Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

Personally, I don't like that example because the original radiation was much more energetic before it was redshifted down to its present levels.

Your point is well taken. The COBE satellite measured the CMB with a remarkably precise agreement with BB radiation. The argument was for anti-science people who read physics “at face value”. A scientist does not need any argument about what was measured, (unless they are just playing games).

I also don't like the example of the Sun's Corona. It only shows the symptom of high temperature, it is not caused by blackbody radiation. An LED is not as hot as it's radiation would suggest either.

I have not studied the sun's corona, so I have no comment on what it does or does not prove.

Likewise the atmosphere is a very poor and fragmented Blackbody. Gravity plays a huge part in constraining the gas, and storing/releasing the energy. That side is seldom discussed.

Every time you narrow the field of investigation down to just one law of physics you run the risk that it is not the most important one.

I agree, that there are many processes going into understanding weather, but I was focusing on one narrow aspect of the physics behind the atmosphere (radiation) for a reason. If someone does not agree with basic radiation physics such as radiation thermodynamics and CO2 capturing energy to heat the atmosphere, and if the person wants to totally substitute a law involving an impossible adiabatic process which has the same physics from the equator to the arctic then all bets are off as far as understanding anything about the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

Personally, I don't like that example because the original radiation was much more energetic before it was redshifted down to its present levels.

Your point is well taken. The COBE satellite measured the CMB with a remarkably precise agreement with BB radiation. The argument was for anti-science people who read physics “at face value”. A scientist does not need any argument about what was measured, (unless they are just playing games).

I also don't like the example of the Sun's Corona. It only shows the symptom of high temperature, it is not caused by blackbody radiation. An LED is not as hot as it's radiation would suggest either.

I have not studied the sun's corona, so I have no comment on what it does or does not prove.

Likewise the atmosphere is a very poor and fragmented Blackbody. Gravity plays a huge part in constraining the gas, and storing/releasing the energy. That side is seldom discussed.

Every time you narrow the field of investigation down to just one law of physics you run the risk that it is not the most important one.

I agree, that there are many processes going into understanding weather, but I was focusing on one narrow aspect of the physics behind the atmosphere (radiation) for a reason. If someone does not agree with basic radiation physics such as radiation thermodynamics and CO2 capturing energy to heat the atmosphere, and if the person wants to totally substitute a law involving an impossible adiabatic process which has the same physics from the equator to the arctic then all bets are off as far as understanding anything about the atmosphere.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Personally, I don't like that example because the original radiation was much more energetic before it was redshifted down to its present levels.

Your point is well taken. The COBE satellite measured the CMB with a remarkably precise agreement with BB radiation. The argument was for anti-science people who read physics “at face value”. A scientist does not need any argument about what was measured, (unless they are just playing games).

I also don't like the example of the Sun's Corona. It only shows the symptom of high temperature, it is not caused by blackbody radiation. An LED is not as hot as it's radiation would suggest either.

I have not studied the sun's corona, so I have no comment on what it does or does not prove.

Likewise the atmosphere is a very poor and fragmented Blackbody. Gravity plays a huge part in constraining the gas, and storing/releasing the energy. That side is seldom discussed.

Every time you narrow the field of investigation down to just one law of physics you run the risk that it is not the most important one.

I agree, that there are many processes going into understanding weather, but I was focusing on one narrow aspect of the physics behind the atmosphere (radiation) for a reason. If someone does not agree with basic radiation physics such as radiation thermodynamics and CO2 capturing energy to heat the atmosphere, and if the person wants to totally substitute a law involving an impossible adiabatic process which has the same physics from the equator to the arctic then all bets are off as far as understanding anything about the atmosphere.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

No chance of that happening.
Hillary would be more likely to blame herself for her loss first.

 

[jc456]

, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

post one! let's see. I bet you won't because you can't.

Here is an experiment.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the heat coming from the most distant part of the universe. The temperature is a very cold 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.

That source of low temperature heat was detected on the surface of the earth which is a much warmer 300 degrees above absolute zero.

Yet the energy from that very cold source was able to hit the earth and be observed, measured, and detected.

That clearly demonstrates a warm object (earth) receiving thermal radiation from a much colder object (the far universe).

so was the test equipment reading IR or wavelengths? Look up Horn Antenna and you will get your answer, it reads radio frequencies.

"In 1965 Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories were testing a sensitive horn antenna which was designed for detecting low levels of microwave radiation. They discovered a low level of microwave background "noise", like the low level of electrical noise which might produce "snow" on a television screen"

They detected radio frequencies that created a buzz across the whole spectrum...by the process of elimination, they discovered that it was a resonant radio frequency of CMB...


Horn antenna theory: flare vs gain. The angle of the flare on the horn antenna has a marked effect on the gain and beamwidth. ... These antennas have small levels of gain because the antenna appears like an open ended waveguide, and there is little conditioning of the radiated beam as the horn antenna flares out.

 

[Wuwei]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.

He balances his rage and repetition with a total lack of sources that agree with his claims.

 

[IanC]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.

Years ago I made an acquaintance that turned out to be a conspiracy theorist. The frustrating part was that he was amiable and rational for most topics but entirely refractory to reason on his pet theories. Counter points were just 'proof' that his ideas were being suppressed. SSDD is the same, he is probably an OK guy discussing music or something but when it comes to physics....

 

[IanC]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.

He balances his rage and repetition with a total lack of sources that agree with his claims.

Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?

 

[jc456]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.

He balances his rage and repetition with a total lack of sources that agree with his claims.

Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?

You’ve proven no one wrong but yourself

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.

He balances his rage and repetition with a total lack of sources that agree with his claims.

Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?

You’ve proven no one wrong but yourself

Here's proof SSDD is wrong.

 

[jc456]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think your points are very worthy of discussion.

I am just prone to expecting complications to throw a monkey wrench into every physics topic.

SSDD refuses to see nuance anywhere. Didn't Pythagoras toss a bunch of his inner circle into the deep ocean because they wanted to acknowledge irrational numbers? Now that is taking an argument too seriously. SSDD is the most useful poster on these topics simply because he refuses to be rational. He causes everyone to step their game up because he defies obvious logic. It is the frustration that he causes that makes people try so hard to prove him wrong. Over and over again. In countless ways. I would actually be sad if he ever saw the light.

Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.

He balances his rage and repetition with a total lack of sources that agree with his claims.

Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?

You’ve proven no one wrong but yourself

Here's proof SSDD is wrong.

It wasn’t measuring IR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites.

He balances his rage and repetition with a total lack of sources that agree with his claims.

Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?

You’ve proven no one wrong but yourself

Here's proof SSDD is wrong.

It wasn’t measuring IR

It wasn’t measuring IR

What does a thermal sensor measure?

 

[jc456]

He balances his rage and repetition with a total lack of sources that agree with his claims.

Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?

You’ve proven no one wrong but yourself

Here's proof SSDD is wrong.

It wasn’t measuring IR

It wasn’t measuring IR

What does a thermal sensor measure?

Not IR. Again, negative or positive change in flux

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?

You’ve proven no one wrong but yourself

Here's proof SSDD is wrong.

It wasn’t measuring IR

It wasn’t measuring IR

What does a thermal sensor measure?

Not IR. Again, negative or positive change in flux

Not IR.

LOL! It was a thermal sensor measuring thermal radiation.

What wavelengths? Higher or lower than IR?

And notice, it says net flux. SSDD claimed there is no net, that energy only flows one way.

 

[jc456]

You’ve proven no one wrong but yourself

Here's proof SSDD is wrong.

It wasn’t measuring IR

It wasn’t measuring IR

What does a thermal sensor measure?

Not IR. Again, negative or positive change in flux

Not IR.

LOL! It was a thermal sensor measuring thermal radiation.

What wavelengths? Higher or lower than IR?

And notice, it says net flux. SSDD claimed there is no net, that energy only flows one way.

You are mistaken

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's proof SSDD is wrong.

It wasn’t measuring IR

It wasn’t measuring IR

What does a thermal sensor measure?

Not IR. Again, negative or positive change in flux

Not IR.

LOL! It was a thermal sensor measuring thermal radiation.

What wavelengths? Higher or lower than IR?

And notice, it says net flux. SSDD claimed there is no net, that energy only flows one way.

You are mistaken

About what?

Be specific.

 

[SSDD]

wuwei: "Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites."


ian: "Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?"


toddster: "He would say we were "fooled by instrumentation"."

I just love it when you three girls huddle up to comfort and reassure each other of how right you are and how wrong I am...to tell each other how well educated you are, and to remind each other that there are other people who actually believe the models as well...

You reinforce each other's beliefs and the logical fallacies you use to prop those beliefs up...then you engage in a tender and supportive group hug and its big sloppy kisses all around. Its just the sweetest thing.

You want to know what I especially like about those little meetings? I like the way you completely avoid mentioning that between you, and all of the science you so fervently believe in, you can't manage a single piece of physical evidence, observation, or measurement that supports your belief while every observation and measurement, and the straight forward, uninterpreted statement of the physical law itself supports my position...I just love that...keep up the fight ladies, in the end you might just learn something......or not.

 

[jc456]

It wasn’t measuring IR

It wasn’t measuring IR

What does a thermal sensor measure?

Not IR. Again, negative or positive change in flux

Not IR.

LOL! It was a thermal sensor measuring thermal radiation.

What wavelengths? Higher or lower than IR?

And notice, it says net flux. SSDD claimed there is no net, that energy only flows one way.

You are mistaken

About what?

Be specific.

right here, SSDD explanation for you that matches your highligted text.

SSDD

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It wasn’t measuring IR

What does a thermal sensor measure?

Not IR. Again, negative or positive change in flux

Not IR.

LOL! It was a thermal sensor measuring thermal radiation.

What wavelengths? Higher or lower than IR?

And notice, it says net flux. SSDD claimed there is no net, that energy only flows one way.

You are mistaken

About what?

Be specific.

right here, SSDD explanation for you that matches your highligted text.

SSDD

what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none...

Thanks.
That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

SSDD says radiation flows in only one direction.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says there is a radiation exchange.

SSDD has no sources that agree with his misinterpretations, the above passage
was from a source he originally referenced.

Is that as amusing to you as it is to me?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

wuwei: "Ah yes. He reigns supreme as a devils advocate, for lack of a better word. And yes, I have revisited many almost forgotten things that I dealt with when I was in radiation physics long ago, such as the Equipartition Principle, Correspondence Principle, Kirchhoff's law, etc. I have learned a lot about the nature and interplay of forces in the atmosphere.

But as the understanding of others here step up, he steps up his rage, bluster, taunting, and an interminable repetition of his meaningless sound bites."


ian: "Hahahaha. I bought a tee shirt that said, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right".

My wife threw it in the garbage. Oh well.

Is SSDD just obstinately wrong, or psychopathically dishonest like mamooth? Who knows, who cares?"


toddster: "He would say we were "fooled by instrumentation"."

I just love it when you three girls huddle up to comfort and reassure each other of how right you are and how wrong I am...to tell each other how well educated you are, and to remind each other that there are other people who actually believe the models as well...

You reinforce each other's beliefs and the logical fallacies you use to prop those beliefs up...then you engage in a tender and supportive group hug and its big sloppy kisses all around. Its just the sweetest thing.

You want to know what I especially like about those little meetings? I like the way you completely avoid mentioning that between you, and all of the science you so fervently believe in, you can't manage a single piece of physical evidence, observation, or measurement that supports your belief while every observation and measurement, and the straight forward, uninterpreted statement of the physical law itself supports my position...I just love that...keep up the fight ladies, in the end you might just learn something......or not.

Still no sources that back up your claims?

Weird.