Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Crick]

I've done no such thing. And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist. I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky. The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.

Sure, I have no intention to belittle your wife because she is smart enough to know that you don`t know anything about a simple thing like a washing machine.
About these "scientists"...I can leave them out of it just like your wife, because any trained monkey can switch on a Perkin Elmer IR spec and rip off the paper that came out of the strip chart recorder.
There is nothing amazing about a spectrophotometer being able to scan a wave band by turning the monochromater and a photomultiplier detecting the light.
What is amazing is the technology it takes to etch an optically perfect mirror with all these perfectly aligned grooves and the science and engineering it took to make a photomultiplier.
These "scientists" that planted these spectrophotometers on tripods in a farmers field in Oklahoma know just as little about the inner workings of these instruments as you do about the inner workings of a washing machine.
I don`t know w.t.f you are ranting about me and "back"-radiation.
Nobody I know, ever stated that there is no thermal radiation and that it is not dissipated into all possible directions or that it is not depending on temperature.
It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.
Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.
I just finished an exchange with this toddster guy in Skook`s thread how stupidly you "back"wards guys use the StB equation on 2 different temperatures in a backward way to get a final temperature....and here he is again with the same stupid questions.
He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons while he needs photons with a birth certificate that tells him where all these photons came from after a cooler body lessened the cooling rate of a warmer one which is being baked by the sun.
He can tell you which and how many photons the warmer body got from the colder one and which & how many came from the sun after the cooler body got just as warm as the other one.
I could tell you what winds up where in terms of wattsec, but not in terms of photons( like Toddster can ), unless you or him have found a way to overcome Werner Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when,.. then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then...not knowing the momentum means you don`t know the energy. In terms of watts you need a cross section (an area) that a large number of photons traverse at the same time and not a large number of photon cross-hair "dots" in different places at the same time. Having some trouble visualizing it? Maybe they got a pretty gif image of that concept somewhere on the net. Go fish !

1) I am an engineer, not a biologist.
2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.
3) That is the basis behind the claim that the atmosphere cannot radiate towards the surface
4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.
5) WTF does Heisenberg have to do with this discussion?

PS: bringing family members into these discussions, as you've now done twice, is a rather serious breach of USMB rules. I ask you again to cease.

 

[SSDD]

.
2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.

Does the claim that rocks fall when dropped require smart rocks?..or simply a force, the mechanism of which we, as yet, don't understand? Might energy not move from cool to warm for the same reason?

4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.

What you posted was instruments that measure nothing more than a temperature change within an internal thermopile...what you posted was proof that it is easy to fool a dupe with instrumentation...if you want a direct measurement of "back radiation" you must use an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't measuring back radiation, you are merely measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument..

And you are no engineer...no one could possibly graduate an engineering program and remain as unable to read a simple graph as you...unless our educational system is further down the tubes than I ever imagined...

 

[Crick]

A claim that rocks will fall on, say, limestone but will not fall on granite is a much closer analogy to your nonsensical claim regarding radiative heat transfer.

You aren't an engineer or anyone with any grasp of basic science whatsoever, so you're hardly the person to judge. And I'm no shrink, but I think your inability to see and amend the 'error of your ways' indicates some severe psychological issues that you really need to have treated.

 

[SSDD]

A claim that rocks will fall on, say, limestone but will not fall on granite is a much closer analogy to your nonsensical claim regarding radiative heat transfer.

As bad at analogy as you are at reading graphs....why is that not surprising.

You aren't an engineer or anyone with any grasp of basic science whatsoever, so you're hardly the person to judge. And I'm no shrink, but I think your inability to see and amend the 'error of your ways' indicates some severe psychological issues that you really need to have treated.

Actually skid mark...I have a BS in chemistry although I never did anything with it....I grasp the science to an extent far beyond any grasp that you have as evidenced by the fact that I can distinguish between real, and models...observation and unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...between solutions derived from basic physical principles, and assumed solutions with equations custom tailored to reflect the assumed solution...as in the misuse of the SB equations... You don't have a clue...you accept anything as real so long as it satisfies your political leanings...

 

[polarbear]

I've done no such thing. And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist. I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky. The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.

Sure, I have no intention to belittle your wife because she is smart enough to know that you don`t know anything about a simple thing like a washing machine.
About these "scientists"...I can leave them out of it just like your wife, because any trained monkey can switch on a Perkin Elmer IR spec and rip off the paper that came out of the strip chart recorder.
There is nothing amazing about a spectrophotometer being able to scan a wave band by turning the monochromater and a photomultiplier detecting the light.
What is amazing is the technology it takes to etch an optically perfect mirror with all these perfectly aligned grooves and the science and engineering it took to make a photomultiplier.
These "scientists" that planted these spectrophotometers on tripods in a farmers field in Oklahoma know just as little about the inner workings of these instruments as you do about the inner workings of a washing machine.
I don`t know w.t.f you are ranting about me and "back"-radiation.
Nobody I know, ever stated that there is no thermal radiation and that it is not dissipated into all possible directions or that it is not depending on temperature.
It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.
Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.
I just finished an exchange with this toddster guy in Skook`s thread how stupidly you "back"wards guys use the StB equation on 2 different temperatures in a backward way to get a final temperature....and here he is again with the same stupid questions.
He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons while he needs photons with a birth certificate that tells him where all these photons came from after a cooler body lessened the cooling rate of a warmer one which is being baked by the sun.
He can tell you which and how many photons the warmer body got from the colder one and which & how many came from the sun after the cooler body got just as warm as the other one.
I could tell you what winds up where in terms of wattsec, but not in terms of photons( like Toddster can ), unless you or him have found a way to overcome Werner Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when,.. then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then...not knowing the momentum means you don`t know the energy. In terms of watts you need a cross section (an area) that a large number of photons traverse at the same time and not a large number of photon cross-hair "dots" in different places at the same time. Having some trouble visualizing it? Maybe they got a pretty gif image of that concept somewhere on the net. Go fish !

1) I am an engineer, not a biologist.
2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.
3) That is the basis behind the claim that the atmosphere cannot radiate towards the surface
4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.
5) WTF does Heisenberg have to do with this discussion?

PS: bringing family members into these discussions, as you've now done twice, is a rather serious breach of USMB rules. I ask you again to cease.

Oh no, I seriously violated the officer`s & gentlemen`s code of conduct while your name calling of anyone who criticizes your opinions is not?
Alrighty, I`ll change the 3rd party from wife to girlfriend...does she still qualify as a family member?
Back to business! So you are certain that you can furnish scientific proof that 15 μm photons can not be emitted by anything else than the CO2 or by matter at a higher effective thermodynamic temperature than the stuff you like to attribute to human activity ?
Let`s see what that implies. The effective T for 400 ppm CO2 is derived from 3.32 w/m^2.
Which is -185 C. So if you got air at a temperature of +20 C that means that 400 (volume) parts of that air is at -185 C and coexists with the other 999 600 parts which are at +20 C.
Now we got "smart" molecules instead of "smart" photons
Lets get back to these Billings OK thermographs you posted.
The first one does not even show anything at the shorter wavelength where most of the incoming solar heat is absorbed by the ground. It`s a graph deliberately truncated at that point to mislead a casual observer. Even more blatant is the Y-axis scale where the "W" jumps out to be easily seen but the exponent is not visible at all unless your PC has been set up to the best possible screen resolution
This one is more of the same:

It`s totally one sided and deliberately misleading since it would have been no trouble at all to record & display the real temperature on the same chart.
Why has this not been done?
For one thing, because it would have shown that there was no relation ship or at the least only a dubious one..and the other thing might be that these "researches" were plainly to dumb to consider the most important part of the data it takes to support the claims that are supposed to help make the case for AGW.
If that`s good enough for you despite that then you can`t be an engineer and if you are I hope to god you are not getting near anything where people pay with their lives for miscalculations.

 

[mamooth]

Does the claim that rocks fall when dropped require smart rocks?..or simply a force, the mechanism of which we, as yet, don't understand?

But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.

Might energy not move from cool to warm for the same reason?

First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.

Second, no, it couldn't happen that way, as it violates the laws of causality, which are inviolate.

What you posted was instruments that measure nothing more than a temperature change within an internal thermopile..

As has been pointed out over and over, cheap non-cooled IR cameras, which do not use thermopiles or any electronics that depend on temperature, can give a very clear image of a very cold sky. Your theory is utter shit, completely debunked by cheap consumer electronics.

and then you aren't measuring back radiation, you are merely measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument..

Horseshit. Those IR cameras give a very clear image of clouds that are miles away, so they are clearly not absorbing warmth from the local atmosphere. And again, they contain no thermopiles, so absorbing local warmth wouldn't do jack.

Conclusion? You're a lying cult moron.

 

[flacaltenn]

It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.

Having given up on our "hard core" deniers of radiative transfers -- the ones that TRULY believe laws of Thermo ARE being abused by "back radiation" -- there are OTHERS who will misinterpret the energy exchange as an "energy gain". So I don't envy you. I hope you're more patient than I was. It's all because the basic Thermo classes leave all this radiative stuff as a footnote.

I think a large part of the problem is that the AGW folks refer to this part of the LWIR exchange as a "Forcing Function". Putting it into the same class as solar forcing or albedo changes. And all those "Energy balance diagrams" that are really "Power Balance diagrams make it LOOK like an "energy gain"..

Heads are exploding at this point at this point however -- so you are doing an excellent job.

 

[mamooth]

Back to business! So you are certain that you can furnish scientific proof that 15 μm photons can not be emitted by anything else than the CO2 or by matter at a higher effective thermodynamic temperature than the stuff you like to attribute to human activity ?

No.

That was simple.

So what did that question have to do with the topic being discussed?

Let`s see what that implies. The effective T for 400 ppm CO2 is derived from 3.32 w/m^2.

Huh? No matter, being your strawman was already shot down with a simple "no".

Which is -185 C. So if you got air at a temperature of +20 C that means that 400 (volume) parts of that air is at -185 C and coexists with the other 999 600 parts which are at +20 C.

You're totally off in your own little weird reality. You're not stunning us with brilliance, you're baffling us with bullshit. Nobody has any idea of what you're babbling about.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've done no such thing. And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist. I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky. The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.

Sure, I have no intention to belittle your wife because she is smart enough to know that you don`t know anything about a simple thing like a washing machine.
About these "scientists"...I can leave them out of it just like your wife, because any trained monkey can switch on a Perkin Elmer IR spec and rip off the paper that came out of the strip chart recorder.
There is nothing amazing about a spectrophotometer being able to scan a wave band by turning the monochromater and a photomultiplier detecting the light.
What is amazing is the technology it takes to etch an optically perfect mirror with all these perfectly aligned grooves and the science and engineering it took to make a photomultiplier.
These "scientists" that planted these spectrophotometers on tripods in a farmers field in Oklahoma know just as little about the inner workings of these instruments as you do about the inner workings of a washing machine.
I don`t know w.t.f you are ranting about me and "back"-radiation.
Nobody I know, ever stated that there is no thermal radiation and that it is not dissipated into all possible directions or that it is not depending on temperature.
It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.
Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.
I just finished an exchange with this toddster guy in Skook`s thread how stupidly you "back"wards guys use the StB equation on 2 different temperatures in a backward way to get a final temperature....and here he is again with the same stupid questions.
He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons while he needs photons with a birth certificate that tells him where all these photons came from after a cooler body lessened the cooling rate of a warmer one which is being baked by the sun.
He can tell you which and how many photons the warmer body got from the colder one and which & how many came from the sun after the cooler body got just as warm as the other one.
I could tell you what winds up where in terms of wattsec, but not in terms of photons( like Toddster can ), unless you or him have found a way to overcome Werner Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when,.. then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then...not knowing the momentum means you don`t know the energy. In terms of watts you need a cross section (an area) that a large number of photons traverse at the same time and not a large number of photon cross-hair "dots" in different places at the same time. Having some trouble visualizing it? Maybe they got a pretty gif image of that concept somewhere on the net. Go fish !

1) I am an engineer, not a biologist.
2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.
3) That is the basis behind the claim that the atmosphere cannot radiate towards the surface
4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.
5) WTF does Heisenberg have to do with this discussion?

PS: bringing family members into these discussions, as you've now done twice, is a rather serious breach of USMB rules. I ask you again to cease.

Oh no, I seriously violated the officer`s & gentlemen`s code of conduct while your name calling of anyone who criticizes your opinions is not?
Alrighty, I`ll change the 3rd party from wife to girlfriend...does she still qualify as a family member?
Back to business! So you are certain that you can furnish scientific proof that 15 μm photons can not be emitted by anything else than the CO2 or by matter at a higher effective thermodynamic temperature than the stuff you like to attribute to human activity ?
Let`s see what that implies. The effective T for 400 ppm CO2 is derived from 3.32 w/m^2.
Which is -185 C. So if you got air at a temperature of +20 C that means that 400 (volume) parts of that air is at -185 C and coexists with the other 999 600 parts which are at +20 C.
Now we got "smart" molecules instead of "smart" photons
Lets get back to these Billings OK thermographs you posted.
The first one does not even show anything at the shorter wavelength where most of the incoming solar heat is absorbed by the ground. It`s a graph deliberately truncated at that point to mislead a casual observer. Even more blatant is the Y-axis scale where the "W" jumps out to be easily seen but the exponent is not visible at all unless your PC has been set up to the best possible screen resolution
This one is more of the same:

It`s totally one sided and deliberately misleading since it would have been no trouble at all to record & display the real temperature on the same chart.
Why has this not been done?
For one thing, because it would have shown that there was no relation ship or at the least only a dubious one..and the other thing might be that these "researches" were plainly to dumb to consider the most important part of the data it takes to support the claims that are supposed to help make the case for AGW.
If that`s good enough for you despite that then you can`t be an engineer and if you are I hope to god you are not getting near anything where people pay with their lives for miscalculations.

I'm not gonna unwind UTC time for Billings OK. I've got to get back to work. But your objection seems to ONLY apply to the DAYTIME hours. And I see a 24 hour record there. Hmmmmm.....

 

[SSDD]

But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.

No hairball...we know that gravity exists...and we can predict its effect on objects...beyond that, it is all guessing...we don't have the first clue as to what actually causes gravity.

First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.

No hairball...we know that gravity exists...and we can predict its effect on objects...beyond that, it is all guessing...we don't have the first clue as to what actually causes gravity.

First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

I observe energy moving from the cool surface of the Sun toward the hotter corona, everyday.
How do you explain this massive flaw in your "theory"?

 

[SSDD]

But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.

No hairball...we know that gravity exists...and we can predict its effect on objects...beyond that, it is all guessing...we don't have the first clue as to what actually causes gravity.

First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

I observe energy moving from the cool surface of the Sun toward the hotter corona, everyday.
How do you explain this massive flaw in your "theory"?

Looking at the sun is bad for you...perhaps that explains why you are like you are..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.

No hairball...we know that gravity exists...and we can predict its effect on objects...beyond that, it is all guessing...we don't have the first clue as to what actually causes gravity.

First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

I observe energy moving from the cool surface of the Sun toward the hotter corona, everyday.
How do you explain this massive flaw in your "theory"?

Looking at the sun is bad for you...perhaps that explains why you are like you are..

I don't have to look at it to see your error.

 

[polarbear]

I've done no such thing. And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist. I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky. The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.

Sure, I have no intention to belittle your wife because she is smart enough to know that you don`t know anything about a simple thing like a washing machine.
About these "scientists"...I can leave them out of it just like your wife, because any trained monkey can switch on a Perkin Elmer IR spec and rip off the paper that came out of the strip chart recorder.
There is nothing amazing about a spectrophotometer being able to scan a wave band by turning the monochromater and a photomultiplier detecting the light.
What is amazing is the technology it takes to etch an optically perfect mirror with all these perfectly aligned grooves and the science and engineering it took to make a photomultiplier.
These "scientists" that planted these spectrophotometers on tripods in a farmers field in Oklahoma know just as little about the inner workings of these instruments as you do about the inner workings of a washing machine.
I don`t know w.t.f you are ranting about me and "back"-radiation.
Nobody I know, ever stated that there is no thermal radiation and that it is not dissipated into all possible directions or that it is not depending on temperature.
It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.
Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.
I just finished an exchange with this toddster guy in Skook`s thread how stupidly you "back"wards guys use the StB equation on 2 different temperatures in a backward way to get a final temperature....and here he is again with the same stupid questions.
He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons while he needs photons with a birth certificate that tells him where all these photons came from after a cooler body lessened the cooling rate of a warmer one which is being baked by the sun.
He can tell you which and how many photons the warmer body got from the colder one and which & how many came from the sun after the cooler body got just as warm as the other one.
I could tell you what winds up where in terms of wattsec, but not in terms of photons( like Toddster can ), unless you or him have found a way to overcome Werner Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when,.. then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then...not knowing the momentum means you don`t know the energy. In terms of watts you need a cross section (an area) that a large number of photons traverse at the same time and not a large number of photon cross-hair "dots" in different places at the same time. Having some trouble visualizing it? Maybe they got a pretty gif image of that concept somewhere on the net. Go fish !

1) I am an engineer, not a biologist.
2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.
3) That is the basis behind the claim that the atmosphere cannot radiate towards the surface
4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.
5) WTF does Heisenberg have to do with this discussion?

PS: bringing family members into these discussions, as you've now done twice, is a rather serious breach of USMB rules. I ask you again to cease.

Oh no, I seriously violated the officer`s & gentlemen`s code of conduct while your name calling of anyone who criticizes your opinions is not?
Alrighty, I`ll change the 3rd party from wife to girlfriend...does she still qualify as a family member?
Back to business! So you are certain that you can furnish scientific proof that 15 μm photons can not be emitted by anything else than the CO2 or by matter at a higher effective thermodynamic temperature than the stuff you like to attribute to human activity ?
Let`s see what that implies. The effective T for 400 ppm CO2 is derived from 3.32 w/m^2.
Which is -185 C. So if you got air at a temperature of +20 C that means that 400 (volume) parts of that air is at -185 C and coexists with the other 999 600 parts which are at +20 C.
Now we got "smart" molecules instead of "smart" photons
Lets get back to these Billings OK thermographs you posted.
The first one does not even show anything at the shorter wavelength where most of the incoming solar heat is absorbed by the ground. It`s a graph deliberately truncated at that point to mislead a casual observer. Even more blatant is the Y-axis scale where the "W" jumps out to be easily seen but the exponent is not visible at all unless your PC has been set up to the best possible screen resolution
This one is more of the same:

It`s totally one sided and deliberately misleading since it would have been no trouble at all to record & display the real temperature on the same chart.
Why has this not been done?
For one thing, because it would have shown that there was no relation ship or at the least only a dubious one..and the other thing might be that these "researches" were plainly to dumb to consider the most important part of the data it takes to support the claims that are supposed to help make the case for AGW.
If that`s good enough for you despite that then you can`t be an engineer and if you are I hope to god you are not getting near anything where people pay with their lives for miscalculations.

I'm not gonna unwind UTC time for Billings OK. I've got to get back to work. But your objection seems to ONLY apply to the DAYTIME hours. And I see a 24 hour record there. Hmmmmm.....

Hmmm?
Maybe you did not see what I said about these temperatures in post #814
"Oct 3, ~ 290 w/m^2 at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius
same date, midnight 330 w/m^2 means it warmed up by 8 deg to +3
Then on the next day
Oct 4, 310 w/m^2 it has cooled down from +3 to -- 1 C at high noon
and warmed up again during the night to + 11 C (370w/m^)"

That`s why this is so odd !
Early autumn in Oklahoma and it`s -5 & -1 C at high noon and warms up at midnight to +11.
I`m pretty sure had they included an actual thermometer trace on that chart along with the IR the peaks would be phase shifted by 180 degrees...and that would have made nonsense of the assertion that has been made with this recorder tracing

 

[SSDD]

But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.

No hairball...we know that gravity exists...and we can predict its effect on objects...beyond that, it is all guessing...we don't have the first clue as to what actually causes gravity.

First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

I observe energy moving from the cool surface of the Sun toward the hotter corona, everyday.
How do you explain this massive flaw in your "theory"?

Looking at the sun is bad for you...perhaps that explains why you are like you are..

I don't have to look at it to see your error.

I have given you the answer numerous times...the fact that you don't like it just goes to show that you are incapable of learning from your mistakes...here, yet another source explaining energy movement from the surface to the corona..

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand

“Our observations have permitted us to estimate the amount of energy transported by the magnetic waves, and these estimates reveal that the waves’ energy meets the energy requirement for the unexplained temperature increase in the corona.”

The MHD waves may not be solely responsible for heating the corona to dazzling temperatures. In 2011, a team comprised of researchers from Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL), NCAR and the University of Oslo claimed they discovered a potential source of hot gas that replenishes the corona: high energy jets of plasma that shoot from inside the photosphere (De Pontieu, B. et al. Science 331, 55-58 (2011)).

In any case, it may be that there are more coronal heating mechanisms than the currently discovered MHD waves or plasma jets. Suffice to say, what was once an insurmountable mystery is now slowly unraveling its secrets.

The laws of physics always win toddster...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm no matter how much you wish it were true..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we do understand gravity. We don't understand everything about it, but don't try your "If we don't know everything, we know nothing" fallacy.

No hairball...we know that gravity exists...and we can predict its effect on objects...beyond that, it is all guessing...we don't have the first clue as to what actually causes gravity.

First, as we directly observe energy moving from cool to warm, the question is nonsense.

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

I observe energy moving from the cool surface of the Sun toward the hotter corona, everyday.
How do you explain this massive flaw in your "theory"?

Looking at the sun is bad for you...perhaps that explains why you are like you are..

I don't have to look at it to see your error.

I have given you the answer numerous times...the fact that you don't like it just goes to show that you are incapable of learning from your mistakes...here, yet another source explaining energy movement from the surface to the corona..

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand

[clip]
“Our observations have permitted us to estimate the amount of energy transported by the magnetic waves, and these estimates reveal that the waves’ energy meets the energy requirement for the unexplained temperature increase in the corona."

[clip]
The MHD waves may not be solely responsible for heating the corona to dazzling temperatures. In 2011, a team comprised of researchers from Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL), NCAR and the University of Oslo claimed they discovered a potential source of hot gas that replenishes the corona: high energy jets of plasma that shoot from inside the photosphere (De Pontieu, B. et al. Science 331, 55-58 (2011)).

[clip]
In any case, it may be that there are more coronal heating mechanisms than the currently discovered MHD waves or plasma jets. Suffice to say, what was once an insurmountable mystery is now slowly unraveling its secrets.

The laws of physics always win toddster...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm no matter how much you wish it were true..

It doesn't matter why the corona is hotter, what matters is that according to your "theory" photons from the cooler surface CANNOT travel toward the hotter corona.

But they clearly do.

...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm

Except when the Sun is involved? DERP!

I'll help you out, you just fill in the blanks.

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.
This is different than photons moving from the cooler atmosphere of the Earth to the warmer surface of the Earth because __________________________________.

I'll await your logical explanation.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've done no such thing. And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist. I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky. The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.

Sure, I have no intention to belittle your wife because she is smart enough to know that you don`t know anything about a simple thing like a washing machine.
About these "scientists"...I can leave them out of it just like your wife, because any trained monkey can switch on a Perkin Elmer IR spec and rip off the paper that came out of the strip chart recorder.
There is nothing amazing about a spectrophotometer being able to scan a wave band by turning the monochromater and a photomultiplier detecting the light.
What is amazing is the technology it takes to etch an optically perfect mirror with all these perfectly aligned grooves and the science and engineering it took to make a photomultiplier.
These "scientists" that planted these spectrophotometers on tripods in a farmers field in Oklahoma know just as little about the inner workings of these instruments as you do about the inner workings of a washing machine.
I don`t know w.t.f you are ranting about me and "back"-radiation.
Nobody I know, ever stated that there is no thermal radiation and that it is not dissipated into all possible directions or that it is not depending on temperature.
It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.
Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.
I just finished an exchange with this toddster guy in Skook`s thread how stupidly you "back"wards guys use the StB equation on 2 different temperatures in a backward way to get a final temperature....and here he is again with the same stupid questions.
He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons while he needs photons with a birth certificate that tells him where all these photons came from after a cooler body lessened the cooling rate of a warmer one which is being baked by the sun.
He can tell you which and how many photons the warmer body got from the colder one and which & how many came from the sun after the cooler body got just as warm as the other one.
I could tell you what winds up where in terms of wattsec, but not in terms of photons( like Toddster can ), unless you or him have found a way to overcome Werner Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when,.. then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then...not knowing the momentum means you don`t know the energy. In terms of watts you need a cross section (an area) that a large number of photons traverse at the same time and not a large number of photon cross-hair "dots" in different places at the same time. Having some trouble visualizing it? Maybe they got a pretty gif image of that concept somewhere on the net. Go fish !

1) I am an engineer, not a biologist.
2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.
3) That is the basis behind the claim that the atmosphere cannot radiate towards the surface
4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.
5) WTF does Heisenberg have to do with this discussion?

PS: bringing family members into these discussions, as you've now done twice, is a rather serious breach of USMB rules. I ask you again to cease.

Oh no, I seriously violated the officer`s & gentlemen`s code of conduct while your name calling of anyone who criticizes your opinions is not?
Alrighty, I`ll change the 3rd party from wife to girlfriend...does she still qualify as a family member?
Back to business! So you are certain that you can furnish scientific proof that 15 μm photons can not be emitted by anything else than the CO2 or by matter at a higher effective thermodynamic temperature than the stuff you like to attribute to human activity ?
Let`s see what that implies. The effective T for 400 ppm CO2 is derived from 3.32 w/m^2.
Which is -185 C. So if you got air at a temperature of +20 C that means that 400 (volume) parts of that air is at -185 C and coexists with the other 999 600 parts which are at +20 C.
Now we got "smart" molecules instead of "smart" photons
Lets get back to these Billings OK thermographs you posted.
The first one does not even show anything at the shorter wavelength where most of the incoming solar heat is absorbed by the ground. It`s a graph deliberately truncated at that point to mislead a casual observer. Even more blatant is the Y-axis scale where the "W" jumps out to be easily seen but the exponent is not visible at all unless your PC has been set up to the best possible screen resolution
This one is more of the same:

It`s totally one sided and deliberately misleading since it would have been no trouble at all to record & display the real temperature on the same chart.
Why has this not been done?
For one thing, because it would have shown that there was no relation ship or at the least only a dubious one..and the other thing might be that these "researches" were plainly to dumb to consider the most important part of the data it takes to support the claims that are supposed to help make the case for AGW.
If that`s good enough for you despite that then you can`t be an engineer and if you are I hope to god you are not getting near anything where people pay with their lives for miscalculations.

I'm not gonna unwind UTC time for Billings OK. I've got to get back to work. But your objection seems to ONLY apply to the DAYTIME hours. And I see a 24 hour record there. Hmmmmm.....

Hmmm?
Maybe you did not see what I said about these temperatures in post #814
"Oct 3, ~ 290 w/m^2 at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius
same date, midnight 330 w/m^2 means it warmed up by 8 deg to +3
Then on the next day
Oct 4, 310 w/m^2 it has cooled down from +3 to -- 1 C at high noon
and warmed up again during the night to + 11 C (370w/m^)"

That`s why this is so odd !
Early autumn in Oklahoma and it`s -5 & -1 C at high noon and warms up at midnight to +11.
I`m pretty sure had they included an actual thermometer trace on that chart along with the IR the peaks would be phase shifted by 180 degrees...and that would have made nonsense of the assertion that has been made with this recorder tracing

Actually in the winter, that area and in my state of Tenn, we are in a battle zone between crushing northern cold air attacks and massive movements of warm moist air from the Gulf. So there are MANY nights where it's warmer than the previous day. Only takes minor shifts in pressure and jet streams to do that almost instantly..

What we HATE is when BOTH occur within a 48 hour period. Because of the large amount of frozen precipt that results.

 

[SSDD]

No hairball...we know that gravity exists...and we can predict its effect on objects...beyond that, it is all guessing...we don't have the first clue as to what actually causes gravity.

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

I observe energy moving from the cool surface of the Sun toward the hotter corona, everyday.
How do you explain this massive flaw in your "theory"?

Looking at the sun is bad for you...perhaps that explains why you are like you are..

I don't have to look at it to see your error.

I have given you the answer numerous times...the fact that you don't like it just goes to show that you are incapable of learning from your mistakes...here, yet another source explaining energy movement from the surface to the corona..

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand

[clip]
“Our observations have permitted us to estimate the amount of energy transported by the magnetic waves, and these estimates reveal that the waves’ energy meets the energy requirement for the unexplained temperature increase in the corona."

[clip]
The MHD waves may not be solely responsible for heating the corona to dazzling temperatures. In 2011, a team comprised of researchers from Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL), NCAR and the University of Oslo claimed they discovered a potential source of hot gas that replenishes the corona: high energy jets of plasma that shoot from inside the photosphere (De Pontieu, B. et al. Science 331, 55-58 (2011)).

[clip]
In any case, it may be that there are more coronal heating mechanisms than the currently discovered MHD waves or plasma jets. Suffice to say, what was once an insurmountable mystery is now slowly unraveling its secrets.

The laws of physics always win toddster...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm no matter how much you wish it were true..

It doesn't matter why the corona is hotter, what matters is that according to your "theory" photons from the cooler surface CANNOT travel toward the hotter corona.

But they clearly do.

...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm

Except when the Sun is involved? DERP!

I'll help you out, you just fill in the blanks.

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.
This is different than photons moving from the cooler atmosphere of the Earth to the warmer surface of the Earth because __________________________________.

I'll await your logical explanation.

I have no theory...the laws of physics state that energy won't move SPONTANEOUSLY...do you know what spontaneously means?..it is a key word here...energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...the mechanisms described above constitute work...if you apply work, you can certainly make energy move from cool to warm.....it just won't happen spontaneously. So once again, the reason is work...like it or not, that is the reason..

 

[polarbear]

Sure, I have no intention to belittle your wife because she is smart enough to know that you don`t know anything about a simple thing like a washing machine.
About these "scientists"...I can leave them out of it just like your wife, because any trained monkey can switch on a Perkin Elmer IR spec and rip off the paper that came out of the strip chart recorder.
There is nothing amazing about a spectrophotometer being able to scan a wave band by turning the monochromater and a photomultiplier detecting the light.
What is amazing is the technology it takes to etch an optically perfect mirror with all these perfectly aligned grooves and the science and engineering it took to make a photomultiplier.
These "scientists" that planted these spectrophotometers on tripods in a farmers field in Oklahoma know just as little about the inner workings of these instruments as you do about the inner workings of a washing machine.
I don`t know w.t.f you are ranting about me and "back"-radiation.
Nobody I know, ever stated that there is no thermal radiation and that it is not dissipated into all possible directions or that it is not depending on temperature.
It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.
Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.
I just finished an exchange with this toddster guy in Skook`s thread how stupidly you "back"wards guys use the StB equation on 2 different temperatures in a backward way to get a final temperature....and here he is again with the same stupid questions.
He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons while he needs photons with a birth certificate that tells him where all these photons came from after a cooler body lessened the cooling rate of a warmer one which is being baked by the sun.
He can tell you which and how many photons the warmer body got from the colder one and which & how many came from the sun after the cooler body got just as warm as the other one.
I could tell you what winds up where in terms of wattsec, but not in terms of photons( like Toddster can ), unless you or him have found a way to overcome Werner Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when,.. then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then...not knowing the momentum means you don`t know the energy. In terms of watts you need a cross section (an area) that a large number of photons traverse at the same time and not a large number of photon cross-hair "dots" in different places at the same time. Having some trouble visualizing it? Maybe they got a pretty gif image of that concept somewhere on the net. Go fish !

1) I am an engineer, not a biologist.
2) The claim that cooler object cannot send photons towards warmer objects requires smart photons.
3) That is the basis behind the claim that the atmosphere cannot radiate towards the surface
4) A direct measurement of that radiation, such as those I posted, is obviously proof that the claim is utter nonsense.
5) WTF does Heisenberg have to do with this discussion?

PS: bringing family members into these discussions, as you've now done twice, is a rather serious breach of USMB rules. I ask you again to cease.

Oh no, I seriously violated the officer`s & gentlemen`s code of conduct while your name calling of anyone who criticizes your opinions is not?
Alrighty, I`ll change the 3rd party from wife to girlfriend...does she still qualify as a family member?
Back to business! So you are certain that you can furnish scientific proof that 15 μm photons can not be emitted by anything else than the CO2 or by matter at a higher effective thermodynamic temperature than the stuff you like to attribute to human activity ?
Let`s see what that implies. The effective T for 400 ppm CO2 is derived from 3.32 w/m^2.
Which is -185 C. So if you got air at a temperature of +20 C that means that 400 (volume) parts of that air is at -185 C and coexists with the other 999 600 parts which are at +20 C.
Now we got "smart" molecules instead of "smart" photons
Lets get back to these Billings OK thermographs you posted.
The first one does not even show anything at the shorter wavelength where most of the incoming solar heat is absorbed by the ground. It`s a graph deliberately truncated at that point to mislead a casual observer. Even more blatant is the Y-axis scale where the "W" jumps out to be easily seen but the exponent is not visible at all unless your PC has been set up to the best possible screen resolution
This one is more of the same:

It`s totally one sided and deliberately misleading since it would have been no trouble at all to record & display the real temperature on the same chart.
Why has this not been done?
For one thing, because it would have shown that there was no relation ship or at the least only a dubious one..and the other thing might be that these "researches" were plainly to dumb to consider the most important part of the data it takes to support the claims that are supposed to help make the case for AGW.
If that`s good enough for you despite that then you can`t be an engineer and if you are I hope to god you are not getting near anything where people pay with their lives for miscalculations.

I'm not gonna unwind UTC time for Billings OK. I've got to get back to work. But your objection seems to ONLY apply to the DAYTIME hours. And I see a 24 hour record there. Hmmmmm.....

Hmmm?
Maybe you did not see what I said about these temperatures in post #814
"Oct 3, ~ 290 w/m^2 at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius
same date, midnight 330 w/m^2 means it warmed up by 8 deg to +3
Then on the next day
Oct 4, 310 w/m^2 it has cooled down from +3 to -- 1 C at high noon
and warmed up again during the night to + 11 C (370w/m^)"

That`s why this is so odd !
Early autumn in Oklahoma and it`s -5 & -1 C at high noon and warms up at midnight to +11.
I`m pretty sure had they included an actual thermometer trace on that chart along with the IR the peaks would be phase shifted by 180 degrees...and that would have made nonsense of the assertion that has been made with this recorder tracing

Actually in the winter, that area and in my state of Tenn, we are in a battle zone between crushing northern cold air attacks and massive movements of warm moist air from the Gulf. So there are MANY nights where it's warmer than the previous day. Only takes minor shifts in pressure and jet streams to do that almost instantly..

What we HATE is when BOTH occur within a 48 hour period. Because of the large amount of frozen precipt that results.

Yeah we get these "maulers" here in Manitoba just when you think it`s safe to plant the tomatoes in the garden. Next thing it`s subzero for another couple of weeks
But your reply motivated me to look for a post I did back in May 2016, just before my wife succumbed to cancer. On the day when I made this video it was over +30 C and the IR gun registered +37 C when pointed at the ground...equates to 526 w/m^2
When I pointed it at the clear sky portion it registered - 18.5 C ==> 238 w/m^2
Almost the same as what they show on that Billings OK thermograph, but what they did not show and I did was that the down dwelling radiation is way out of sync with the ground temperature.
Here is the link to the post with that video:
More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course we don't...but you go right on telling that lie...

I observe energy moving from the cool surface of the Sun toward the hotter corona, everyday.
How do you explain this massive flaw in your "theory"?

Looking at the sun is bad for you...perhaps that explains why you are like you are..

I don't have to look at it to see your error.

I have given you the answer numerous times...the fact that you don't like it just goes to show that you are incapable of learning from your mistakes...here, yet another source explaining energy movement from the surface to the corona..

Why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface: laws of physics still stand

[clip]
“Our observations have permitted us to estimate the amount of energy transported by the magnetic waves, and these estimates reveal that the waves’ energy meets the energy requirement for the unexplained temperature increase in the corona."

[clip]
The MHD waves may not be solely responsible for heating the corona to dazzling temperatures. In 2011, a team comprised of researchers from Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL), NCAR and the University of Oslo claimed they discovered a potential source of hot gas that replenishes the corona: high energy jets of plasma that shoot from inside the photosphere (De Pontieu, B. et al. Science 331, 55-58 (2011)).

[clip]
In any case, it may be that there are more coronal heating mechanisms than the currently discovered MHD waves or plasma jets. Suffice to say, what was once an insurmountable mystery is now slowly unraveling its secrets.

The laws of physics always win toddster...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm no matter how much you wish it were true..

It doesn't matter why the corona is hotter, what matters is that according to your "theory" photons from the cooler surface CANNOT travel toward the hotter corona.

But they clearly do.

...energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool to warm

Except when the Sun is involved? DERP!

I'll help you out, you just fill in the blanks.

Photons can't move from cool to warm, but they do when they move from the Sun's surface to the corona
because ________________.
This is different than photons moving from the cooler atmosphere of the Earth to the warmer surface of the Earth because __________________________________.

I'll await your logical explanation.

I have no theory...the laws of physics state that energy won't move SPONTANEOUSLY...do you know what spontaneously means?..it is a key word here...energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...the mechanisms described above constitute work...if you apply work, you can certainly make energy move from cool to warm.....it just won't happen spontaneously. So once again, the reason is work...like it or not, that is the reason..

I have no theory...

"Photons can see the location and temperature of their targets and aren't emitted if they'll hit warmer matter, even if the targets are millions of light years away"

This isn't your theory?

...the laws of physics state that energy won't move SPONTANEOUSLY...do you know what spontaneously means?.

Does it mean that your original theory is wrong?

if you apply work, you can certainly make energy move from cool to warm...

Are you saying that the Sun does work and the Sun can emit photons that are allowed to hit warmer matter?
If that's the case, which photons are not originally caused by work?

I guess that means most photons in the Universe aren't restricted in any way?

That's a relief.