Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[SSDD]

SSDD and his buddy JC456 don't believe that clouds can emit any of that infrared back down to the ground, because that would violate the laws of physics.

they don't...unless of course the ground is cooler than the cloud. You have become as dishonest as old rocks...hope you are proud of yourself.

 

[SSDD]

It's sad when people make an uniformed choice about which side to be on, and then close their minds off to any new information except the latest extreme talking point released as propaganda.

Yeah, it is sad Ian, but I am sure that when the hoax finally crashes, and some actual science starts being done, you will be able to adapt to the fact that you have been wrong all this time...rocks, crick, et al may just self destruct.

 

[SSDD]

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

The only rule is that energy doesn't move from cool areas to warm areas without some work having been done to make it happen.

Temperature and pressure gradients are very efficient at accomplishing said work.

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

The only rule is that energy doesn't move from cool areas to warm areas without some work having been done to make it happen.

The rules I'm referring to are (1) thermal transfer is by a radiant process. (2) Conduction is a process via kinetic energy.

How would energy moving zero distance between bodies know whether it was conducting or radiating? Does it say oh, i am radiating so now I can go to a warmer object than myself now?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

Sorry...not true. But I would llike to hear your description of how a CO2 molecule which absorbs, and then immediately emits LW manages to retain some of that energy.

All I was pointing out is that CO2 retains energy as thermal energy consistent with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Not that it retains all the energy it absorbs.

 

[SSDD]

Temperature and pressure gradients are very efficient at accomplishing said work.

So you admit that there is no such thing as back radiation?

 

[SSDD]

All I was pointing out is that CO2 retains energy as thermal energy consistent with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Not that it retains all the energy it absorbs.

It doesn't retain any of the energy it absorbs....that is why I say that so called greenhouse gas molecules are like holes in the blanket covering earth...If we only had oxygen and nitrogen and depended entirely on convection and conduction to move IR to the upper atmosphere, the earth would be a warmer place. It is just silly to suggest that the presence of a radiative gas would hinder the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

I'm not. I am saying that to a photon, there is zero distance between it and any possible destination it may have and there is no more likelyhood of a photon moving from a cool area to a warm area than there is for energy to convect from a cool area to a warm area.

You can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth.

 

[SSDD]

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.

I'm not. I am saying that to a photon, there is zero distance between it and any possible destination it may have and there is no more likelyhood of a photon moving from a cool area to a warm area than there is for energy to convect from a cool area to a warm area.

You can't mix the behavior of a system at one speed (light speed!) with the behavior of another system on earth.

Are you saying that photons don't move at the speed of light on earth?

 

[Crick]

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

The only rule is that energy doesn't move from cool areas to warm areas without some work having been done to make it happen.

Temperature and pressure gradients are very efficient at accomplishing said work.

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

The only rule is that energy doesn't move from cool areas to warm areas without some work having been done to make it happen.

The rules I'm referring to are (1) thermal transfer is by a radiant process. (2) Conduction is a process via kinetic energy.

How would energy moving zero distance between bodies know whether it was conducting or radiating? Does it say oh, i am radiating so now I can go to a warmer object than myself now?

Do you now believe that all of existence has zero size?

Such a fucking troll!

 

[Wuwei]

.you don't actually hear the weak radio wave, you hear the amplified signal that resulted from the resonance frequency.

Exactly. That is what amplifiers are for. My point is that the cold CMB must strike the warmer MASER for there to be an amplification in the first place. That illustrates that energy from a cold source (CMB) can hit a warmer source (MASER).

Since you are having trouble with that concept. Consider this:
Radiation from a cold source at 2.725 deg K must hit the much warmer parabolic dish of the telescope at 15 deg C.

That is a clear example of thermal radiation from a colder source striking a warmer object. That is a contradiction of your understanding that energy cannot go from a cold source to a hotter source.

 

[Wuwei]

Are you saying that photons don't move at the speed of light on earth?

No. Of course not. I'm sorry you can't understand it. I'm trying to keep it simple.

 

[orogenicman]

Temperature and pressure gradients are very efficient at accomplishing said work.

So you admit that there is no such thing as back radiation?

Straw man.

 

[IanC]

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.

Sorry...not true. But I would llike to hear your description of how a CO2 molecule which absorbs, and then immediately emits LW manages to retain some of that energy.

It's sad when people make an uniformed choice about which side to be on, and then close their minds off to any new information except the latest extreme talking point released as propaganda.

Yeah, it is sad Ian, but I am sure that when the hoax finally crashes, and some actual science starts being done, you will be able to adapt to the fact that you have been wrong all this time...rocks, crick, et al may just self destruct.

Thanks, I'll take as a vote of confidence in my belief in science moving towards the truth.

 

[Wuwei]

How would energy moving zero distance between bodies know whether it was conducting or radiating? Does it say oh, i am radiating so now I can go to a warmer object than myself now?

That statement makes no physical sense. Energy doesn't "know" or "say" anything! You have to be a lot more scientifically precise. You have to explicitly define the concept you are talking about and not switch it midstream.

 

[IanC]

All I was pointing out is that CO2 retains energy as thermal energy consistent with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Not that it retains all the energy it absorbs.

It doesn't retain any of the energy it absorbs....that is why I say that so called greenhouse gas molecules are like holes in the blanket covering earth...If we only had oxygen and nitrogen and depended entirely on convection and conduction to move IR to the upper atmosphere, the earth would be a warmer place. It is just silly to suggest that the presence of a radiative gas would hinder the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

Interesting statement. If there were no GHGs would IR simply leave at the speed of light?

 

[orogenicman]

All I was pointing out is that CO2 retains energy as thermal energy consistent with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Not that it retains all the energy it absorbs.

It doesn't retain any of the energy it absorbs....that is why I say that so called greenhouse gas molecules are like holes in the blanket covering earth...If we only had oxygen and nitrogen and depended entirely on convection and conduction to move IR to the upper atmosphere, the earth would be a warmer place. It is just silly to suggest that the presence of a radiative gas would hinder the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

Interesting statement. If there were no GHGs would IR simply leave at the speed of light?

While that may be true, the reverse is also true. But thanks for admitting that ghgs affect the radiation of IR radiation into space. Most deniers refuse to accept that fact.

 

[IanC]

All I was pointing out is that CO2 retains energy as thermal energy consistent with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Not that it retains all the energy it absorbs.

It doesn't retain any of the energy it absorbs....that is why I say that so called greenhouse gas molecules are like holes in the blanket covering earth...If we only had oxygen and nitrogen and depended entirely on convection and conduction to move IR to the upper atmosphere, the earth would be a warmer place. It is just silly to suggest that the presence of a radiative gas would hinder the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

Interesting statement. If there were no GHGs would IR simply leave at the speed of light?

While that may be true, the reverse is also true. But thanks for admitting that ghgs affect the radiation of IR radiation into space. Most deniers refuse to accept that fact.

What do YOU believe happens to the IR? Be specific.

 

[Wuwei]

It doesn't retain any of the energy it absorbs....that is why I say that so called greenhouse gas molecules are like holes in the blanket covering earth.

That's right; it scatters the LWIR in a random direction. It still maintains ambient temperature. I don't know what you mean by a hole.

...If we only had oxygen and nitrogen and depended entirely on convection and conduction to move IR to the upper atmosphere, the earth would be a warmer place.

What are you talking about??? IR doesn't move by convection nor conduction; only matter can move that way!

Furthermore if the GHGs disappeared, much of the LWIR would speed out to space leaving the oceans all ice. Remember the earth is absorbing around 160 Watts per meter squared and radiating almost 400 Watts per m^2. A new equilibrium would be reached and result in the earth radiating only in the neighborhood of 160 W per m^2. If you apply the S-B law, you would see that the earth would be verrrry cold.

It is just silly to suggest that the presence of a radiative gas would hinder the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

To you it's silly because you don't understand the physics behind radiation phenomena.

 

[Wuwei]

Interesting statement. If there were no GHGs would IR simply leave at the speed of light?

That's what I said to SSDD above. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? It seems that if all the oceans turned to ice, even more SWIR would be reflected out.There may be other forcings that would change that but I haven't thought of any. However I definitely disagree with him that the earth would be warmer.
Opps. Dumb comment. See below.

 

[Wuwei]

Oops, I have to rethink the above reply. Water is a GHG. If it disappeared there would be no ice! If CH4, and CO2, etc disappeared, but water was left, I would think the world would be colder but certainly not all ice. Besides O3 would still exist at the TOA. Intuition on that mental exercise may easily fail.