Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[RKMBrown]

Given fossil fuels run out, of course we need to spend money on green energy. You'd have to be 'effin stupid to think otherwise.

That GISS chart might need to expand to 3 digits soon.

you morons still pushing peak oil as well? ROFL

 

[jc456]

It restricts it, like the hose if I squeeze the trigger of the spray gun and let some water out it all doesn't come out, it is limited and why the hose stays firm. The clouds allow limited IR through as it releases IR upward to the atmosphere. Eventually the temps will get a little cooler as time goes by. It could be that it holds the heat until the next sunrise and it starts all over.

It restricts it,

But the cloud is cooler than the ground. How can it restrict anything?

because it is formed due to water vapor and as such absorbs IR waves.

Yes, water vapor both absorbs and emits IR.
Never seen the claim that it restricts other things from emitting IR.
You have a link?

hahahahahahahahahahaha I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either. what's your point?

You have no proof of your so called restriction.
You're making it up.
That's my point.

I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either.

You have, you admitted it upthread.

hmmm, funny thing, you have no proof of yours. So coin flip?

 

[jc456]

It restricts it, like the hose if I squeeze the trigger of the spray gun and let some water out it all doesn't come out, it is limited and why the hose stays firm. The clouds allow limited IR through as it releases IR upward to the atmosphere. Eventually the temps will get a little cooler as time goes by. It could be that it holds the heat until the next sunrise and it starts all over.

It restricts it,

But the cloud is cooler than the ground. How can it restrict anything?

because it is formed due to water vapor and as such absorbs IR waves.

Yes, water vapor both absorbs and emits IR.
Never seen the claim that it restricts other things from emitting IR.
You have a link?

BTW, how fast does it absorb? is it like a paper towel? Bounty comes to mind, or Charmin soft on my ass. I have a link btw, a missing link and you resemble that missing link.

Morning drinker.....aren't you?

yeah, I enjoy my maxwell house every morning. Thanks!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It restricts it,

But the cloud is cooler than the ground. How can it restrict anything?

because it is formed due to water vapor and as such absorbs IR waves.

Yes, water vapor both absorbs and emits IR.
Never seen the claim that it restricts other things from emitting IR.
You have a link?

hahahahahahahahahahaha I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either. what's your point?

You have no proof of your so called restriction.
You're making it up.
That's my point.

I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either.

You have, you admitted it upthread.

hmmm, funny thing, you have no proof of yours. So coin flip?

You admitted that cloud cover keeps it warmer.
It's funny when your ignorance of the science has you disagreeing with yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It restricts it,

But the cloud is cooler than the ground. How can it restrict anything?

because it is formed due to water vapor and as such absorbs IR waves.

Yes, water vapor both absorbs and emits IR.
Never seen the claim that it restricts other things from emitting IR.
You have a link?

BTW, how fast does it absorb? is it like a paper towel? Bounty comes to mind, or Charmin soft on my ass. I have a link btw, a missing link and you resemble that missing link.

Morning drinker.....aren't you?

yeah, I enjoy my maxwell house every morning. Thanks!

Is that what you call your booze? LOL!

 

[jc456]

because it is formed due to water vapor and as such absorbs IR waves.

Yes, water vapor both absorbs and emits IR.
Never seen the claim that it restricts other things from emitting IR.
You have a link?

BTW, how fast does it absorb? is it like a paper towel? Bounty comes to mind, or Charmin soft on my ass. I have a link btw, a missing link and you resemble that missing link.

Morning drinker.....aren't you?

yeah, I enjoy my maxwell house every morning. Thanks!

Is that what you call your booze? LOL!

It's what I call my source for coffee in the morning, yep!!!

 

[jc456]

because it is formed due to water vapor and as such absorbs IR waves.

Yes, water vapor both absorbs and emits IR.
Never seen the claim that it restricts other things from emitting IR.
You have a link?

hahahahahahahahahahaha I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either. what's your point?

You have no proof of your so called restriction.
You're making it up.
That's my point.

I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either.

You have, you admitted it upthread.

hmmm, funny thing, you have no proof of yours. So coin flip?

You admitted that cloud cover keeps it warmer.
It's funny when your ignorance of the science has you disagreeing with yourself.

funny, not sure what your point is. We all know that at night with no sun, a clear night is colder than a cloudy night. I think it's obvious the cloud presence is the reason for the warmer air. How you feel that happens I couldn't care a less. It isn't my objective on a daily visit to the forum. What is my objective is telling others about the lies posted daily by your type. Back radiation. only in your dreams s0n. And is something you can't prove.

 

[mamooth]

Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.

 

[jc456]

Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.

when will you educate yourself rather than looking for attention.

 

[RKMBrown]

Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.

ROFL yeah cause we all know the sun is wait...ROFL

 

[mamooth]

when will you educate yourself rather than looking for attention.

We still can and do directly measure backradiation. Your idiot claim is just flat out wrong. Crying at me won't change that.

Now, you don't have to admit you were wrong. You'll just be considered by everyone to be a cowardly kook liar unless you do. If that's your choice, so be it. Me, when I'm wrong, I just say so, but that's that an honesty thing, so you wouldn't understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, water vapor both absorbs and emits IR.
Never seen the claim that it restricts other things from emitting IR.
You have a link?

hahahahahahahahahahaha I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either. what's your point?

You have no proof of your so called restriction.
You're making it up.
That's my point.

I've never seen evidence that back radiation exists either.

You have, you admitted it upthread.

hmmm, funny thing, you have no proof of yours. So coin flip?

You admitted that cloud cover keeps it warmer.
It's funny when your ignorance of the science has you disagreeing with yourself.

funny, not sure what your point is. We all know that at night with no sun, a clear night is colder than a cloudy night. I think it's obvious the cloud presence is the reason for the warmer air. How you feel that happens I couldn't care a less. It isn't my objective on a daily visit to the forum. What is my objective is telling others about the lies posted daily by your type. Back radiation. only in your dreams s0n. And is something you can't prove.

funny, not sure what your point is. We all know that at night with no sun, a clear night is colder than a cloudy night.

That's the back radiation making SSDD look silly.

 

[mamooth]

ROFL yeah cause we all know the sun is wait...ROFL

You're just babbling incomprehensible sentence fragments now.

Which means you're making more sense than usual.

 

[SSDD]

Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.

Another example of someone fooling themselves with an instrument...it seems to be common in climate science....perhaps because it is a soft science playing with instruments they don't really understand....instruments designed for the hard sciences....

Your instrument is not measuring back radiation....as there is no back radiation. Your instrument is giving you a number that is the result of a mathematical model.

Your infrared sectromenter gives you a reading based on a simple mathematical formula...

Enet = Ein -Eout where

Enet = radiation at the sensor surface
Ein = LW radiation received from the atmosphere
Eout = longwave radiation leaving the surface of the earth

The thermopile in your instrument detects a radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation Enet=Uemf/s where

Enet = radiation at the sensor surface
Uemf = Thermopile output voltage
S = Sensitivity/calibration factor of the individual instrument

In order to calculate the absolute "downward flux" the temperature of the instrument itself must be taken into account. There is a temperature sensor inside of the instrument for this purpose positioned near the cold junction of the thermopile. The instrument considers itself to be something close to a black body and assumes it is emitting LW according to the formula Eout = Sigma * T^4 where

Eout =LW radiation emitted by the surface of the earth
Sigma = the SB constant
T = the temperature of the instrument itself

From those calculations, it derives a figure that is presented as incoming radiation. This is usually done using a standard equation by
Albrecht and Cox. It takes the form of:

Ein = uemf/S + sigma * T^4

So what you have being represented as downward radiation is actually nothing more than the detected voltage and the temperature of the instrument itself.

If you care to check it out, any manufacturer can verify what I say is true....in fact, one manufacturer went so far as to write an explanation of how is instrument worked to Dr. Roy Spencer in an effort to dissuade him from making the claim that his instrument was measuring back radiation and pointed out to him that it was not what was happening...he continues to claim that is instrument is detecting downward radiation. Some people just can't give up their fantasy no matter what.

 

[SSDD]

That's the back radiation making SSDD look silly.

Again, on a cloudy night, do you think the only water vapor holding energy is at the level of the clouds? You don't think a cloudy night is more humid than a clear night? You don't think the air close to the ground is more moist on a cloudy night than a clear night? Do you think the water in clouds has some property that humidity close to the ground doesn't?

Again, you know these things but are deliberately attempting to trick someone knowing that you are omitting key facts...more like old rocks all the time.

 

[SSDD]

Given that anyone can directly prove backradiation by pointing an infrared spectrometer at the sky, your claim it can't be proven looks completely insane.

when will you educate yourself rather than looking for attention.

She is so desperate for attention that she will do whatever is required to get it....no matter the humiliation involved.

 

[Wuwei]

Not sure why you are having a hard time with this...the resonance frequency is not CMB...CMB is not being captured by the radio telescope...a weak resonance frequency is being captured and interpolated into CMB which could not be captured by the radio telescope.

That's wrong. The entire CMB BB energy is hitting the maser. The maser amplifies one narrow band of one of the BB radiation frequencies at a time. You are still confusing the CMB input to the maser output.

I am not having trouble with this...I understand that the 2.75K radiation is not hitting the dish....a resonance signal is hitting the dish and being amplified into a signal that can then be interpolated into the 2.75K signal.

That is totally wrong! When the CMB hits the dish how can it possibly be a "resonance frequency" when it hasn't even reflected to the maser yet! All frequencies hit the dish. The maser amplifies just one of them after the fact. You have cause and effect turned around.

It is a clear example of getting a signal that can not be received by the telescope...a resonance signal that can be picked up being amplified and vi a mathematical model interpreted into the signal (artificially) that is to weak to be actually received.

You have an amazing incapability for understanding the simplest things. Let me try to make it simpler.

A radio telescope antenna picks up a band of wavelengths. (BB spectrum) and transfers it to a tuned amplifier whose tuning can be changed to select a very small segment of wavelengths (one specific BB sample).

An FM radio antenna picks up a band of wavelengths (several stations), transfers it to a tuned amplifier whose tuning can be changed to select a very small segment of wavelengths (one station).

The concepts are exactly the same, albeit with different technologies. It can't be made simpler than that.

Any electrical engineer will tell you that an FM antenna sticking out of your car receives a wide band of EM waves, and not a “resonance frequency”.

You are continually coming up with non-scientific terms or concepts that you don't clearly define. If you disagree, you will have to clearly define exactly what is the “resonance frequency” the CMB is supposedly sending and how it differs from black body radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's the back radiation making SSDD look silly.

Again, on a cloudy night, do you think the only water vapor holding energy is at the level of the clouds? You don't think a cloudy night is more humid than a clear night? You don't think the air close to the ground is more moist on a cloudy night than a clear night? Do you think the water in clouds has some property that humidity close to the ground doesn't?

Again, you know these things but are deliberately attempting to trick someone knowing that you are omitting key facts...more like old rocks all the time.

Again, on a cloudy night, do you think the only water vapor holding energy is at the level of the clouds?

If you think I said that anywhere, show me.

Do you think the water in clouds has some property that humidity close to the ground doesn't?

You think the humidity close to the ground doesn't also absorb and re-emit IR? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure why you are having a hard time with this...the resonance frequency is not CMB...CMB is not being captured by the radio telescope...a weak resonance frequency is being captured and interpolated into CMB which could not be captured by the radio telescope.

That's wrong. The entire CMB BB energy is hitting the maser. The maser amplifies one narrow band of one of the BB radiation frequencies at a time. You are still confusing the CMB input to the maser output.

I am not having trouble with this...I understand that the 2.75K radiation is not hitting the dish....a resonance signal is hitting the dish and being amplified into a signal that can then be interpolated into the 2.75K signal.

That is totally wrong! When the CMB hits the dish how can it possibly be a "resonance frequency" when it hasn't even reflected to the maser yet! All frequencies hit the dish. The maser amplifies just one of them after the fact. You have cause and effect turned around.

It is a clear example of getting a signal that can not be received by the telescope...a resonance signal that can be picked up being amplified and vi a mathematical model interpreted into the signal (artificially) that is to weak to be actually received.

You have an amazing incapability for understanding the simplest things. Let me try to make it simpler.

A radio telescope antenna picks up a band of wavelengths. (BB spectrum) and transfers it to a tuned amplifier whose tuning can be changed to select a very small segment of wavelengths (one specific BB sample).

An FM radio antenna picks up a band of wavelengths (several stations), transfers it to a tuned amplifier whose tuning can be changed to select a very small segment of wavelengths (one station).

The concepts are exactly the same, albeit with different technologies. It can't be made simple than that.

Any electrical engineer will tell you that an FM antenna sticking out of your car receives a wide band of EM waves, and not a “resonance frequency”.

You are continually coming up with non-scientific terms or concepts that you don't clearly define. If you disagree, you will have to clearly define exactly what is the “resonance frequency” the CMB is supposedly sending and how it differs from black body radiation.

You are continually coming up with non-scientific terms or concepts that you don't clearly define.

His epicycles take a lot of work.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

Of course it doesn't....I was just pretending to be toddster and ian et al for a minute....saying stupid stuff like smart energy, and smart waves, and smart photons didn't make me feel any better about myself....wonder why they do it. Energy moves in the only direction it has available to it...just like a dropped stone, or an electron down a copper wire. It doesn't move up hill...more entropy always...no back radiation. The only way energy goes to a state of less entropy is if work is done to make it happen.

Back conduction doesn't happen...energy can't move from a cool body to a warm body that is in physical contact with it....acknowledging that there is zero distance (from the photon's point of view) and a body that is warmer than the body it originated from, why would someone argue that the energy that the photon represents attempt to move up hill to a state of less entropy? Energy only goes where it can....movement to a warmer body is a place it can't go...why even attempt whether you are energy in the form of a photon or energy conducting from one place to another?

You are getting distracted from the original question: You were saying photon "contact" and conduction "contact" were related in some way you didn't clearly spell out, and I disagreed. They are two different concepts in physics. Why and how can you relate them?