What the science says

[social philosopher]

I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe, and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.

Maybe you can help us out. Can you please post a repeatable lab experiment that shows the temperature difference between an atmosphere with 280PPM of CO2 and 400PPM?

Thanks a bunch!

I'd be happy to help you out. Which way did you come in?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe, and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.

Maybe you can help us out. Can you please post a repeatable lab experiment that shows the temperature difference between an atmosphere with 280PPM of CO2 and 400PPM?

Thanks a bunch!

I'd be happy to help you out. Which way did you come in?

In through the Out Door

 

[SSDD]

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

According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances.

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that carries force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.

The point is, Ian, that there is no more back radiation than there is back conduction or back convection...from a photon's point of view, it is already in contact with the place it is going....there is no back conduction because the energy is moving from warm towards cool along a constant temperature gradient...the same is true for the photon because from its point of view, it is already at its location...it doesn't need to decide to go to the cooler region any more than energy conducting along the temperature gradient in a heated bar of steel needs to decide to move towards the cooler region...some force is acting upon it...causing it to move towards the cooler region whether we can describe what that force is or not.

 

[jc456]

Just the end of your nose my friend.

??????

 

[SSDD]

I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe, and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.

Maybe you can help us out. Can you please post a repeatable lab experiment that shows the temperature difference between an atmosphere with 280PPM of CO2 and 400PPM?

Thanks a bunch!

I'd be happy to help you out. Which way did you come in?

Hell, I don't even need an experiment showing such a specific result...I would be happy with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....got any?

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.
so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate? You've never explained that. are those the smart photons you speak of? If the object emits, it emits. you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process. How?

so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.

SSDD imagines the colder object only absorbs, doesn't emit.
That would require smart photons. In the real world, both objects emit. No smart photons needed.

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

and so? are you saying they collide?

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process.

and so? are you saying they collide?

No.

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process

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

^
Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Edit: slows the loss of heat? That is what emitting is? so you're saying it slows the emitting process, Derp

oh so you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits. so the warm object emits more, I agree. And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object. The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own. Or don't you know that?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink? It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object. It doesn't slow it down, it speeds it up. So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface. It is the heat-sink.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.
so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate? You've never explained that. are those the smart photons you speak of? If the object emits, it emits. you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process. How?

so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.

SSDD imagines the colder object only absorbs, doesn't emit.
That would require smart photons. In the real world, both objects emit. No smart photons needed.

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

and so? are you saying they collide?

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process.

and so? are you saying they collide?

No.

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process

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

^
Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Edit: slows the loss of heat? That is what emitting is? so you're saying it slows the emitting process, Derp

oh so you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits. so the warm object emits more, I agree. And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object. The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own. Or don't you know that?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink? It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object. It doesn't slow it down, it speeds it up. So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface. It is the heat-sink.

Edit:slows the loss of heat?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

so you're saying it slows the emitting process

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.

Yup. So?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?

Yes. Yes.

It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.

Yes. Yes.

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

It is the heat-sink.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

 

[jc456]

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.
so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate? You've never explained that. are those the smart photons you speak of? If the object emits, it emits. you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process. How?

so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.

SSDD imagines the colder object only absorbs, doesn't emit.
That would require smart photons. In the real world, both objects emit. No smart photons needed.

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

and so? are you saying they collide?

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process.

and so? are you saying they collide?

No.

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process

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

^
Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Edit: slows the loss of heat? That is what emitting is? so you're saying it slows the emitting process, Derp

oh so you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits. so the warm object emits more, I agree. And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object. The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own. Or don't you know that?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink? It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object. It doesn't slow it down, it speeds it up. So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface. It is the heat-sink.

Edit:slows the loss of heat?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

so you're saying it slows the emitting process

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.

Yup. So?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?

Yes. Yes.

It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.

Yes. Yes.

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

It is the heat-sink.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,

Can you prove that?

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

than it would with nothing nearby.

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate. The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

And has no affect.

Yup. So?

Yup and so?

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away,

How does it do that? I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface. Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.

SSDD imagines the colder object only absorbs, doesn't emit.
That would require smart photons. In the real world, both objects emit. No smart photons needed.

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

and so? are you saying they collide?

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process.

and so? are you saying they collide?

No.

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process

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

^
Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Edit: slows the loss of heat? That is what emitting is? so you're saying it slows the emitting process, Derp

oh so you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits. so the warm object emits more, I agree. And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object. The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own. Or don't you know that?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink? It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object. It doesn't slow it down, it speeds it up. So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface. It is the heat-sink.

Edit:slows the loss of heat?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

so you're saying it slows the emitting process

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.

Yup. So?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?

Yes. Yes.

It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.

Yes. Yes.

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

It is the heat-sink.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,

Can you prove that?

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

than it would with nothing nearby.

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate. The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

And has no affect.

Yup. So?

Yup and so?

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away,

How does it do that? I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface. Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

Can you prove that?

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Hence, no back radiation.

DERP!

How does it do that?

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.

 

[jc456]

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

and so? are you saying they collide?

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process.

and so? are you saying they collide?

No.

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process

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

^
Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Edit: slows the loss of heat? That is what emitting is? so you're saying it slows the emitting process, Derp

oh so you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits. so the warm object emits more, I agree. And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object. The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own. Or don't you know that?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink? It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object. It doesn't slow it down, it speeds it up. So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface. It is the heat-sink.

Edit:slows the loss of heat?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

so you're saying it slows the emitting process

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.

Yup. So?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?

Yes. Yes.

It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.

Yes. Yes.

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

It is the heat-sink.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,

Can you prove that?

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

than it would with nothing nearby.

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate. The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

And has no affect.

Yup. So?

Yup and so?

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away,

How does it do that? I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface. Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

Can you prove that?

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Hence, no back radiation.

DERP!

How does it do that?

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.


Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object. That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here. Still no evidence to your point. Still waiting.

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it.

DERP!

Back at ya.

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

CO2 is though.

Like suction?
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
no moisture correct.

No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?
huh?

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.
to hold the heat in by conduction, convection and gravity. yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat. that isn't possible. and you can't validate that either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and so? are you saying they collide?

No.

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process

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

^
Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.

Edit: slows the loss of heat? That is what emitting is? so you're saying it slows the emitting process, Derp

oh so you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits. so the warm object emits more, I agree. And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object. The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own. Or don't you know that?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink? It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object. It doesn't slow it down, it speeds it up. So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface. It is the heat-sink.

Edit:slows the loss of heat?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

so you're saying it slows the emitting process

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.

Yup. So?

Ever hear of heat-sink? Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?

Yes. Yes.

It makes the hotter object cooler. Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.

Yes. Yes.

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

It is the heat-sink.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,

Can you prove that?

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

than it would with nothing nearby.

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate. The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

And has no affect.

Yup. So?

Yup and so?

So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.

Nope.

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away,

How does it do that? I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface. Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?

Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

Can you prove that?

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Hence, no back radiation.

DERP!

How does it do that?

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.


Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object. That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here. Still no evidence to your point. Still waiting.

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it.

DERP!

Back at ya.

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

CO2 is though.

Like suction?
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
no moisture correct.

No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?
huh?

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.
to hold the heat in by conduction, convection and gravity. yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat. that isn't possible. and you can't validate that either.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here.

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

CO2 is though.

CO2 is a good conductor?

nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink

What force is forcing heat upward?

no moisture correct.

Water vapor is a green house gas?

yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

 

[SSDD]

However, that said, I do believe, and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. .

Got the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is increasing the global temperature?....didn't think so.

 

[Crick]

We have tons of observed, measured, quantified, empirical (to use four different terms to indicate the same thing) evidence that man is responsible for the warming we've observed. You've been shown most of it, but you reject it without valid cause (actually, for the cause of your prejudice). So, let's not waste our time here.

The world is getting warmer. That is not the result of some vast conspiracy among those collecting and processing temperature data. The most likely cause (by a very large margin) is greenhouse warming acting on the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere created by human emissions and deforestation. You and yours have never found any other cause that survives examination. You've made a dozen desperate attempts to take this one down, desperate enough to completely ignore a dozen basic scientific facts.

 

[SSDD]

We have tons of observed, measured, quantified, empirical (to use four different terms to indicate the same thing) evidence that man is responsible for the warming we've observed. You've been shown most of it, but you reject it without valid cause (actually, for the cause of your prejudice). So, let's not waste our time here.

Sorry guy..not the first bit and what you have posted as such evidence is only evidence that you are about as stupid as a box of rocks and don't have the first idea what actual evidence might look like.

The world is getting warmer.

And that is something new.....how? The world is always getting warmer or cooler...and the changes we are seeing and have been seeing for the past couple of centuries aren't even close to the limits of natural variability.

The most likely cause (by a very large margin) is greenhouse warming acting on the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere created by human emissions and deforestation.

I believe that is what you believe with as much fervor as any religious zealot could manage...but you have no more actual evidence to support your belief than flat earth's had to support theirs.

You and yours have never found any other cause that survives examination. You've made a dozen desperate attempts to take this one down, desperate enough to completely ignore a dozen basic scientific facts.

One does not have to have a proven cause in order to point out that the claimed cause is 100% bullshit. Hell crick, there isn't even any quantitive, measured evidence of a greenhouse effect...much less a greenhouse effect enhanced by CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have tons of observed, measured, quantified, empirical (to use four different terms to indicate the same thing) evidence that man is responsible for the warming we've observed. You've been shown most of it, but you reject it without valid cause (actually, for the cause of your prejudice). So, let's not waste our time here.

Sorry guy..not the first bit and what you have posted as such evidence is only evidence that you are about as stupid as a box of rocks and don't have the first idea what actual evidence might look like.

The world is getting warmer.

And that is something new.....how? The world is always getting warmer or cooler...and the changes we are seeing and have been seeing for the past couple of centuries aren't even close to the limits of natural variability.

The most likely cause (by a very large margin) is greenhouse warming acting on the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere created by human emissions and deforestation.

I believe that is what you believe with as much fervor as any religious zealot could manage...but you have no more actual evidence to support your belief than flat earth's had to support theirs.

You and yours have never found any other cause that survives examination. You've made a dozen desperate attempts to take this one down, desperate enough to completely ignore a dozen basic scientific facts.

One does not have to have a proven cause in order to point out that the claimed cause is 100% bullshit. Hell crick, there isn't even any quantitive, measured evidence of a greenhouse effect...much less a greenhouse effect enhanced by CO2.

there isn't even any quantitive, measured evidence of a greenhouse effect...much less a greenhouse effect enhanced by CO2.

Smart photon iz smart!

 

[IanC]

The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself. You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit. Your only response is that it is another unknowable. Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances.

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that carries force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.

A photon exiting the Sun is subject to heat. Isn't heat a force?

?????

Not following you. The hydrogen and helium at the Sun's surface are hot and give off photons to get rid of energy. Once the photon is emitted it travels until it interacts with another bit of matter. What force do you think is acting upon it?

You're asking a question that probably has no answer to your satisfaction. Like others here, you seem to know EVERYTHING about energy! Congratulations!

In your example, in our space-time, the emitted photon will continue to travel to space-time that is cooler than the area it just left. Again, this is our limited 5 senses version of what we think we're seeing. Traveling at the speed of light, the photon itself does not experience time at all; it's here AND there all at once. Makes no logical sense to me at all, but I'm sure you understand that completely, because again, you know everything

wow! did not expect such a whiney response from you. buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

the type we have been talking about are radiative photons, that shed energy, have a colour. IR, visible, UV etc. they are created by the internal conditions of the bit of matter that emits them. paid in full at the time of creation.

reactive photons carry the force in electric or magnetic fields. they can be attractive or repulsive. they have no 'colour'. more than just that, they need both an emitter AND a receptor to exist. this is where the no time and no distance reference frame comes into play. a bit of matter that is electrically or magnetically active 'borrows' energy to form a virtual photon capable of carrying the electric or magnetic force. because a photon exists in all space along its trajectory it knows whether it will find a partner to swap force with (and in which direction), and the energy is paid and the photon becomes real. if no partner is found then the virtual photon simply ceases to exist after the incredibly short time interval that The Uncertainty Principle allows the energy to be borrowed for.

is it possible that all types of photons start off as virtual photons and only come into existence if they find a partner? sure. but radiative photons interact with most types of matter and there is no tag that displays temperature on any bit of matter. temperature is a meaningless concept for just one bit of matter. temperature is a description of the average kinetic speed of a large collection of bits of matter, within a proscribed locale. the individual bits in that locale have a wide range of speeds. So....does the photon have to not only pick out the right temperature object to hit, but the particle that is also travelling at the right speed as well?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The emitted photon is also subject to a force

really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances.

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that carries force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.

A photon exiting the Sun is subject to heat. Isn't heat a force?

?????

Not following you. The hydrogen and helium at the Sun's surface are hot and give off photons to get rid of energy. Once the photon is emitted it travels until it interacts with another bit of matter. What force do you think is acting upon it?

You're asking a question that probably has no answer to your satisfaction. Like others here, you seem to know EVERYTHING about energy! Congratulations!

In your example, in our space-time, the emitted photon will continue to travel to space-time that is cooler than the area it just left. Again, this is our limited 5 senses version of what we think we're seeing. Traveling at the speed of light, the photon itself does not experience time at all; it's here AND there all at once. Makes no logical sense to me at all, but I'm sure you understand that completely, because again, you know everything

wow! did not expect such a whiney response from you. buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

the type we have been talking about are radiative photons, that shed energy, have a colour. IR, visible, UV etc. they are created by the internal conditions of the bit of matter that emits them. paid in full at the time of creation.

reactive photons carry the force in electric or magnetic fields. they can be attractive or repulsive. they have no 'colour'. more than just that, they need both an emitter AND a receptor to exist. this is where the no time and no distance reference frame comes into play. a bit of matter that is electrically or magnetically active 'borrows' energy to form a virtual photon capable of carrying the electric or magnetic force. because a photon exists in all space along its trajectory it knows whether it will find a partner to swap force with (and in which direction), and the energy is paid and the photon becomes real. if no partner is found then the virtual photon simply ceases to exist after the incredibly short time interval that The Uncertainty Principle allows the energy to be borrowed for.

is it possible that all types of photons start off as virtual photons and only come into existence if they find a partner? sure. but radiative photons interact with most types of matter and there is no tag that displays temperature on any bit of matter. temperature is a meaningless concept for just one bit of matter. temperature is a description of the average kinetic speed of a large collection of bits of matter, within a proscribed locale. the individual bits in that locale have a wide range of speeds. So....does the photon have to not only pick out the right temperature object to hit, but the particle that is also travelling at the right speed as well?

If it worked as you proposed, that the photon traveled at random without any regards to the temperature, then shouldn't they be taking these random paths and landing on the dark side of Earth and Moon as well. If nothing compels them to move from warmer to cooler, if they're all random, they should change directions and land on the dark sides

 

[IanC]

really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances.

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that carries force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.

A photon exiting the Sun is subject to heat. Isn't heat a force?

?????

Not following you. The hydrogen and helium at the Sun's surface are hot and give off photons to get rid of energy. Once the photon is emitted it travels until it interacts with another bit of matter. What force do you think is acting upon it?

You're asking a question that probably has no answer to your satisfaction. Like others here, you seem to know EVERYTHING about energy! Congratulations!

In your example, in our space-time, the emitted photon will continue to travel to space-time that is cooler than the area it just left. Again, this is our limited 5 senses version of what we think we're seeing. Traveling at the speed of light, the photon itself does not experience time at all; it's here AND there all at once. Makes no logical sense to me at all, but I'm sure you understand that completely, because again, you know everything

wow! did not expect such a whiney response from you. buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

the type we have been talking about are radiative photons, that shed energy, have a colour. IR, visible, UV etc. they are created by the internal conditions of the bit of matter that emits them. paid in full at the time of creation.

reactive photons carry the force in electric or magnetic fields. they can be attractive or repulsive. they have no 'colour'. more than just that, they need both an emitter AND a receptor to exist. this is where the no time and no distance reference frame comes into play. a bit of matter that is electrically or magnetically active 'borrows' energy to form a virtual photon capable of carrying the electric or magnetic force. because a photon exists in all space along its trajectory it knows whether it will find a partner to swap force with (and in which direction), and the energy is paid and the photon becomes real. if no partner is found then the virtual photon simply ceases to exist after the incredibly short time interval that The Uncertainty Principle allows the energy to be borrowed for.

is it possible that all types of photons start off as virtual photons and only come into existence if they find a partner? sure. but radiative photons interact with most types of matter and there is no tag that displays temperature on any bit of matter. temperature is a meaningless concept for just one bit of matter. temperature is a description of the average kinetic speed of a large collection of bits of matter, within a proscribed locale. the individual bits in that locale have a wide range of speeds. So....does the photon have to not only pick out the right temperature object to hit, but the particle that is also travelling at the right speed as well?

If it worked as you proposed, that the photon traveled at random without any regards to the temperature, then shouldn't they be taking these random paths and landing on the dark side of Earth and Moon as well. If nothing compels them to move from warmer to cooler, if they're all random, they should change directions and land on the dark sides

Now you're just trying to hide by acting stupid.

Everyone knows light travels in a straight line.

 

[Crick]

jc, where did you get the idea that photons were "compelled" to travel from warmer to cooler? Oh, wait, let me guess.

SSSD

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A photon exiting the Sun is subject to heat. Isn't heat a force?

?????

Not following you. The hydrogen and helium at the Sun's surface are hot and give off photons to get rid of energy. Once the photon is emitted it travels until it interacts with another bit of matter. What force do you think is acting upon it?

You're asking a question that probably has no answer to your satisfaction. Like others here, you seem to know EVERYTHING about energy! Congratulations!

In your example, in our space-time, the emitted photon will continue to travel to space-time that is cooler than the area it just left. Again, this is our limited 5 senses version of what we think we're seeing. Traveling at the speed of light, the photon itself does not experience time at all; it's here AND there all at once. Makes no logical sense to me at all, but I'm sure you understand that completely, because again, you know everything

wow! did not expect such a whiney response from you. buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

the type we have been talking about are radiative photons, that shed energy, have a colour. IR, visible, UV etc. they are created by the internal conditions of the bit of matter that emits them. paid in full at the time of creation.

reactive photons carry the force in electric or magnetic fields. they can be attractive or repulsive. they have no 'colour'. more than just that, they need both an emitter AND a receptor to exist. this is where the no time and no distance reference frame comes into play. a bit of matter that is electrically or magnetically active 'borrows' energy to form a virtual photon capable of carrying the electric or magnetic force. because a photon exists in all space along its trajectory it knows whether it will find a partner to swap force with (and in which direction), and the energy is paid and the photon becomes real. if no partner is found then the virtual photon simply ceases to exist after the incredibly short time interval that The Uncertainty Principle allows the energy to be borrowed for.

is it possible that all types of photons start off as virtual photons and only come into existence if they find a partner? sure. but radiative photons interact with most types of matter and there is no tag that displays temperature on any bit of matter. temperature is a meaningless concept for just one bit of matter. temperature is a description of the average kinetic speed of a large collection of bits of matter, within a proscribed locale. the individual bits in that locale have a wide range of speeds. So....does the photon have to not only pick out the right temperature object to hit, but the particle that is also travelling at the right speed as well?

If it worked as you proposed, that the photon traveled at random without any regards to the temperature, then shouldn't they be taking these random paths and landing on the dark side of Earth and Moon as well. If nothing compels them to move from warmer to cooler, if they're all random, they should change directions and land on the dark sides

Now you're just trying to hide by acting stupid.

Everyone knows light travels in a straight line.

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler