Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[RollingThunder]

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.

Jeeeez...you are SO retarded, poop4brains! Of course he doesn't "think that". He explained the point of this fairly clearly.

Let's try to make it even simpler for you, you poor confused moron.

If you take some steel that has been heated to 3500 degrees and it is just sitting there in a crucible or something, it will immediately start to cool off, partly by conduction, traveling through whatever it is touching into the general surrounding environment, but also by radiating away heat as IR radiation, which is why molten steel at those temperatures glows white hot, then cools to red hot, and then continues to radiate heat you can feel for a long time....so, even if the steel were still almost 3500 degrees hot, if you then apply a 2000 degree propane flame to it, that won't heat it up any further, but it will slow down the rate at which the steel is cooling, which means the rate at which it is radiating or conducting heat away into a room temperature space.

Think you can manage to grasp that?

 

[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.

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

So you think you can make molten steel hotter by "adding energy" with a propane torch?

You think adding the energy from the propane torch has no effect on molten steel?
You're starting to sound a bit like SSDD.

 

[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

So you think you can make molten steel hotter by "adding energy" with a propane torch?

You think adding the energy from the propane torch has no effect on molten steel?
You're starting to sound a bit like SSDD.

For the last time: If you blow the cooler flame of a propane flame at 3000 deg C hot molten steel you will cool it down !!!! (There is no energy added)....And the combustion gas of the propane air mixture will get heated. The molten steel adds energy to the combustion gas, not the other way around.
Same thing happens in a 3000 deg tube furnace. If you blow hot air through it it will come out hotter while the furnace would cool down unless you keep heating it to stay at 3000 deg.
No f-ng way does the hot air "add" energy to the furnace !
(Btw thats exactly how they tested the SR71 skin material, with the hot air that came out of a tube furnace...which was a pipe filled with red hot steel balls & blowing highly compressed air through it at super sonic speed )
Seems to me you never seen a tube furnace, arc welder or an oxy-acetylene torch.
No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation
E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4) = - 150 W/m^2
So go ahead and solve the -150 "negative energy" for a Temperature. There is no calculator, computer, slide rule or log table that would allow you to do that.
Maybe all the above have been rigged by "denialists" and/or Russian hackers eeh?

 

[RollingThunder]

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

So you think you can make molten steel hotter by "adding energy" with a propane torch?

You think adding the energy from the propane torch has no effect on molten steel?
You're starting to sound a bit like SSDD.

For the last time: If you blow the cooler flame of a propane flame at 3000 deg C hot molten steel you will cool it down !!!! (There is no energy added)....And the combustion gas of the propane air mixture will get heated. The molten steel adds energy to the combustion gas, not the other way around.
Same thing happens in a 3000 deg tube furnace. If you blow hot air through it it will come out hotter while the furnace would cool down unless you keep heating it to stay at 3000 deg.
No f-ng way does the hot air "add" energy to the furnace !
(Btw thats exactly how they tested the SR71 skin material, with the hot air that came out of a tube furnace...which was a pipe filled with red hot steel balls & blowing highly compressed air through it at super sonic speed )
Seems to me you never seen a tube furnace, arc welder or an oxy-acetylene torch.
No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation
E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4) = - 150 W/m^2
So go ahead and solve the -150 "negative energy" for a Temperature. There is no calculator, computer, slide rule or log table that would allow you to do that.
Maybe all the above have been rigged by "denialists" and/or Russian hackers eeh?

All debunked in post #41. The poor confused retard, poop4brains, is just too stupid to comprehend what everybody else is talking about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

So you think you can make molten steel hotter by "adding energy" with a propane torch?

You think adding the energy from the propane torch has no effect on molten steel?
You're starting to sound a bit like SSDD.

For the last time: If you blow the cooler flame of a propane flame at 3000 deg C hot molten steel you will cool it down !!!! (There is no energy added)....And the combustion gas of the propane air mixture will get heated. The molten steel adds energy to the combustion gas, not the other way around.
Same thing happens in a 3000 deg tube furnace. If you blow hot air through it it will come out hotter while the furnace would cool down unless you keep heating it to stay at 3000 deg.
No f-ng way does the hot air "add" energy to the furnace !
(Btw thats exactly how they tested the SR71 skin material, with the hot air that came out of a tube furnace...which was a pipe filled with red hot steel balls & blowing highly compressed air through it at super sonic speed )
Seems to me you never seen a tube furnace, arc welder or an oxy-acetylene torch.
No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation
E= σ*(270^4 - 300^4) = - 150 W/m^2
So go ahead and solve the -150 "negative energy" for a Temperature. There is no calculator, computer, slide rule or log table that would allow you to do that.
Maybe all the above have been rigged by "denialists" and/or Russian hackers eeh?

For the last time: If you blow the cooler flame of a propane flame at 3000 deg C hot molten steel you will cool it down !!!!

Is something keeping the molten steel at 3000 C?

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

 

[SSDD]

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.

You are a first class idiot..there is no definition of diffuse that means parallel...

difffuse - verb (used with object), diffused, diffusing.
1.to pour out and spread, as a fluid.
2.to spread or scatter widely or thinly; disseminate.
3.Physics. to spread by diffusion.

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

Sorry hairball...sunlight is not parallel....and a parabolic reflector focuses diffuse radiation..and here, from wiki....parabolic reflectors can also be used to focus radiation from an isotropic source into a narrow beam...need a definition of isotropic also?

As usual...your imaginary nuclear engineering courses let you down...you don't seem to be able to get anything right hairball...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You are a first class idiot..there is no definition of diffuse that means parallel...

difffuse - verb (used with object), diffused, diffusing.
1.to pour out and spread, as a fluid.
2.to spread or scatter widely or thinly; disseminate.
3.Physics. to spread by diffusion.

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

Sorry hairball...sunlight is not parallel....and a parabolic reflector focuses diffuse radiation..and here, from wiki....parabolic reflectors can also be used to focus radiation from an isotropic source into a narrow beam...need a definition of isotropic also?

As usual...your imaginary nuclear engineering courses let you down...you don't seem to be able to get anything right hairball...

Sorry hairball...sunlight is not parallel

Why the Sun's rays that land on Earth are parallel - The further a planet is from the Sun, the smaller the arc of the Sun's rays that intercept the plant. The Earth is so far away from the Sun that for many purposes, all the Sun's rays can be considered to be parallel.

Why the Earth receives parallel rays of light from the Sun - Earthguide Online Classroom

 

[RollingThunder]

sunlight is not parallel....and a parabolic reflector focuses diffuse radiation....

A really good example of how incredibly ignorant and retarded you are, SSoooDDumb, and how horribly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect you are. You are literally too stupid and incompetent to have the mental capacity to be able to recognize how utterly moronic and mentally incompetent you actually are.

You managed to get both those bits of basic science assbackwards wrong!

Todd just showed how wrong you are about the effectively parallel nature of sunlight.

You quoted something from a Wikipedia article that you are too stupid to realize does not support your idiot claims about parabolic reflectors.....

and here, from wiki....parabolic reflectors can also be used to focus radiation from an isotropic source into a narrow beam..

Maybe you are really not all that retarded, SSoooDDumb....maybe you are a paid troll knowingly pushing lies and confusion and braindead denial.....'cause looky here, you just deliberately cherry-picked only a part of that quote from Wiki to imply that it was supporting your fraudulent and insane claim that "a parabolic reflector focuses diffuse radiation"....but you had to have read the whole thing, so....either you are too stupid to understand it...or you are a paid troll....

Here's the full quote.....

Parabolic reflectors are used to collect energy from a distant source (for example sound waves or incoming star light). Since the principles of reflection are reversible, parabolic reflectors can also be used to focus radiation from an isotropic source into a narrow beam.[1]

"Isotropic", in this case, means a point source of radiation, radiating in (almost) all directions, at the focal point of the reflector.

.....and the rest of your Wikipedia article completely contradicts your retarded nonsense.

The parabolic reflector functions due to the geometric properties of the paraboloidal shape: any incoming ray that is parallel to the axis of the dish will be reflected to a central point, or "focus". (For a geometrical proof, click here.) Because many types of energy can be reflected in this way, parabolic reflectors can be used to collect and concentrate energy entering the reflector at a particular angle. Similarly, energy radiating from the focus to the dish can be transmitted outward in a beam that is parallel to the axis of the dish.

 

[SSDD]

A really good example of how incredibly ignorant and retarded you are, SSoooDDumb, and how horribly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect you are. You are literally too stupid and incompetent to have the mental capacity to be able to recognize how utterly moronic and mentally incompetent you actually are.

Sorry thunder, you glassy eyed chanters are the ones who constantly get it wrong...Do you think that the energy reaching the outer atmosphere is the same as the energy reaching the surface of the earth?...You wackos look for something...anything that supports your claims and don't look any further and therefore fail to see that had you just gone a step or two further, your claim would have fallen apart..

Here, from wiki..your favorite source..

Diffuse sky radiation is solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface after having been scattered from the direct solar beam by molecules or suspensoids in the atmosphere. It is also called skylight, diffuse skylight, or sky radiation and is the reason for changes in the color of the sky.

So thunder...the fact remains that a parabolic reflector gathers diffuse radiation and focuses it into a narrow beam...if back radiation existed, you could not freeze water in the focal point of a parabolic reflector pointed at clear sky when the ambient temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.

 

[polarbear]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no point arguing with a bunch of retards who try and make a point that they can reheat steel after it cools off with a propane torch and that's supposed to prove that they can heat it to a higher temperature than steel that is "only" heated with an electric arc or an oxy-acetylene torch.
And the other point they are trying to make is that the solar fridge only works because it somehow ignores diffuse IR. That "somehow" is the difference between parallel and diffused e.r.
The "heat added" argument word twisting would render every cooling system used inoperable which uses a coolant above 0 deg Kelvin and their diffused light which is supposed to refuse every process to order it directionally would make it impossible to get a focused image of any object that emits or reflects light.
They live back in an age where the camera obscura was a "marvel" of technology.

Or is it back in the bronze age while the rest of us are making titanium allows for turbine blades.

No wonder you get these outlandish ideas that you can calculate a "negative energy" with the StB equation

You feel the formula only calculates energy lost? Never energy gained?

 

[RollingThunder]

A really good example of how incredibly ignorant and retarded you are, SSoooDDumb, and how horribly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect you are. You are literally too stupid and incompetent to have the mental capacity to be able to recognize how utterly moronic and mentally incompetent you actually are.

Sorry thunder, you glassy eyed chanters are the ones who constantly get it wrong...Do you think that the energy reaching the outer atmosphere is the same as the energy reaching the surface of the earth?

Pretty much yes, you poor confused moron....direct sunlight is only slightly diminished in intensity while passing through the atmosphere.

...You wackos look for something...anything that supports your claims and don't look any further and therefore fail to see that had you just gone a step or two further, your claim would have fallen apart..

Here, from wiki..your favorite source..

Diffuse sky radiation is solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface after having been scattered from the direct solar beam by molecules or suspensoids in the atmosphere. It is also called skylight, diffuse skylight, or sky radiation and is the reason for changes in the color of the sky.

LOLOLOLOL.....you are literally so stupid you don't realize that direct sunlight (with the parallel rays) is entirely different from the "diffuse sky radiation" coming from molecules of air bombarded by solar photons.

"Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time."
Why is the sky blue? - NASA

So thunder...the fact remains that a parabolic reflector gathers diffuse radiation and focuses it into a narrow beam...

Nope! Already debunked, so you are just idiotically lying...or maybe braindead.

if back radiation existed, you could not freeze water in the focal point of a parabolic reflector pointed at clear sky when the ambient temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.

Clinging to your insanity is so pathetic!

Backradiation exists in the real world.....too bad you don't.

Parabolic reflectors DON'T focus diffuse radiation from the whole sky.....something that is obvious to everyone with more than half a brain. Sorry you don't qualify.

 

[SSDD]

Pretty much yes, you poor confused moron....direct sunlight is only slightly diminished in intensity while passing through the atmosphere.

Sorry thunder, but once again...you are wrong...there is reason that were you able to expose yourself to direct sunlight above the atmosphere, you would be chicken fried in seconds and yet, here on the surface, you can bask in it all day if you like...there is a great deal of difference between the character of sunlight at the top of the atmosphere and down here on the surface...grasping at straws trying to save a failed point is classic thunder..,

...You wackos look for something...anything that supports your claims and don't look any further and therefore fail to see that had you just gone a step or two further, your claim would have fallen apart..

LOLOLOLOL.....you are literally so stupid you don't realize that direct sunlight (with the parallel rays) is entirely different from the "diffuse sky radiation" coming from molecules of air bombarded by solar photons.

And you prove again thunder that sometimes stupid just can't be fixed...you think diffused sunlight is actually coming from molecules of air? Try real hard to think, just for a second, how stupid that is.

"Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time."
Why is the sky blue? - NASA

Too bad you have no idea what that means.

So thunder...the fact remains that a parabolic reflector gathers diffuse radiation and focuses it into a narrow beam...

Nope! Already debunked, so you are just idiotically lying...or maybe braindead.

if back radiation existed, you could not freeze water in the focal point of a parabolic reflector pointed at clear sky when the ambient temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.

Clinging to your insanity is so pathetic!

Backradiation exists in the real world.....too bad you don't.

Parabolic reflectors DON'T focus diffuse radiation from the whole sky.....something that is obvious to everyone with more than half a brain. Sorry you don't qualify.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one, it is always the opposite.

There is this theory I have heard, that if they could possibly release sand particles somehwhere up in orbit, the particles could act as reflectors and block out some of the rays from the sun. I wonder if this could really be done,
but It sounds like something that would be very hard to un-do if they put too much up there.

 

[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.

It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one, it is always the opposite.

There is this theory I have heard, that if they could possibly release sand particles somehwhere up in orbit, the particles could act as reflectors and block out some of the rays from the sun. I wonder if this could really be done,
but It sounds like something that would be very hard to un-do if they put too much up there.

It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one,

No one said that. But we're discussing radiation, and all matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

 

[jc456]

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?

why would you be warmer?

 

[SSDD]

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.

It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one, it is always the opposite.

There is this theory I have heard, that if they could possibly release sand particles somehwhere up in orbit, the particles could act as reflectors and block out some of the rays from the sun. I wonder if this could really be done,
but It sounds like something that would be very hard to un-do if they put too much up there.

Until we know all there is to know about the movement of energy through the earth system, any attempt to alter it is a recipe for disaster....back in the 70's during the ice age scare, there was talk of spreading black soot over the arctic ice in an attempt to melt it and in doing so reduce the earth's albedo...and in doing so, absorb more energy from the sun to make it warmer..

 

[jc456]

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.

It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one, it is always the opposite.

There is this theory I have heard, that if they could possibly release sand particles somehwhere up in orbit, the particles could act as reflectors and block out some of the rays from the sun. I wonder if this could really be done,
but It sounds like something that would be very hard to un-do if they put too much up there.

It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one,

No one said that. But we're discussing radiation, and all matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

No one said that.

Sure you all do. you say the cooler atmosphere warms the warmer surface.

 

[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?

why would you be warmer?

I'm warmer than the walls of my house.

 

[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.

It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one, it is always the opposite.

There is this theory I have heard, that if they could possibly release sand particles somehwhere up in orbit, the particles could act as reflectors and block out some of the rays from the sun. I wonder if this could really be done,
but It sounds like something that would be very hard to un-do if they put too much up there.

It doesn't seem normal that a cooler object could possibly heat a warmer one,

No one said that. But we're discussing radiation, and all matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

No one said that.

Sure you all do. you say the cooler atmosphere warms the warmer surface.

I've never seen anyone say that.
I have heard it said that the atmosphere retains heat / slows the loss of heat to space.