Climate change

[jc456]

So you're saying that none of the Suns UV is making it through the clouds? Mmmmmm, don't think so.

NO, that is a statement you made and attributed to me, I see you are short of intelligence and comprehension.

Yep, maybe so, but I know the sea levels aren't rising, ice is still at the poles and no one has provided evidence that added CO2 to the atmosphere has increased warming. Now, I've asked and asked for it. Radiation from the upper atmosphere doesn't reach the ground. No one has provided evidence of this either.

 

[jc456]

The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions.

Greg

No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

yup

All these non scientific folks want to ramble about energy flowing from a cold molecule to a warmer molecule.

That is like saying the heater in the room gets warmed by the cooler objects in it's surroundings.

Simple concept, I am sure there is tons of accepted scientific research to illustrate and support that assertion.

If someone would just kindly provide one of those linky thingys for that it would be fucking great, especially since they keep making the same asinine assertions.

I've been asking for seventeen months, got nadda.

That is because it is a line of shuck and jive bullshit.

I have provided numerous documented sources that state heat only flows from higher concentrations to lower, can't happen the other way around.

I agree. It doesn't take a science major to know that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

InfraRed radiation is not technically heat until it is absorbed by matter. But the transfer of energy that RESULTS in heat -- obeys the laws of the thermodymanics.. Now what?? You gonna tell us the light doesn't heat matter? Or that it can't flow from cold to hot?

So you don't understand your own GW bull shit, isn't that what 0K refers to??

The THEORETICAL point in which all molecular / atomic motion stops because of no heat??

You see that being theoretical then as you folks say all things are above 0K, then all things have to have heat.

Yep, I have produced linked scientific literature that states heat only moves from greater concentrations to lower concentrations.

That is a physics law that pertains to heat exchange and no matter how much you want to get on your soap box and rant otherwise, it is true now or will always be.

I once again go to forum rules and ask for a verifiable URl linked scientific statement to back your bull shit claim.

Seen that issue before. The problem is largely an academic one. When they teach heat transfer, they don't INCLUDE Radiative transfer and propagation because that's taught in ANOTHER class on EMagnetic Fields and Waves.. You think RF energy in your microwave oven CARES if they leave an antenna that's colder or warmer than the food?

Sure they do, I was in fire sciences for 10 years, you are being laughable now ...............

You can keep spouting that word propagation, look even more ignorant every time I have to define it and you can provide no other definition.

propagation mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a propagation, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).

Makes you look really ignorant to keep beating that same dead horse.

Concerning your lame example with microwaves, you are asserting the food heats the oven / microwave emitter.

So don't plug it in and let me know how that works for you, idiot ................

Are you really this ignorant?

IF all matter radiates at its thermal value, it radiates in ALL DIRECTIONS not just in ones towards colder objects. Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

Please show us HOW these photons become smart and only radiate towards cooler objects.

Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

SSDD and JC456 don't understand this.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth, and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer and that ain't happening.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth

Do you drink a lot? One minute you say you agree that all matter above absolute zero radiates in any direction, then you say it can't radiate toward the warmer ground. So why are you disagreeing with yourself?

and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer

Surface temperatures are warmer than they would be in the absence of an atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 47480

Nice picture. Look, it shows cooler clouds emit toward the warmer surface.

Yeah, you misunderstood the picture with the clouds. You should read what it states.

It says clouds absorb some radiation emitted from the ground and re-emit back to Earth.
It doesn't say the energy never makes it. So where'd you get that idea? From poor SSDD?

So you're saying that none of the Suns UV is making it through the clouds? Mmmmmm, don't think so.

So you're saying that none of the Suns UV is making it through the clouds?

LOL! No.

It says clouds absorb some radiation emitted from the ground

Oh, there's no doubt that clouds absorb IR from the ground, but UV makes it through the clouds or it would be dark under them during daylight hours. And I wouldn't get a sunburn when it's cloudy.

Oh, there's no doubt that clouds absorb IR from the ground

And re-emit, even back toward the ground.

but UV makes it through the clouds

I don't think anyone ever claimed otherwise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

yup

All these non scientific folks want to ramble about energy flowing from a cold molecule to a warmer molecule.

That is like saying the heater in the room gets warmed by the cooler objects in it's surroundings.

Simple concept, I am sure there is tons of accepted scientific research to illustrate and support that assertion.

If someone would just kindly provide one of those linky thingys for that it would be fucking great, especially since they keep making the same asinine assertions.

I've been asking for seventeen months, got nadda.

That is because it is a line of shuck and jive bullshit.

I have provided numerous documented sources that state heat only flows from higher concentrations to lower, can't happen the other way around.

I agree. It doesn't take a science major to know that.

It doesn't take a science major to know that we're discussing radiation, not heat.

 

[jc456]

InfraRed radiation is not technically heat until it is absorbed by matter. But the transfer of energy that RESULTS in heat -- obeys the laws of the thermodymanics.. Now what?? You gonna tell us the light doesn't heat matter? Or that it can't flow from cold to hot?

So you don't understand your own GW bull shit, isn't that what 0K refers to??

The THEORETICAL point in which all molecular / atomic motion stops because of no heat??

You see that being theoretical then as you folks say all things are above 0K, then all things have to have heat.

Yep, I have produced linked scientific literature that states heat only moves from greater concentrations to lower concentrations.

That is a physics law that pertains to heat exchange and no matter how much you want to get on your soap box and rant otherwise, it is true now or will always be.

I once again go to forum rules and ask for a verifiable URl linked scientific statement to back your bull shit claim.

Seen that issue before. The problem is largely an academic one. When they teach heat transfer, they don't INCLUDE Radiative transfer and propagation because that's taught in ANOTHER class on EMagnetic Fields and Waves.. You think RF energy in your microwave oven CARES if they leave an antenna that's colder or warmer than the food?

Sure they do, I was in fire sciences for 10 years, you are being laughable now ...............

You can keep spouting that word propagation, look even more ignorant every time I have to define it and you can provide no other definition.

propagation mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a propagation, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).

Makes you look really ignorant to keep beating that same dead horse.

Concerning your lame example with microwaves, you are asserting the food heats the oven / microwave emitter.

So don't plug it in and let me know how that works for you, idiot ................

Are you really this ignorant?

IF all matter radiates at its thermal value, it radiates in ALL DIRECTIONS not just in ones towards colder objects. Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

Please show us HOW these photons become smart and only radiate towards cooler objects.

Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

SSDD and JC456 don't understand this.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth, and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer and that ain't happening.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth

Do you drink a lot? One minute you say you agree that all matter above absolute zero radiates in any direction, then you say it can't radiate toward the warmer ground. So why are you disagreeing with yourself?

and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer

Surface temperatures are warmer than they would be in the absence of an atmosphere.

Yes, and I stated it doesn't come to the surface. If IR did what you stated, why do Night goggles show an outline of a body? That vision seems to indicate it stays close to the source. Also, why wouldn't those goggles pick up IR off the ground? Or, is there another explanation?

 

[jc456]

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

yup

All these non scientific folks want to ramble about energy flowing from a cold molecule to a warmer molecule.

That is like saying the heater in the room gets warmed by the cooler objects in it's surroundings.

Simple concept, I am sure there is tons of accepted scientific research to illustrate and support that assertion.

If someone would just kindly provide one of those linky thingys for that it would be fucking great, especially since they keep making the same asinine assertions.

I've been asking for seventeen months, got nadda.

That is because it is a line of shuck and jive bullshit.

I have provided numerous documented sources that state heat only flows from higher concentrations to lower, can't happen the other way around.

I agree. It doesn't take a science major to know that.

It doesn't take a science major to know that we're discussing radiation, not heat.

Then show the evidence! Why does that seem such a complicated thing to do?

 

[jc456]

InfraRed radiation is not technically heat until it is absorbed by matter. But the transfer of energy that RESULTS in heat -- obeys the laws of the thermodymanics.. Now what?? You gonna tell us the light doesn't heat matter? Or that it can't flow from cold to hot?

So you don't understand your own GW bull shit, isn't that what 0K refers to??

The THEORETICAL point in which all molecular / atomic motion stops because of no heat??

You see that being theoretical then as you folks say all things are above 0K, then all things have to have heat.

Yep, I have produced linked scientific literature that states heat only moves from greater concentrations to lower concentrations.

That is a physics law that pertains to heat exchange and no matter how much you want to get on your soap box and rant otherwise, it is true now or will always be.

I once again go to forum rules and ask for a verifiable URl linked scientific statement to back your bull shit claim.

Seen that issue before. The problem is largely an academic one. When they teach heat transfer, they don't INCLUDE Radiative transfer and propagation because that's taught in ANOTHER class on EMagnetic Fields and Waves.. You think RF energy in your microwave oven CARES if they leave an antenna that's colder or warmer than the food?

Sure they do, I was in fire sciences for 10 years, you are being laughable now ...............

You can keep spouting that word propagation, look even more ignorant every time I have to define it and you can provide no other definition.

propagation mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a propagation, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).

Makes you look really ignorant to keep beating that same dead horse.

Concerning your lame example with microwaves, you are asserting the food heats the oven / microwave emitter.

So don't plug it in and let me know how that works for you, idiot ................

Are you really this ignorant?

IF all matter radiates at its thermal value, it radiates in ALL DIRECTIONS not just in ones towards colder objects. Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

Please show us HOW these photons become smart and only radiate towards cooler objects.

Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

SSDD and JC456 don't understand this.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth, and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer and that ain't happening.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth

Do you drink a lot? One minute you say you agree that all matter above absolute zero radiates in any direction, then you say it can't radiate toward the warmer ground. So why are you disagreeing with yourself?

and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer

Surface temperatures are warmer than they would be in the absence of an atmosphere.

Doesn't mean its based off CO2. My argument in this forum.

 

[jc456]

Toddster, you are fighting a losing battle. jc has about a third grade level of scientific understanding, and exhibits the classic Dunning-Kruger effect. There is no way that you will be able to introduce him to even basic physics.

Why does he have to? Show me the evidence. Again, why is this a difficult task?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't understand your own GW bull shit, isn't that what 0K refers to??

The THEORETICAL point in which all molecular / atomic motion stops because of no heat??

You see that being theoretical then as you folks say all things are above 0K, then all things have to have heat.

Yep, I have produced linked scientific literature that states heat only moves from greater concentrations to lower concentrations.

That is a physics law that pertains to heat exchange and no matter how much you want to get on your soap box and rant otherwise, it is true now or will always be.

I once again go to forum rules and ask for a verifiable URl linked scientific statement to back your bull shit claim.


Sure they do, I was in fire sciences for 10 years, you are being laughable now ...............

You can keep spouting that word propagation, look even more ignorant every time I have to define it and you can provide no other definition.

propagation mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a propagation, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).

Makes you look really ignorant to keep beating that same dead horse.

Concerning your lame example with microwaves, you are asserting the food heats the oven / microwave emitter.

So don't plug it in and let me know how that works for you, idiot ................

Are you really this ignorant?

IF all matter radiates at its thermal value, it radiates in ALL DIRECTIONS not just in ones towards colder objects. Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

Please show us HOW these photons become smart and only radiate towards cooler objects.

Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

SSDD and JC456 don't understand this.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth, and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer and that ain't happening.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth

Do you drink a lot? One minute you say you agree that all matter above absolute zero radiates in any direction, then you say it can't radiate toward the warmer ground. So why are you disagreeing with yourself?

and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer

Surface temperatures are warmer than they would be in the absence of an atmosphere.

Yes, and I stated it doesn't come to the surface. If IR did what you stated, why do Night goggles show an outline of a body? That vision seems to indicate it stays close to the source. Also, why wouldn't those goggles pick up IR off the ground? Or, is there another explanation?

Yes, and I stated it doesn't come to the surface

Yes, that was an amusing error on your part.

why do Night goggles show an outline of a body?

AFAIK, they amplify visible light.

Or, is there another explanation?

The explanation is, you are confused and night goggles don't disprove that radiation from the cool sky still hits the warm ground.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't understand your own GW bull shit, isn't that what 0K refers to??

The THEORETICAL point in which all molecular / atomic motion stops because of no heat??

You see that being theoretical then as you folks say all things are above 0K, then all things have to have heat.

Yep, I have produced linked scientific literature that states heat only moves from greater concentrations to lower concentrations.

That is a physics law that pertains to heat exchange and no matter how much you want to get on your soap box and rant otherwise, it is true now or will always be.

I once again go to forum rules and ask for a verifiable URl linked scientific statement to back your bull shit claim.


Sure they do, I was in fire sciences for 10 years, you are being laughable now ...............

You can keep spouting that word propagation, look even more ignorant every time I have to define it and you can provide no other definition.

propagation mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a propagation, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).

Makes you look really ignorant to keep beating that same dead horse.

Concerning your lame example with microwaves, you are asserting the food heats the oven / microwave emitter.

So don't plug it in and let me know how that works for you, idiot ................

Are you really this ignorant?

IF all matter radiates at its thermal value, it radiates in ALL DIRECTIONS not just in ones towards colder objects. Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

Please show us HOW these photons become smart and only radiate towards cooler objects.

Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.

SSDD and JC456 don't understand this.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth, and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer and that ain't happening.

I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth

Do you drink a lot? One minute you say you agree that all matter above absolute zero radiates in any direction, then you say it can't radiate toward the warmer ground. So why are you disagreeing with yourself?

and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer

Surface temperatures are warmer than they would be in the absence of an atmosphere.

Doesn't mean its based off CO2. My argument in this forum.

Doesn't mean its based off CO2.

Radiation from water vapor in the air also goes in all directions, including the warmer ground.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

JC if you are wondering why I don't respond to TTP.

I went rounds for a couple of hours with him the other day.

Another classic shuck and jive show.

When he finally got to a point he had made a fool of himself and still had no cognizant point,

He all of a sudden took my stance and acted like he was the intelligent one who had been arguing for it, instead of against it for the last few hours.

I just can not stand that level of stupidity.

Heat only travels one way, from concentrations of higher to lower.

 

[jc456]

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

yup

All these non scientific folks want to ramble about energy flowing from a cold molecule to a warmer molecule.

That is like saying the heater in the room gets warmed by the cooler objects in it's surroundings.

Simple concept, I am sure there is tons of accepted scientific research to illustrate and support that assertion.

If someone would just kindly provide one of those linky thingys for that it would be fucking great, especially since they keep making the same asinine assertions.

I've been asking for seventeen months, got nadda.

That is because it is a line of shuck and jive bullshit.

I have provided numerous documented sources that state heat only flows from higher concentrations to lower, can't happen the other way around.

I agree. It doesn't take a science major to know that.

It doesn't take a science major to know that we're discussing radiation, not heat.

Which is heat.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Note:

Well,, wouldja look at what time it is??? OP abandoned this puppy pages ago. The topic is what it was and if we all could continue this without all the violations stacking up -- we could keep the doors open..

Thread is closed...