What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 98887

Keep ignoring the data jc.

presented and debunked in previous threads.

Yes, your smart photons have debunked those measurements of back radiation. Sure.

Maybe you can help SSDD explain how the cooler surface of the Sun still radiates toward the hotter corona?

Or maybe post proof that it doesn't?

How do you know that it does?

The Sun's surface would be black, you know, if it's not emitting photons.

That's a damn good point

Yeah, SSDD's smart photons require lots of hoops.
The real science is much cleaner.
All matter above 0K emits in all directions.
It doesn't care the temperature of the target and it doesn't violate the 2nd Law because the hotter
emits more/faster toward the cooler, so net, energy moves from hot to cold.
We showed him the S-B Law, but he tried to build more stupid hoops.

 

[jc456]

How does a smart balling ball know how to fall toward Earth?

non sequitur

we know the effects of gravity to a very fine degree. that we cannot identify the actual force carrier is unfortunate but does not change our calculations.

we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred.

the known properties of light do not support SSDD's version of physics. bringing gravity into the discussion does nothing to add clarity or understanding of this topic.

So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knows

the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.

150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.

we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.

SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well known scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

non sequitur

we know the effects of gravity to a very fine degree. that we cannot identify the actual force carrier is unfortunate but does not change our calculations.

we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred.

the known properties of light do not support SSDD's version of physics. bringing gravity into the discussion does nothing to add clarity or understanding of this topic.

So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knows

the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.

150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.

we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.

SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

 

[jc456]

So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knows

the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.

150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.

we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.

SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.

150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.

we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.

SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It's absurd that the atmosphere, which is above 0K, can emit toward the surface?
Please explain further.

 

[jc456]

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It's absurd that the atmosphere, which is above 0K, can emit toward the surface?
Please explain further.

asked and answered.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It's absurd that the atmosphere, which is above 0K, can emit toward the surface?
Please explain further.

asked and answered.

Yes, your avoidance of actual measurements of back radiation was noted.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

 

[IanC]

non sequitur

we know the effects of gravity to a very fine degree. that we cannot identify the actual force carrier is unfortunate but does not change our calculations.

we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred.

the known properties of light do not support SSDD's version of physics. bringing gravity into the discussion does nothing to add clarity or understanding of this topic.

So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knows

the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.

150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.

we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.

SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well known scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

Judy Curry did not say there was no 'back radiation'. she said it was a non technical term. I pointed out your misunderstanding, did you not read her comment?

Sullivan made a strawman misquote, attributed it to her, and made a faulty conclusion inferred from the strawman rather than her words. Can't you think?

 

[jc456]

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It's absurd that the atmosphere, which is above 0K, can emit toward the surface?
Please explain further.

asked and answered.

Yes, your avoidance of actual measurements of back radiation was noted.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

 

[jc456]

So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knows

the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.

150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.

we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.

SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well known scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

Judy Curry did not say there was no 'back radiation'. she said it was a non technical term. I pointed out your misunderstanding, did you not read her comment?

Sullivan made a strawman misquote, attributed it to her, and made a faulty conclusion inferred from the strawman rather than her words. Can't you think?

post her comment again. You read it wrong. in other words you read into it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It's absurd that the atmosphere, which is above 0K, can emit toward the surface?
Please explain further.

asked and answered.

Yes, your avoidance of actual measurements of back radiation was noted.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

 

[jc456]

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It's absurd that the atmosphere, which is above 0K, can emit toward the surface?
Please explain further.

asked and answered.

Yes, your avoidance of actual measurements of back radiation was noted.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

 

[IanC]

the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.

150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.

we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.

SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

IR radiation from the Sun is absorbed to extinction well before it gets anywhere near the surface. try again.

 

[jc456]

well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

IR radiation from the Sun is absorbed to extinction well before it gets anywhere near the surface. try again.

I asked for her quote again. you read into it.

bTW, are you going to give your definition of back radiation ever?

 

[IanC]

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

IR radiation from the Sun is absorbed to extinction well before it gets anywhere near the surface. try again.

I asked for her quote again. you read into it.

bTW, are you going to give your definition of back radiation ever?

my personal working definition of back radiation? I have described it many times for you in the past. you are just too stupid to understand it.

first you need an atmosphere. no GHGs are necessary. the atmosphere is held aloft with stored solar energy. the energy is composed of two parts, potential energy (height of the atmosphere) and kinetic energy (speed of the molecules, also known as temperature). the ratio between kinetic and potential is constantly being swapped back and forth by molecular collisions.

molecular collisions also produce 'blackbody radiation', or 'thermal radiation' if you are offended by the first description. all objects produce radiation if they are above zero degrees Kelvin.

while the surface can only radiate upwards (the sideways component balances out), the atmosphere radiates both upwards and downwards (again, the sideways component balances out). the atmospheric radiation that travels downward is back radiation. it is giving back part of the energy it received from the surface. the net flow of energy is always up and out to space but some of the energy given to the atmosphere is returned to the surface.

got it now?

adding GHGs to the atmosphere increases the amount of energy the surface adds to the atmosphere, which in turn adds to the amount of energy returned to the surface.

 

[IanC]

I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.

Dude, you are very wrong. I merely ask for proof. I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically. IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that. Not me. Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove? You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there. And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well know scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation. BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is. you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you. What say you?

View attachment 98908

If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?

I have no idea, nor do you. It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

IR radiation from the Sun is absorbed to extinction well before it gets anywhere near the surface. try again.

I asked for her quote again. you read into it.

bTW, are you going to give your definition of back radiation ever?

you asked for her quote again? you and SSDD are the one's who posted the link! are you saying that you didnt even read it? you just read the headline?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.

It's absurd that the atmosphere, which is above 0K, can emit toward the surface?
Please explain further.

asked and answered.

Yes, your avoidance of actual measurements of back radiation was noted.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

Why can we see the surface of the Sun?

 

[Crick]

Because it chooses to be seen

 

[jc456]

asked and answered.

Yes, your avoidance of actual measurements of back radiation was noted.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

Why can we see the surface of the Sun?

Is there an actual surface?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, your avoidance of actual measurements of back radiation was noted.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

asked and answered.

Why can we see the surface of the Sun?

Is there an actual surface?

The photosphere is the visible surface of the Sun that we are most familiar with. Since the Sun is a ball of gas, this is not a solid surface but is actually a layer about 100 km thick (very, very, thin compared to the 700,000 km radius of the Sun).

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics