What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Scattering in all directions is not "back radiation".

Where do you see the word scattering?

Scattering in all directions is not "back radiation".

Define back radiation.

It is the slowing of release through the atmosphere

How is release slowed?

It is also why your so called back radiation can not be measured

It is measured, as shown in the graph.

That graph is of band pass measured at TOA

How did they measure radiation over that spot for a 24 hour period?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

tell me why one would apply the distributive property to an equation that has already been simplified.

In this case, you could use it to find the energy emitted by both the warmer and the cooler object, instead of simply looking at the net gained by the cooler and lost by the warmer.

Because in the real world, all matter above 0K emits all the time, in all directions.
Photons really don't measure the temperature of their surroundings before deciding if they'll be emitted and in which direction. They really aren't smart.

 

[Crick]

Pathetic SID. Just because you're 7th grade algebra teacher wouldn't like it, doesn't make it FALSE.

Fucking idiot.

 

[SSDD]

Pathetic SID. Just because you're 7th grade algebra teacher wouldn't like it, doesn't make it FALSE.

Fucking idiot.

Whats the matter skid mark...were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....or were you unaware that in physics, if one is going to apply an algebraic property to an equation, one must justify the use of the property?....or perhaps both....

The equation describes a physical process....altering the equation alters the physical process being described....unless you can prove that the process being described in the original equation is incorrect, the altered equation is incorrect...if you can prove that the original equation is incorrect...then you need to have the physical law changed to reflect the altered description of the physical process....and collect your nobel afterwards....

guess what....not happening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pathetic SID. Just because you're 7th grade algebra teacher wouldn't like it, doesn't make it FALSE.

Fucking idiot.

Whats the matter skid mark...were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....or were you unaware that in physics, if one is going to apply an algebraic property to an equation, one must justify the use of the property?....or perhaps both....

The equation describes a physical process....altering the equation alters the physical process being described....unless you can prove that the process being described in the original equation is incorrect, the altered equation is incorrect...if you can prove that the original equation is incorrect...then you need to have the physical law changed to reflect the altered description of the physical process....and collect your nobel afterwards....

guess what....not happening.

were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....

Do you have another example where applying the distributive property gives you an incorrect answer?
Or is this one the only?

The equation describes a physical process....

All matter above 0K emits all the time, in all directions.
Unless you have any proof that it doesn't? Do you?

Of course not.

if you can prove that the original equation is incorrect...

Both equations are correct.

then you need to have the physical law changed to reflect the altered description of the physical process....and collect your nobel afterwards....

If you can prove matter doesn't emit toward warmer matter....you could collect a Nobel.

 

[SSDD]

were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....

Do you have another example where applying the distributive property gives you an incorrect answer?
Or is this one the only?

The equation is not just looking for a correct answer...it is describing a physical process...one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.

All matter above 0K emits all the time, in all directions.
Unless you have any proof that it doesn't? Do you?

Sure..in a vacuum.

if you can prove that the original equation is incorrect...

Both equations are correct.

No..only one describes the physical law.. the other is altered without justification.

If you can prove matter doesn't emit toward warmer matter....you could collect a Nobel.

It has been proven over and over....place an instrument to measure radiation between a cool object and a cooler background and you can measure radiation coming off the object...warm the background to a temperature warmer than the object and you will no longer be able to detect radiation coming from the object unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than than of the object...how much more proof do you need?

All so called measurements of back radiation are made with instruments that are cooler than the object that is radiating.

 

[Crick]

The equation is not just looking for a correct answer...it is describing a physical process...one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.

What alteration? The Distributive Property says that both versions are identical. They both give the exact same equality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....

Do you have another example where applying the distributive property gives you an incorrect answer?
Or is this one the only?

The equation is not just looking for a correct answer...it is describing a physical process...one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.

All matter above 0K emits all the time, in all directions.
Unless you have any proof that it doesn't? Do you?

Sure..in a vacuum.

if you can prove that the original equation is incorrect...

Both equations are correct.

No..only one describes the physical law.. the other is altered without justification.

If you can prove matter doesn't emit toward warmer matter....you could collect a Nobel.

It has been proven over and over....place an instrument to measure radiation between a cool object and a cooler background and you can measure radiation coming off the object...warm the background to a temperature warmer than the object and you will no longer be able to detect radiation coming from the object unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than than of the object...how much more proof do you need?

All so called measurements of back radiation are made with instruments that are cooler than the object that is radiating.

one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.

Looking at the equation from each individual object doesn't alter anything.

Sure..in a vacuum.

I see, in an atmosphere, photons gain intelligence.
What do they do when they're going from an atmosphere to a vacuum?

warm the background to a temperature warmer than the object and you will no longer be able to detect radiation coming from the object unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than than of the object

The radiation is still coming from the object, but you can't detect it. Excellent!
If you had just admitted your original claim, the radiation ceases, was wrong, I wouldn't have continued mocking you all this time.

Thanks for finally admitting your error.

 

[SSDD]

The equation is not just looking for a correct answer...it is describing a physical process...one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.

What alteration? The Distributive Property says that both versions are identical. They both give the exact same equality.

No..the distributive property says that the answer to each equation will be the same...the physical reality was described by SB as follows:

Not as

... While they both arrive at the same answer, the physical processes they describe are quite different. The first...as notated by SB describes a one way gross flow of energy...the bastardized version describes a two way net flow of energy.....not at all the same thing. For someone who claims to be an engineer, you sure don't seem to be able to grasp even the basics. These equations describe a thing that is actually happening...it is a description of a process...if you alter the equation..you alter the process and that matters...even if it doesn't alter the value of P. It is like saying that you won the lottery and then lost the money vs you won the lottery, funded 3 educational grants in perpetuity and made bad investments and squandered the rest on liquor and cheap women...in either, you end up with no money but the processes by which you ended up with no money are quite different....the zero you end up with is only the final answer and it is the same either way, but the equations by which you ended up at zero are quite different.

The second version of the equation..the bastardized version not formulated by SB describes a different process...if you were an engineer, rather than someone who had just managed to pass a couple of algebra courses, you would know this....since you don't, you once again demonstrate that your claims of being an engineer are just more lies on your part.

 

[Crick]

"The answer to each equation"? You missed something back in 8th grade Algebra. An EQUATION, as the name strongly implies, is a statement that two expressions are equal, equivalent, of identical value and properties. The distributive law tells us that an expression of the form a(b+c) is equivalent to ab+bc. Thus the two versions of the S-B equation are identical. There is no change.

That you want to see actual physical processes in the syntax of an equation is, again, your problem. Seriously. Since the two expressions are identical, any analog they possess with a physical process is unchanged by the variation. It would be EXACTLY as proper to say one describes the physical process as the other.

The problem here, as it has been all along, is your insane interpretation of radiative heat transfer. And it is insane. All matter radiates all the time in a spectrum dependent on its temperature and no matter throttles its emissions dependent on its surroundings.

 

[SSDD]

"The answer to each equation"? You missed something back in 8th grade Algebra. An EQUATION, as the name strongly implies, is a statement that two expressions are equal, equivalent, of identical value and properties. The distributive law tells us that an expression of the form a(b+c) is equivalent to ab+bc. Thus the two versions of the S-B equation are identical. There is no change.

Sorry you apparently didn't get past the 8th grade...back then...you simply solved the equation to get an answer....out in the larger world...in physics especially, equations represent things that are actually happening in the world...and if you don't accurately represent what is happening, the answer is meaningless...the SB equations say that a thing is happening...that thing is gross one way energy transfer...the bastardized equations say a different thing...that being two way net energy transfer...one is accurate, physical, and as stated by the physical law...the other is not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The answer to each equation"? You missed something back in 8th grade Algebra. An EQUATION, as the name strongly implies, is a statement that two expressions are equal, equivalent, of identical value and properties. The distributive law tells us that an expression of the form a(b+c) is equivalent to ab+bc. Thus the two versions of the S-B equation are identical. There is no change.

Sorry you apparently didn't get past the 8th grade...back then...you simply solved the equation to get an answer....out in the larger world...in physics especially, equations represent things that are actually happening in the world...and if you don't accurately represent what is happening, the answer is meaningless...the SB equations say that a thing is happening...that thing is gross one way energy transfer...the bastardized equations say a different thing...that being two way net energy transfer...one is accurate, physical, and as stated by the physical law...the other is not.

that thing is gross one way energy transfer...

There's your error.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it wouldn't emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

 

[jc456]

"The answer to each equation"? You missed something back in 8th grade Algebra. An EQUATION, as the name strongly implies, is a statement that two expressions are equal, equivalent, of identical value and properties. The distributive law tells us that an expression of the form a(b+c) is equivalent to ab+bc. Thus the two versions of the S-B equation are identical. There is no change.

Sorry you apparently didn't get past the 8th grade...back then...you simply solved the equation to get an answer....out in the larger world...in physics especially, equations represent things that are actually happening in the world...and if you don't accurately represent what is happening, the answer is meaningless...the SB equations say that a thing is happening...that thing is gross one way energy transfer...the bastardized equations say a different thing...that being two way net energy transfer...one is accurate, physical, and as stated by the physical law...the other is not.

that thing is gross one way energy transfer...

There's your error.

so does the cold photon radiate the same as the warm photon?

And is there a temperature differential between the two?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The answer to each equation"? You missed something back in 8th grade Algebra. An EQUATION, as the name strongly implies, is a statement that two expressions are equal, equivalent, of identical value and properties. The distributive law tells us that an expression of the form a(b+c) is equivalent to ab+bc. Thus the two versions of the S-B equation are identical. There is no change.

Sorry you apparently didn't get past the 8th grade...back then...you simply solved the equation to get an answer....out in the larger world...in physics especially, equations represent things that are actually happening in the world...and if you don't accurately represent what is happening, the answer is meaningless...the SB equations say that a thing is happening...that thing is gross one way energy transfer...the bastardized equations say a different thing...that being two way net energy transfer...one is accurate, physical, and as stated by the physical law...the other is not.

that thing is gross one way energy transfer...

There's your error.

so does the cold photon radiate the same as the warm photon?

And is there a temperature differential between the two?

Photons aren't warm or cold.
Ask a question that makes sense, if you'd like an answer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it wouldn't emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the cooler Earth

 

[jc456]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it wouldn't emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the coloer Earth

Frank, i found this article on WUWT:

The Fraud of the AGHE Part 12: How to Lie with Math

"Math is True but Words can Lie
If any of you have been reading the material on Illuminism, you will know that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that this is probably something I agree with given my favorable review and presentation of that material.

However, while mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages. And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them. Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally misrepresent what the equation means. This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.

What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to."

The comments again are truly special.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it wouldn't emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the cooler Earth

Photons, not matter.
Why would a photon change direction?

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it wouldn't emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.

You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the coloer Earth

Frank, i found this article on WUWT:

The Fraud of the AGHE Part 12: How to Lie with Math

"Math is True but Words can Lie
If any of you have been reading the material on Illuminism, you will know that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that this is probably something I agree with given my favorable review and presentation of that material.

However, while mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages. And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them. Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally misrepresent what the equation means. This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.

What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to."

The comments again are truly special.

Greenhouse effect believers who apparently do not understand physics

Most of the believers here understand physics, you have the problem.

although they can do some simple math, have stated that if you fix Q in that equation,

Why would you "fix Q"?

and then increase Tcold, then Thot has to increase “in order to keep Q constant”,

When the colder object warms (and the warmer object cools), the net rate of heat transfer slows.

and “therefore cold heats up hot”.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.