What the science says

[IanC]

Have you been following Todd's and Ian's "heat flows from cool to warm" physics?

Nope. I doubt Todd said that and I know I never did. Radiation is not 'heat'.

What we have said is that every object above zero degrees Kelvin radiates, whether it is next to something else that is warmer, cooler or the same temperature. Standard physics.

Where SSDD, and others apparently, make their mistake is by applying properties of matter to photons ( the carrier of energy in radiation). Air coming out of a tire, or electrons in a wire move in the direction of the overwhelming force because matter cannot occupy the same space that is already occupied. Photons have no such restrictions. Radiation flows in both directions and the energy does not 'cancel out' somewhere between emission and absorption.

I feel sorry for those who cannot grasp this concept. It may not be simple but it's not that complicated either.

 

[SSDD]

Not an answer...but then, you have really taken to the shuck and jive wholeheartedly lately...so no actual answer was really expected.

Not an answer? I said 1,000,000 years instead of 170,000 years. But based on old calculations. Still in the same order of magnitude.

Are you saying less? Or more? Based on what exactly? Gut feelings?

So square that with your belief that when photons contact matter that they impart their energy to it and cease to exist...or do you want to claim that photons are refracted and reflected within the sun for a million years?

 

[Wyatt earp]

From warmer to cool. With respect to much in physics, we're living in Flatlands. There's a lot that happens around us that we don't understand, don't have access to and just assume 97% of it is made of forces we invented to get the numbers to work.

From warmer to cool.

Any backup for your claim?

Yes. About 50% of the time, the pot of water on the stove cools down the flames that were trying to make it boil, it's annoying but it's in line with your laws of physics

Bwahahaah you guys are fucking metaphysics RETARDS!

That's funny, coming from the guy who thinks pumped-storage is being used in Iowa wind power systems.

There are 3 electrical grids in the US and all of them are interconnected.

When Wind energy generation is greater than load to its customers they transmit energy to pumped storage. The pumped storage isn't IN IOWA.

Holocaust Deniers...you guys are so stupid.

Bwahahaha where tard?

Tell us more tell us more

 

[Wyatt earp]

Excess power is DELIVERED to Pumped Storage. That's the purpose of Pumped Storage. The US doesn't break down or release information about the exact deliveries that's corporate information between different corporations.

There doesn't need to be pumped storage in Iowa, the US is 3 grids, all interconnected.

Iowa provides energy to New York and vice versa!

You bozo.

You're super super stupid.

So you can't prove that excess wind power in Iowa is delivered to pumped storage.

I'm shocked. Truly.

You just denied that ANY energy is diverted to pumped storage.

Nope. I denied that any excess wind power in Iowa just, automatically, gets sent to pumped storage.
Maybe in West Virginia? LOL!

Maybe Ellen gets pumped storage in California from Iowa on her 3 D battery that power her vibrator?

 

[SSDD]

Nope. I doubt Todd said that and I know I never did. Radiation is not 'heat'.

You sure about that?...

Radiation and Your Environment: A Guide to Low-Level Radiation for Citizens of Florida - Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute

Clip: Light is radiation we can see; heat is radiation we can feel

At this point, Ian, there is apparently a dispute as to whether heat is a form of energy in and of itself, or whether heat is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another....in any case, at this point, you can't make the claim that radiation is not heat with anything like actual credibility .

And of course heat is radiation....ever hear of whole heating systems called radiant?....ever wonder why?

 

[IanC]

Not an answer...but then, you have really taken to the shuck and jive wholeheartedly lately...so no actual answer was really expected.

Not an answer? I said 1,000,000 years instead of 170,000 years. But based on old calculations. Still in the same order of magnitude.

Are you saying less? Or more? Based on what exactly? Gut feelings?

So square that with your belief that when photons contact matter that they impart their energy to it and cease to exist...or do you want to claim that photons are refracted and reflected within the sun for a million years?

Fair enough point. It is not the same photon. It has been recycled countless times. The pulse of energy produced by a single carbon cycle in the Sun's core takes a few hundred thousand years to make the journey from core to surface.

 

[SSDD]

Fair enough point. It is not the same photon. It has been recycled countless times. The pulse of energy produced by a single carbon cycle in the Sun's core takes a few hundred thousand years to make the journey from core to surface.

So now these theoretical particles get recycled?

 

[IanC]

Nope. I doubt Todd said that and I know I never did. Radiation is not 'heat'.

You sure about that?...

Radiation and Your Environment: A Guide to Low-Level Radiation for Citizens of Florida - Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute

Clip: Light is radiation we can see; heat is radiation we can feel

At this point, Ian, there is apparently a dispute as to whether heat is a form of energy in and of itself, or whether heat is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another....in any case, at this point, you can't make the claim that radiation is not heat with anything like actual credibility .

And of course heat is radiation....ever hear of whole heating systems called radiant?....ever wonder why?

Nope. Taking a context specific inferred definition of heat is not relevant here.

 

[IanC]

Fair enough point. It is not the same photon. It has been recycled countless times. The pulse of energy produced by a single carbon cycle in the Sun's core takes a few hundred thousand years to make the journey from core to surface.

So now these theoretical particles get recycled?

Hmmmm. Nitpicking terms now? Absorbed and re-emited, refracted, reflected, any or all of the above.

I am not an expert on super high energy plasma cores in the center's of stars. Are you?

I find it amazing that the actual experts were confident enough in their calculations to predict a massless, neutrally charged particle that didn't react with matter, which was carrying some of the energy away.

 

[SSDD]

When a photon is absorbed by CO2, the CO2 heats up.

By how much...what temperature does it reach...and how hot would it have to get in order to effect the temperature of the 900,600 other molecules that happen to be surrounding it?

The atmosphere is a huge reservoir of stored energy. Part of it in kinetic energy, the speed of the molecules; part of it in potential energy, mostly the height of the molecule in the gravity field.

Molecular collisions are constantly redistributing the amount potential/kinetic energy for any one molecule.

Temperature is the measurement of average kinetic speed of the molecules in any one specific volume. Temperature does not measure total energy just the speed.

A CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon increases its potential energy (ignoring the tiny exchange of momentum which is the basis of entropy). This potential energy is added to total energy which is then redistributed via molecular collisions, on average partially to kinetic energy AKA temperature.

SSDD thinks photons measure the temperature of their destination. But that is only a portion of the total energy. How can the photon derive the total energy to make sure it is only going from high energy to lower energy? A slower moving molecule higher up in the gravity field can easily have more total energy than a faster moving but lower one. SSDD is wacko.

So you're also in the "Photons move at random without regard to heat differential" school of physics. Interesting

Photons are emitted according to the internal conditions of the emitters. Not outside influences.

Is there any other schools of physics? Link me up.

Since these theoretical particles exist at every point along their line of travel from point A to point B...there are no outside influences....the destination is an internal known influence...

 

[SSDD]

So you're also in the "Photons move at random without regard to heat differential" school of physics. Interesting

He is quite sure that the whole "neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm" is just a loosely held guideline and not a rigid law of nature....which is what one must believe if one is to buy into the warmist religion.

Statistical thermodynamics actually explain why the macro features of the SLOT work. Individual atomic interactions are not governed by the Laws of the macroscopic world, the macroscopic Laws are determined by the statistical mechanics of atomic events. There is no mechanism that controls atomic events other than the internal conditions of the individual particles involved.

Got any observational evidence to support that claim?.....of course not...but you believe it despite every observation ever made.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. I doubt Todd said that and I know I never did. Radiation is not 'heat'.

You sure about that?...

Radiation and Your Environment: A Guide to Low-Level Radiation for Citizens of Florida - Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute

Clip: Light is radiation we can see; heat is radiation we can feel

At this point, Ian, there is apparently a dispute as to whether heat is a form of energy in and of itself, or whether heat is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another....in any case, at this point, you can't make the claim that radiation is not heat with anything like actual credibility .

And of course heat is radiation....ever hear of whole heating systems called radiant?....ever wonder why?

Nope. Taking a context specific inferred definition of heat is not relevant here.

That sounds like duck speak for ignoring anything that doesn't mesh with what you believe...if heat is, in fact, a form of energy it sort of blows your whole line of "reasoning"

 

[SSDD]

Fair enough point. It is not the same photon. It has been recycled countless times. The pulse of energy produced by a single carbon cycle in the Sun's core takes a few hundred thousand years to make the journey from core to surface.

So now these theoretical particles get recycled?

Hmmmm. Nitpicking terms now? Absorbed and re-emited, refracted, reflected, any or all of the above.

I am not an expert on super high energy plasma cores in the center's of stars. Are you?

I find it amazing that the actual experts were confident enough in their calculations to predict a massless, neutrally charged particle that didn't react with matter, which was carrying some of the energy away.

So the fact is that a theoretical photon takes only the smallest portion of a second to escape the sun because it is, in fact, emitted from the surface...and all that million year crap is just that...crap...yet another belief that is ultimately just bullshit.

 

[IanC]

Nope. I doubt Todd said that and I know I never did. Radiation is not 'heat'.

You sure about that?...

Radiation and Your Environment: A Guide to Low-Level Radiation for Citizens of Florida - Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute

Clip: Light is radiation we can see; heat is radiation we can feel

At this point, Ian, there is apparently a dispute as to whether heat is a form of energy in and of itself, or whether heat is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another....in any case, at this point, you can't make the claim that radiation is not heat with anything like actual credibility .

And of course heat is radiation....ever hear of whole heating systems called radiant?....ever wonder why?

Nope. Taking a context specific inferred definition of heat is not relevant here.

That sounds like duck speak for ignoring anything that doesn't mesh with what you believe...if heat is, in fact, a form of energy it sort of blows your whole line of "reasoning"

Nope, not at all. You continue to confuse nonspecific terms and use definitions for one type of event as proof of a different type of event.

For example radiant heating. It operates mostly by conduction and convection. Perhaps a better term would be passive heating when compared to the more typical forced air systems.

 

[IanC]

So you're also in the "Photons move at random without regard to heat differential" school of physics. Interesting

He is quite sure that the whole "neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm" is just a loosely held guideline and not a rigid law of nature....which is what one must believe if one is to buy into the warmist religion.

Statistical thermodynamics actually explain why the macro features of the SLOT work. Individual atomic interactions are not governed by the Laws of the macroscopic world, the macroscopic Laws are determined by the statistical mechanics of atomic events. There is no mechanism that controls atomic events other than the internal conditions of the individual particles involved.

Got any observational evidence to support that claim?.....of course not...but you believe it despite every observation ever made.

You claim to believe in fundamental laws yet you are happy to drop some laws if it is convenient to you.

Entropy destroys your case.

You agree that all things radiate according to their temperature but then change your story if something else is nearby. Apparently you think objects can throttle down their emission of radiation so that the cooler object stops radiating completely AND the warmer object only radiates enough to match what would have been the net radiation if the flow in both directions was added up. You give no mechanism for how specific particles are chosen not to radiate. Or how their internal conditions are then changed to stop the emission. It's a miracle supposedly.

But to me entropy is the key. Two objects of the same temperature would stop radiating at each other according to you. But they would still be radiating on their other sides. Momentum is imparted when a photon is emitted. With no radiation being allowed between the two equal temperature object but radiation allowed in the other directions, then the net imparted momentum would push the objects together. But that is against the law of entropy!

So we are left with two choices. A world with some sort of deity that keeps track of every particle in the universe, making external choices of which particles can radiate and then altering the internal conditions, while ignoring entropy. Or we can have all objects radiate according to their temperature all the time with no intervention necessary and no violation of entropy laws.

I know my choice.

 

[SSDD]

.

You agree that all things radiate according to their temperature but then change your story if something else is nearby..

I am afraid that it is you who picks and chooses what you believe ian....I agree that all things radiate according to their temperature when they are in a vacuum...just as the SB equation states...

But when those objects are not in a vacuum, they radiate according to the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings...again...just as the SB equation states...

One way gross energy flow...nothing within that equation suggests two way net energy movement....it would look entirely different if it did.

 

[IanC]

.

You agree that all things radiate according to their temperature but then change your story if something else is nearby..

I am afraid that it is you who picks and chooses what you believe ian....I agree that all things radiate according to their temperature when they are in a vacuum...just as the SB equation states...

But when those objects are not in a vacuum, they radiate according to the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings...again...just as the SB equation states...

One way gross energy flow...nothing within that equation suggests two way net energy movement....it would look entirely different if it did.

Same old bullshit. SSDD doesn't believe in mathematics either.

P = kT^4 - kT(cool)^4 .

If I remember correctly someone even dredged up the original S-B paper to show that was the actual form of the equation that they presented.

 

[Crick]

The Distributive Property was fabricated to keep middle school math teachers rich.

 

[SSDD]

The Distributive Property was fabricated to keep middle school math teachers rich.

Since the distributive property is employed to simplify an equation...tell me why one would apply the distributive property to an equation that has already been simplified....it is just bad math....and in physics, when one employs a property to an equation describing a physical reality...one must justify the use of the equation just as each component of the equation must be justified...so lets see some justification for applying the distributive property to an equation that has been simplified already.

You claim to be an engineer...and yet you apparently don't know this....its pretty basic stuff...what's the problem?

idiot...

 

[Billy_Bob]

That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.

the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.

not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?

pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.

I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

I will say however, that if the sun is in a minimum cycle, then I would expect that OLR would decrease some. Cause I would expect the Incoming radiation to be down. so not unexpected in my world.

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

The graphs own information says "Total Scattering and Absorption". Scattering in all directions is not "back radiation". It is the slowing of release through the atmosphere which the water cycle deals with very easily and why the earth has not warmed. It is also why your so called back radiation can not be measured, it is theorized.

That graph is of band pass measured at TOA.