Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What the science says
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.the surface is a heat source powered by the hydrogen core.
And you've explained, heat doesn't go from colder to warmer.
You still didn't answer why the corona is hotter
Don't know, don't care and for the purposes of S-B, don't matter.
btw, the earth's atmosphere isn't hotter yet you believe it radiates to the surface,
The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
the sun corona radiates but not back to the surface.
The corona radiates in all directions.
the earth atmosphere radiates up.
Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
How does a rock know to fall towards the mass of the earth? How do oxygen and water know that together they can cause iron to rust? How do ice bergs know to float? When you rock back in a rocking chair, how does the chair know to bring you forward again? How does any non sentient object know what to do toddster? Do you really believe that things must know what to do rather than simply obey the laws of physics...or is a logical fallacy known as argument to ridicule really the only response you have since you clearly can't bring any real evidence to support your position to the table.
How does a warmer object know the temperature of a cooler object?
How does your "dimmer switch" version of the S-B work?
Do you really believe that things must know what to do rather than simply obey the laws of physics
They obey the laws of physics, not your silly misinterpretation of them.
Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
When was it decided that Einstein was wrong?
What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
Or Kirchoff?
This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.
Or Planck?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/14521686/
Well, what happens in a collision?except that it does not radiate toward the surface based on temperature.The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.the surface is a heat source powered by the hydrogen core.
And you've explained, heat doesn't go from colder to warmer.
You still didn't answer why the corona is hotter
Don't know, don't care and for the purposes of S-B, don't matter.
btw, the earth's atmosphere isn't hotter yet you believe it radiates to the surface,
The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
the sun corona radiates but not back to the surface.
The corona radiates in all directions.
the earth atmosphere radiates up.
Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
How, exactly, does the surface temperature affect the molecular collisions that cause the radiation but only in a fashion to stop downward photons?
THAT is a good question. When molecules collide kinetic energy from velocity is turned into potential energy by deforming the shape of the electron clouds. After the collision the clouds revert to their original shape, releasing the stored potential energy as photons, blackbody radiation photons.
This is a ridiculously simplified explanation. Other things can and do happen. The important point is that molecules bring one set of kinetic and potential energies into a collision but leave with a different set. What happens is controlled by local conditions not the temperature of some far off target.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,255
- 29,154
- 2,180
when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment. It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.the surface is a heat source powered by the hydrogen core.
You still didn't answer why the corona is hotter, btw, the earth's atmosphere isn't hotter yet you believe it radiates to the surface, the sun corona radiates but not back to the surface. hmmmm
the surface is a heat source powered by the hydrogen core.
And you've explained, heat doesn't go from colder to warmer.
You still didn't answer why the corona is hotter
Don't know, don't care and for the purposes of S-B, don't matter.
btw, the earth's atmosphere isn't hotter yet you believe it radiates to the surface,
The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
the sun corona radiates but not back to the surface.
The corona radiates in all directions.
the earth atmosphere radiates up.
Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,255
- 29,154
- 2,180
YOU are the one saying inanimate objects are aware of their surroundings numbnuts.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,255
- 29,154
- 2,180
so do the CO2 molecules hand that energy off to O and N molecules?Well, what happens in a collision?except that it does not radiate toward the surface based on temperature.The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
the earth atmosphere radiates up.
Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
How, exactly, does the surface temperature affect the molecular collisions that cause the radiation but only in a fashion to stop downward photons?
THAT is a good question. When molecules collide kinetic energy from velocity is turned into potential energy by deforming the shape of the electron clouds. After the collision the clouds revert to their original shape, releasing the stored potential energy as photons, blackbody radiation photons.
This is a ridiculously simplified explanation. Other things can and do happen. The important point is that molecules bring one set of kinetic and potential energies into a collision but leave with a different set. What happens is controlled by local conditions not the temperature of some far off target.
so do the CO2 molecules hand that energy off to O and N molecules?Well, what happens in a collision?except that it does not radiate toward the surface based on temperature.Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
How, exactly, does the surface temperature affect the molecular collisions that cause the radiation but only in a fashion to stop downward photons?
THAT is a good question. When molecules collide kinetic energy from velocity is turned into potential energy by deforming the shape of the electron clouds. After the collision the clouds revert to their original shape, releasing the stored potential energy as photons, blackbody radiation photons.
This is a ridiculously simplified explanation. Other things can and do happen. The important point is that molecules bring one set of kinetic and potential energies into a collision but leave with a different set. What happens is controlled by local conditions not the temperature of some far off target.
what is the 'that energy' you are referring to?
if it is the IR radiation absorbed by atmospheric CO2, then we must define what it is. a CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon has increased its POTENTIAL energy. it is not moving faster, which is kinetic energy. collisions redistribute energy between potential and kinetic. the excited CO2 molecule may indeed give up that extra potential energy via collision and turn it into kinetic energy. the reverse also commonly happens, atmospheric kinetic energy can be turned into potential energy by exciting a CO2 molecule.
we know that the surface radiates CO2 specific IR that is then absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. less of this IR is released from the atmosphere to space. the difference between what is produced at the surface and what is released at the top of the atmosphere, is energy that in part powers the Greenhouse Effect.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment. It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.the surface is a heat source powered by the hydrogen core.
And you've explained, heat doesn't go from colder to warmer.
You still didn't answer why the corona is hotter
Don't know, don't care and for the purposes of S-B, don't matter.
btw, the earth's atmosphere isn't hotter yet you believe it radiates to the surface,
The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
the sun corona radiates but not back to the surface.
The corona radiates in all directions.
the earth atmosphere radiates up.
Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
when there is a temperature difference to move it that way,
How does the atmosphere know when the instrument is cool enough? ESP?
It seems simple to me
Simple? It seems very complicated to me. Emitting, stopping emitting, measuring the temperature of all matter, at every point in time and space. Not very simple.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,255
- 29,154
- 2,180
why does a plant like CO2?when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment. It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
the earth atmosphere radiates up.
Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
when there is a temperature difference to move it that way,
How does the atmosphere know when the instrument is cool enough? ESP?
It seems simple to me
Simple? It seems very complicated to me. Emitting, stopping emitting, measuring the temperature of all matter, at every point in time and space. Not very simple.
Why do humans exhale CO2?
why is there gravity?
Why does your heart beat?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
why does a plant like CO2?when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment. It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
when there is a temperature difference to move it that way,
How does the atmosphere know when the instrument is cool enough? ESP?
It seems simple to me
Simple? It seems very complicated to me. Emitting, stopping emitting, measuring the temperature of all matter, at every point in time and space. Not very simple.
Why do humans exhale CO2?
why is there gravity?
Why does your heart beat?
All interesting questions that have nothing to do with your confusion on matter above 0K emitting in any and all directions.
when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment. It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.the surface is a heat source powered by the hydrogen core.
And you've explained, heat doesn't go from colder to warmer.
You still didn't answer why the corona is hotter
Don't know, don't care and for the purposes of S-B, don't matter.
btw, the earth's atmosphere isn't hotter yet you believe it radiates to the surface,
The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
the sun corona radiates but not back to the surface.
The corona radiates in all directions.
the earth atmosphere radiates up.
Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
Start giving some concrete examples of instrumentation that needs to be cooled, and documentation that the cooling is a necessary preconditon rather than just a refinement to give faster or more sensitive results.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,255
- 29,154
- 2,180
why? why don't you just prove back radiation.when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment. It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
the earth atmosphere radiates up.
Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
Start giving some concrete examples of instrumentation that needs to be cooled, and documentation that the cooling is a necessary preconditon rather than just a refinement to give faster or more sensitive results.
why? why don't you just prove back radiation.when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment. It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.Up, down and sideways.
Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.
So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
Start giving some concrete examples of instrumentation that needs to be cooled, and documentation that the cooling is a necessary preconditon rather than just a refinement to give faster or more sensitive results.
We have proved back radiation by showing you data by instruments measuring it at ambient temperatures.
You guys say we are being 'fooled by instrumentation ', yet you never give any evidence of that other than to make unsupported declarative statements that only cooled instruments can measure it, and that the radiation somehow disappears if there is nothing cool to receive it.
Start providing some evidence to back up your position. We aren't just going to take your word for it. Prove it.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,255
- 29,154
- 2,180
the evidence is you and all of your warmer buddies. CO2 went up and temperatures didn't. I don't need anything more. And yes, every ambient temperature reading was not back radiation. simply wasn't and you can't prove it was. My evidence are today's temps and today's CO2 count.why? why don't you just prove back radiation.when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment. It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.
..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.
How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?
Start giving some concrete examples of instrumentation that needs to be cooled, and documentation that the cooling is a necessary preconditon rather than just a refinement to give faster or more sensitive results.
We have proved back radiation by showing you data by instruments measuring it at ambient temperatures.
You guys say we are being 'fooled by instrumentation ', yet you never give any evidence of that other than to make unsupported declarative statements that only cooled instruments can measure it, and that the radiation somehow disappears if there is nothing cool to receive it.
Start providing some evidence to back up your position. We aren't just going to take your word for it. Prove it.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,255
- 29,154
- 2,180
huh? more CO2 and no more warming influence, your position is false just on that. mkCO2's warming influence is either there or it isn't. It is one factor out of hundreds. Even if temps were going down that would not prove CO2 was not contributing.
Your logic is false.
The temperature of the surface or atmosphere is decided by many factors taken in its entirety.
You cannot declare that CO2 is the only factor or even the main factor. If all the other factors remained the same but CO2's warming influence went up then so would the temperature. That is the warmer's position.
My position is that other factors are more important, especially in combination. The correlation between CO2 and temps was very strong for the period between 1980-2000. That is when CO2 was hardwired into the climate models. Since then the correlation has been much weaker but the input for CO2 has not been changed, they are just hoping the results will come back and show the conclusions they jumped to will again be reasonable.
While I disagree with the feedbacks, I do agree that CO2 has a warming influence. Based on principles of physics. The total change of temperature is not proof or disproof of CO2's contribution.
You cannot declare that CO2 is the only factor or even the main factor. If all the other factors remained the same but CO2's warming influence went up then so would the temperature. That is the warmer's position.
My position is that other factors are more important, especially in combination. The correlation between CO2 and temps was very strong for the period between 1980-2000. That is when CO2 was hardwired into the climate models. Since then the correlation has been much weaker but the input for CO2 has not been changed, they are just hoping the results will come back and show the conclusions they jumped to will again be reasonable.
While I disagree with the feedbacks, I do agree that CO2 has a warming influence. Based on principles of physics. The total change of temperature is not proof or disproof of CO2's contribution.
- Thread starter
- #1,338
Other factors can temporarily overwhelm greenhouse warming. But, you postulated "all the other factors remained the same". Under that condition, increasing CO2 will certainly lead to increasing temperatures. Conditions on the Earth: ENSO, PDO, etc, will add noise, but CO2's strength is in its persistence
Other factors can temporarily overwhelm greenhouse warming. But, you postulated "all the other factors remained the same". Under that condition, increasing CO2 will certainly lead to increasing temperatures. Conditions on the Earth: ENSO, PDO, etc, will add noise, but CO2's strength is in its persistence
I really wish you would quote me, in context, when you are telling other people 'what Ian said'.
your version- "all the other factors remained the same"
what I actually said - "If all the other factors remained the same"
huge difference in meaning, especially without the context.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 126
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 184
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 352
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 287
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 84
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 212
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 119
- Replies
- 69
- Views
- 435
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 178
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8513
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-