First direct observation of carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface

[Crick]

That same spectrum is NOT emitted by other gases. How do you think gas spectrometers work hotshot?

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 37430

O2, Ozone, Water Vapor, NO2 are just a few. So which ones were being registered on the sensors that were cooled below 78K? All of the gasses are much warmer than that, so all will emit toward the sensor.

Billy Boob, I really don't know how you can come across as more stupid than you already have. There very graph you posted shows the gases emit and absorb on at differant wavelengths. And here is a more specific paper on the very subject;
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

 

[jc456]

View attachment 37430

O2, Ozone, Water Vapor, NO2 are just a few. So which ones were being registered on the sensors that were cooled below 78K? All of the gasses are much warmer than that, so all will emit toward the sensor.

Billy Boob, I really don't know how you can come across as more stupid than you already have. There very graph you posted shows the gases emit and absorb on at differant wavelengths. And here is a more specific paper on the very subject;
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

hmmm, seems to back Billy's post. Doh!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

That same spectrum is NOT emitted by other gases. How do you think gas spectrometers work hotshot?

You really do not understand what it was they were measuring do you. In order for the sensors to detect the photon being emitted they must be cooled below the temperature of the emitting molecule. If the sensor was warmer it would not detect them.

Next we must know the wave length we are tying to detect. I posted the wave length (spectral chart) a few posts back. We are looking at the Up Welling portion of the spectrum where black-body radiation is emitted. Each molecule will emit in 360 X 360 degree direction aberrantly, thus only about 0-30% will be re-emitted toward the earth. It was precisely these photons they were looking for. (erroneously called back radiation)

Each of these photons were vibrating at a specific frequency, that of the emitting molecules temperature. In the spectral chart I have placed a box showing the spectrum they were looking at.

Every one of these gases and water vapor emit at the bandwidth they were looking at. 7-15um. So what was it they were really measuring? water vapor trumps CO2 by a factor of 10 and even if they narrow banded the sensor to 12-15um how did they discern what was emitted by water vapor and what was emitted by CO2?

 

[mamooth]

Billy, that was a rambling disjointed mess that didn't come close to approaching a point.

But tell us more about the magic photons that won't touch the detector if the detector is warmer. How does the detector molecule know the temperature of the emitting molecule, given that the emitting molecule can emit over a wide spectrum? That is, a warmer molecule might spit out a lower energy photon, while a colder molecule might spit out a higher energy photon.

How does the receiving molecule know which photon came from which molecule? You're going to need to quantify that if you want that Nobel Prize for overturning all the physics of the past century.

 

[Old Rocks]

Seems we went through this same idiocy a while back with another ignoramous.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old Crock and Mampuke Two clueless left wing activist shills...

 

[jc456]

That same spectrum is NOT emitted by other gases. How do you think gas spectrometers work hotshot?

You really do not understand what it was they were measuring do you. In order for the sensors to detect the photon being emitted they must be cooled below the temperature of the emitting molecule. If the sensor was warmer it would not detect them.

Next we must know the wave length we are tying to detect. I posted the wave length (spectral chart) a few posts back. We are looking at the Up Welling portion of the spectrum where black-body radiation is emitted. Each molecule will emit in 360 X 360 degree direction aberrantly, thus only about 0-30% will be re-emitted toward the earth. It was precisely these photons they were looking for. (erroneously called back radiation)

Each of these photons were vibrating at a specific frequency, that of the emitting molecules temperature. In the spectral chart I have placed a box showing the spectrum they were looking at.

View attachment 37495

Every one of these gases and water vapor emit at the bandwidth they were looking at. 7-15um. So what was it they were really measuring? water vapor trumps CO2 by a factor of 10 and even if they narrow banded the sensor to 12-15um how did they discern what was emitted by water vapor and what was emitted by CO2?

Billy,

I received a direct mail from SSDD, he has been watching this thread and was confident you'd be able to answer mantooth's posts accurately. I'm sure he'll be back in here when he finishes up with his private affairs. He did hand off one link to me that he felt would contribute to your thoughts.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why can t radiation from a cold body make a hot body hotter

Simply put, your statement that the temperature of the sensor did need to be colder than the atmosphere in order to read any backradiation was spot on. Read the article, it was posted on hockey schtick's web site.

Bottom line, colder objects cannot make warm objects warmer. Mantooth, what say you? can cold objects make warm objects warmer?

 

[mamooth]

Bottom line, colder objects can't make warm objects warmer, but they can and do make warmer objects cool less quickly. That's entirely in compliance with both the 2nd law and quantum mechanics. In contrast, the theory of SSDD/jc/Billy wildly violates quantum mechanics and causality.

jc, since you've jumped in, why don't you give it a stab? Billy is clearly flustered, and is just pouting now.

Suppose a red star and a blue star make up a binary star system. The blue star is much hotter than the red star, so according to your SkyDragonSlayers cult's theory, the red star can't add energy to the blue star.

Explain for us how that process works. Is it your claim that:

A. The red star, being an intelligent entity, chooses not to radiate towards the blue star.

or

B. The energy of the red star, upon striking the blue star, vanishes into a mystery dimension, wildly violating conservation of energy.

If you've got a different explanation, lay it on us. Again, your SkyDragonSlayer cult is going to have to give detailed explanations of how the cult's theories works if they want that Nobel Prize.

 

[haissem123]

you can not convince a morons of anything they don't want to believe. stupid is as stupid does

 

[SSDD]

Bottom line, colder objects can't make warm objects warmer, but they can and do make warmer objects cool less quickly. That's entirely in compliance with both the 2nd law and quantum mechanics. In contrast, the theory of SSDD/jc/Billy wildly violates quantum mechanics and causality.

jc, since you've jumped in, why don't you give it a stab? Billy is clearly flustered, and is just pouting now.

Suppose a red star and a blue star make up a binary star system. The blue star is much hotter than the red star, so according to your SkyDragonSlayers cult's theory, the red star can't add energy to the blue star.

Explain for us how that process works. Is it your claim that:

A. The red star, being an intelligent entity, chooses not to radiate towards the blue star.

or

B. The energy of the red star, upon striking the blue star, vanishes into a mystery dimension, wildly violating conservation of energy.

If you've got a different explanation, lay it on us. Again, your SkyDragonSlayer cult is going to have to give detailed explanations of how the cult's theories works if they want that Nobel Prize.

You are to stupid for words mammoth...here is your answer although it is probable that you can't even begin to wrap your small mind around it.

And finally, think of the way that the universe is experienced by a photon. A photon travels at the speed of light and so time is infinitely dilated and space is infinitely shrunk. A photon quite literally exists outside of space and time as we know it. It doesn’t experience time, and it doesn’t experience space!

Just apply the Lorentz relativity equations with the subject in question being a photon, traveling at the speed of light ‘c‘. The equations directly say that neither time nor space is experienced by a photon. A photon has no distance to travel as far as it is concerned, since there is no space because all spatial length is infinitely contracted, and it has no time to experience because time has come to a complete stand-still with infinite time dilation.

So a photon has no distance to travel, in no time – from its perspective, and we have to grant it its own perspective as per relativity theory. And so, under these conditions, a photon essentially does know what its destination is like and so radiative transfer of heat energy can be limited to the same rules as physical-contact flows such as with conduction.......now the question is...do you believe in back convection and back conduction as well as back radiation?.

 

[mamooth]

Wow, that was stupid.

The SkyDragonSlayer train of logic goes:

A. Photons don't experience time.

Therefore ....

B. My pet theory about photons is true.

It makes no attempt to show how the conclusion derives from the premise. As is the case with all of their pseudoscience, the SkyDragonSlayers wave their hands around and hope nobody notices they're making stupid crap up.

 

[peach174]

It supports what I have been saying all along.
More trees and plants rather than forcing higher prices in energy.
From the report;
The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface. They found that CO2-attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.
Which is what Earth is doing naturally when the Ice caps melt and more green foliage appears.
We should be focusing on replanting the rain Forrest in South America.
In the mean time we will eventually have technology in 10 or 20 years that will replace oil and coal in the future.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bottom line, colder objects can't make warm objects warmer, but they can and do make warmer objects cool less quickly. That's entirely in compliance with both the 2nd law and quantum mechanics. In contrast, the theory of SSDD/jc/Billy wildly violates quantum mechanics and causality.

jc, since you've jumped in, why don't you give it a stab? Billy is clearly flustered, and is just pouting now.

Suppose a red star and a blue star make up a binary star system. The blue star is much hotter than the red star, so according to your SkyDragonSlayers cult's theory, the red star can't add energy to the blue star.

Explain for us how that process works. Is it your claim that:

A. The red star, being an intelligent entity, chooses not to radiate towards the blue star.

or

B. The energy of the red star, upon striking the blue star, vanishes into a mystery dimension, wildly violating conservation of energy.

If you've got a different explanation, lay it on us. Again, your SkyDragonSlayer cult is going to have to give detailed explanations of how the cult's theories works if they want that Nobel Prize.

You are to stupid for words mammoth...here is your answer although it is probable that you can't even begin to wrap your small mind around it.

And finally, think of the way that the universe is experienced by a photon. A photon travels at the speed of light and so time is infinitely dilated and space is infinitely shrunk. A photon quite literally exists outside of space and time as we know it. It doesn’t experience time, and it doesn’t experience space!

Just apply the Lorentz relativity equations with the subject in question being a photon, traveling at the speed of light ‘c‘. The equations directly say that neither time nor space is experienced by a photon. A photon has no distance to travel as far as it is concerned, since there is no space because all spatial length is infinitely contracted, and it has no time to experience because time has come to a complete stand-still with infinite time dilation.

So a photon has no distance to travel, in no time – from its perspective, and we have to grant it its own perspective as per relativity theory. And so, under these conditions, a photon essentially does know what its destination is like and so radiative transfer of heat energy can be limited to the same rules as physical-contact flows such as with conduction.......now the question is...do you believe in back convection and back conduction as well as back radiation?.

Welcome back!!!!

I'm going to warm up the crackling fireplace by throwing ice in it, it will make the fire cool less quickly

 

[Crick]

Compared to being surrounded by empty, 0 degrees Kelvin space, a fire surrounded by ice from your fridge would be toasty as a bug in a rug.

Is any of this getting through to you?

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 37430

O2, Ozone, Water Vapor, NO2 are just a few. So which ones were being registered on the sensors that were cooled below 78K? All of the gasses are much warmer than that, so all will emit toward the sensor.

Billy Boob, I really don't know how you can come across as more stupid than you already have. There very graph you posted shows the gases emit and absorb on at differant wavelengths. And here is a more specific paper on the very subject;
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

hmmm, seems to back Billy's post. Doh!!!!

Mampuke never reads its links just like Old Crock.. They are to busy doing as they are told posting the same old drivel over and over again..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Compared to being surrounded by empty, 0 degrees Kelvin space, a fire surrounded by ice from your fridge would be toasty as a bug in a rug.

Is any of this getting through to you?

Throwing ice on the fire warms it???

 

[skookerasbil]

You know Frank............on 4 different threads in the past 2 days, asked ANY AGW climate crusader to ditch the fancy colorful graphs and vague terms like "warming" and post up the average number............ in degrees................ the earth has warmed since 1998.

And guess what?

We haven't gotten dick!!!!!!!



These people are professional frauds

 

[Crick]

Compared to being surrounded by empty, 0 degrees Kelvin space, a fire surrounded by ice from your fridge would be toasty as a bug in a rug.

Is any of this getting through to you?

Throwing ice on the fire warms it???

Can you not read simple English? Try again.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 37430

O2, Ozone, Water Vapor, NO2 are just a few. So which ones were being registered on the sensors that were cooled below 78K? All of the gasses are much warmer than that, so all will emit toward the sensor.

Billy Boob, I really don't know how you can come across as more stupid than you already have. There very graph you posted shows the gases emit and absorb on at differant wavelengths. And here is a more specific paper on the very subject;
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

hmmm, seems to back Billy's post. Doh!!!!

Mampuke never reads its links just like Old Crock.. They are to busy doing as they are told posting the same old drivel over and over again..

Funny that you should criticize someone for having a consistent theory.