Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

[Billy_Bob]

Now Silly Billy, I do think that I will go with the real scientists, rather than some burger flippin' liar on the internet. LOL

You better go back to flipping your burgers.. There are real scientists doing real science and you aint it..

 

[Old Rocks]

Unlike you, I have made no false claims. I am a 75 year old fully employed millwright with a strong interest in science. Strong enough I have taken university classes in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Geology. Plus several Calculus classes.

 

[SSDD]

His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.

See? More of that total denier failure at every bit of science that I was talking about. This one fails to understand the basics of an equilibrium system. If I make $1000 each week and spend $1000 each week, my bank account remains steady. If I make $1030 each week and spend $1000, my bank account steadily rises, even though it's only a 3% increase.

The chronically missing "hot spot" is fatal to the "greenhouse Theory", thus the whole stupid thing should have been dropped by now.

And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him.

No the "hot spot" has NOT been shown to exist in the real world, it lives on in models and brainless warmists fevered imagination, who amazingly fail to produce the real world physical evidence of it.

remember when they claimed that they detected the hot spot via wind? Thermometers couldn't detect it but it was easily detected with an anemometer? To bad their models didn't predict a windy spot. Guess that was about the only thing they haven't predicted.

 

[SSDD]

You are digressing and not making any sense. The detector is facing the sky. You are making no sense when you say "you must cool the instrument to temperatures lower than the instrument." I said the liquid nitrogen detector temperature was much lower than anything in the atmosphere.

Of course it is facing the sky...but it is cooled to a temperature lower than the temperature of the radiation source it is measuring.....you can't measure discrete wavelengths of radiation from sources that are cooler than the instrument but you can measure discrete wavelengths from sources that are warmer than the instrument. Why do you suppose that is?

You are said that "measuring energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument is not measuring back radiation as energy moving from warm to cool is not back radiation." For the third time, "warm to cool" has nothing to do with the detector setup.

Of course it does since you can't measure discrete wavelengths of energy with an instrument that is warmer than the source of the energy. It is all about energy moving from warm to cool but not in the other direction. You can't measure it moving in that direction because it isn't going in that direction.

My question again: if you don't think it is back radiation hitting the very cold detector, then what is generating the complex spectrum?

Energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument is making the spectrum...warm the instrument to ambient temperature and you will no longer be able to measure the spectrum because the energy is not moving in that direction.

The detector setup is very simple and the question is very simple. Do you agree or disagree with the researcher's statement that they were measuring back radiation.

No...the researchers are being fooled by instrumentation. Back radiation, is by the definition of climate science, radiation moving from a cooler area to a warmer area. Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow. Set up an identical instrument right next to the cooled one except don't activate the cooling..you won't measure any such spectrum because no energy will be moving from the cooler atmosphere to that warmer instrument. Claim that the cooling is necessary to eliminate noise all you like, but if you turn that uncooled instrument down towards the warmer surface, you will be able to measure discrete wavelengths moving from the warmer surface.

 

[SSDD]

Unlike you, I have made no false claims. I am a 75 year old fully employed millwright with a strong interest in science. Strong enough I have taken university classes in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Geology. Plus several Calculus classes.

So with such a "strong" interest in science...and those university classes under your belt, why do you believe in man made global warming when the greenhouse effect has been in dispute since it was first suggested and after 120 years there still isn't a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support it and the hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date?

It seems that any educated person with no financial, or political interest in either hypothesis would realize that there isn't a whit of actual empirical data in support of either after billions upon billions upon billions of dollars being spent and be very skeptical of the whole proposition. Of course it you are a political whore, or need crisis in order to keep the funding flowing, I can see why you might discount logic, common sense, and the abject lack of any sort of empirical evidence and promote the scam.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD thinks his smart matter/smart photons know what is going to happen many years in the future in a spot many light years away. Not only does his theory claim faster-than-light communication over vast distances, it claims magical perfect knowledge of random future events at those vast distances.

If only SSDD could demonstrate his theory's claimed FTL communication here on earth, he'd revolutionize science. Difficult, being that his theory says that photons magically change their behavior depending on the measuring apparatus in their path. His beliefs are tailored so they can't be easily disproved, putting them in the realm of religion.

However, some sort of quantum entanglement experiment could get around SSDD's logic barrier. SSDD, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to have such an experiment designed and implemented.

 

[Wuwei]

Your post was totally obsessed with 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.

This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:

Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.

Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea?

.

 

[Sunsettommy]

His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.

See? More of that total denier failure at every bit of science that I was talking about. This one fails to understand the basics of an equilibrium system. If I make $1000 each week and spend $1000 each week, my bank account remains steady. If I make $1030 each week and spend $1000, my bank account steadily rises, even though it's only a 3% increase.

The chronically missing "hot spot" is fatal to the "greenhouse Theory", thus the whole stupid thing should have been dropped by now.

And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him.

No the "hot spot" has NOT been shown to exist in the real world, it lives on in models and brainless warmists fevered imagination, who amazingly fail to produce the real world physical evidence of it.

remember when they claimed that they detected the hot spot via wind? Thermometers couldn't detect it but it was easily detected with an anemometer? To bad their models didn't predict a windy spot. Guess that was about the only thing they haven't predicted.

Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?

Snicker.....

 

[mamooth]

Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?

I addressed it directly in post #48, by pointing out you're just repeating a fraudulent claim.

I do get it. All the science says all of your cult talking points are fraudulent. The only tactic you now see as viable is making up an alternate reality that you can escape into.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?

I addressed it directly in post #48, by pointing out you're just repeating a fraudulent claim.

I do get it. All the science says all of your cult talking points are fraudulent. The only tactic you now see as viable is making up an alternate reality that you can escape into.

Yeah here is his dead on arrival reply:

"And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him."

Since you didn't post any evidence, you must not have any, as you are so busy with your condescending replies.

My later REPLY never got addressed at all:

"No the "hot spot" has NOT been shown to exist in the real world, it lives on in models and brainless warmists fevered imagination, who amazingly fail to produce the real world physical evidence of it. "

You don't have anything to counter with apparently.​

 

[SSDD]

SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.

So lets see some observed, measured data which supports your claim that absorption and emission equals warming...

Guess we all know no such data will be forthcoming. Simply assuming a thing and calling it physics is pseudoscience.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD thinks his smart matter/smart photons know what is going to happen many years in the future in a spot many light years away. Not only does his theory claim faster-than-light communication over vast distances, it claims magical perfect knowledge of random future events at those vast distances.['quote]

Not my theory hairball...just the logical conclusion of photons behaving as science claims they act. I am not the one who said that photons exist at every point along their path simultaneously.

Typical...no actual argument so you make up an argument to rail against.

 

[SSDD]

Your post was totally obsessed with 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.

This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:

Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.

Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea?

.

Are you really that dense? Really?

 

[SSDD]

Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?

I addressed it directly in post #48, by pointing out you're just repeating a fraudulent claim.

I do get it. All the science says all of your cult talking points are fraudulent. The only tactic you now see as viable is making up an alternate reality that you can escape into.

Yeah here is his dead on arrival reply:

"And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him."

Since you didn't post any evidence, you must not have any, as you are so busy with your condescending replies.

My later REPLY never got addressed at all:

"No the "hot spot" has NOT been shown to exist in the real world, it lives on in models and brainless warmists fevered imagination, who amazingly fail to produce the real world physical evidence of it. "

You don't have anything to counter with apparently.​

Like all warmers, the hairball believes that because it is assumed by people on her side of the discussion it must be true...no evidence required...so it goes with the sheep.

 

[IanC]

SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.

So lets see some observed, measured data which supports your claim that absorption and emission equals warming...

Guess we all know no such data will be forthcoming. Simply assuming a thing and calling it physics is pseudoscience.

Absorption of a photon increases the total energy of a molecule. Emission of a photon decreases it.

Temperature, and the conditions of warming or cooling, are only applicable to large cohort of particles not individual molecules. A cohort of molecules is warming if it is getting more energy from absorption than it is losing by emission. Only the NET movement of energy affects the temperature.

 

[SSDD]

SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.

So lets see some observed, measured data which supports your claim that absorption and emission equals warming...

Guess we all know no such data will be forthcoming. Simply assuming a thing and calling it physics is pseudoscience.

Absorption of a photon increases the total energy of a molecule. Emission of a photon decreases it.

Temperature, and the conditions of warming or cooling, are only applicable to large cohort of particles not individual molecules. A cohort of molecules is warming if it is getting more energy from absorption than it is losing by emission. Only the NET movement of energy affects the temperature.

Sorry ian.....if the frequency of the energy present is not changing...increasing, then it is not getting warmer...in case you missed the memo, the only way to see an increase in temperature is for the frequency spectrum of the radiation to increase..you can trap as much 70 degree air in a space as you like, but it isn't going to get any warmer than 70 degrees unless some parameter of the atmosphere in that space changes...pressure, etc. Absorption and emission is never going to cause an increase in temperature.....only increasing the frequency of the radiation will cause an increase in temperature.

If the radiation CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses were actually being trapped, then all you would get, eventually, would be a standing wave pattern field of the associated radiation spectrum which would be that emitting from the surface of the earth...you won't ever get a temperature increase unless you increase the temperature (increase the emitting frequency) of the energy source.

 

[Muhammed]

Billy looked at it and said "I've got nothing... but I guess I can always go back to semantics"

That's your ilk's hockey schtick.

 

[Wuwei]

Your post was totally obsessed with 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.

This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:

Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.

Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea?

.

Are you really that dense? Really?

Is that your final answer? Really?

You didn't answer the simple question what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere? It is dark and no sun. Are you saying you have no idea?

If you have no idea, methinks you are the one a bit dense.

 

[SSDD]

Your post was totally obsessed with 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.

This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:

Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.

Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea?

.

Are you really that dense? Really?

Is that your final answer? Really?

You didn't answer the simple question what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere? It is dark and no sun. Are you saying you have no idea?

If you have no idea, methinks you are the one a bit dense.

The same thing that causes it all the time...energy flows from warm to cold. You think the sun has something to do with the direction that energy flows other than the change in temperature its energy causes? You think energy can flow from cool to warm at night when no one is looking?

You can't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because energy doesn't move in that direction. Doesn't it strike you as strange that you have no problem easily measuring energy with an instrument if the energy source is warmer than said instrument, but if you want to measure energy moving from something that is cooler than the instrument, you must cool said instrument to a temperature lower than of the energy source?

Isn't that undeniable physical evidence that energy only moves from warm to cool...you can't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because it doesn't move in that direction.