Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Toddsterpatriot]

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

it still matters.

All matter above 0K radiates, in all directions.
Warmer just emits more than colder

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.

Great. We agree the ground emits. We agree the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy emitted from the ground and then emits.

And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

The atmosphere doesn't emit? Why not?
Or do you mean it emits, but not toward the ground?
So why doesn't it emit toward the ground?

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

You think the atmosphere doesn't emit toward the instrument until the instant it is cooled below a certain temp?
How does it know the temp of the instrument? Is the GHG smart? Does it have a thermometer?
Or is that the job of the photon?

Warmer just emits more than colder

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting? do you know it takes an action to cause that right? And what if that action doesn't happen? Can you prove vibration and that IR is emitted? Nope.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know? the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading. Why does it take the instrument to be cooled down to read something?

Where is your evidence of back radiation? You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine. Funny how that kinda shit works in this forum.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know?

Because it can't, doesn't and it doesn't matter what temperature the instrument is at as far as the photon is concerned.

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?

Are they above 0K? If they are, they're emitting.

the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.

It's reading the radiation emitted by the atmosphere down toward the ground. Back radiation.

Where is your evidence of back radiation?

Readings from sky facing instruments. Basic physics.

You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.

Did you ever explain how a photon emitted by CO2 or water vapor refuses to travel toward the ground?
I know you've said before that it can travel down but never reaches the ground. Can you explain why not?

In a way that makes sense I mean.

See there you go, LOL. Yeah fair exchange bubba.

I answered 4 questions in that post.
You can't tell me what magic prevents emission toward the ground? LOL!

 

[jc456]

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

it still matters.

All matter above 0K radiates, in all directions.
Warmer just emits more than colder

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.

Great. We agree the ground emits. We agree the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy emitted from the ground and then emits.

And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

The atmosphere doesn't emit? Why not?
Or do you mean it emits, but not toward the ground?
So why doesn't it emit toward the ground?

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

You think the atmosphere doesn't emit toward the instrument until the instant it is cooled below a certain temp?
How does it know the temp of the instrument? Is the GHG smart? Does it have a thermometer?
Or is that the job of the photon?

Warmer just emits more than colder

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting? do you know it takes an action to cause that right? And what if that action doesn't happen? Can you prove vibration and that IR is emitted? Nope.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know? the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading. Why does it take the instrument to be cooled down to read something?

Where is your evidence of back radiation? You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine. Funny how that kinda shit works in this forum.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know?

Because it can't, doesn't and it doesn't matter what temperature the instrument is at as far as the photon is concerned.

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?

Are they above 0K? If they are, they're emitting.

the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.

It's reading the radiation emitted by the atmosphere down toward the ground. Back radiation.

Where is your evidence of back radiation?

Readings from sky facing instruments. Basic physics.

You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.

Did you ever explain how a photon emitted by CO2 or water vapor refuses to travel toward the ground?
I know you've said before that it can travel down but never reaches the ground. Can you explain why not?

In a way that makes sense I mean.

See there you go, LOL. Yeah fair exchange bubba.

I answered 4 questions in that post.
You can't tell me what magic prevents emission toward the ground? LOL!

I said temperature how many posts back and before.And is CO2 even emitting in the atmosphere. You can't prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it still matters.

All matter above 0K radiates, in all directions.
Warmer just emits more than colder

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.

Great. We agree the ground emits. We agree the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy emitted from the ground and then emits.

And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

The atmosphere doesn't emit? Why not?
Or do you mean it emits, but not toward the ground?
So why doesn't it emit toward the ground?

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

You think the atmosphere doesn't emit toward the instrument until the instant it is cooled below a certain temp?
How does it know the temp of the instrument? Is the GHG smart? Does it have a thermometer?
Or is that the job of the photon?

Warmer just emits more than colder

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting? do you know it takes an action to cause that right? And what if that action doesn't happen? Can you prove vibration and that IR is emitted? Nope.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know? the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading. Why does it take the instrument to be cooled down to read something?

Where is your evidence of back radiation? You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine. Funny how that kinda shit works in this forum.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know?

Because it can't, doesn't and it doesn't matter what temperature the instrument is at as far as the photon is concerned.

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?

Are they above 0K? If they are, they're emitting.

the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.

It's reading the radiation emitted by the atmosphere down toward the ground. Back radiation.

Where is your evidence of back radiation?

Readings from sky facing instruments. Basic physics.

You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.

Did you ever explain how a photon emitted by CO2 or water vapor refuses to travel toward the ground?
I know you've said before that it can travel down but never reaches the ground. Can you explain why not?

In a way that makes sense I mean.

See there you go, LOL. Yeah fair exchange bubba.

I answered 4 questions in that post.
You can't tell me what magic prevents emission toward the ground? LOL!

I said temperature how many posts back and before.And is CO2 even emitting in the atmosphere. You can't prove it.

Temperature is the answer to some question? That's funny.

Yes, CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting.

If you can prove it doesn't, you'd be famous for a good reason.

 

[jc456]

Warmer just emits more than colder

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting? do you know it takes an action to cause that right? And what if that action doesn't happen? Can you prove vibration and that IR is emitted? Nope.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know? the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading. Why does it take the instrument to be cooled down to read something?

Where is your evidence of back radiation? You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine. Funny how that kinda shit works in this forum.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know?

Because it can't, doesn't and it doesn't matter what temperature the instrument is at as far as the photon is concerned.

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?

Are they above 0K? If they are, they're emitting.

the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.

It's reading the radiation emitted by the atmosphere down toward the ground. Back radiation.

Where is your evidence of back radiation?

Readings from sky facing instruments. Basic physics.

You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.

Did you ever explain how a photon emitted by CO2 or water vapor refuses to travel toward the ground?
I know you've said before that it can travel down but never reaches the ground. Can you explain why not?

In a way that makes sense I mean.

See there you go, LOL. Yeah fair exchange bubba.

I answered 4 questions in that post.
You can't tell me what magic prevents emission toward the ground? LOL!

I said temperature how many posts back and before.And is CO2 even emitting in the atmosphere. You can't prove it.

Temperature is the answer to some question? That's funny.

Yes, CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting.

If you can prove it doesn't, you'd be famous for a good reason.

no, you prove it does. I owe you nothing that is your claim. You claim it does prove it. don't shift your burden on me. I don't accept.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know?

Because it can't, doesn't and it doesn't matter what temperature the instrument is at as far as the photon is concerned.

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?

Are they above 0K? If they are, they're emitting.

the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.

It's reading the radiation emitted by the atmosphere down toward the ground. Back radiation.

Where is your evidence of back radiation?

Readings from sky facing instruments. Basic physics.

You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.

Did you ever explain how a photon emitted by CO2 or water vapor refuses to travel toward the ground?
I know you've said before that it can travel down but never reaches the ground. Can you explain why not?

In a way that makes sense I mean.

See there you go, LOL. Yeah fair exchange bubba.

I answered 4 questions in that post.
You can't tell me what magic prevents emission toward the ground? LOL!

I said temperature how many posts back and before.And is CO2 even emitting in the atmosphere. You can't prove it.

Temperature is the answer to some question? That's funny.

Yes, CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting.

If you can prove it doesn't, you'd be famous for a good reason.

no, you prove it does. I owe you nothing that is your claim. You claim it does prove it. don't shift your burden on me. I don't accept.

CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting. As you've previously admitted.
Did you forget? Were you drunk posting? Suffer a recent brain injury?

Of course you can't prove it doesn't emit.

 

[jc456]

See there you go, LOL. Yeah fair exchange bubba.

I answered 4 questions in that post.
You can't tell me what magic prevents emission toward the ground? LOL!

I said temperature how many posts back and before.And is CO2 even emitting in the atmosphere. You can't prove it.

Temperature is the answer to some question? That's funny.

Yes, CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting.

If you can prove it doesn't, you'd be famous for a good reason.

no, you prove it does. I owe you nothing that is your claim. You claim it does prove it. don't shift your burden on me. I don't accept.

CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting. As you've previously admitted.
Did you forget? Were you drunk posting? Suffer a recent brain injury?

Of course you can't prove it doesn't emit.

I've read more material and no more do I believe that. nopers of course you can't prove it does. otherwise you'd just show me and shut me up. you can't and it's busting your balls.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I answered 4 questions in that post.
You can't tell me what magic prevents emission toward the ground? LOL!

I said temperature how many posts back and before.And is CO2 even emitting in the atmosphere. You can't prove it.

Temperature is the answer to some question? That's funny.

Yes, CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting.

If you can prove it doesn't, you'd be famous for a good reason.

no, you prove it does. I owe you nothing that is your claim. You claim it does prove it. don't shift your burden on me. I don't accept.

CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting. As you've previously admitted.
Did you forget? Were you drunk posting? Suffer a recent brain injury?

Of course you can't prove it doesn't emit.

I've read more material and no more do I believe that. nopers of course you can't prove it does. otherwise you'd just show me and shut me up. you can't and it's busting your balls.

I've read more material and no more do I believe that.

What did you read that showed you CO2 never emits?

 

[SSDD]

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

Says the guy who is fooling himself with instrumentation...You are only partly right in how the IR thermometer works...It has an internal thermopile...if you aim it at a warmer object, it does receive radiation from that object and warms up and the internal computer measures the rate of change to determine the temperature of the object...if you point it at an object of the same temperature the temperature of the thermopile doesn't change and the appropriate temperature is displayed...you miss the boat, however, on what happens when you point it at a cooler object....if you point it at a cooler object, the thermopile loses heat to the cooler object and the internal computer registers the rate of change and displays the temperature...no radiation is coming in from the cooler object...the device is simply measuring how quickly its internal thermopile is losing heat to the object it is focused upon. It says this much cooler by the same mathematical model as it says this much warmer or the same temperature....

Fooling yourself with instrumentation is just dumb Ian...learn what it is and is not measuring.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

Says the guy who is fooling himself with instrumentation...You are only partly right in how the IR thermometer works...It has an internal thermopile...if you aim it at a warmer object, it does receive radiation from that object and warms up and the internal computer measures the rate of change to determine the temperature of the object...if you point it at an object of the same temperature the temperature of the thermopile doesn't change and the appropriate temperature is displayed...you miss the boat, however, on what happens when you point it at a cooler object....if you point it at a cooler object, the thermopile loses heat to the cooler object and the internal computer registers the rate of change and displays the temperature...no radiation is coming in from the cooler object...the device is simply measuring how quickly its internal thermopile is losing heat to the object it is focused upon. It says this much cooler by the same mathematical model as it says this much warmer or the same temperature....

Fooling yourself with instrumentation is just dumb Ian...learn what it is and is not measuring.

....if you point it at a cooler object, the thermopile loses heat to the cooler object and the internal computer registers the rate of change and displays the temperature...no radiation is coming in from the cooler object...

Of course, the smart photons don't get emitted toward a warmer object, because....derp!

 

[IanC]

jc - can you see that the blue curve completely encloses the pink curve?

The area enclosed by the pink curve exactly matches the same area under the blue curve except for the portion between the two curves. The bottom section balances out, as if they were the same temperature, input equals output. But the blue object is warmer so it produces more radiation. The excess is the area between the two curves, which add energy to the pink object and subtract from the blue.

In a nutshell, this is the visual mechanism which explains why net energy transfer always goes from warm to cool. Heat, not energy. There is always a balanced portion which exchanges energy for a net difference of zero, and an excess that warms the cooler object at the expense of the warmer one.

Remember, this is for two objects at different temperatures moving towards equilibrium, with no outside power source. There is no point in delving into more complicated scenarios until you grasp the basics.

 

[IanC]

SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.

Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...not net...it's nice that you have a chart where you can visualize your imagination..and have one more way to fool yourself.....unfortunately a chart is all you will ever have....net energy transfer has never been observed in the history of the universe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.

Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...not net...it's nice that you have a chart where you can visualize your imagination..and have one more way to fool yourself.....unfortunately a chart is all you will ever have....net energy transfer has never been observed in the history of the universe.

Derp....smart photons are smart....derp.

 

[IanC]

SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.

Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...not net...it's nice that you have a chart where you can visualize your imagination..and have one more way to fool yourself.....unfortunately a chart is all you will ever have....net energy transfer has never been observed in the history of the universe.

Gross means tallying up all the individual components. Net means the surplus and final direction.

You haven't explained how your smart photons or their smart emitters acquire their information. Or the discrepancy in entropy that would ensue. Care to take a stab at it? Of course not. Hahahaha

 

[Billy_Bob]

How to teach a group of people why "back radiation" is a poor term and deceptive?

First lets look at the the basic molecules and their properties..

CO2: One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.

The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds. The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.

H2O; One Hydrogen molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules,

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon. As the molecule cools the emitted photons wave length increases in length (as evidenced by the increased output wave lengths from water vapor)


The alarmists claim that back radiation will force energy back to the earth. This is actually the residency time of the energy in near surface molecules and slowed rise of heat from the earth. In the desert, in low humidity (water vapor) the temperature swing is 60-80 deg F daily showing that the water vapor directly above the surface is responsible for the slowing of the heat rise. CO2 has no effect on the deserts higher ground temps and CO2 not only can not hold heat, it can not re-emit enough, ground ward, to combat the loss.

While the atmosphere may indeed be re-emitting photons towards the ground it is incapable of holding the heat and the LWIR escapes to space rapidly.

Water vapor is the key to the system. In low convective cycles the day time temps use conduction near ground level to hold heat. at night however that conduction stops and convection releases the heat to space. Again the LWIR, from rising black body ground heat, is very minutely returned by CO2 re-emittance towards the ground and in insufficient volumes to warm the water vapor in the air.

The whole CO2 meme is total bull shit and has been from day one. Back radiation is just one more ambiguous term that means exactly squat.

Billybob is back to bafflegab again. Hahahaha.

One thing I would like to point out is that at STP for the surface, the re-emission time for an excited CO2 molecule is roughly ten times longer than the time between molecular collisions. The energy used to excite the molecule is more likely to be converted into general energy, of which the kinetic portion is known as temperature.

Billybob's post is so full of mistakes it is hard to believe he has taken even high school science classes.

Funny: You still haven't found the missing troposphereic hot spot either.. now why would that be? Your understanding is flawed.. Just like Trenbreth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?

Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature.

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

In order to prove "back Radiation" you would first need to with the spectral bounds of the gas or solid emitting. Then you would have to identify what molecule is actually emitting as many gases overlap bands of the spectrum. Then you would have to show that it was not reflected and rule out other sources... Then once you have identified each source you would have to prove the direction of travel...

It hasn't been done... unless you believe in smart photons and devices that are capable of identifying where they came from..

 

[Crick]

Wrong: Evans 2006
Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
*******************************************************************************
The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?

Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature.

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

In order to prove "back Radiation" you would first need to with the spectral bounds of the gas or solid emitting. Then you would have to identify what molecule is actually emitting as many gases overlap bands of the spectrum. Then you would have to show that it was not reflected and rule out other sources... Then once you have identified each source you would have to prove the direction of travel...

It hasn't been done... unless you believe in smart photons and devices that are capable of identifying where they came from..

What's the difference between radiation and back radiation?

 

[Wuwei]

Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...

Can you cite a source that demonstrates how EM radiation from a colder object cannot strike a hotter object?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...

Can you cite a source that demonstrates how EM radiation from a colder object cannot strike a hotter object?

He'll explain, it simply isn't emitted toward the warmer object.
Even if the warmer object is millions of light years away.........