Does AR5 contain observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW

[jc456]

well in the troposphere, The troposphere contains all of the Earth's weather and 99 percent of its water vapor. Thickest over the equator and thinnest over the north and south poles, the troposphere contains 75 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and is largely responsible for protecting as well as insulating the planet.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

 

[jc456]

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

 

[IanC]

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

I read the PSI piece, the manufacturer's statement, and the Spencer article with the comment quoted by PSI. the evidence does not support the headline.

I would encourage everyone to read all three. I found useful information that actually improved my understanding of the topic.


SSDD left the discussion after I jumped in, I wonder why? now jc brings it up again, will he actually discuss it, or is he just happy to present the misleading headline?

 

[jc456]

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

I read the PSI piece, the manufacturer's statement, and the Spencer article with the comment quoted by PSI. the evidence does not support the headline.

I would encourage everyone to read all three. I found useful information that actually improved my understanding of the topic.


SSDD left the discussion after I jumped in, I wonder why? now jc brings it up again, will he actually discuss it, or is he just happy to present the misleading headline?

Answer my question on the upper troposphere

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

 

[jc456]

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

 

[Lewdog]

Climate change is the “biggest long-term security threat” facing the region, Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, then head of U.S. Pacific Command, said in 2013.

The Pentagon also expects to expand operations in the Arctic, the world’s fastest-warming region.

So much sea ice has melted that a northern shipping route over Russia and a northwest passage over Canada are now open to navigation and oil and gas exploitation for much of the year. Partly as a result, Russia is reopening Cold War-era military bases on its Arctic coastline.

Climate change is real: Just ask the Pentagon

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

And I stand by that.

You stand by your claim, the claim your own source disagrees with.

nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation.

It says, don't call it back radiation, call it downward radiation.

"Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources"

See, downward radiation. They're disagreeing with your claim.

I posted the quote so stop yourself

Stop showing that your own source disagrees with you? LOL!
'

 

[IanC]

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

An infrared thermometer measures temperature by detecting the infrared energy emitted by all materials which are at temperatures above absolute zero, (0°Kelvin)

Weird, because SSDD claims that often materials above 0K don't emit

1. Kirchoff’s Law When an object is at thermal equilibrium, the amount of absorption will equal the amount of emission. a = e


That's weird, how can an object at equilibrium emit and absorb at the same time?
That disagrees with SSDD too.

http://www.omega.com/temperature/Z/pdf/z063-066.pdf

Thanks for the tip.
There is even a nice drawing at this link which shows a cold object emitting toward a hot object.

You have any more links you'd like to post that also disagree with your claims?

 

[IanC]

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

An infrared thermometer measures temperature by detecting the infrared energy emitted by all materials which are at temperatures above absolute zero, (0°Kelvin)

Weird, because SSDD claims that often materials above 0K don't emit

1. Kirchoff’s Law When an object is at thermal equilibrium, the amount of absorption will equal the amount of emission. a = e


That's weird, how can an object at equilibrium emit and absorb at the same time?
That disagrees with SSDD too.

http://www.omega.com/temperature/Z/pdf/z063-066.pdf

Thanks for the tip.
There is even a nice drawing at this link which shows a cold object emitting toward a hot object.

You have any more links you'd like to post that also disagree with your claims?

I can't be sure, but I think 99.99% of any links that are appropriate to this topic disagree with his claims.

 

[jc456]

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.” [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources

Your own source disagrees.

 

[IanC]

Thanks for the link.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.

He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

 

[jc456]

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources

Your own source disagrees.

How?

 

[jc456]

Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD. I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources

Your own source disagrees.

How?

Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Much different reasons than your claim.

My claim? It's your source.

climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD. I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?

 

[jc456]

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD. I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?

A thing called the sun