Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Toddsterpatriot]

yep and aren't considered in GHGs.

Water vapor is a GHG.

in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover

AGWers have crappy models. That doesn't stop water vapor from absorbing and emitting energy.

We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann as you've admitted.....and denied.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

than what?

Than no cloud cover.

Water vapor is a GHG.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.


AGWers have crappy models.
yes they do and they don't include clouds. And most of the planet is always under a cloud on a daily basis. It's why we have water.

Than no cloud cover
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are. I laugh at this sht.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.

yes they do and they don't include clouds

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.

Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.

Clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere both absorb energy emitted from the ground and emit a portion back to the Earth's surface. That's back radiation. It happens, it keeps the planet warmer than it would be without water vapor in the atmosphere.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.
Cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets or frozen crystals, both of which are made of water or various chemicals. The droplets or particles are suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body.[1] On Earth clouds are formed by the saturation of air in the homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere) when air cools or gains water vapor. The science of clouds is nephology which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology."

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.
and clouds are not figured into any model, and back radiation does not exist.

CO2

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory."

and back radiation does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

It works better as an explanation than your claim that energy from GHGs doesn't get emitted toward the ground.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Get warmer than what?

 

[jc456]

Water vapor is a GHG.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.


AGWers have crappy models.
yes they do and they don't include clouds. And most of the planet is always under a cloud on a daily basis. It's why we have water.

Than no cloud cover
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are. I laugh at this sht.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.

yes they do and they don't include clouds

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.

Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.

Clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere both absorb energy emitted from the ground and emit a portion back to the Earth's surface. That's back radiation. It happens, it keeps the planet warmer than it would be without water vapor in the atmosphere.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.
Cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets or frozen crystals, both of which are made of water or various chemicals. The droplets or particles are suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body.[1] On Earth clouds are formed by the saturation of air in the homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere) when air cools or gains water vapor. The science of clouds is nephology which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology."

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.
and clouds are not figured into any model, and back radiation does not exist.

CO2

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory."

and back radiation does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

It works better as an explanation than your claim that energy from GHGs doesn't get emitted toward the ground.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Get warmer than what?

Get warmer than what?
than what we've already recorded.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.

yes they do and they don't include clouds

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.

Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.

Clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere both absorb energy emitted from the ground and emit a portion back to the Earth's surface. That's back radiation. It happens, it keeps the planet warmer than it would be without water vapor in the atmosphere.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.
Cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets or frozen crystals, both of which are made of water or various chemicals. The droplets or particles are suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body.[1] On Earth clouds are formed by the saturation of air in the homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere) when air cools or gains water vapor. The science of clouds is nephology which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology."

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.
and clouds are not figured into any model, and back radiation does not exist.

CO2

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory."

and back radiation does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

It works better as an explanation than your claim that energy from GHGs doesn't get emitted toward the ground.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Get warmer than what?

Get warmer than what?
than what we've already recorded.

The temperatures we record are already impacted by back radiation.

So why do you feel GHGs, after they absorb energy, do not radiate toward the ground?
Do you feel there is a flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

 

[jc456]

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.
Cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets or frozen crystals, both of which are made of water or various chemicals. The droplets or particles are suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body.[1] On Earth clouds are formed by the saturation of air in the homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere) when air cools or gains water vapor. The science of clouds is nephology which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology."

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.
and clouds are not figured into any model, and back radiation does not exist.

CO2

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory."

and back radiation does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

It works better as an explanation than your claim that energy from GHGs doesn't get emitted toward the ground.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Get warmer than what?

Get warmer than what?
than what we've already recorded.

The temperatures we record are already impacted by back radiation.

So why do you feel GHGs, after they absorb energy, do not radiate toward the ground?
Do you feel there is a flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and back radiation does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

It works better as an explanation than your claim that energy from GHGs doesn't get emitted toward the ground.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Get warmer than what?

Get warmer than what?
than what we've already recorded.

The temperatures we record are already impacted by back radiation.

So why do you feel GHGs, after they absorb energy, do not radiate toward the ground?
Do you feel there is a flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.
Why do you feel that energy from GHGs won't travel toward the warmer ground?

 

[jc456]

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Get warmer than what?

Get warmer than what?
than what we've already recorded.

The temperatures we record are already impacted by back radiation.

So why do you feel GHGs, after they absorb energy, do not radiate toward the ground?
Do you feel there is a flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.
Why do you feel that energy from GHGs won't travel toward the warmer ground?

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.

Get warmer than what?

Get warmer than what?
than what we've already recorded.

The temperatures we record are already impacted by back radiation.

So why do you feel GHGs, after they absorb energy, do not radiate toward the ground?
Do you feel there is a flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.
Why do you feel that energy from GHGs won't travel toward the warmer ground?

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying matter above 0K won't emit radiation in the direction of something warmer?
Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't say that.

 

[jc456]

Get warmer than what?
than what we've already recorded.

The temperatures we record are already impacted by back radiation.

So why do you feel GHGs, after they absorb energy, do not radiate toward the ground?
Do you feel there is a flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.
Why do you feel that energy from GHGs won't travel toward the warmer ground?

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying matter above 0K won't emit radiation in the direction of something warmer?
Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't say that.

so where is the hot spot in the atmosphere?

 

[jc456]

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: AGW Myth of Back Radiation

excerpt:

"AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW alarmism is based on an idea of "back radiation" or "re-radiation" from an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, but the physics of this phenomenon remains unclear.

To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.

To give this experiment theoretical support we consider the mathematics of wave propagation from a source at x=0 (Earth surface) to a receiver at x=1 (atmospheric layer) described by the wave equation (as a model of Maxwell's equations describing light as electromagnetic waves):"

Read the comments under the main topic.

 

[jc456]

or
The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

Abstract:
"This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

 

[jc456]

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

So i read the experiment and not actually sure how that proves back radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The temperatures we record are already impacted by back radiation.

So why do you feel GHGs, after they absorb energy, do not radiate toward the ground?
Do you feel there is a flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.
Why do you feel that energy from GHGs won't travel toward the warmer ground?

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying matter above 0K won't emit radiation in the direction of something warmer?
Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't say that.

so where is the hot spot in the atmosphere?

A hot spot is not needed for matter to radiate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: AGW Myth of Back Radiation

excerpt:

"AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW alarmism is based on an idea of "back radiation" or "re-radiation" from an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, but the physics of this phenomenon remains unclear.

To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.

To give this experiment theoretical support we consider the mathematics of wave propagation from a source at x=0 (Earth surface) to a receiver at x=1 (atmospheric layer) described by the wave equation (as a model of Maxwell's equations describing light as electromagnetic waves):"

Read the comments under the main topic.

On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.

Possible the dumbest post I've ever seen. Was it written by SSDD?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

or
The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

Abstract:
"This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

Have you ever parked your car in the Sun with the windows rolled up?
Summer, winter, doesn't matter.
Come back to your car later and notice it's hotter inside the car than outside.

Why do you suppose that is the case?

 

[jc456]

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.
Why do you feel that energy from GHGs won't travel toward the warmer ground?

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying matter above 0K won't emit radiation in the direction of something warmer?
Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't say that.

so where is the hot spot in the atmosphere?

A hot spot is not needed for matter to radiate.

well if there is energy there must be heat.

 

[jc456]

or
The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

Abstract:
"This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

Have you ever parked your car in the Sun with the windows rolled up?
Summer, winter, doesn't matter.
Come back to your car later and notice it's hotter inside the car than outside.

Why do you suppose that is the case?

because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point. its all heat.

 

[jc456]

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: AGW Myth of Back Radiation

excerpt:

"AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW alarmism is based on an idea of "back radiation" or "re-radiation" from an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, but the physics of this phenomenon remains unclear.

To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.

To give this experiment theoretical support we consider the mathematics of wave propagation from a source at x=0 (Earth surface) to a receiver at x=1 (atmospheric layer) described by the wave equation (as a model of Maxwell's equations describing light as electromagnetic waves):"

Read the comments under the main topic.

On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.

Possible the dumbest post I've ever seen. Was it written by SSDD?

it was about the comments under the article, I posted that.

Read the comments under the main topic

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

So i read the experiment and not actually sure how that proves back radiation.

It shows that energy emitted is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature.

Do you disagree? Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cold cannot heat up a warm body.

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.
Why do you feel that energy from GHGs won't travel toward the warmer ground?

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?

Are you saying matter above 0K won't emit radiation in the direction of something warmer?
Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't say that.

so where is the hot spot in the atmosphere?

A hot spot is not needed for matter to radiate.

well if there is energy there must be heat.

And? A hot spot still is not needed for matter to radiate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: AGW Myth of Back Radiation

excerpt:

"AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW alarmism is based on an idea of "back radiation" or "re-radiation" from an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, but the physics of this phenomenon remains unclear.

To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.

To give this experiment theoretical support we consider the mathematics of wave propagation from a source at x=0 (Earth surface) to a receiver at x=1 (atmospheric layer) described by the wave equation (as a model of Maxwell's equations describing light as electromagnetic waves):"

Read the comments under the main topic.

On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.

Possible the dumbest post I've ever seen. Was it written by SSDD?

it was about the comments under the article, I posted that.

Read the comments under the main topic

Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this.

Roger mades Claes sound like SSDD.