Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[Toddsterpatriot]

actual data? what data exactly? can you prove it came from the atmosphere? dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times. and yet you keep introducing it. fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation when in fact, it is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation and believing that calling it net radiation makes it net radiation.

Same bullshit different day....they want their wacko views to be real so badly that they will grab any straw..no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to convince someone...anyone...they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data with instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere?

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation

It's funny that you think no radiation travels from the atmosphere to the surface, unless an instrument is cooled.
Suddenly, in that case, the atmosphere is allowed to radiate downward.

If only Einstein and Planck (or anyone) had the unique understanding of physics you do.

they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data

You seem to believe your complete lack of agreement, with any scientist, helps your claim to know more than Einstein.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none. DERP!

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist. and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads. No experiment that will validate your insane claim. None, zip. and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none.

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.

For once, you're right.
No backup exists for SSDD's silly claims.

and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Why would a cool object heat up a warm object? That's stupid.
You must not understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

don't worry about me, I don't fall for the back radiation bullcrap that plays out.

Believe me, I'm not worried about you.
You don't have to have a clue about the science, and you clearly don't, to resist the economy killing idiocy being pushed by the warmer watermelons.

I don't mind that some of my political allies are as dumb as Maxine Waters.

 

[jc456]

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation when in fact, it is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation and believing that calling it net radiation makes it net radiation.

Same bullshit different day....they want their wacko views to be real so badly that they will grab any straw..no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to convince someone...anyone...they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data with instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere?

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation

It's funny that you think no radiation travels from the atmosphere to the surface, unless an instrument is cooled.
Suddenly, in that case, the atmosphere is allowed to radiate downward.

If only Einstein and Planck (or anyone) had the unique understanding of physics you do.

they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data

You seem to believe your complete lack of agreement, with any scientist, helps your claim to know more than Einstein.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none. DERP!

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist. and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads. No experiment that will validate your insane claim. None, zip. and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none.

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.

For once, you're right.
No backup exists for SSDD's silly claims.

and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Why would a cool object heat up a warm object? That's stupid.
You must not understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

don't worry about me, I don't fall for the back radiation bullcrap that plays out.

Believe me, I'm not worried about you.
You don't have to have a clue about the science, and you clearly don't, to resist the economy killing idiocy being pushed by the warmer watermelons.

I don't mind that some of my political allies are as dumb as Maxine Waters.

Believe me, there isn't anyone in here talking back radiation that has a clue. I'm well aware of that.

especially when not one soul can present an experiment on the supposed behavior.

 

[SSDD]

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation

It's funny that you think no radiation travels from the atmosphere to the surface, unless an instrument is cooled.
Suddenly, in that case, the atmosphere is allowed to radiate downward.

If only Einstein and Planck (or anyone) had the unique understanding of physics you do.

they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data

You seem to believe your complete lack of agreement, with any scientist, helps your claim to know more than Einstein.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none. DERP!

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist. and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads. No experiment that will validate your insane claim. None, zip. and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none.

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.

For once, you're right.
No backup exists for SSDD's silly claims.

and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Why would a cool object heat up a warm object? That's stupid.
You must not understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

don't worry about me, I don't fall for the back radiation bullcrap that plays out.

Believe me, I'm not worried about you.
You don't have to have a clue about the science, and you clearly don't, to resist the economy killing idiocy being pushed by the warmer watermelons.

I don't mind that some of my political allies are as dumb as Maxine Waters.

Believe me, there isn't anyone in here talking back radiation that has a clue. I'm well aware of that.

especially when not one soul can present an experiment on the supposed behavior.

Must suck to believe so strongly in a mathematical model that you will ignore reality and every observation and measurement ever made i favor of it...and then get frustrated when you can't convince others to ignore reality right along with you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist. and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads. No experiment that will validate your insane claim. None, zip. and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none.

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.

For once, you're right.
No backup exists for SSDD's silly claims.

and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Why would a cool object heat up a warm object? That's stupid.
You must not understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

don't worry about me, I don't fall for the back radiation bullcrap that plays out.

Believe me, I'm not worried about you.
You don't have to have a clue about the science, and you clearly don't, to resist the economy killing idiocy being pushed by the warmer watermelons.

I don't mind that some of my political allies are as dumb as Maxine Waters.

Believe me, there isn't anyone in here talking back radiation that has a clue. I'm well aware of that.

especially when not one soul can present an experiment on the supposed behavior.

Must suck to believe so strongly in a mathematical model that you will ignore reality and every observation and measurement ever made i favor of it...and then get frustrated when you can't convince others to ignore reality right along with you.

It's just you against the world.
Must be lonely being smarter than Einstein.
So misunderstand.

 

[jc456]

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist. and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads. No experiment that will validate your insane claim. None, zip. and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none.

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.

For once, you're right.
No backup exists for SSDD's silly claims.

and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Why would a cool object heat up a warm object? That's stupid.
You must not understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

don't worry about me, I don't fall for the back radiation bullcrap that plays out.

Believe me, I'm not worried about you.
You don't have to have a clue about the science, and you clearly don't, to resist the economy killing idiocy being pushed by the warmer watermelons.

I don't mind that some of my political allies are as dumb as Maxine Waters.

Believe me, there isn't anyone in here talking back radiation that has a clue. I'm well aware of that.

especially when not one soul can present an experiment on the supposed behavior.

Must suck to believe so strongly in a mathematical model that you will ignore reality and every observation and measurement ever made i favor of it...and then get frustrated when you can't convince others to ignore reality right along with you.

to date, not one observation of back radiation. from anyone. The position you, I and some others in here have is far more logical based on observed global temperatures.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're an idiot and a liar. Your concepts on radiative heat transfer and the behavior or CO2 in the atmosphere are complete idiocy. Attempted to debate you on any of this violates the advice of not arguing with fools as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

And I can't help but notice that once again, rather than slap me down with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability, you retreat, as you always do to name calling, and logical fallacy. Interesting...don't you think?

None of the alarmists can produce physical evidence and how it is linked. They cite opinion without evidence as their proof. They can not differentiate conjecture and opinion from real evidence based fact.

The lot here repeats the same pseudo science papers which have no fact based linkage. Not one of Old Frauds, Rollingblunderboy, or Crick (or any one else for that matter).

Its a wide spread problem in Academia and government these days.. They believe the lies they have been spewing devoid of facts.

Every paper that is cited by the alarmists preface their 'opinion' with the words 'may', 'might', 'we believe', etc but never do they quantify how they came to their opinions or demonstrate that all other potential causes are ruled out by scientific process. Its rather amusing to read these papers they cite and run across these tell tail words and keep from laughing.

 

[jc456]

Ok, so I found this link today while wandering around the back radiation Internet, I thought I'd share it.

Harry Dale Huffman

The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage: Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

"Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.

[Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]

So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic."