Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[jc456]

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.

a hot spot would be needed if it were happening indeed. again energy creates heat.

 

[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?

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

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

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

a hot spot would be needed if it were happening indeed. again energy creates heat.

A hot spot is not needed for the 70 degree walls in my house to radiate back to my 98 degree skin.

 

[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

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.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation. you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

 

[jc456]

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.

a hot spot would be needed if it were happening indeed. again energy creates heat.

A hot spot is not needed for the 70 degree walls in my house to radiate back to my 98 degree skin.

how do painted walls absorb? heat mingles around due to air movement in the house. your walls no more absorb like your windows. The heat should never come on again once equilibrium is present then. Right? LOL

 

[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.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation. you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

And you can't prove back radiation.

To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.

you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

The SB Law already proves it.
So why do you disagree with it?

 

[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.

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

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point. its all heat. it's all like the surface of the planet, it absorbs and radiates LWIR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

a hot spot would be needed if it were happening indeed. again energy creates heat.

A hot spot is not needed for the 70 degree walls in my house to radiate back to my 98 degree skin.

how do painted walls absorb? heat mingles around due to air movement in the house. your walls no more absorb like your windows. The heat should never come on again once equilibrium is present then. Right? LOL

how do painted walls absorb?

Matter absorbs energy. It's basic physics.

 

[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?

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

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

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point. its all heat. it's all like the surface of the planet, it absorbs and radiates LWIR.

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

These items are not burning, how do they radiate 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

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.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation. you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

And you can't prove back radiation.

To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.

you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

The SB Law already proves it.
So why do you disagree with it?

The SB Law already proves it.

it does, then prove how it does. your experiment didn't.

To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.
I didn't say it didn't, I said it doesn't make it to the surface,and i posted a link as to why. it eventually all goes to space.

 

[jc456]

well if there is energy there must be heat.

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

a hot spot would be needed if it were happening indeed. again energy creates heat.

A hot spot is not needed for the 70 degree walls in my house to radiate back to my 98 degree skin.

how do painted walls absorb? heat mingles around due to air movement in the house. your walls no more absorb like your windows. The heat should never come on again once equilibrium is present then. Right? LOL

how do painted walls absorb?

Matter absorbs energy. It's basic physics.

no that's not correct, some objects don't have the ability to absorb. try again.

 

[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.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation. you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

Except the dude experiment didn't measure the reflected light.

 

[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.

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

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point. its all heat. it's all like the surface of the planet, it absorbs and radiates LWIR.

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

These items are not burning, how do they radiate heat?

same way asphalt does or metal or any other object that absorbs sunlight and remits it. Like my pan on the stove after I turn off the burner. wow you're really scrambling dude.

Edit: sand is a really good absorbing base as well. you need shoes in the summer to walk long on it.

 

[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

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.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation. you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

Except the dude experiment didn't measure the reflected light.

sure it did, it showed none was there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation. you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

And you can't prove back radiation.

To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.

you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

The SB Law already proves it.
So why do you disagree with it?

The SB Law already proves it.

it does, then prove how it does. your experiment didn't.

To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.
I didn't say it didn't, I said it doesn't make it to the surface,and i posted a link as to why. it eventually all goes to space.

it does, then prove how it does. your experiment didn't

They graphed the data. That's not proof enough?

I said it doesn't make it to the surface

Why not? Magic force field stop it?

You know a photon radiating up won't "crash into" and stop a photon radiating down, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation. you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

Except the dude experiment didn't measure the reflected light.

sure it did, it showed none was there.

What device did they use to measure the lack of reflected photons?
Why doesn't he use a mirror in sunlight to prove light doesn't reflect?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

a hot spot would be needed if it were happening indeed. again energy creates heat.

A hot spot is not needed for the 70 degree walls in my house to radiate back to my 98 degree skin.

how do painted walls absorb? heat mingles around due to air movement in the house. your walls no more absorb like your windows. The heat should never come on again once equilibrium is present then. Right? LOL

how do painted walls absorb?

Matter absorbs energy. It's basic physics.

no that's not correct, some objects don't have the ability to absorb. try again.

some objects don't have the ability to absorb

Which ones? Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point. its all heat. it's all like the surface of the planet, it absorbs and radiates LWIR.

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

These items are not burning, how do they radiate heat?

same way asphalt does or metal or any other object that absorbs sunlight and remits it. Like my pan on the stove after I turn off the burner. wow you're really scrambling dude.

Edit: sand is a really good absorbing base as well. you need shoes in the summer to walk long on it.

same way asphalt does or metal or any other object that absorbs sunlight and remits it.

The interior of the car absorbs energy from the sun and emits energy.
So why doesn't the car stay the same temperature? Why does it heat up?

 

[jc456]

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.

your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation. you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

And you can't prove back radiation.

To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.

you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.

The SB Law already proves it.
So why do you disagree with it?

The SB Law already proves it.

it does, then prove how it does. your experiment didn't.

To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.
I didn't say it didn't, I said it doesn't make it to the surface,and i posted a link as to why. it eventually all goes to space.

it does, then prove how it does. your experiment didn't

They graphed the data. That's not proof enough?

I said it doesn't make it to the surface

Why not? Magic force field stop it?

You know a photon radiating up won't "crash into" and stop a photon radiating down, right?

They graphed the data. That's not proof enough?
no, it didn't confirm anything about back radiation.

You know a photon radiating up won't "crash into" and stop a photon radiating down, right?

it gets absorbed by other CO2 going up since that is the direction it must go as the temperature decreases in the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

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

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

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?

because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point. its all heat. it's all like the surface of the planet, it absorbs and radiates LWIR.

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

These items are not burning, how do they radiate heat?

same way asphalt does or metal or any other object that absorbs sunlight and remits it. Like my pan on the stove after I turn off the burner. wow you're really scrambling dude.

Edit: sand is a really good absorbing base as well. you need shoes in the summer to walk long on it.

same way asphalt does or metal or any other object that absorbs sunlight and remits it.

The interior of the car absorbs energy from the sun and emits energy.
So why doesn't the car stay the same temperature? Why does it heat up?

it is the same temperature, it will also gain water vapor and the windows may fog. Why does a pan on the stove get so hot? it gets to the temperature of the heat source. Why does our skin burn if we stay out too long?

Oh and black seats will be much fking hotter than light colored seats. why is that?