Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[SSDD]

If by "most people attribute this to the sun" then you're running with a crowd of hermits. Most people attribute this to carbon dioxide produced by humans burning coal and petroleum. We CAN do something about it, but it is going to take a big effort and it is going to take time. If we do NOT do anything about it, its going to be very bad for our children and theirs.

Guess you blissfully unaware that over 100 papers from 2016 alone provide a strong ling between solar forcing and climate change...guess in your insulated glassy eyed chanting cult bubble, reality doesn't steal its way in very often.

 

[SSDD]

The Oregon Petition makes no statement about heat gain by backradiation and makes absolutely no attempt to verify that signers are what they say they are. As far as a survey go, it's complete ratshit. And if you think even the bogus numbers on the petition are a significant sample of the world's engineers, you need a reality check.

I didn't say that it did...and you wackos have put a great deal of effort into the oregon portion and found a dozen or so fakes among over 30,000 signatories...

And few actual engineers believe back radiation actually exists, and certainly couldn't heat anything otherwise, engineers would find some way to put all that energy to use...alas, they can't, and they haven't because it doesn't exist. it is no more than a pie in the sky verse of your endless glassy eyed chant.

 

[Crick]

So, you can't find any engineers or scientists stating that backradiation causes no surface heating. Got it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Why is this fraudulent bullshit thread....which was completely debunked in post #10....still limping along, going nowhere?

Your drivel got debunked, you lying denier cult cretins, so get over it already!

 

[SSDD]

So, you can't find any engineers or scientists stating that backradiation causes no surface heating. Got it.

And you can't find the first piece of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that it does...why would I need to find anyone who says that it doesn't....and again, the tens of thousands of scientists on the oregon petition disagree with your minority of scientists who CLAIM, without the first piece of actual evidence that it does.

 

[Crick]

I'm afraid the responsibility of a demonstration would be on your shoulders. Backradiation has been directly observed. The contention that radiation could be absorbed by a surface but not raise its temperature violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. You're an ignorant fool and your conceptions of science basics are blithering nonsense.

 

[SSDD]

I'm afraid the responsibility of a demonstration would be on your shoulders. Backradiation has been directly observed. The contention that radiation could be absorbed by a surface but not raise its temperature violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. You're an ignorant fool and your conceptions of science basics are blithering nonsense.

No crick...due to your very limited education, you have been fooled by instrumentation into believing that back radiation has been directly observed...no discrete band of radiation from any of the so called greenhouse gasses has ever been measured coming from the atmosphere with an instrument at ambient temperature...such measurements have only been made with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere...therefore, they are not measurements of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface...they are measurements of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler surface....a great deal of what you call evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis is nothing more than evidence of how easily climate scientists are fooled by instrumentation..

 

[Crick]

Backradiation has been measured directly. Your contentions regarding radiative heat transfer are complete nonsense. You are the fool.

 

[mamooth]

There is an easier experiment than that polar bear....take a solar oven ( I can provide plans to easily build one that works nicely...the cost of materials is about $20)....put a thermometer at the focal point and point the disk towards clear open sky...watch the temperature drop. If the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere were reality, the temperature would not be dropping.

No, totally wrong.

A parabolic reflector such as the solar oven only focuses parallel radiation, such as that coming from a distant near-point source like the sun. Backradiation is diffuse, hence the solar oven won't focus it.

That's high school level physics. You don't even rise to that level. It's impressive how you manage to fail so completely at every single branch of science. You're like a renaissance man of failure. If you say anything on any topic, it's likely that the exact opposite is true.

 

[SSDD]

There is an easier experiment than that polar bear....take a solar oven ( I can provide plans to easily build one that works nicely...the cost of materials is about $20)....put a thermometer at the focal point and point the disk towards clear open sky...watch the temperature drop. If the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere were reality, the temperature would not be dropping.

No, totally wrong.

A parabolic reflector such as the solar oven only focuses parallel radiation, such as that coming from a distant near-point source like the sun. Backradiation is diffuse, hence the solar oven won't focus it.

That's high school level physics. You don't even rise to that level. It's impressive how you manage to fail so completely at every single branch of science. You're like a renaissance man of failure. If you say anything on any topic, it's likely that the exact opposite is true.

You clearly didn't pass high school physics...this time, you demonstrate that you have no idea what diffuse radiation is...Sunlight itself reaching the surface is known as diffuse sky radiation...and the parabolic reflector gathers that diffuse radiation and focuses it into a narrow beam which could be called parallel.

Just to test your harebrained hypothesis, hairball, I set my solar oven up a few minutes ago, pointed it at clear sky and predictably, the temperature started dropping...I then held a radiant heater 8 feet above the reflector...a heater designed to very efficiently diffuse heat...the temperature stopped dropping almost immediately.

Then just to test my conclusions...I brought the reflector into the garage, and aimed it at my radiant heater 15 feet away...the temperature at the focal point predictably started increasing.

If backradiation were a reality, the temperature at the focal point of the reflector would not drop and you certainly could not freeze water at that focal point when the ambient temperature is in the 40's. Like it or not, that is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that back radiation is not happening...

 

[polarbear]

There is an easier experiment than that polar bear....take a solar oven ( I can provide plans to easily build one that works nicely...the cost of materials is about $20)....put a thermometer at the focal point and point the disk towards clear open sky...watch the temperature drop. If the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere were reality, the temperature would not be dropping.

No, totally wrong.

A parabolic reflector such as the solar oven only focuses parallel radiation, such as that coming from a distant near-point source like the sun. Backradiation is diffuse, hence the solar oven won't focus it.

That's high school level physics. You don't even rise to that level. It's impressive how you manage to fail so completely at every single branch of science. You're like a renaissance man of failure. If you say anything on any topic, it's likely that the exact opposite is true.

"failing completely at every branch of science"...Speaking for yourself aren't you
High school level physics would not teach that thermal imaging is impossible.

Only a bozo like you would claim that objects emit parallel IR.
The entire field of view in a solar fridge is the reflector and is the background the interior of the solar fridge is radiating it's IR into. If the field of view includes a higher # of watts per the area of the reflector, the solar fridge will obey the StB law accordingly, no matter if the IR is diffused or parallel.
Reading back the warmer's favorite question to you: Where else would these photons go?
Not long ago you argued that the all the down dwelling CO2 IR has to be added to the energy an absorber has to emit....and not just that but an entire radiation echo series. Would that be parallel IR now?
No matter what the subject is you go way beyond reduction ad absurdum into absurdumb

 

[flacaltenn]

Not long ago you argued that the all the down dwelling CO2 IR has to be added to the energy an absorber has to emit....and not just that but an entire radiation echo series. Would that be parallel IR now?

It's just optical propagation. In an Atmos Physics book the problem is presented as an atmos that radiates as a surface parallel to the ground. And at the FAR FIELD of a diffuse emitter -- that's an OK 'first approximation". But you're right, if it's not a "far field" simplication, any realistic IR surface is not truely parallel.. Cheap handheld IR thermometers have "optics" that can give different angles of acceptance for different spatial accuracy of objects at distances.

BTW -- the results from that 1st approximation in the Atmos Physic books -- gives a number that's VERY close to the generally accepted 1.1DegC/CO2 doubling (or somewhere in the range of 3.5W/m2).

 

[RollingThunder]

In the real world beyond the borders of Dumbfuck Denierstan.....

The Atmosphere’s Energy Budget
NASA
Just as the incoming and outgoing energy at the Earth’s surface must balance, the flow of energy into the atmosphere must be balanced by an equal flow of energy out of the atmosphere and back to space. Satellite measurements indicate that the atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy equivalent to 59 percent of the incoming solar energy. If the atmosphere is radiating this much, it must be absorbing that much. Where does that energy come from?

Clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and ozone directly absorb 23 percent of incoming solar energy. Evaporation and convection transfer 25 and 5 percent of incoming solar energy from the surface to the atmosphere. These three processes transfer the equivalent of 53 percent of the incoming solar energy to the atmosphere. If total inflow of energy must match the outgoing thermal infrared observed at the top of the atmosphere, where does the remaining fraction (about 5-6 percent) come from? The remaining energy comes from the Earth’s surface.

Natural Greenhouse Effect
Just as the major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight, they are also transparent to outgoing thermal infrared. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy. Remember that the surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction—a net 5-6 percent of incoming solar energy—is transferred to the atmosphere when greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy radiated by the surface.

The atmosphere radiates the equivalent of 59% of incoming sunlight back to space as thermal infrared energy, or heat. Where does the atmosphere get its energy? The atmosphere directly absorbs about 23% of incoming sunlight, and the remaining energy is transferred from the Earth’s surface by evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation (a net of 5-6%). The remaining thermal infrared energy from the surface (12%) passes through the atmosphere and escapes to space. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Astronaut photograph ISS017-E-13859.)

When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.

Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.

Effect on Surface Temperature
The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.

On average, 340 watts per square meter of solar energy arrives at the top of the atmosphere. Earth returns an equal amount of energy back to space by reflecting some incoming light and by radiating heat (thermal infrared energy). Most solar energy is absorbed at the surface, while most heat is radiated back to space by the atmosphere. Earth's average surface temperature is maintained by two large, opposing energy fluxes between the atmosphere and the ground (right)—the greenhouse effect. NASA illustration by Robert Simmon, adapted from Trenberth et al. 2009, using CERES flux estimates provided by Norman Loeb.)

Why doesn’t the natural greenhouse effect cause a runaway increase in surface temperature? Remember that the amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than its temperature rises—outgoing energy increases with the fourth power of temperature. As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow, then, is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).

Some of the heat escapes directly to space, and the rest is transferred to higher and higher levels of the atmosphere, until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the amount of incoming solar energy. Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant (which depends only on Earth’s distance from the Sun and very small variations during the solar cycle), the natural greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in surface temperature on Earth.[/FONT]

 

[mamooth]

You clearly didn't pass high school physics...this time, you demonstrate that you have no idea what diffuse radiation is...Sunlight itself reaching the surface is known as diffuse sky radiation...

Don't try to weasel out of your hilariously stupid physics failure by switching definitions of "diffuse". I made it clear I was using a definition of diffuse that means "parallel". You're now switching to a different defnition of "diffuse". Highly dishonest of you, as usual.

To avoid confusion, don't use the word "diffuse". Use the words "scattered" and "parallel". A parabolic reflector only focuses parallel radiation. Backradiation is scattered, not parallel, so it's not focused.

then held a radiant heater 8 feet above the reflector...a heater designed to very efficiently diffuse heat...the temperature stopped dropping almost immediately.

So you aimed a near point source of heat into the oven, and it warmed up. Duh. What did you expect? Holy shit, you're stupid.

Oh, nice switcharoo to an entirely different definition of diffuse. You're skilled at that kind of deception.

If backradiation were a reality, the temperature at the focal point of the reflector would not drop and you certainly could not freeze water at that focal point when the ambient temperature is in the 40's. Like it or not, that is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that back radiation is not happening...

This isn't a discussion. This is you getting schooled on how basic phsyics works. Parabolic reflectors only focus parallel radiation, they don't focus scattered radiation, so they won't focus backradiation. Raging about your failure won't change that. You're just wrong.

 

[mamooth]

High school level physics would not teach that thermal imaging is impossible

No, only deniers teach that. After all, your side says photons from a cold sky can't touch a warmer object, and therefore IR imaging cameras are impossible. Given that those cameras exist, maybe you should take that as a clue that your claims are totally wrong.

Only a bozo like you would claim that objects emit parallel IR.

That's obviously not true for most objects. Interestingly, it is true for the solar oven.

The entire field of view in a solar fridge is the reflector and is the background the interior of the solar fridge is radiating it's IR into.

As you seem to need help, let me explain how the solar oven works.

Parallel reflectors work in two ways. They focus incoming parallel radiation on to the focal point/line, and they take radiation coming out from the focal point and send it out as a parallel beam. I take it you understand searchlights send out parallel beams, right?

Point the oven at a cold sky, there's no parallel radiation coming in, so it's not focusing anything, while it is spitting out a little IR energy. Energy out is more than energy in, so there's some cooling at the focal point. Only a tiny amount, though, and it will be swamped by ambient heat leaking in unless you're very careful.

If the field of view includes a higher # of watts per the area of the reflector, the solar fridge will obey the StB law accordingly, no matter if the IR is diffused or parallel

All matter always radiates according to the S-B law. You just implied the S-B law is turned off in certain situations. Your theory needs work.

Reading back the warmer's favorite question to you: Where else would these photons go?

I can't figure out what you're talking about, and I doubt anyone else can.

Not long ago you argued that the all the down dwelling CO2 IR has to be added to the energy an absorber has to emit....and not just that but an entire radiation echo series. Would that be parallel IR now?

Nor can I figure out what that is supposed to mean.

No matter what the subject is you go way beyond reduction ad absurdum into absurdumb

No matter what the subject is, you're consistently terrible at communicating your point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
Since 7/10 th of the earth surface is water and air at 400 ppm is available and free it is very easy to prove that
All it takes is 2 soda cans filled with water, one hot an another one cold, take note of the room temperature and observe the heat transfer.
Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to 30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec) in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.
With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2
I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2
Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.

Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one.

What about people who say matter above 0K radiates in all directions,
even if the target is warmer than the emitter?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
Since 7/10 th of the earth surface is water and air at 400 ppm is available and free it is very easy to prove that
All it takes is 2 soda cans filled with water, one hot an another one cold, take note of the room temperature and observe the heat transfer.
Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to 30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec) in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.
With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2
I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2
Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.

Anybody who thinks energy can move from colder to warmer media did not take any chemistry ever, neither in high school nor in college.

Funny !!

Anybody who thinks energy can move from colder to warmer media

The walls in my house don't send photons toward me, because I'm warmer?

 

[polarbear]

The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
Since 7/10 th of the earth surface is water and air at 400 ppm is available and free it is very easy to prove that
All it takes is 2 soda cans filled with water, one hot an another one cold, take note of the room temperature and observe the heat transfer.
Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to 30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec) in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.
With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2
I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2
Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.

Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one.

What about people who say matter above 0K radiates in all directions,
even if the target is warmer than the emitter?

What about them?
It's one thing to radiate, but absorbing it and heating a mass with it is another thing.
Are you saying that a mass that radiates more heat than it absorbs is warming instead of cooling?
Are you saying you can heat the steal with a propane torch to an even higher temperature while you are welding with an arc welder?
Or heat a ladle of molten steel with a blow dryer?
Just because you insist using the StB equation in a way it was never intended.
E= σ*300^4 tells you only how much E is radiated by a 300 deg K body into a 0 deg Kelvin environment.
E(tr)= σ*(300^4 - 270^4) tells you how much E is radiated by a 300 deg K body into a 270 deg K environment.
But you are saying there is energy transferred from the 270 K to the 300 K body...and that would be the part of the E=σ*270^4 which the steradian m^2 of the 300 K body happens to be absorbing.
And while you applied the StB equation you ignored that it can only radiate that much against a 0 deg K steradian area not against a 300 deg K area.
What you really are implying is that there is such a process that can radiate according to an equation which would be: E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4) and came up with the negative energy these paranormal investigators use as proof that ghosts exist

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
Since 7/10 th of the earth surface is water and air at 400 ppm is available and free it is very easy to prove that
All it takes is 2 soda cans filled with water, one hot an another one cold, take note of the room temperature and observe the heat transfer.
Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to 30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec) in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.
With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2
I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2
Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.

Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one.

What about people who say matter above 0K radiates in all directions,
even if the target is warmer than the emitter?

What about them?
It's one thing to radiate, but absorbing it and heating a mass with it is another thing.
Are you saying that a mass that radiates more heat than it absorbs is warming instead of cooling?
Are you saying you can heat the steal with a propane torch to an even higher temperature while you are welding with an arc welder?
Or heat a ladle of molten steel with a blow dryer?
Just because you insist using the StB equation in a way it was never intended.
E= σ*300^4 tells you only how much E is radiated by a 300 deg K body into a 0 deg Kelvin environment.
E(tr)= σ*(300^4 - 270^4) tells you how much E is radiated by a 300 deg K body into a 270 deg K environment.
But you are saying there is energy transferred from the 270 K to the 300 K body...and that would be the part of the E=σ*270^4 which the steradian m^2 of the 300 K body happens to be absorbing.
And while you applied the StB equation you ignored that it can only radiate that much against a 0 deg K steradian area not against a 300 deg K area.
What you really are implying is that there is such a process that can radiate according to an equation which would be: E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4) and came up with the negative energy these paranormal investigators use as proof that ghosts exist

It's one thing to radiate, but absorbing it and heating a mass with it is another thing.

Matter that absorbs energy warms up. Pretty simple stuff.

Are you saying that a mass that radiates more heat than it absorbs is warming instead of cooling?

No.
I would say that a mass that is absorbing energy cools more slowly than a mass that is not absorbing energy.

Are you saying you can heat the steal with a propane torch to an even higher temperature while you are welding with an arc welder?

Adding energy doesn't heat it up? You'll have to explain your logic here.

But you are saying there is energy transferred from the 270 K to the 300 K body...and that would be the part of the E=σ*270^4 which the steradian m^2 of the 300 K body happens to be absorbing.

Yes, the energy sent from the 270K body to the 300K body is the reason for the slowed net energy loss from the 300K body.

The energy loss is NOT slowed by the 300K body dialing back its emission.

What you really are implying is that there is such a process that can radiate according to an equation which would be: E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4) and came up with the negative energy

The negative result is the net energy loss by the cooler object. A "negative loss" would be the energy gained by the cooler object.

 

[polarbear]

The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
Since 7/10 th of the earth surface is water and air at 400 ppm is available and free it is very easy to prove that
All it takes is 2 soda cans filled with water, one hot an another one cold, take note of the room temperature and observe the heat transfer.
Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to 30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec) in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.
With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2
I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2
Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.

Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one.

What about people who say matter above 0K radiates in all directions,
even if the target is warmer than the emitter?

What about them?
It's one thing to radiate, but absorbing it and heating a mass with it is another thing.
Are you saying that a mass that radiates more heat than it absorbs is warming instead of cooling?
Are you saying you can heat the steal with a propane torch to an even higher temperature while you are welding with an arc welder?
Or heat a ladle of molten steel with a blow dryer?
Just because you insist using the StB equation in a way it was never intended.
E= σ*300^4 tells you only how much E is radiated by a 300 deg K body into a 0 deg Kelvin environment.
E(tr)= σ*(300^4 - 270^4) tells you how much E is radiated by a 300 deg K body into a 270 deg K environment.
But you are saying there is energy transferred from the 270 K to the 300 K body...and that would be the part of the E=σ*270^4 which the steradian m^2 of the 300 K body happens to be absorbing.
And while you applied the StB equation you ignored that it can only radiate that much against a 0 deg K steradian area not against a 300 deg K area.
What you really are implying is that there is such a process that can radiate according to an equation which would be: E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4) and came up with the negative energy these paranormal investigators use as proof that ghosts exist

It's one thing to radiate, but absorbing it and heating a mass with it is another thing.

Matter that absorbs energy warms up. Pretty simple stuff.

Are you saying that a mass that radiates more heat than it absorbs is warming instead of cooling?

No.
I would say that a mass that is absorbing energy cools more slowly than a mass that is not absorbing energy.

Are you saying you can heat the steal with a propane torch to an even higher temperature while you are welding with an arc welder?

Adding energy doesn't heat it up? You'll have to explain your logic here.

But you are saying there is energy transferred from the 270 K to the 300 K body...and that would be the part of the E=σ*270^4 which the steradian m^2 of the 300 K body happens to be absorbing.

Yes, the energy sent from the 270K body to the 300K body is the reason for the slowed net energy loss from the 300K body.

The energy loss is NOT slowed by the 300K body dialing back its emission.

What you really are implying is that there is such a process that can radiate according to an equation which would be: E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4) and came up with the negative energy

The negative result is the net energy loss by the cooler object. A "negative loss" would be the energy gained by the cooler object.

So you think you can make molten steel hotter by "adding energy" with a propane torch?
If you can't understand that the cooler air/propane flame < 2000 C cools down the steel that's been heated with a ~ 3500 C oxy-acetylene torch then there is no way I want to waste any more time on you.
Go in a welding shop and tell them what you just told me. They might come up with better choice of words
than I could for ????? hollywood movie welders like you. I'm just guessing you must have seen that being done in one of these idiotic movies