Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?
ahhhhhh, your magical back radiation that is more powerful than the sun.
wow, you are a true believer. Magic instrument that can measure radiation in a direction. Well I call bullshit. I know you'll come back at me, so save your post. I get it, you believe in anything except Wobble. Which is actually measured by sunlight, stars and many other markers.Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?
If you point it at the sky, it's obviously measuring downcoming radiation.
If there's no backradiation, the FLIR should see something near absolute zero when pointed at open sky.
It doesn't see that. It sees temperatures of around -10F or so. Backradiation.
And the i7 unit used by Spencer is not cooled. The whole thing operates at room temperature, and has no trouble measuring those cooler photons.
In summary, you're a delusional crank.
yes. I'm sorry I must have missed that question. It is really simple, the physics won't allow it. He's been told that. but hey, you go with him on his journey. Not me.ahhhhhh, your magical back radiation that is more powerful than the sun.
jc, you didn't answer. Is Dr. Spencer a fraud for pointing out how he measured backradiation?
Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?
If you point it at the sky, it's obviously measuring downcoming radiation.
If there's no backradiation, the FLIR should see something near absolute zero when pointed at open sky.
It doesn't see that. It sees temperatures of around -10F or so. Back radiation.
And the i7 unit used by Spencer is not cooled. The whole thing operates at room temperature, and has no trouble measuring those cooler photons.
In summary, you're a delusional crank.
NO...it is calculating a difference in temperature between the thermopile inside itself and whatever it is pointed out...it doesn't distinguish the direction any particular radiation is moving...it is only looking at temperature differences.
So your claim is that the entire air column, all the way to space is at zero degrees?
So your claim is that back radiation at a temperature of -10F is warming the earth?
Which means that it is not measuring back radiation....it is based on a mathematical model measuring temperature difference between its thermopile and whatever it is pointed at....
Dr. Roy Spencer? You know Dr. Spencer says man has no effect on the climate.If you point it at the sky, it's obviously measuring downcoming radiation.
If there's no backradiation, the FLIR should see something near absolute zero when pointed at open sky.
It doesn't see that. It sees temperatures of around -10F or so. Backradiation.
And the i7 unit used by Spencer is not cooled. The whole thing operates at room temperature, and has no trouble measuring those cooler photons.
In summary, you're a delusional crank.
Yes, Spencer thinks man has little effect on the climate, but he is no fool about science. Spencer said in his blog,Dr. Roy Spencer? You know Dr. Spencer says man has no effect on the climate.
NO...it is calculating a difference in temperature between the thermopile inside itself and whatever it is pointed out...it doesn't distinguish the direction any particular radiation is moving...it is only looking at temperature differences.
And since the IR radiation from what it's not pointed at doesn't penetrate the casing, it's only seeing radiation from what it's pointed at. Which would be the sky.
So your claim is that the entire air column, all the way to space is at zero degrees?
You're the one saying the air column can't radiate to the warmer FLIR detector. Hence, by your theory, it should see nothing.
So your claim is that back radiation at a temperature of -10F is warming the earth?
That's the reality, as demonstrated by the fact we can direclty measure it doing so.
Which means that it is not measuring back radiation....it is based on a mathematical model measuring temperature difference between its thermopile and whatever it is pointed at....
So tell us, how does it know the temperature of what it's pointed at?
Oh, that's right, it's emitting IR photons.
That is, backradiation.
You really haven't thought this through at all. Yes, it is that obvious.
If there is back radiation, how do you know it is from CO2?Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?
If you point it at the sky, it's obviously measuring downcoming radiation.
If there's no backradiation, the FLIR should see something near absolute zero when pointed at open sky.
It doesn't see that. It sees temperatures of around -10F or so. Backradiation.
And the i7 unit used by Spencer is not cooled. The whole thing operates at room temperature, and has no trouble measuring those cooler photons.
In summary, you're a delusional crank.
So? And more importantly, why did you not link? Without a link it looks like you cherry picked the blog, to deceive. But maybe not, there is a lot of information out there.Yes, Spencer thinks man has little effect on the climate, but he is no fool about science. Spencer said in his blog,Dr. Roy Spencer? You know Dr. Spencer says man has no effect on the climate.
… the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction. In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave....
So using the argument, that Spencer downplays the effect of man, does not mean he downplays valid concepts of atmospheric physics.
While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before
thanksLink ... In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect « Roy Spencer, PhD
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The quote is about a third of the way down under the subheading,
IT VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
However it would be constructive to read the whole article.
The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.
You don't realize that the greenhouse effect is not AGW?In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect « Roy Spencer, PhD
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT WORKS…FOR NOW
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.
So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be little more than hand waving.
It looks like Dr. Spencer is preparing to quietly admit that he has been wrong concerning the anthropogenic GHGs.
Now prove it with an experiment.I see. At 280 ppm of CO2, and about 800 ppb of CH4, we have a greenhouse effect. But when we raise the CO2 to over 400 ppm, and CH4 to over 1800 ppb, that does not cause an increase in the Greenhouse effect? An increase correctly called AGW.
