Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[SSDD]

CMB is microwave and peaks at 1.9mm and by definition can not be detected by an instrument working in the SUB MILLIMETER range.

The CMB peaks at 1.1 mm, not at 1.9 mm as you said. That is within the range of the CMT telescope.

How stupid are you? I said that 1.9 is the peak radiating wavelength of CMB...Can you grasp that 1.1 is still greater than 1 millimeter? The James Clerk Maxwell telescope operates in the SUB MILLIMETER range....that means less than 1 millimeter....and in its case far far far less than 1 millimeter. It operates on two frequencies specifically 450 and 850 microns. far less than 1 millimeter. 450 microns is 0.450mm and 850 microns is 0.850mm. See the zero there before the decimal place....less than a mm therefore not capable of receiving a 1.1 mm wavelength.

So you are saying that the CMB never hit earth even though the paper is titled,
Using SCUBA to place upper limits on arcsecond-scale cosmic microwave background anisotropies at 850 μm

And you just keep on talking not even bothering to read your own references....or maybe you read them and just couldn't grasp what was being said. From the paper you referenced"

Apart from identifying well-detected sources, such data can also be mined for information about fainter sources and their correlations, as revealed through low-level fluctuations in SCUBA maps. As a first step in this direction, we analyse a small SCUBA data set as if it were obtained from a cosmic microwave background (CMB) differencing experiment.

I already pointed out that the SCUBA and SCUBA-2 bolometers, because of their extreme sensitivity to INFRARED radiation, is being used on the subtraction of the foreground and calibration of the Planck microwave background satellite...an instrument which actually does detect microwave radiation. A CMB differencing experiment is exactly that.....subtraction of the foreground. Geez guy. Give it up. The JCMT isn't in the business of microwave although they can assist groups who are.
​

They go on to say in the paper you referenced:

These results could easily be reinterpreted in terms of any other fluctuating sky signal. This is currently the best limit for these scales at high frequency, and comparable to limits at similar angular scales in the radio. Even with such a modest data set, it is possible to put a constraint on the slope of the SCUBA counts at the faint end, since even randomly distributed sources would lead to fluctuations. Future analysis of sky correlations in more extensive data sets ought to yield detections, and hence additional information on source counts and clustering.

amazing that they could look at anisotropies of the CMB without seeing the CMB at all. You better tell the authors that they are full of crap.

The authors stated exactly what they did....and it was not detecting CMB....they looked for flections in the infrared range and used them like resonance signals in an attempt to define the limits of CMB...and they stated quite clearly that their results were not iron clad...that the could EASILY be interpreted in terms of any other fluctuating sky signal. What they never said...which you simply made up was that they detected CMB with the instrument....CMB is greater than 1mm...the JCMT is a sub mm instrument.​

There are sixty five experiments in this reference that all think they saw the CMB:
List of cosmic microwave background experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Of course there are...I never said that there weren't. Did you happen to notice in that list that the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope was not listed? Of course you didn't. You are just pulling crap out of your ass and either not reading, or misinterpreting everything you reference. You will also note that there are a couple of experiments involving bolometers....if you bothered to look them up and could actually understand what they were saying, you would find that they detected evidence of a signal....not the signal itself as microwave and IR are two different things.

Can you tell me how many of them you think are full of crap too?

I don't think any of them are full of crap...you, on the other hand are so full of it that you literally spew. Unlike you, they are not claiming to have actually measured CMB, a microwave signal with a thermometer. You can measure the effects of a microwave signal with a thermometer, but not the signal itself.

 

[Wuwei]

.. they detected evidence of a signal....not the signal itself.... You can measure the effects of a microwave signal with a thermometer, but not the signal itself.

That is totally ludicrous. I, and no doubt every scientist, claims that the radiation from the CMB had to strike the telescopes in order for the CMB to be discovered. How can you possibly think otherwise.

You are saying that none of the several dozen CMB experiments detected the very cold CMB radiation using any of these detectors, or combinations,
30 bolometers,
20 HEMT,
9 Interferometers,
4 SIS detectors.

If you are actually saying that, then how on earth did the CBM get to those detectors.

 

[SSDD]

.. they detected evidence of a signal....not the signal itself.... You can measure the effects of a microwave signal with a thermometer, but not the signal itself.

That is totally ludicrous. I, and no doubt every scientist, claims that the radiation from the CMB had to strike the telescopes in order for the CMB to be discovered. How can you possibly think otherwise.

CMB itself can only be observed by an instrument that is first capable of detecting those wavelengths...and is cooled to nearly absolute zero.

If you are actually saying that, then how on earth did the CBM get to those detectors.

Note the temperatures all of the above instruments are cooled to. The instrument must be cooler than the signal it is expected to detect...like it or not, that is simply how it is.

Did you bother to go to the JCMT web site?...Did you find any claim that they detected the actual CMB signal with it?....now you are all over the board and haven't grown up enough to admit that you were dead wrong insofar as the JCMT went...it never detected the actual CMB radiation because it uses bolometers...instruments for detecting IR...not microwave.

 

[Wuwei]

Note the temperatures all of the above instruments are cooled to. The instrument must be cooler than the signal it is expected to detect...like it or not, that is simply how it is.

Suppose the instruments are all cooled to a fraction of a Kelvin. Are you saying that you would then believe that they actually received radiation from the CMB? If so the CMB radiation would have to pass through the atmosphere to get to those detectors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.. they detected evidence of a signal....not the signal itself.... You can measure the effects of a microwave signal with a thermometer, but not the signal itself.

That is totally ludicrous. I, and no doubt every scientist, claims that the radiation from the CMB had to strike the telescopes in order for the CMB to be discovered. How can you possibly think otherwise.

CMB itself can only be observed by an instrument that is first capable of detecting those wavelengths...and is cooled to nearly absolute zero.

If you are actually saying that, then how on earth did the CBM get to those detectors.

Note the temperatures all of the above instruments are cooled to. The instrument must be cooler than the signal it is expected to detect...like it or not, that is simply how it is.

Did you bother to go to the JCMT web site?...Did you find any claim that they detected the actual CMB signal with it?....now you are all over the board and haven't grown up enough to admit that you were dead wrong insofar as the JCMT went...it never detected the actual CMB radiation because it uses bolometers...instruments for detecting IR...not microwave.

CMB itself can only be observed by an instrument that is first capable of detecting those wavelengths...and is cooled to nearly absolute zero.

Some morons believe that the energy won't be emitted unless the instrument is cooled first.
Can you imagine, all this CMB flying around, for billions of years, but not toward the Earth, unless and until the CMB "knows" it can go through the warmer atmosphere and hit a colder instrument.

 

[Kosh]

Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say
Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.
The findings that make a nonsense of claims of a 'pause' in global warming


Utterly amazing! Nino enhanced warmth!!!!

This year will probably end up well into the .8c's on both surface datasets.

This has been said many tie for many years and yet when the real numbers are crunched, it does not come close to the hottest..

 

[Kosh]

So why doesn't the "global warming" Illuminati take their cause to the Chinese? After all, it's not the US who's the biggest polluter in the world, it's the Chinese.

Maybe stage a protest in Tiananamen Square? I'd really like to watch that, for the hilarity, I mean.

Or better yet, those "global warmers" should take a lesson from those Buddhist monks. They can douse themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire. Wouldn't that be dandy?

Granted, they'd be creating a pretty big "carbon footprint", but think of the lasting impression they'd make? Shit, I'll even spring for the gas and lighters. I have a credit card and I know how to use it.

Fine. You first, dumbass. China is presently the biggest polluter. However, over the last 100 years, we have been the primary polluter.

More AGW propaganda not based on reality..

 

[SSDD]

Note the temperatures all of the above instruments are cooled to. The instrument must be cooler than the signal it is expected to detect...like it or not, that is simply how it is.

Suppose the instruments are all cooled to a fraction of a Kelvin. Are you saying that you would then believe that they actually received radiation from the CMB? If so the CMB radiation would have to pass through the atmosphere to get to those detectors.

Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Note the temperatures all of the above instruments are cooled to. The instrument must be cooler than the signal it is expected to detect...like it or not, that is simply how it is.

Suppose the instruments are all cooled to a fraction of a Kelvin. Are you saying that you would then believe that they actually received radiation from the CMB? If so the CMB radiation would have to pass through the atmosphere to get to those detectors.

Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...

Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...

Now that you've admitted the "cold radiation" can pass through the warmer atmosphere to be detected by a colder sensor, you've admitted it would also be absorbed by the warmer surface.

 

[Wuwei]

Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...
Now that you've admitted the "cold radiation" can pass through the warmer atmosphere to be detected by a colder sensor, you've admitted it would also be absorbed by the warmer surface.

Yes, Also, after the CMB passes through the atmosphere it must strike the parabolic dish so that it can reflect to the detector. The dish is also at ambient temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than the CMB.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...
Now that you've admitted the "cold radiation" can pass through the warmer atmosphere to be detected by a colder sensor, you've admitted it would also be absorbed by the warmer surface.

Yes, Also, after the CMB passes through the atmosphere it must strike the parabolic dish so that it can reflect to the detector. The dish is also at ambient temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than the CMB.

He'll come back with a new claim, "If a sensor is not cooled enough to detect the CMB, it all gets reflected back into space, because if it were absorbed by warmer matter, it would violate the 2nd Law".

 

[SSDD]

Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...
Now that you've admitted the "cold radiation" can pass through the warmer atmosphere to be detected by a colder sensor, you've admitted it would also be absorbed by the warmer surface.

Yes, Also, after the CMB passes through the atmosphere it must strike the parabolic dish so that it can reflect to the detector. The dish is also at ambient temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than the CMB.

You don't seem to be grasping that the receptors on these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky. Unsurprising that you aren't though...you seem to be on par with most warmers....disregard for physical laws whether your claims can be observed or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...
Now that you've admitted the "cold radiation" can pass through the warmer atmosphere to be detected by a colder sensor, you've admitted it would also be absorbed by the warmer surface.

Yes, Also, after the CMB passes through the atmosphere it must strike the parabolic dish so that it can reflect to the detector. The dish is also at ambient temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than the CMB.

You don't seem to be grasping that the receptors on these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky. Unsurprising that you aren't though...you seem to be on par with most warmers....disregard for physical laws whether your claims can be observed or not.

these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.

Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!

 

[Wuwei]

these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.

Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!

The fact that a cold black body can radiate to the much warmer earth is an uncontroversial counterexample that shows the second law of thermodynamics can never be written as,

“Energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..” (WRONG)

It should be written as

“Heat cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..”

That, of course, allows backradiation of greenhouse gasses to be a reality.

 

[jc456]

these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.

Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!

The fact that a cold black body can radiate to the much warmer earth is an uncontroversial counterexample that shows the second law of thermodynamics can never be written as,

“Energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..” (WRONG)

It should be written as

“Heat cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..”

That, of course, allows backradiation of greenhouse gasses to be a reality.

still no evidence of backradiation. Feel free to post some up though. I do believe Judith Curry concerning backradiation.

 

[SSDD]

these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.

Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!

The fact that a cold black body can radiate to the much warmer earth is an uncontroversial counterexample that shows the second law of thermodynamics can never be written as,

“Energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..” (WRONG)

It should be written as

“Heat cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..”

That, of course, allows backradiation of greenhouse gasses to be a reality.

Is heat a form of energy...or is heat the result of energy moving from one place to another?

 

[jc456]

these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.

Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!

The fact that a cold black body can radiate to the much warmer earth is an uncontroversial counterexample that shows the second law of thermodynamics can never be written as,

“Energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..” (WRONG)

It should be written as

“Heat cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..”

That, of course, allows backradiation of greenhouse gasses to be a reality.

Is heat a form of energy...or is heat the result of energy moving from one place to another?

Alex,
da, . da, .da,

da,da,da,da,da,

da, . da, .da, .da,

da,

da,da,da,da,da,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.

Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!

The fact that a cold black body can radiate to the much warmer earth is an uncontroversial counterexample that shows the second law of thermodynamics can never be written as,

“Energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..” (WRONG)

It should be written as

“Heat cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..”

That, of course, allows backradiation of greenhouse gasses to be a reality.

still no evidence of backradiation. Feel free to post some up though. I do believe Judith Curry concerning backradiation.

still no evidence of backradiation

A few weeks ago you agreed that since all matter above 0K can emit radiation at all times in all directions that back radiation is real. Why the change?

 

[jc456]

these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.

Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!

The fact that a cold black body can radiate to the much warmer earth is an uncontroversial counterexample that shows the second law of thermodynamics can never be written as,

“Energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..” (WRONG)

It should be written as

“Heat cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..”

That, of course, allows backradiation of greenhouse gasses to be a reality.

still no evidence of backradiation. Feel free to post some up though. I do believe Judith Curry concerning backradiation.

still no evidence of backradiation

A few weeks ago you agreed that since all matter above 0K can emit radiation at all times in all directions that back radiation is real. Why the change?

it was actually back in August after looking it up. The question was do I agree all "matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths". I said yes. I believe that if you place an ice cube on a table top and light a match near it, the match will not get any cooler. If I put my hand between the ice cube and the match I will feel the cool of the cube and I will feel the heat of the match depending on where I hold my hand. The heat from the match will melt the ice cube the cold from the ice cube will not extinguish the match. So, I don't believe backradiation reaches the troposphere from the atmosphere above nor do I believe that backradiation reaches the ground from the troposphere.

And again, I'm all game to have someone prove backradiation warms the warmer air below it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.

Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!

The fact that a cold black body can radiate to the much warmer earth is an uncontroversial counterexample that shows the second law of thermodynamics can never be written as,

“Energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..” (WRONG)

It should be written as

“Heat cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..”

That, of course, allows backradiation of greenhouse gasses to be a reality.

still no evidence of backradiation. Feel free to post some up though. I do believe Judith Curry concerning backradiation.

still no evidence of backradiation

A few weeks ago you agreed that since all matter above 0K can emit radiation at all times in all directions that back radiation is real. Why the change?

it was actually back in August after looking it up. The question was do I agree all "matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths". I said yes. I believe that if you place an ice cube on a table top and light a match near it, the match will not get any cooler. If I put my hand between the ice cube and the match I will feel the cool of the cube and I will feel the heat of the match depending on where I hold my hand. The heat from the match will melt the ice cube the cold from the ice cube will not extinguish the match. So, I don't believe backradiation reaches the troposphere from the atmosphere above nor do I believe that backradiation reaches the ground from the troposphere.

And again, I'm all game to have someone prove backradiation warms the warmer air below it.

I believe that if you place an ice cube on a table top and light a match near it, the match will not get any cooler.

Of course the match gets cooler.

The heat from the match will melt the ice cube the cold from the ice cube will not extinguish the match.

It's a stupid example. You really should use one that doesn't involve combustion. Confuses the issue.


Here's a better example. On a perfectly calm 70F day, with a perfectly clear sky, what feels cooler, sitting in the shade outside under the clear sky or sitting inside your 70F house?

So, I don't believe backradiation reaches the troposphere from the atmosphere above nor do I believe that backradiation reaches the ground from the troposphere.

When the GHG molecules in the troposphere emit IR toward the ground, what stops it from reaching the ground, as you claim?

I'm all game to have someone prove backradiation warms the warmer air below it.

Why does it have to warm the air, can't it just slow down the cooling?