Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Funny: You still haven't found the missing troposphereic hot spot either.. now why would that be? Your understanding is flawed.. Just like Trenbreth.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.
sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?it still matters.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?
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.
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..
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
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.
Can you cite a source that demonstrates how EM radiation from a colder object cannot strike a hotter object?Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...
Dude!!!! The missing hotspot is MY topic!
It's proof that the climate models aren't working right. Why do you want ME to find it?
I follow the science. The parts of AGW that are supported I believe in. The mistakes and exaggerations I scoff at. You seem to disagree with a lot of things regardless of the evidence. As if it was a popularity contest rather than a complicated problem to decipher.
I believe that all objects emit radiation proportional to their temperature.
Therefore I believe that the atmosphere is sending radiation back to the surface.
It is well known that radiation can be exchanged by bodies at any temperature and the net energy is from the hotter to the colder. There is nothing to impede that. I asked you to cite a source that radiation is one way. I can cite many sources that radiation is two way.Nothing more than the second law of thermodynamics.... Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.Can you cite a source that demonstrates how EM radiation from a colder object cannot strike a hotter object?Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...
You said "we remain clueless". What you mean is that you remain clueless. So being clueless, you make up stuff that every scientist knows is wrong.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
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.
Billy, I can't figure out why they don't believe in AGW and yet believe in back radiation. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY AGW could be real. It isn't we know, but for them it is the only way. And I laugh cause they tell me their magic IR doesn't have heat and it's just energy and then tell how hot it is with a IR thermometer. DOH!!!!!sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?it still matters.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?
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.
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..
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
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.
sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?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.
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?
and yet, nothing yet from you on cool moving to warm. Interesting.........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
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool
That's good, because explaining your faulty belief would be difficult, even if you weren't such a moron.
can you cite a source that shows it does?Can you cite a source that demonstrates how EM radiation from a colder object cannot strike a hotter object?Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...
Billy, I can't figure out why they don't believe in AGW and yet believe in back radiation. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY AGW could be real. It isn't we know, but for them it is the only way. And I laugh cause they tell me their magic IR doesn't have heat and it's just energy and then tell how hot it is with a IR thermometer. DOH!!!!!sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?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.
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..
and yet, nothing yet from you on cool moving to warm. Interesting.........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
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool
That's good, because explaining your faulty belief would be difficult, even if you weren't such a moron.
Can you cite a source that demonstrates how EM radiation from a colder object cannot strike a hotter object?Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...
Nothing more than the second law of thermodynamics.... Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
where is cool to warm exercise?and yet, nothing yet from you on cool moving to warm. Interesting.........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
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool
That's good, because explaining your faulty belief would be difficult, even if you weren't such a moron.
What is "cool"? Why do you think it moves?
I don't.sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?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.
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..
I believe that all objects emit radiation proportional to their temperature.
The atmosphere is an object with a temperature greater than zero degrees Kelvin.
Therefore I believe that the atmosphere is sending radiation back to the surface.
where is cool to warm exercise?and yet, nothing yet from you on cool moving to warm. Interesting.........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
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool
That's good, because explaining your faulty belief would be difficult, even if you weren't such a moron.
What is "cool"? Why do you think it moves?
