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

[Wuwei]

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.

Wow, you sure are excited about a topic that is irrelevant to a cold instrument aiming up at a warmer dark sky. Your post, in so many words, said 5 separate times 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'.

You are sure dancing away from this simple question. What causes that spectrum of the detector looking at the sky where the peaks are the emission spectra of the various GHGs??? That energy is certainly not radiating down from outer space. It's certainly not the earth in back of the detector. What is left but the atmosphere? Hmmm? Any ideas?

 

[SSDD]

Wow, you sure are excited about a topic that is irrelevant to a cold instrument aiming up at a warmer dark sky. Your post, in so many words, said 5 separate times 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'.

You are sure dancing away from this simple question. What causes that spectrum of the detector looking at the sky where the peaks are the emission spectra of the various GHGs??? That energy is certainly not radiating down from outer space. It's certainly not the earth in back of the detector. What is left but the atmosphere? Hmmm? Any ideas?

I don't encounter people who are as dense as you very often. If you point an instrument at a warmer object, you can measure discrete wavelengths of energy...that is because energy moves freely from warm to cool...point the same instrument at an object cooler than itself...cooler by any amount, and you will no longer be able to measure discrete wavelengths of energy because energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

If it did, then you wouldn't need to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the source in order to measure discrete wavelengths. Feel free to prove me wrong by producing measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from the atmosphere to the earth made by an instrument warmer than the atmosphere.

We both know you can't do it because no such measurements exist...only one of us, however, is willing to accept the reason no such measurements exist.

 

[Wuwei]

If you point an instrument at a warmer object, you can measure discrete wavelengths of energy.

You certainly can measure energy from a warmer object. I never said you couldn't. Just what do you think that warmer object is in the experiment I cited and why is it radiating in GHG emission bands? Any ideas? You are welcome to guess.

 

[flacaltenn]

If it did, then you wouldn't need to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the source in order to measure discrete wavelengths.

We've been here dozens of times before, and this thread topic is not an appropriate place to do it again. You should really start another thread on your denial of the physics of radiative "heat transfer"..

Let's not "do the time warp" again here in this thread.

 

[Wuwei]

We've been here dozens of times before, and this thread topic is not an appropriate place to do it again. You should really start another thread on your denial of the physics of radiative "heat transfer"..

Let's not "do the time warp" again here in this thread.

This is a new topic of a new paper SSDD cited.
If you want to kill it I'm sure SSDD will be glad.

Edit: Oops, I was thinking of a different thread.

 

[Wuwei]

If it did, then you wouldn't need to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the source in order to measure discrete wavelengths.

We've been here dozens of times before, and this thread topic is not an appropriate place to do it again. You should really start another thread on your denial of the physics of radiative "heat transfer"..

Let's not "do the time warp" again here in this thread.

Thanks that was entertaining.

 

[Wuwei]

OK, SSDD, FLACALTENN suggested you not belabor the cold to warm stuff any more. Try to stop because it is irrelevant. Here is the graph of the upward looking cold spectrometer again for you to study and figure out just what warmer object is providing this spectrum:

 

[SSDD]

If it did, then you wouldn't need to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the source in order to measure discrete wavelengths.

We've been here dozens of times before, and this thread topic is not an appropriate place to do it again. You should really start another thread on your denial of the physics of radiative "heat transfer"..

Let's not "do the time warp" again here in this thread.

And after all this time I am still waiting for a measurement of discrete radiation frequencies from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an uncooled instrument. It can't me measured because it simply isn't happening.

 

[SSDD]

OK, SSDD, FLACALTENN suggested you not belabor the cold to warm stuff any more. Try to stop because it is irrelevant. Here is the graph of the upward looking cold spectrometer again for you to study and figure out just what warmer object is providing this spectrum:

You really are an idiot....if the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere, then the warmer atmosphere is providing the spectrum...warm the instrument up to ambient temperature and the spectrum disappears because energy will no longer be moving from the atmosphere to the instrument as the instrument will be warmer than the atmosphere and energy doesn't move in that direction...no matter how may times you ask...no matter how you twist it..and no matter what sort of mental gymnastics you engage in, you can't get energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...just doesn't happen.

 

[Wuwei]

the warmer atmosphere is providing the spectrum.

That's right the down-welling radiation provided the spectrum. It must have come from the GHG molecules don't you think?

In the rest of your post you said only four times, in so many words,
'warm to cool -- good', or, 'cool to warm -- bad'.
Your record was saying that 5 times in the same post. You are slipping Your obsession is waning a bit.

We were talking about a very cold detector, so that was irrelevant..

 

[Old Rocks]

Cooling?

 

[SSDD]

the warmer atmosphere is providing the spectrum.

That's right the down-welling radiation provided the spectrum. It must have come from the GHG molecules don't you think?

In the rest of your post you said only four times, in so many words,
'warm to cool -- good', or, 'cool to warm -- bad'.
Your record was saying that 5 times in the same post. You are slipping Your obsession is waning a bit.

We were talking about a very cold detector, so that was irrelevant..

You don’t seem to be able to grasp the obvious point, The radiation is only “downdwelling” to the cooled instrument as evidenced by the fact that if you place an instrument which is not cooled next to the cooled instrument instrument, the instrument which is warmer than the atmosphere will not measure that spectrum as it is not downdwelling to said warmer instrument or to anywhere else that is warmer than the atmosphere, ie., the surface if the earth. Can you grasp that Bucky?

Empirical evidence that my argument is correct. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, ie., measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy made with an uncooled instrument measuring energy coming from a cooler source than itself, the discussion is closed,

 

[Crick]

You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.

Tell me,

A photon at 32um has how much power vs a photon at 1.2um? They are not the same.

Now take a molecule that is vibrating at 1.2um and tell me what happens when you bombard it with photons at 32um.. What does the molecule do? IT COOLS...

Do you know why?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.

Tell me,

A photon at 32um has how much power vs a photon at 1.2um? They are not the same.

Now take a molecule that is vibrating at 1.2um and tell me what happens when you bombard it with photons at 32um.. What does the molecule do? IT COOLS...

Do you know why?

The answer is quite simple. The warmer molecule must expend energy to warm and then re-emit the particle. It is consuming energy in order to function.

This is why a colder object can not warm a warmer one.

Now back to Topic...

Can any one refute the premise I laid out in the OP? I showed cyclical and provable function of earths systems, so why can no one refute what we see?.

 

[SSDD]

You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.

Ive been asking for years for you to provide some observed, measured evidence to the contrary and you just can't manage to find it...can you...all you have been able to provide is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.

Ive been asking for years for you to provide some observed, measured evidence to the contrary and you just can't manage to find it...can you...all you have been able to provide is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

Notice that warmists have not answered my statement about the chronically missing "hotspot", fails to produce evidence that it exist OUTSIDE of climate Models or their imaginations?

Still waiting.

 

[SSDD]

You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.

Ive been asking for years for you to provide some observed, measured evidence to the contrary and you just can't manage to find it...can you...all you have been able to provide is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

Notice that warmists have not answered my statement about the chronically missing "hotspot", fails to produce evidence that it exist OUTSIDE of climate Models or their imaginations?

Still waiting.

They are great at hurling impotent insults...and parroting whatever their preists tell them to say but providing evidence to support their position?....not so much.

 

[SSDD]

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

You don't get out much do you? Or bother to do even the first bit of research. No less than Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that the greenhouse gas hypothesis was nothing but a lot of hot air. All three agreed that the “greenhouse effect” is solely a consequence of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities, and is not due to “trapped radiation” from IR-active or ‘greenhouse’ gas concentrations.

Given that Maxwell formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, I would say that he might know a thing or two more about radiation than Arrhenius.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the warmer atmosphere is providing the spectrum.

That's right the down-welling radiation provided the spectrum. It must have come from the GHG molecules don't you think?

In the rest of your post you said only four times, in so many words,
'warm to cool -- good', or, 'cool to warm -- bad'.
Your record was saying that 5 times in the same post. You are slipping Your obsession is waning a bit.

We were talking about a very cold detector, so that was irrelevant..

You don’t seem to be able to grasp the obvious point, The radiation is only “downdwelling” to the cooled instrument as evidenced by the fact that if you place an instrument which is not cooled next to the cooled instrument instrument, the instrument which is warmer than the atmosphere will not measure that spectrum as it is not downdwelling to said warmer instrument or to anywhere else that is warmer than the atmosphere, ie., the surface if the earth. Can you grasp that Bucky?

Empirical evidence that my argument is correct. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, ie., measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy made with an uncooled instrument measuring energy coming from a cooler source than itself, the discussion is closed,

if you place an instrument which is not cooled next to the cooled instrument instrument, the instrument which is warmer than the atmosphere will not measure that spectrum as it is not downdwelling to said warmer instrument or to anywhere else that is warmer than the atmosphere,

Of course!

Smart photons "know" to avoid the warmer instrument.
Just like those smart solar photons "know" they can't travel toward the hot corona.

DERP!