that we are safe for the foreseeable future from that. But we really don't know. Is that wild ass guesses? A proclamation of doom?

The big list of failed climate predictions

 

[SSDD]

You are just as bad as Old Rocks.

Radiation is one of the most thoroughly investigated subjects in science. Much of our technology is based on odd results at the edge that are seldom, if ever, found in nature.

Heat is an amorphous concept heavily dependent on how you define it, or what you're studying. If I say one thing you will simply reframe the question. You make a declarative statement first, and then I will respond.

Shuck and jive...bob and weave..duck and cover....answer the question...is heat a form of energy in and of itself, or is it merely what happens when energy moves from one place to another....if radiation is the most thoroughly investigated subject in science...and as well understood as you seem to believe...then you should be able to answer such a fundamental question...why can't you? If you were half as sure of yourself as you seem to believe you are, you wouldn't need to wait for me...you could provide information from a perfectly credible source stating whether heat is itself a form of energy or whether it is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another.

 

[SSDD]

What observations are in direct opposition?

Energy has never been observed moving from a cool object to a warm object.

I have no problem with the basic, well supported concept of CO2 as a GHG. I have many problems with WV as a feedback that triples the CO2 influence.

That basic concept is supported only by faith...there is not the first bit of empirical evidence to support the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will result in warming...the hot spot that would be the inevitable and inescapable result of CO2 doing what you claim has failed to show up and will continue to fail to show up...again...the only place your claims hold true are in unobservable, untestable, unprovable mathematical models.

 

[Wuwei]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You have a mistake. Your use of energy is wrong. It should be,
Heat will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
If you don't think it's a mistake please cite a source for that statement.

 

[Crick]

Wuwei, have you ever discussed radiative heat transfer with SSDD before?