Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[polarbear]

Once again, everything Same Shit has is based on his claim that matter cannot or will not radiate towards warmer matter. His explanation as to how matter can tell the temperature of distant matter and control its own emissions, requiring the routine violation of special relativity, has yet to appear. Same Shit tells us it is probably just one of "those unknowables".

And, of course, all data showing Same Shit's claims to be insane nonsense are rejected as "lies".

How could we not be sold on this?

Why don`t you confront the real problem instead of the same straw-man you keep using to score your victories?
There is no "radiation problem" with emission from cold towards warm, but there is a problem when you claim that warm absorbed this emission and got warmer from it.
If all you got are the 2 radiation sources, warm and cold it`s a zero sum game !
That also means that in your world a warm body just cooled off a colder one even more because the warm one got warmed more by the cooler one.
And if it`s not a zero sum process then you were breeding photons like bacteria in an incubator !

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!

 

[jc456]

Sorry [...]

Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.

..backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument

Yeah, same shit, different day. There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones. Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account. Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

During the day, the sun's rays are reflected onto the cooking vessel which becomes hot quickly. At night, heat from the vessel is radiated outward, towards empty space, which is very cold indeed (a "heat sink").

As a result, the cooking vessel now becomes a small refrigerator. We routinely achieve cooling of about 20º F (10º C) below ambient air temperature using this remarkably simple scheme.

In September 1999, we placed two funnels out in the evening, with double-bagged jars inside. One jar was on a block of wood and the other was suspended in the funnel using fishing line. The temperature that evening (in Provo, Utah) was 78º F. Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE. I invite others to try this, and please let me know if you get ice at 55 or even 60 degrees outside air temperature (minimum at night). A black PVC container may work even better than a black-painted jar, since PVC is a good infrared radiator - these matters are still being studied.

Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it... Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...

Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE.

You should ask yourself, with such rapid radiation toward space, why doesn't everything on Earth cool that quickly at night? It's almost as though some mysterious mechanism in the atmosphere is keeping us warm.

gravity?

 

[jillian]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

you really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers".

everything after that makes you look like a twit.... and you might want to stop relying on "memet" for your "science" and get real scientific sources

 

[jc456]

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!

frank, did you watch Bill Nye on the Tucker Carlson show last night? dude hysterical. asked a similar question and Nye sounded like a chain saw, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba,

 

[jillian]

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!

well, Frankie, I'd explalin it to you, but you're pretty much off the deep end now. at some point, maybe you should pry yourself away from the rightwngnut blogosphere and actually assess the information.

 

[jc456]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

you really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers".

everything after that makes you look like a twit.... and you might want to stop relying on "memet" for your "science" and get real scientific sources

well a warmer is a 'warmer'

 

[jillian]

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!

frank, did you watch Bill Nye on the Tucker Carlson show last night? dude hysterical. asked a similar question and Nye sounded like a chain saw, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba,

yes, hysterical... tucker Carlson is a moron and bill bye is really smart.

I can see where that would confuse you.

 

[jc456]

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!

frank, did you watch Bill Nye on the Tucker Carlson show last night? dude hysterical. asked a similar question and Nye sounded like a chain saw, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba,

yes, hysterical... tucker Carlson is a moron and bill bye is really smart.

I can see where that would confuse you.

a smart guy that didn't have a single answer to one question asked. real smart dude there.

 

[jillian]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

you really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers".

everything after that makes you look like a twit.... and you might want to stop relying on "memet" for your "science" and get real scientific sources

well a warmer is a 'warmer'

no, wackadoodle...

 

[jc456]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

you really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers".

everything after that makes you look like a twit.... and you might want to stop relying on "memet" for your "science" and get real scientific sources

well a warmer is a 'warmer'

no, wackadoodle...

sure it is, here a little slower for ya...w a r m e r. can you read that one?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!

well, Frankie, I'd explalin it to you, but you're pretty much off the deep end now. at some point, maybe you should pry yourself away from the rightwngnut blogosphere and actually assess the information.

I'm all ears.

Explain away

 

[jc456]

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!

well, Frankie, I'd explalin it to you, but you're pretty much off the deep end now. at some point, maybe you should pry yourself away from the rightwngnut blogosphere and actually assess the information.

I'm all ears.

Explain away

well it's blah, blah, blah blah and then there is blah, blah, blah, blah and when you combine them you get blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

 

[expat_panama]

...really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers"...

Let's face it, folks that understand the consensus don't matter and we don't want to go there. What we want is to understand the science --namely observations and not mere beliefs.

Please share any evidence that shows---

1. the hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since say, 50 years ago,
2. that it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions to stop it,
3. what the proof is that it's people that caused it.
4. and show what we could possibly hope to accomplish by spending $trillions to stop it.

--and if I'm able to reproduce the numbers independently, then I'll join you.. Meanwhile, let's agree that there been no independently reproducible evidence presented here.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry [...]

Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.

..backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument

Yeah, same shit, different day. There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones. Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account. Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

During the day, the sun's rays are reflected onto the cooking vessel which becomes hot quickly. At night, heat from the vessel is radiated outward, towards empty space, which is very cold indeed (a "heat sink").

As a result, the cooking vessel now becomes a small refrigerator. We routinely achieve cooling of about 20º F (10º C) below ambient air temperature using this remarkably simple scheme.

In September 1999, we placed two funnels out in the evening, with double-bagged jars inside. One jar was on a block of wood and the other was suspended in the funnel using fishing line. The temperature that evening (in Provo, Utah) was 78º F. Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE. I invite others to try this, and please let me know if you get ice at 55 or even 60 degrees outside air temperature (minimum at night). A black PVC container may work even better than a black-painted jar, since PVC is a good infrared radiator - these matters are still being studied.

Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it... Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...

Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE.

You should ask yourself, with such rapid radiation toward space, why doesn't everything on Earth cool that quickly at night? It's almost as though some mysterious mechanism in the atmosphere is keeping us warm.

Water vapor?

Hold on, does water vapor cause back radiation?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sorry [...]

Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.

..backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument

Yeah, same shit, different day. There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones. Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account. Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

During the day, the sun's rays are reflected onto the cooking vessel which becomes hot quickly. At night, heat from the vessel is radiated outward, towards empty space, which is very cold indeed (a "heat sink").

As a result, the cooking vessel now becomes a small refrigerator. We routinely achieve cooling of about 20º F (10º C) below ambient air temperature using this remarkably simple scheme.

In September 1999, we placed two funnels out in the evening, with double-bagged jars inside. One jar was on a block of wood and the other was suspended in the funnel using fishing line. The temperature that evening (in Provo, Utah) was 78º F. Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE. I invite others to try this, and please let me know if you get ice at 55 or even 60 degrees outside air temperature (minimum at night). A black PVC container may work even better than a black-painted jar, since PVC is a good infrared radiator - these matters are still being studied.

Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it... Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...

Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE.

You should ask yourself, with such rapid radiation toward space, why doesn't everything on Earth cool that quickly at night? It's almost as though some mysterious mechanism in the atmosphere is keeping us warm.

Water vapor?

Hold on, does water vapor cause back radiation?

Of course not

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Q. If, according to the AGW Cult "Theory", a .02% increase in CO2 is responsible for a 1.2C rise in temperature, what's the expected change in temperature increase, or decrease, for each .01% change in CO2?

A. Denier!
B. The Science is settled!
C. We have Consensus, Denier!

frank, did you watch Bill Nye on the Tucker Carlson show last night? dude hysterical. asked a similar question and Nye sounded like a chain saw, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba,

yes, hysterical... tucker Carlson is a moron and bill bye is really smart.

I can see where that would confuse you.

I think Bill was off his meds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.

Yeah, same shit, different day. There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones. Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account. Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

During the day, the sun's rays are reflected onto the cooking vessel which becomes hot quickly. At night, heat from the vessel is radiated outward, towards empty space, which is very cold indeed (a "heat sink").

As a result, the cooking vessel now becomes a small refrigerator. We routinely achieve cooling of about 20º F (10º C) below ambient air temperature using this remarkably simple scheme.

In September 1999, we placed two funnels out in the evening, with double-bagged jars inside. One jar was on a block of wood and the other was suspended in the funnel using fishing line. The temperature that evening (in Provo, Utah) was 78º F. Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE. I invite others to try this, and please let me know if you get ice at 55 or even 60 degrees outside air temperature (minimum at night). A black PVC container may work even better than a black-painted jar, since PVC is a good infrared radiator - these matters are still being studied.

Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it... Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...

Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE.

You should ask yourself, with such rapid radiation toward space, why doesn't everything on Earth cool that quickly at night? It's almost as though some mysterious mechanism in the atmosphere is keeping us warm.

Water vapor?

Hold on, does water vapor cause back radiation?

Of course not

Does water vapor keep heat from escaping to space?

 

[SSDD]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

you really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers".

everything after that makes you look like a twit.... and you might want to stop relying on "memet" for your "science" and get real scientific sources

People who think that consensus has anything to do with science are not to be listened to..nor trusted...consensus is a political arrangement, not a scientific one...the science of climate is so far from settled that we have barely...just barely started scratching the surface...and anyone who claims that the science that is just barely starting to scratch the surface is settled is also not to be either listened to or trusted...

People who believe such people when they speak are called rubes...

 

[jc456]

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it... Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...

Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE.

You should ask yourself, with such rapid radiation toward space, why doesn't everything on Earth cool that quickly at night? It's almost as though some mysterious mechanism in the atmosphere is keeping us warm.

Water vapor?

Hold on, does water vapor cause back radiation?

Of course not

Does water vapor keep heat from escaping to space?

does water vapor make contact with the surface?