Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Wuwei]

My God. The discussion with JC is now down to the level of kindergarten arithmetic.
Hey JC look at equation (3) in my post #637. For example if Re = 1,000,000,000 and Ra = 1,000,000,000, those are really big heat flow numbers for radiation going between two objects. Get you desk calculator and try subtracting the two to see how much net energy is lost.

 

[SSDD]

We covered this many times and gave a dozen references on what science has discovered. What you are inventing here was wrong the first dozen times you brought it up, it is still wrong, and will always be wrong.

What does this equation say?

So you found a school teaching the false SB equation...so what?

 

[Wuwei]

what

I found a dozen of them and a number of the highest regarded scientists over the last 100 years who agree with my reference. Do you think Einstein, Plank, Wein, etc think the reference is false? Would you like me to cite the references again.

 

[SSDD]

what

I found a dozen of them and a number of the highest regarded scientists over the last 100 years who agree with my reference. Do you think Einstein, Plank, Wein, etc think the reference is false? Would you like me to cite the references again.

No need...any reference to an SB equation that repeats (T-Tc) is a false equation...meaningless...The actual SB equation used when the radiator is not in a perfect vacuum describes a one way gross energy flow...

 

[Wuwei]

No need...any reference to an SB equation that repeats (T-Tc) is a false equation...meaningless...The actual SB equation used when the radiator is not in a perfect vacuum describes a one way gross energy flow...

Aha. So that's your final and only argument - to say all the eminent scientists for the last 100 years were wrong. Well when someone has an idea in mind and only seeks evidence that supports him, and rejects inarguable evidence against his idea, that is called faith.
But there is no scientific evidence that supports you.
SSDD your only argument is your faith. That's not science.

 

[SSDD]

No need...any reference to an SB equation that repeats (T-Tc) is a false equation...meaningless...The actual SB equation used when the radiator is not in a perfect vacuum describes a one way gross energy flow...

Aha. So that's your final and only argument - to say all the eminent scientists for the last 100 years were wrong. Well when someone has an idea in mind and only seeks evidence that supports him, and rejects inarguable evidence against his idea, that is called faith.
But there is no scientific evidence that supports you.
SSDD your only argument is your faith. That's not science.

Tell me this...do you have any experimental evidence...or observation that proves that they are right?...or is unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and faith all that there is?

And your claim that "all" the scientists of the past 100 years believe this is absolutely not correct...there are plenty who disagree with those models.

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me this...do you have any experimental evidence...or observation that proves that they are right?...or is unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and faith all that there is?

There is no mathematical model nor observable, measurable, testable experiment that indicates BB photons could possibly be stopped or impeded by any object at any temperature. The faith is yours.

And your claim that "all" the scientists of the past 100 years believe this is absolutely not correct...there are plenty who disagree with those models.

Who?

 

[SSDD]

There is no mathematical model nor observable, measurable, testable experiment that indicates BB photons could possibly be stopped or impeded by any object at any temperature. The faith is yours.

So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.

faith - n. belief that is not based on proof

Who?

Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...

• David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
• Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
• Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]

 

[Wuwei]

So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.

faith - n. belief that is not based on proof

I believe that you have no evidence that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.
I don't think you have been following the discussion carefully.

Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...

I still don't think you have been following the discussion carefully. If you were, you would seem to be saying those references verify that there is evidence that photons are impeded from striking a warmer body. Or as Todd you say, you think your thousands of references say that smart photons exist. I doubt it. You are changing the topic from radiation physics to atmospheric physics. We are not discussing that now.

 

[SSDD]

I believe that you have no evidence that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.

Other than every observation, and measurement ever made....no aside from that, I don't have any evidence at all.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.

faith - n. belief that is not based on proof

I believe that you have no evidence that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.
I don't think you have been following the discussion carefully.

Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...

I still don't think you have been following the discussion carefully. If you were, you would seem to be saying those references verify that there is evidence that photons are impeded from striking a warmer body. Or as Todd you say, you think your thousands of references say that smart photons exist. I doubt it. You are changing the topic from radiation physics to atmospheric physics. We are not discussing that now.

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

 

[Wuwei]

I believe that you have no evidence that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.

Other than every observation, and measurement ever made....no aside from that, I don't have any evidence at all.

That's right, you have no evidence at all because there is no experiment that shows that BB radiation can be impeded by a hotter body. Remember that the hotter body always radiates more energy to the colder body. Thus, the law of entropy is not violated.

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

There is no scientist nor reasonably intelligent person in this forum that believes that would ever happen. If you want to believe that you will have to ask some other person.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.

faith - n. belief that is not based on proof

I believe that you have no evidence that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.
I don't think you have been following the discussion carefully.

Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...

I still don't think you have been following the discussion carefully. If you were, you would seem to be saying those references verify that there is evidence that photons are impeded from striking a warmer body. Or as Todd you say, you think your thousands of references say that smart photons exist. I doubt it. You are changing the topic from radiation physics to atmospheric physics. We are not discussing that now.

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

Don't tell SSDD that such photons can hit warmer matter.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

There is no scientist nor reasonably intelligent person in this forum that believes that would ever happen. If you want to believe that you will have to ask some other person.

So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.

faith - n. belief that is not based on proof

I believe that you have no evidence that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.
I don't think you have been following the discussion carefully.

Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...

I still don't think you have been following the discussion carefully. If you were, you would seem to be saying those references verify that there is evidence that photons are impeded from striking a warmer body. Or as Todd you say, you think your thousands of references say that smart photons exist. I doubt it. You are changing the topic from radiation physics to atmospheric physics. We are not discussing that now.

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

Don't tell SSDD that such photons can hit warmer matter.

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

 

[Wuwei]

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

There is no scientist nor reasonably intelligent person in this forum that believes that would ever happen. If you want to believe that you will have to ask some other person.

So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.

faith - n. belief that is not based on proof

I believe that you have no evidence that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.
I don't think you have been following the discussion carefully.

Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...

I still don't think you have been following the discussion carefully. If you were, you would seem to be saying those references verify that there is evidence that photons are impeded from striking a warmer body. Or as Todd you say, you think your thousands of references say that smart photons exist. I doubt it. You are changing the topic from radiation physics to atmospheric physics. We are not discussing that now.

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

Don't tell SSDD that such photons can hit warmer matter.

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions.

Wow. So much wrong.

A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

How about photons not traveling from the Sun's surface to its much hotter corona?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

Do you understand what bonds atoms together?

Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..

EM fields prevent photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting 101K matter?

 

[Crick]

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

There is no scientist nor reasonably intelligent person in this forum that believes that would ever happen. If you want to believe that you will have to ask some other person.

So the answer is no...you believe without any observed or measured evidence...that my friend is...by definition.....faith.

faith - n. belief that is not based on proof

I believe that you have no evidence that BB photons can be impeded by a hotter body. The fact that you believe that is faith on your part.
I don't think you have been following the discussion carefully.

Here is a start...there are literally 10's of thousands more...note that most of these practice hard sciences vs the soft science of climate science...

I still don't think you have been following the discussion carefully. If you were, you would seem to be saying those references verify that there is evidence that photons are impeded from striking a warmer body. Or as Todd you say, you think your thousands of references say that smart photons exist. I doubt it. You are changing the topic from radiation physics to atmospheric physics. We are not discussing that now.

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

Tell me how a photon traveling at a longer wave length and substantially less energy can warm a hotter object.. I'll wait..

Don't tell SSDD that such photons can hit warmer matter.

You see gentlemen, the black bodies are emitting at a much higher frequency and energetic level. A cooler object can not affect a warmer one due the the resonate frequency of the photons being emitted.

Thus the second law prevents a cooler object from warming a hotter one.

Its not smart photons, its a matter of energy physics.. Just like a dampening field, caused by emissions of a transmitter, the photons are incapable of doing anything to the mass, which is emitting at the higher resonate frequency.

SSDD is right. The photons never reach the warmer black body because of the field surrounding all matter generated by its emissions. A good example of this is Solar output being caught in the earths magnetic bands which never allows it to strike the earth.

Again Empirically Observed effect trumps unsupported conjecture.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa.... Oh my fucking GOD. You claim to be a physicist but don't know EM material you should have learned in a tenth grade physical science class.