What the science says

[IanC]

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,

Omniscient photons....cool!

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

So time does or does not stop at c?

It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

Funny you should object to a model that is only a postulate based on mathematics...since your belief in back radiation, anthropogenic global warming (even to a small degree) are exactly that, and you seem willing to defend them to the death.

 

[SSDD]

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

So time does or does not stop at c?

It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.

Well, you were wrong on the most basic element of the S-B law, so pardon me if I don't take your thoughts on this topic to seriously.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

So time does or does not stop at c?

It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.

From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth

 

[Crick]

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

Funny you should object to a model that is only a postulate based on mathematics...since your belief in back radiation, anthropogenic global warming (even to a small degree) are exactly that, and you seem willing to defend them to the death.

Your contention about photons in a speed-of-light reference frame may very well be correct, but since it requires division by zero, it is not a "known" and is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Back radiation, as you've been told repeatedly, has been observed and measured on many occasions and AGW is a great deal more than a mathematical postulate, being supported by mountains of empirical data to which you simply close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and chant "nanananananan".

God, are you stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

Funny you should object to a model that is only a postulate based on mathematics...since your belief in back radiation, anthropogenic global warming (even to a small degree) are exactly that, and you seem willing to defend them to the death.

Your contention about photons in a speed-of-light reference frame may very well be correct, but since it requires division by zero, it is not a "known" and is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Back radiation, as you've been told repeatedly, has been observed and measured on many occasions and AGW is a great deal more than a mathematical postulate, being supported by mountains of empirical data to which you simply close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and chant "nanananananan".

God, are you stupid.

Right.

All we know for certain is manmade global climate warming change, or whatever you call it today: Excess Heat, etc. can only be stopped by by redistribution of wealth.

 

[IanC]

Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

So time does or does not stop at c?

It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.

From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth

hahahahaha. my point of view? what other point of view is there? the realm of speed of light entities is permanently closed off from us. we can guess at it only. in our universe light has a speed limit, both maximum and minimum, both the same.

 

[SSDD]

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

So time does or does not stop at c?

It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.

From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth

hahahahaha. my point of view? what other point of view is there? the realm of speed of light entities is permanently closed off from us. we can guess at it only. in our universe light has a speed limit, both maximum and minimum, both the same.

So now we are guessing, but when you want to make a point, you talk as if there were no guessing involved...and we know all there is to know about the properties of light.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

So time does or does not stop at c?

It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.

From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth

hahahahaha. my point of view? what other point of view is there? the realm of speed of light entities is permanently closed off from us. we can guess at it only. in our universe light has a speed limit, both maximum and minimum, both the same.

Yes, Ian, you're just a point of view. You might not the the ultimate arbiter of the Universe. Try not to be devastated

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

So time does or does not stop at c?

It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.

From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth

hahahahaha. my point of view? what other point of view is there? the realm of speed of light entities is permanently closed off from us. we can guess at it only. in our universe light has a speed limit, both maximum and minimum, both the same.

So now we are guessing, but when you want to make a point, you talk as if there were no guessing involved...and we know all there is to know about the properties of light.

It's like expecting an ant to draw up the architectural plans for the Hudson Yard development in NYC. From the ant's POV, it's just all dirt

 

[IanC]

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

Funny you should object to a model that is only a postulate based on mathematics...since your belief in back radiation, anthropogenic global warming (even to a small degree) are exactly that, and you seem willing to defend them to the death.

what is your definition of back radiation? is it something other than radiation produced by the atmosphere returning to the surface?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

Funny you should object to a model that is only a postulate based on mathematics...since your belief in back radiation, anthropogenic global warming (even to a small degree) are exactly that, and you seem willing to defend them to the death.

what is your definition of back radiation? is it something other than radiation produced by the atmosphere returning to the surface?

Downward radiation that originated from the surface...any radiation from a cooler radiator returning to its warmer source.

 

[Crick]

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The full text and data available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

A direct measurement of backradiation showing the quantified contributions of the atmosphere's various GHGs. The contention that this is all an artifact of misused instrumentation is unsupportable bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good. So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space. Well, that's a start.

Really? That's all you've got? UV interaction with the oceans has nothing to do with it? Long wave IR's inability to penetrate the skin of the water sails right over your tiny little head?

LOL So, if IR cannot penetrate the skin of water it cannot warm it? LOL So that rock that you just burned your hand on in July in the desert must have been heated by magic. LOL Because the IR did not penetrate the skin of the rock.

What a dolt. Visible and UV light warmed the rock.

IR returning from the atmosphere does not directly warm anything, it has no capacity to do work. On the other hand it does change surface conditions so that solar insolation, which is capable of doing work, can warm the surface faster and to a higher degree.

Surface temperature is dependent on both energy input and energy output. Higher atmospheric temperature means lower surface loss, a la the S-B equation.

So, Ian, what you are saying is that a photon of IR carries no energy? Truly fucking amazing. Worth a Nobel Prize.

Where have I ever said photons of any type carry no energy? That is absurd.

Temperature is a quality of macroscopic objects, warming and cooling are descriptions of temperature change.

A single particle of matter has no temperature. Only large collections of particles have a temperature, defined as the average kinetic speed of its constituents.

Warmer objects produce more photons at a higher average energy level than do cooler objects. For any interval of time the warmer object loses more energy than it gets back from the cooler object. A single photon coming from cool to warm does not increase the average energy of the warmer object because there is always more energy leaving in the other direction.

A single particle of matter has no energy? But temperature is the average of the kinetic energy of all the particles that the material is composed of. So if a single particle has kinetic energy x, and another particle has kinetic energy y, the kinetic energy of the two particle system is x + y. And the average is x + y / 2. So the temperature is x + y / 2, in whatever units you wish to measure it. But, if that is the case, then the kinetic energy of the single particle x can be measured in those same units. Therefore, the single particle does indeed have a temperature. Sheesh, pretty damned basic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nope.

If I, having less money than you, cannot accept your money (the analog of atmospheric IR not being able to do work), there is no transfer and my balance does not change. You're moving into SSSD-ville.

Wow. I knew you had a problem deciphering information from graphs but apparently you aren't so hot with word either.

The smaller amount is the atmosphere.

You guys are saying the $1.00 increases the bigger balance. I say the $1.00 is offset by the $2.00 going the other way AT THE SAME TIME. The bigger balance will always go down until it is equal with the other balance.

Also, radiation is a direct handing over of energy. Heat transfer mediated by matter is different. In that case it is like a banker middle man who tallies up the transaction and only transfers the net amount. $1.00 first turn, $0.98 (edit $0.96) next turn.....$0.00 once the balances are equal.

I really don't understand how you could confuse my position with SSDD's. SSDD thinks there is always a middleman banker even when there is no matter to mediate the exchange of energy.

Obviously both are taking place at the same time. That no work gets accomplished in the whole system is irrelevant. Work is also a net sum. IR from the colder atmosphere is absorbed by the warmer surface. If you disagree, please explain why?

Hold on a minute Bucko!!!!

You and especially Old Rocks were saying that the radiation from the atmosphere was returning to the surface and warming it! I showed you that it was NOT, and explained why.

Instead of agreeing, disagreeing, or being grateful for the explanation you have now insinuated that I said the back radiation cannot be absorbed by the surface.

You are a scumbag.

And why should we be grateful for a false argument? And your visceral reaction is an indication of immaturity.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow. I knew you had a problem deciphering information from graphs but apparently you aren't so hot with word either.

The smaller amount is the atmosphere.

You guys are saying the $1.00 increases the bigger balance. I say the $1.00 is offset by the $2.00 going the other way AT THE SAME TIME. The bigger balance will always go down until it is equal with the other balance.

Also, radiation is a direct handing over of energy. Heat transfer mediated by matter is different. In that case it is like a banker middle man who tallies up the transaction and only transfers the net amount. $1.00 first turn, $0.98 (edit $0.96) next turn.....$0.00 once the balances are equal.

I really don't understand how you could confuse my position with SSDD's. SSDD thinks there is always a middleman banker even when there is no matter to mediate the exchange of energy.

Nice analogy. I don't completely agree but it was still a nice analogy

I think you should put more effort into understanding my comments rather than finding loopholes to get around them.

no loopholes, I just don't agree there is back radiation. You know this. I complimented you because you showed how the balance of your idea works. It is a very good analogy. but I don't believe the atmosphere actually gives back any money.

the inescapable conclusion from that statement is that you disagree with the fundemental physics principle that all objects warmer than zero degrees Kelvin radiate.

the atmosphere is warmer than 0K, it does radiate, some of that radiation is in the direction of the surface. QED

I never said that objects don't radiate, I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.

And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.

 

[IanC]

Really? That's all you've got? UV interaction with the oceans has nothing to do with it? Long wave IR's inability to penetrate the skin of the water sails right over your tiny little head?

LOL So, if IR cannot penetrate the skin of water it cannot warm it? LOL So that rock that you just burned your hand on in July in the desert must have been heated by magic. LOL Because the IR did not penetrate the skin of the rock.

What a dolt. Visible and UV light warmed the rock.

IR returning from the atmosphere does not directly warm anything, it has no capacity to do work. On the other hand it does change surface conditions so that solar insolation, which is capable of doing work, can warm the surface faster and to a higher degree.

Surface temperature is dependent on both energy input and energy output. Higher atmospheric temperature means lower surface loss, a la the S-B equation.

So, Ian, what you are saying is that a photon of IR carries no energy? Truly fucking amazing. Worth a Nobel Prize.

Where have I ever said photons of any type carry no energy? That is absurd.

Temperature is a quality of macroscopic objects, warming and cooling are descriptions of temperature change.

A single particle of matter has no temperature. Only large collections of particles have a temperature, defined as the average kinetic speed of its constituents.

Warmer objects produce more photons at a higher average energy level than do cooler objects. For any interval of time the warmer object loses more energy than it gets back from the cooler object. A single photon coming from cool to warm does not increase the average energy of the warmer object because there is always more energy leaving in the other direction.

A single particle of matter has no energy? But temperature is the average of the kinetic energy of all the particles that the material is composed of. So if a single particle has kinetic energy x, and another particle has kinetic energy y, the kinetic energy of the two particle system is x + y. And the average is x + y / 2. So the temperature is x + y / 2, in whatever units you wish to measure it. But, if that is the case, then the kinetic energy of the single particle x can be measured in those same units. Therefore, the single particle does indeed have a temperature. Sheesh, pretty damned basic.

I never said an individual particle of matter has no energy, I said it has no temperature.

I have seen an estimate that the macroscopic world starts breaking down in the range of one picogram, one nanosecond. A mole is 6 x 10^23, atomic weights are in the range of 30 gms/mole therefore a picogram is roughly 10^10 particles. More than a billion particles to start providing a cohort that follows macroscopic rules due to statistical properties.

A far cry from stating one particle has a temperature as you just did.

 

[SSDD]

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The full text and data available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

A direct measurement of backradiation showing the quantified contributions of the atmosphere's various GHGs. The contention that this is all an artifact of misused instrumentation is unsupportable bullshit.

Again.. measurements taken with an instrument cooled to -80F...such measurements could not be taken with an instrument at ambient temperature because the energy would not move to a warmer instrument according to the SLoT

 

[SSDD]

LOL So, if IR cannot penetrate the skin of water it cannot warm it? LOL So that rock that you just burned your hand on in July in the desert must have been heated by magic. LOL Because the IR did not penetrate the skin of the rock.

What a dolt. Visible and UV light warmed the rock.

IR returning from the atmosphere does not directly warm anything, it has no capacity to do work. On the other hand it does change surface conditions so that solar insolation, which is capable of doing work, can warm the surface faster and to a higher degree.

Surface temperature is dependent on both energy input and energy output. Higher atmospheric temperature means lower surface loss, a la the S-B equation.

So, Ian, what you are saying is that a photon of IR carries no energy? Truly fucking amazing. Worth a Nobel Prize.

Where have I ever said photons of any type carry no energy? That is absurd.

Temperature is a quality of macroscopic objects, warming and cooling are descriptions of temperature change.

A single particle of matter has no temperature. Only large collections of particles have a temperature, defined as the average kinetic speed of its constituents.

Warmer objects produce more photons at a higher average energy level than do cooler objects. For any interval of time the warmer object loses more energy than it gets back from the cooler object. A single photon coming from cool to warm does not increase the average energy of the warmer object because there is always more energy leaving in the other direction.

A single particle of matter has no energy? But temperature is the average of the kinetic energy of all the particles that the material is composed of. So if a single particle has kinetic energy x, and another particle has kinetic energy y, the kinetic energy of the two particle system is x + y. And the average is x + y / 2. So the temperature is x + y / 2, in whatever units you wish to measure it. But, if that is the case, then the kinetic energy of the single particle x can be measured in those same units. Therefore, the single particle does indeed have a temperature. Sheesh, pretty damned basic.

I never said an individual particle of matter has no energy, I said it has no temperature.

I have seen an estimate that the macroscopic world starts breaking down in the range of one picogram, one nanosecond. A mole is 6 x 10^23, atomic weights are in the range of 30 gms/mole therefore a picogram is roughly 10^10 particles. More than a billion particles to start providing a cohort that follows macroscopic rules due to statistical properties.

A far cry from stating one particle has a temperature as you just did.

An estimate based on an untestable, unobservable, unmeasurable mathematical model so naturally to you, it becomes fact...and thereafter, you represent it as fact.

 

[IanC]

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The full text and data available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

A direct measurement of backradiation showing the quantified contributions of the atmosphere's various GHGs. The contention that this is all an artifact of misused instrumentation is unsupportable bullshit.

Again.. measurements taken with an instrument cooled to -80F...such measurements could not be taken with an instrument at ambient temperature because the energy would not move to a warmer instrument according to the SLoT

I certainly don't read all the threads, and often don't read all the comments in the ones I do peruse so I cannot vouch that you have never posted up evidence that IR detectors need to be cooled to work.

So far any instruments I have checked into use ambient temperature. I have heard references to machines that are cooled to increase sensitivity or reduce response time but not as a prerequisite for the method to work.

I invite you to prove your seemingly unsupported declarative statement that IR cannot be measured except by cooled instruments. Perhaps you could give us the general range of IR that necessitates going from liquid nitrogen to liquid hydrogen as a coolant, as an example. TIA