Climate change

[DrDoomNGloom]

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 ................

 

[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 ................

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

Why don't you research the physics law that pertains to radiation?

Definition of PROPAGATION. : the act or action of propagating: as. a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers. b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.

Molecules are like two lasers pointed at each other. The photons leave each molecule at specific propagation of its thermal temperature and its mass (intensity). While the weak laser is fired at the other laser, the strongest laser is the one that will reach the weak one causing a reaction. This is where we get into the quantum physics of the two opposing photons (collision) and little is proven. More commonly called the Thermal Lapse Rate. This is the rate at which two bodies of near same temperature slow their cooling/warming.

Frequency propagation, how many time we gonna have to do this folks??

From wikipedia.
Category:Radio frequency propagation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Radio propagation.
All articles regarding the propagation of radio frequencies.



As per forum\ rules this is your LIE, I need a LINK to verify.

Google say's you are full of shit.

No definition exist for that term in scientific circles, it may in fear monger warmer circles.

That means the rest of that shit is just that shit out of your head with not linkable proof.


Oh and in that rambling shit you also mention thermal lapse rate, why do you morons not Google this shit before making a fool of yourselves??

From Wikipedia
Lapse rate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The lapse rate is defined as the rate at which atmospheric temperature decreases with increase in altitude. [1][2] The terminology arises from the word lapse in the sense of a decrease or decline. While most often applied to Earth's troposphere, the concept can be extended to any gravitationally supported parcel of gas.

What lie?? I suggest you quit while you can still rehabilitate yourself with some more reading. Propagation is the correct terminology to use for ANY Electro-Magnetic energy.. And guess what?? Both Radio and Light obey some of the some propagation rules and are considered both EMagnetic fields and waves.

You got a lot of "issues". And denying how the GreenHouse theory works is just one of them. Not sure WHAT links or facts you require. Spent my life working around these disciplines. You can DENY GWarrming all you want to. But you won't get any traction with just rejecting EVERYTHING that FRIENDLY folks try to tell you... Just read my sigline again and have a nice day..

BTW --- Lapse rate is thermodynamics effect -- not anything to do with Radiative Physics other than it provides a profile of atmospheric temperature and pressure that might affect how you model the thickness and concentration and heat of the atmos..

Its really hard to try and explain why two molecules of near temperature will slow each others cooling rate. Probably a bad choice on my part but given the terms he was using I thought he might get the drift... Oh well..

You are a fucking moron, see my post on heat transfer and stop spewing shit ........................

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?

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?

Funny that you would use the microwave as it actually is a good tool for teaching this subject. Place different items, of the same overall mass, in it and turn it on for the same amount of time (mimicking our sun). The amount of warming will not be the same due to the masses Infrared properties as will their time to cool in open atmosphere. This is why solar wind is so important to the earth and why lul's in solar wind allow cooling globally. This is just one area where Lief and i disagree and one that has not yet been studied well.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

 

[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.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

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.

No but you apparently are, you can read correct??

By the way , statements like the wiki is an unreliable source makes you look totally foolish!!


[Snip]
Heat transfer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heat transfer describes the exchange of thermal energy, between physical systems depending on the temperature and pressure, by dissipating heat. The fundamental modes of heat transfer are conduction or diffusion, convection and radiation.

The exchange of kinetic energy of particles through the boundary between two systems which are at different temperatures from each other or from their surroundings. Heat transfer always occurs from a region of high temperature to another region of lower temperature.


[Snip]
Heat Transfer

Heat is energy or more precisely transfer of thermal energy. As energy, heat is measured in watts (W) whilst temperature is measured in degrees Celsius (°C) or Kelvin (K).The words “hot” and “cold” only make sense on a relative basis. Thermal energy travels from hot material to cold material. Hot material heats up cold material, and cold material cools down hot material. It is really that simple. When you feel heat, what you are sensing is a transfer of thermal energy from something that's hot to something that is cold.

The discipline of heat transfer is concerned with only two things: temperature, and the flow of heat. Temperature represents the amount of thermal energy available, whereas heat flow represents the movement of thermal energy from place to place. On a microscopic scale, thermal energy is related to the kinetic energy of molecules. The greater a material’s temperature, the greater the thermal agitation of its constituent molecules (manifested both in linear motion and vibrational modes).

Heat Transfer

 

[flacaltenn]

DrDoom observes...

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

And that is true. The net transfer of heat will be from hotter to colder. The bit you're missing is that works also in the GreenHouse example. Because although there is IRed radiation coming back to the ground all the time, the NET result from that exchange with clouds and greenhouse gases, will always be the warmer earth losing heat to the cooler sky..

In the case of IRed heating there is an EXCHANGE of RF energy due to the temperatures of the objects and the net result is subtraction of the RF energy coming from the cooler one applied to the warmer stream.. Warmer still wins.

This "backradiation" from the GreenHouse is like a resistance factor that reduces the flow from the warmer object. It's just simple. Even in the Atmospheric Physic textbooks -- it is shown as simple subtraction..

Here's your "link"

There's really no need to go postal here. I'm not bullshitting you or trying to win points.. Your simpler explanations of heat flow just dont extend to ElectroMagnetic energy heating matter.
That's in the NEXT class after thermodynamics. And all those references you see in your pix referring to "kinetic energy" are about CONDUCTION of heat (or convection of heat). There is no "kinetic energy" raining down from water vapor or CO2. But yet there IS a energy transfer that RESULTS in heat at both places..

Go look up RADIATIVE heat transfers... Like HERE ---

19.3 Radiation Heat Transfer Between Planar Surfaces

and you'll see the diff..

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You really are getting to be a shuck and jive joke.

No link, some irrelevant picture with no source that does not even relate to the discussion, so you just can't do it??

Why the shuck and jive show??

Radiation Heat Transfer Between Planar Surfaces is a set of equations that cover the action of a photon of light emitted between two sheets of the same shade of gray .....................

Consider the two infinite gray surfaces shown in Figure 19.5. We suppose that the surfaces are thick enough so that

(no radiation transmitted so

). Consider a photon emitted from Surface 1 (remembering that the reflectance ):

That is a theoretical physics equations defining interactions in a conceptual scenario .......... the "two infinite gray surfaces" would be you first clue.

Has nothing to do with a point you were trying to BULL SHIT YOUR way through again though, does it??

 

[jc456]

Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).

Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.

Please provide a proper definition for "propagation" :
This Merriam Webster ..............

propagation
noun prop·a·ga·tion \ˌprä-pə-ˈgā-shən\
Definition of PROPAGATION
: the act or action of propagating: as

a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body
Which of those would you like to try and fit into this conversation.

It really is simple, a printed ACCEPTED definition that you would like to use from a reputable source.

"Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature.

Link to that assertion please.

Who mentioned "retarding net heat loss" are you thinking of some other conversation or just dancing for us??

NO, once again, objects have "heat signatures" but radiate implies to give off and the object which receives the radiation warms up.

Nope, it ain't happening and there is every scientific principle against you and zero for you.

More song and dance though, let's continue.

But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it

Optical path :

op·ti·cal
ˈäptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: optical

1. 1.
   of or relating to sight, especially in relation to the physical action of light.
   "optical illusions"
   • constructed to assist sight.
   • devised on the principles of optics.
2. 2.
   Physics
   operating in or employing the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
   "optical telescopes"

op·ti·cal path
noun
Physics
noun: optical path; plural noun: optical paths

1. the distance of the path that in a vacuum would contain the same number of wavelengths as the actual path taken by a ray of light traveling through a medium.

From Wikipedia.

Which bodies are you eluding to??

Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas. The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body, they can emit IR proportional to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...

I am being light.

You are no different than anyone else, if your story don't fly, it don't fly.

Here you want to come out and act all technically superior bur fail to realize the simple concept of cloud cover??

I guess all these scientific based results that I have been debunking your mumbo jumbo line with don't exist.


Effects of Cloud Cover on forecasted temperatures

During the day, the earth is heated by the sun. If skies are clear, more heat reaches the earth's surface (as in the diagram below). This leads to warmer temperatures.

However, if skies are cloudy, some of the sun's rays are reflected off the cloud droplets back into space. Therefore, less of the sun's energy is able to reach the earth's surface, which causes the earth to heat up more slowly. This leads to cooler temperatures.

Forecast Tip:
When forecasting daytime temperatures, if cloudy skies are expected, forecast lower temperatures than you would predict if clear skies were expected.


At night cloud cover has the opposite effect. If skies are clear, heat emitted from the earth's surface freely escapes into space, resulting in colder temperatures.

However, if clouds are present, some of the heat emitted from the earth's surface is trapped by the clouds and reemitted back towards the earth. As a result, temperatures decrease more slowly than if the skies were clear.

So one last question, based on the simple pictures above, how does this tie into your assertions??

You do realize as weather changes or just through sheer physical principles the heat still escapes just at a different rate and time.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).

Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.

Please provide a proper definition for "propagation" :
This Merriam Webster ..............

propagation
noun prop·a·ga·tion \ˌprä-pə-ˈgā-shən\
Definition of PROPAGATION
: the act or action of propagating: as

a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body
Which of those would you like to try and fit into this conversation.

It really is simple, a printed ACCEPTED definition that you would like to use from a reputable source.

"Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature.

Link to that assertion please.

Who mentioned "retarding net heat loss" are you thinking of some other conversation or just dancing for us??

NO, once again, objects have "heat signatures" but radiate implies to give off and the object which receives the radiation warms up.

Nope, it ain't happening and there is every scientific principle against you and zero for you.

More song and dance though, let's continue.

But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it

Optical path :

op·ti·cal
ˈäptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: optical

1. 1.
   of or relating to sight, especially in relation to the physical action of light.
   "optical illusions"
   • constructed to assist sight.
   • devised on the principles of optics.
2. 2.
   Physics
   operating in or employing the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
   "optical telescopes"

op·ti·cal path
noun
Physics
noun: optical path; plural noun: optical paths

1. the distance of the path that in a vacuum would contain the same number of wavelengths as the actual path taken by a ray of light traveling through a medium.

From Wikipedia.

Which bodies are you eluding to??

Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas. The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body, they can emit IR proportional to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...

I am being light.

You are no different than anyone else, if your story don't fly, it don't fly.

Here you want to come out and act all technically superior bur fail to realize the simple concept of cloud cover??

I guess all these scientific based results that I have been debunking your mumbo jumbo line with don't exist.


Effects of Cloud Cover on forecasted temperatures

During the day, the earth is heated by the sun. If skies are clear, more heat reaches the earth's surface (as in the diagram below). This leads to warmer temperatures.

However, if skies are cloudy, some of the sun's rays are reflected off the cloud droplets back into space. Therefore, less of the sun's energy is able to reach the earth's surface, which causes the earth to heat up more slowly. This leads to cooler temperatures.

Forecast Tip:
When forecasting daytime temperatures, if cloudy skies are expected, forecast lower temperatures than you would predict if clear skies were expected.


At night cloud cover has the opposite effect. If skies are clear, heat emitted from the earth's surface freely escapes into space, resulting in colder temperatures.

However, if clouds are present, some of the heat emitted from the earth's surface is trapped by the clouds and reemitted back towards the earth. As a result, temperatures decrease more slowly than if the skies were clear.

So one last question, based on the simple pictures above, how does this tie into your assertions??

You do realize as weather changes or just through sheer physical principles the heat still escapes just at a different rate and time.

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

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

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.

 

[jc456]

So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

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.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You are ignorant. You're also a troll. We are also done. Enjoy the Ignore List.

No bitch, way above your pay grade.

In this scenario, it would be more like, Professional Sports fisherman ..............

Caught at least 3 shuckers and jivers this trip out.

This thread on climate change has been entertaining for sure.

When you figure out some basic concepts like thermal flow and laws of energy conservation come on back and give your BS another shot.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??

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.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

By the way you noticed Joe there said he had posted several over the years, but could not produce one at the time.

Mind boggling thing ..................

Can we say LIAR??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are ignorant. You're also a troll. We are also done. Enjoy the Ignore List.

No bitch, way above your pay grade.

In this scenario, it would be more like, Professional Sports fisherman ..............

Caught at least 3 shuckers and jivers this trip out.

This thread on climate change has been entertaining for sure.

When you figure out some basic concepts like thermal flow and laws of energy conservation come on back and give your BS another shot.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Science magazine says you're an idiot.

 

[jc456]

I bet you run into a lot of "mumbo jumbo", don't you.

I do all the time in here.

 

[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.

 

[jc456]

Please provide a proper definition for "propagation" :
This Merriam Webster ..............

propagation
noun prop·a·ga·tion \ˌprä-pə-ˈgā-shən\
Definition of PROPAGATION
: the act or action of propagating: as

a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body
Which of those would you like to try and fit into this conversation.

It really is simple, a printed ACCEPTED definition that you would like to use from a reputable source.

Link to that assertion please.

Who mentioned "retarding net heat loss" are you thinking of some other conversation or just dancing for us??

NO, once again, objects have "heat signatures" but radiate implies to give off and the object which receives the radiation warms up.

Nope, it ain't happening and there is every scientific principle against you and zero for you.

More song and dance though, let's continue.

Optical path :

op·ti·cal
ˈäptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: optical

1. 1.
   of or relating to sight, especially in relation to the physical action of light.
   "optical illusions"
   • constructed to assist sight.
   • devised on the principles of optics.
2. 2.
   Physics
   operating in or employing the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
   "optical telescopes"

op·ti·cal path
noun
Physics
noun: optical path; plural noun: optical paths

1. the distance of the path that in a vacuum would contain the same number of wavelengths as the actual path taken by a ray of light traveling through a medium.

From Wikipedia.

Which bodies are you eluding to??


I am being light.

You are no different than anyone else, if your story don't fly, it don't fly.

Here you want to come out and act all technically superior bur fail to realize the simple concept of cloud cover??

I guess all these scientific based results that I have been debunking your mumbo jumbo line with don't exist.


Effects of Cloud Cover on forecasted temperatures

During the day, the earth is heated by the sun. If skies are clear, more heat reaches the earth's surface (as in the diagram below). This leads to warmer temperatures.

However, if skies are cloudy, some of the sun's rays are reflected off the cloud droplets back into space. Therefore, less of the sun's energy is able to reach the earth's surface, which causes the earth to heat up more slowly. This leads to cooler temperatures.

Forecast Tip:
When forecasting daytime temperatures, if cloudy skies are expected, forecast lower temperatures than you would predict if clear skies were expected.


At night cloud cover has the opposite effect. If skies are clear, heat emitted from the earth's surface freely escapes into space, resulting in colder temperatures.

However, if clouds are present, some of the heat emitted from the earth's surface is trapped by the clouds and reemitted back towards the earth. As a result, temperatures decrease more slowly than if the skies were clear.

So one last question, based on the simple pictures above, how does this tie into your assertions??

You do realize as weather changes or just through sheer physical principles the heat still escapes just at a different rate and time.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Need to clean up the aftermath of our GreenHouse discussion. All the "goodbyes"
need to be gone.. Thread remains open for the benefit of the OP and where that poster wants to take it.