Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does cold make warm warmer.?

Of course not. Put an ice cube in your warm Coke. See for yourself.

well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface. I ask for proof. None is given.

well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface.

Yes, we're all aware of your low IQ.

I ask for proof. None is given.

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?

Yes, we're all aware of your low IQ.
Well, since you're so much more smarter than me, show me evidence of back radiation, you know where the cold atmosphere pushes IR waves back to the surface. Funny how the internet sources can't seem to provide an experiment. But hey, I'm no scientist and I have a low IQ, but damn if I can figure out why it's cold in the desert at night with CO2 above it. strange.

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why
because it is made of cotton, covers me at night when I'm cold and makes me warm. BTW, mine is 66 degrees before I use it. It isn't made of CO2 so I don't understand the anomaly. Perhaps it's due to my low IQ I bet ya.

Well, since you're so much more smarter than me, show me evidence of back radiation,

Have you ever noticed the coldest nights in winter are nights when the sky is clear?
And that cloudy nights tend to be warmer? That's back radiation.

but damn if I can figure out why it's cold in the desert at night with CO2 above it.

That's the lack of clouds. Glad you understand.

because it is made of cotton, covers me at night when I'm cold and makes me warm.

Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD.

Have you ever noticed the coldest nights in winter are nights when the sky is clear?
And that cloudy nights tend to be warmer? That's back radiation.
water vapor not CO2 first off, and do the clouds imply back radiation exists, or the heat cannot escape through the denseness of the cloud acting like a lower atmosphere.

Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD
So, the temperature under the blanket is merely my body heat, no hotter, same as hair on top of your head if you're lucky to still have some. I doubt the blanket gets warmer and it merely restricts outbound heat. Not similar to CO2. So you would have to prove to me that CO2 acts like a blanket and not a blanket acts like CO2. My whole concern is based on CO2 claims, not all atmospheric behavior. Do you have evidence that CO2 causes back radiation or slows down IR's exit to space.

water vapor not CO2 first off, and do the clouds imply back radiation exists, or the heat cannot escape through the denseness of the cloud acting like a lower atmosphere.

The clouds don't radiate back toward the ground? Then how do they keep it warmer?

So, the temperature under the blanket is merely my body heat, no hotter

Hotter than without the blanket.

Do you have evidence that CO2 causes back radiation

CO2 absorbs and re-emits energy. Some toward the ground. Just like water vapor.

 

[Wuwei]

If zero distance is the same as physical contact, then there is no conceivable reason that the rules for energy transfer via radiation would be significantly different from the rules for energy transfer via conduction and few people who actually think would suggest that back conduction is possible while many who apparently do thing suspend their thinking to allow for back radiation....delete back radiation and the AGW hoax falls flat on its face where it belongs.

There is a very conceivable reason. Energy transfer from radiation is mediated by photons. Energy transfer from conduction is mediated by kinetic energy. The physics rules governing each case are totally different.

 

[Wuwei]

You are still trying to impose your perspective on an entity that does not experience the universe in the same way as you...time and distance are meaningless terms when discussing an entity that experiences neither.

Because zero distance means a photon can predict the temperature of something in the future. LOL!

Zero difference and zero time mean that "future" is a meaningless term.

It sounds dumber every time you say it.

The longer you remain unable to grasp that your perception of time and space don't apply to what a photon experiences the dumber you sound.

In special relativity all physical laws must be expressed and are valid in one frame of reference. If you want to transfer your perspective to another frame of reference, you use the Lorenz transformation to transfer the physics of the entire system under question. If you really insist on a transformation to the speed of light, you must transform the whole system to the speed of light. If you are talking about receiving light from 1 billion light years away, you have to transform the entire universe to the speed of light. That would violate almost every law of physics.
In short you can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth (relatively still WRT an experiment).

 

[jc456]

God are you stupid.

The way you rattle this shit off (and it is ALL shit) how could you get the idea that the atmosphere, sitting there doing nothing, could generate energy? Doesn't that ring any bells for you? Conservation.....of.... c'mon, I know you've heard of it.

You are nothing but a fooking troll.

You think the atmosphere is doing nothing? Interesting. You don't think pressure constitutes work?

it seems they forget about pressures. I think they're called low and high pressure systems.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry. but it doesn't. Funny how willing people are to fool themselves with their instrumentation. A radio telescope was used to first record CMB. A radio telescope tunes to varying resonance frequencies of an antenna which, in turn creates an electrical signal which then gets amplified in order to create a recording over a particular frequency or spectrum.

Then that recording is matched up to a black body spectrum in accordance with Plank's law and the peak of that recording is used to determine the temperature from which a radiance can be determined, again, using Plank's law. The recorded spectrum is being translated, using Plank's law into a radiance which is measured in W/m2.

A radio spectrum is being recorded and from that a radiance is being computed.

I agree with you so far.

.no actual measurement is being made...the measurements are artifacts of mathematical models...not actual measurements of radiation.

This is where I disagree. You just said that there is a sampling of various frequencies. That is definitely a detection of EM energy from a cold source by a warmer instrument. That's exactly my point.
Then you indicate that the BB temperature is computed from a fit to Planck's law. I agree. You then conflate the BB temperature inference from the measurements with the measurements themselves.
In short, it's the measurements themselves that show radiation from a cold object to a warmer object occurs and is detected. The Planck's law data analysis occurs later off-line.

 

[jc456]

You think the atmosphere is doing nothing? Interesting. You don't think pressure constitutes work?

You DO? Oh jesus.

So you do think the atmosphere is really doing nothing? OK. Laughing my ass off at you, but OK.[/QUOTE]
must never have ridden on n airplane and felt turbulence.

 

[SSDD]

"

Something holding energy thousands of feet away makes it warmer on the ground?
Please explain further.

You think there is no water vapor between the ground and the clouds? Really?

 

[SSDD]

A wave that can tell the temperature of every particle it could posibly touch, anywhere in the universe, all at once....that's not a smart wave?

I haven't even mentioned waves other than as a caveat at the beginning of this conversation...I said that I don't think there are any photons...that EM energy is waves which are known to cancel...

So you are making up an argument for me about waves and still trying to impose your reference point on an entity that does't care what your reference point is.

 

[SSDD]

"future is a meaningless term" ≠ "a photon knows the temperature of every particle is can see, all at once"

You think photons see? You think energy moving via conduction sees? How do you think it knows cool from warm to know in which direction to move?

Hint...look up vibration.

 

[SSDD]

As soon as you explain how conduction transfers energy, I'll point out where you're confused.

Conduction doesn't transfer energy...it is a means of transfer. You really aren't even close on this and making up arguments for me is an ineffective defense on your part.

 

[SSDD]

A radio wave isn't actually radiation?
What is it?

Sorry guy, I made my explanation... I didn't say radio waves were being recorded...I said resonance frequencies of an antenna which then creates an electrical signal that is recorded....making up things I didn't say is just more of your inherent dishonesty. If you can't argue against my actual statements, you are no better than crick. Congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD
So, the temperature under the blanket is merely my body heat, no hotter, same as hair on top of your head if you're lucky to still have some. I doubt the blanket gets warmer and it merely restricts outbound heat. Not similar to CO2. So you would have to prove to me that CO2 acts like a blanket and not a blanket acts like CO2. My whole concern is based on CO2 claims, not all atmospheric behavior. Do you have evidence that CO2 causes back radiation or slows down IR's exit to space.

Toddster thinks that if you are under a blanket you will give yourself a fever...if you stay under there long enough, eventually you will burst into flames from the backradition going back and forth and back and forth.

 

[SSDD]

So, the temperature under the blanket is merely my body heat, no hotter

Hotter than without the blanket.

You think he is giving himself a fever by lying under a blanket?

CO2 absorbs and re-emits energy. Some toward the ground. Just like water vapor.

Why would the radiation from the cooler ground try to move to the warmer earth? Energy doesn't conduct from cool to warm...zero distance...energy doesn't radiate from cool to warm either....zero distance.

 

[SSDD]

There is a very conceivable reason. Energy transfer from radiation is mediated by photons. Energy transfer from conduction is mediated by kinetic energy. The physics rules governing each case are totally different.

Because you are assuming distance between the objects in the case of radiation....from the photon's point of view it is in physical contact with its destination from its point of origin.

 

[SSDD]

In short you can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth (relatively still WRT an experiment).

So you are saying that photons experience time and space in the same way as we do...and their point of reference looks just like ours?

 

[SSDD]

This is where I disagree. You just said that there is a sampling of various frequencies.

No, I said that there was an electrical signal that was the result of a resonance frequency....not an actual measurement of CMB. People fool themselves with instruments all the time...there was once a poster who claimed that his IR thermometer was counting photons....he had no idea that his thermometer was actually calculating temperature change of an internal thermopile and that the temperature read out was just an artifact derived from a mathematical model. The guy was otherwise very smart, but was sure his thermometer was counting photons.

Hell, Ian thinks that an MRI was designed to work with virtual photons. Imagine, designing a machine to work with a theoretical non existent particle. Some people get so invested in post modern science and mathematical models that they begin to equate the output of mathematical models with observation....they can't see a difference between the two.

I ask repeatedly for some measured, observed example of back radiation at ambient temperature but none is ever forthcoming because it can't be measured. Every example is invariably an artifact of a mathematical model and not an actual observation or measurement...much like your own. There is no measurement of CMB...there is an electrical signal that is the result of a resonance frequency...but you, and many, believe that CMB was actually measured.

 

[SSDD]

must never have ridden on n airplane and felt turbulence.

What's funny is that he claims to be an engineer.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is the thinking I don't understand: If GHGs can't backradiate, water would be in the same category.

Water, unlike all other so called greenhouse gasses can absorb and retain energy rather than absorb and immediately emit. Water absorbs and retains but no so called greenhouse gas radiates back to the surface except during rare inversions where the surface is cooler than the local atmosphere.

Every substance in the atmosphere can absorb and retain energy as thermal energy. Water is exceptional in that it also has phase changes and latent heat.

 

[Wuwei]

There is a very conceivable reason. Energy transfer from radiation is mediated by photons. Energy transfer from conduction is mediated by kinetic energy. The physics rules governing each case are totally different.

Because you are assuming distance between the objects in the case of radiation....from the photon's point of view it is in physical contact with its destination from its point of origin.

My main point is that the physics rules are totally different in the two cases. You didn't address that point.

 

[Wuwei]

In short you can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth (relatively still WRT an experiment).

So you are saying that photons experience time and space in the same way as we do...and their point of reference looks just like ours?

No. I'm saying that if you are going to make statements and observations from your frame of reference you cannot conflate those with phenomena observed in another frame of reference. You have to consistently stick with one frame of reference.