In Support of the A in AGW

[mamooth]

No, the topic of this thread is how you pissed yourself and ran. Same as you always do. You're a truly epic level chickenshit.

Post #275. Address it. If humans have to radiate 16,000 Calories of IR a day and only eat 2,000 Calories a day, where does the extra 14,000 Calories of energy come from?

Hence, I prove backradiation. Hence, you squeal, deflect and run.

 

[SSDD]

No, the topic of this thread is how you pissed yourself and ran. Same as you always do. You're a truly epic level chickenshit.

Post #275. Address it. If humans have to radiate 16,000 Calories of IR a day and only eat 2,000 Calories a day, where does the extra 14,000 Calories of energy come from?

Hence, I prove backradiation. Hence, you squeal, deflect and run.

I'm still here hairball...sitting on top of a huge heaping pile of no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW...And you didn't prove anything at all hairball...you provided yet another mind experiment which can not be observed, measured, or quantified at ambient temperature....as I said, there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...it is all assumption, mind experiment, and models...none of which can be observed, measured, or quantified at ambient temperature....

You guys claim measurements of back radiation but the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...it is informative to see what passes for observed, measured, quantified data in your minds though...it goes a long way in explaining how it is that you have been so thoroughly fooled.

 

[mamooth]

I'm still here hairball...

Until you can address me politely, I'll be addressing you as "shitlicker", being how that so accurately describes the way you obtain your bogus cult pseudoscience.

sitting on top of a huge heaping pile of no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW...

Yes, yes, you're not going to give up your pathological lying, because it's all you have now.

And you won't explain how humans can radiate 16,000 Calories a day while only eating 2,000 Calories. You won't point out where my calculations are wrong. You won't point out where the physics or problem setup is wrong. You're just flat out refusing to address it, because you know it debunks your crap. In other words, you're acting the same way you act on every issue.

And you didn't prove anything at all hairball...you provided yet another mind experiment which can not be observed

So now you've upped your lunacy to claiming the Stephan-Boltzmann Law is wrong. Is there any physics from the past two centuries you don't proudly deny?

as I said, there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...it is all assumption, mind experiment, and models...none of which can be observed, measured, or quantified at ambient temperature....

And as we've pointed out, anyone can point a thermal camera at sky and directly measure the backradiation, which means you're obviously lying, and everyone knows it.

You guys claim measurements of back radiation but the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...

And again, those thermal cameras aren't cooled, which means you're obviously lying, and everyone knows it.

it is informative to see what passes for observed, measured, quantified data in your minds though...it goes a long way in explaining how it is that you have been so thoroughly fooled.

Shitlicker, you're a coward and fraud. Everyone here knows you're a coward and fraud. What do you hope to accomplish with even more demonstrations of your cowardice and fraud?

 

[jc456]

I'm still here hairball...

Until you can address me politely, I'll be addressing you as "shitlicker", being how that so accurately describes the way you obtain your bogus cult pseudoscience.

sitting on top of a huge heaping pile of no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW...

Yes, yes, you're not going to give up your pathological lying, because it's all you have now.

And you won't explain how humans can radiate 16,000 Calories a day while only eating 2,000 Calories. You won't point out where my calculations are wrong. You won't point out where the physics or problem setup is wrong. You're just flat out refusing to address it, because you know it debunks your crap. In other words, you're acting the same way you act on every issue.

And you didn't prove anything at all hairball...you provided yet another mind experiment which can not be observed

So now you've upped your lunacy to claiming the Stephan-Boltzmann Law is wrong. Is there any physics from the past two centuries you don't proudly deny?

as I said, there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...it is all assumption, mind experiment, and models...none of which can be observed, measured, or quantified at ambient temperature....

And as we've pointed out, anyone can point a thermal camera at sky and directly measure the backradiation, which means you're obviously lying, and everyone knows it.

You guys claim measurements of back radiation but the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...

And again, those thermal cameras aren't cooled, which means you're obviously lying, and everyone knows it.

it is informative to see what passes for observed, measured, quantified data in your minds though...it goes a long way in explaining how it is that you have been so thoroughly fooled.

Shitlicker, you're a coward and fraud. Everyone here knows you're a coward and fraud. What do you hope to accomplish with even more demonstrations of your cowardice and fraud?

funny stuff tooth. everything in this you can't prove and the distraction to humans and calories, well off base. can you say deflect?

The camera in the sky thingy, can you prove it is back radiation or merely a reading of temperature? how can you prove such a thing? hmmmm dilemma for you.

Show me how CO2 emits, got one of those experiments yet? Yep same old same old from a warmer intolerant.

 

[mamooth]

The camera in the sky thingy, can you prove it is back radiation or merely a reading of temperature? how can you prove such a thing?

Easy to prove it.

A. The thermal camera is determining the temperature of the sky.

B. It's not touching the sky, hence it's not reading temperature by conduction.

C. Hence, some information has be getting transmitted from the sky to the camera.

D. That information would be the photons being emitted by the sky.

E. That's backradiation.

If you've got a different theory of how temperature information gets from the sky to the camera, let everyone know, being that sort of groundbreaking new physics will guarantee you a Nobel Prize.

 

[Wuwei]

the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...

Of course the instrument is cooled. That makes the data more trustworthy - reduces noise and cuts the self radiation of the housing to the detector. The radiation was still downward and matched the spectra of the green house gasses. That is called back radiation. Thermal radiation goes in all directions. The downward part is called back radiation.

 

[jc456]

The camera in the sky thingy, can you prove it is back radiation or merely a reading of temperature? how can you prove such a thing?

Easy to prove it.

A. The thermal camera is determining the temperature of the sky.

B. It's not touching the sky, hence it's not reading temperature by conduction.

C. Hence, some information has be getting transmitted from the sky to the camera.

D. That information would be the photons being emitted by the sky.

E. That's backradiation.

If you've got a different theory of how temperature information gets from the sky to the camera, let everyone know, being that sort of groundbreaking new physics will guarantee you a Nobel Prize.

you have no idea how that works. but thanks for the laugh. where does the back radiation come from 100 ft 1 mile what is the distance from whence it came from? Maybe it's just two feet in front of you. LOL though. wow.

BTW, I thought Ian said that IR doesn't have temperature?

 

[jc456]

The camera in the sky thingy, can you prove it is back radiation or merely a reading of temperature? how can you prove such a thing?

Easy to prove it.

A. The thermal camera is determining the temperature of the sky.

B. It's not touching the sky, hence it's not reading temperature by conduction.

C. Hence, some information has be getting transmitted from the sky to the camera.

D. That information would be the photons being emitted by the sky.

E. That's backradiation.

If you've got a different theory of how temperature information gets from the sky to the camera, let everyone know, being that sort of groundbreaking new physics will guarantee you a Nobel Prize.

you have no idea how that works. but thanks for the laugh. where does the back radiation come from 100 ft 1 mile what is the distance from whence it came from? Maybe it's just two feet in front of you. LOL though. wow.

BTW, I thought Ian said that IR doesn't have temperature?

we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink. You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?

You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.

sure I am. I know that something cold will not cause something warmer to become warmer. I can prove it, test it. All I'm asking is if you all believe it will warm it, show the experiment that proves it. I gave you mine and so far you haven't answered yes or no.

No, you are not thinking this through. The Earth is not a static object. It has a heat source, the Sun. Adding an insulating atmosphere that impedes energy loss to space affects the equilibrium temperature at the surface.

Oh, I agree with the fact that the sun will heat the earth and that the colder vacum of space can't get in thanks to the greenhouse gases, but the earth doesn't get warmer than the heating source the sun supplies. The heat rises causing the lower level atmosphere to keep the cold from coming in. That's it. There is no evidence that it regenerates heat back to the surface. In fact, the physics shows heat will rise only, no proof it radiates back, it isn't provable. Nor has any experiment been able to recreate that action. It is but a belief.

BTW, it is why when the sun source is gone, it gets cooler on the surface, there is no longer a heating source. Therefore we need heaters in our homes.

You are confusing energy with heat. Energy flows in all directions, heat is a more complicated notion of net energy flowing from warm to cool. The atmospheric doesn't send heat to the surface (except inversions) but it is always sending energy back.

 

[SSDD]

Until you can address me politely, I'll be addressing you as "shitlicker"

Like that would bother me...I have horses, a couple of cows and various other animals sharing space with me...I am sure that I have kicked a pile or two in my lifetime...Interesting that you hold such distain for people who live close to the earth....not surprising, but interesting.

 

[SSDD]

the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...

Of course the instrument is cooled. That makes the data more trustworthy - reduces noise and cuts the self radiation of the housing to the detector. The radiation was still downward and matched the spectra of the green house gasses. That is called back radiation. Thermal radiation goes in all directions. The downward part is called back radiation.

No wuwei...it makes the data useless....there is nothing special about energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object...we see it in the case of radiation from the sun striking the surface every day...without the benefit of cooled instruments....now energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be very special indeed....but we never measure that happening because it doesn't...thinking that you have measured it when in fact, all you have been doing is measuring energy moving from a warmer object to the cooler instrument is what is known as fooling yourself with instrumentation....

You really do believe that the energy from the hot iron held above your hand radiating to your hand is back radiation don't you?....just because it is moving in a direction that you perceive as down? You are that ignorant aren't you?

 

[Wuwei]

No wuwei...it makes the data useless....there is nothing special about energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object...we see it in the case of radiation from the sun striking the surface every day...without the benefit of cooled instruments....now energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be very special indeed....but we never measure that happening because it doesn't...thinking that you have measured it when in fact, all you have been doing is measuring energy moving from a warmer object to the cooler instrument is what is known as fooling yourself with instrumentation....

You are right, but your statements are well-known and vacuous. Thermal energy cannot move spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter one.

However radiation can move that way. It can move anywhere. Of course the total energy flow involving radiation requires that the cooler object will always gain more thermal energy by radiation than the hotter, ie the cooler object will warm. As it must to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics.

You really do believe that the energy from the hot iron held above your hand radiating to your hand is back radiation don't you?....just because it is moving in a direction that you perceive as down? You are that ignorant aren't you?

Are you that much of a liar? Go back and read the dialog.

 

[Olde Europe]

Thermal energy cannot move spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter one.

However radiation can move that way. It can move anywhere.

Come on, radiation emerging from Object A, and having measured the temperature of Object A, then takes the temperature of its target (Object B), and upon comparison, realizes that Object B is hotter than Object A, chooses to fly around Object B, in order to avoid violating the SSDD-Law of Radiative Picky-ness.

 

[jc456]

Thermal energy cannot move spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter one.

However radiation can move that way. It can move anywhere.

Come on, radiation emerging from Object A, and having measured the temperature of Object A, then takes the temperature of its target (Object B), and upon comparison, realizes that Object B is hotter than Object A, chooses to fly around Object B, in order to avoid violating the SSDD-Law of Radiative Picky-ness.

what is it you're saying are you saying that object B isn't radiating? You can't even keep straight that all objects emit. Why does heat rise? Or does it?

 

[Wuwei]

Come on, radiation emerging from Object A, and having measured the temperature of Object A, then takes the temperature of its target (Object B), and upon comparison, realizes that Object B is hotter than Object A, chooses to fly around Object B, in order to avoid violating the SSDD-Law of Radiative Picky-ness.

SSDD's photons are sure smart aren't they.

 

[SSDD]

No wuwei...it makes the data useless....there is nothing special about energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object...we see it in the case of radiation from the sun striking the surface every day...without the benefit of cooled instruments....now energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be very special indeed....but we never measure that happening because it doesn't...thinking that you have measured it when in fact, all you have been doing is measuring energy moving from a warmer object to the cooler instrument is what is known as fooling yourself with instrumentation....

You are right, but your statements are well-known and vacuous. Thermal energy cannot move spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter one.

However radiation can move that way. It can move anywhere. Of course the total energy flow involving radiation requires that the cooler object will always gain more thermal energy by radiation than the hotter, ie the cooler object will warm. As it must to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics.

You really do believe that the energy from the hot iron held above your hand radiating to your hand is back radiation don't you?....just because it is moving in a direction that you perceive as down? You are that ignorant aren't you?

Are you that much of a liar? Go back and read the dialog.

Is heat a form of energy in and of itself, or is heat merely the "signature" of some form of energy moving from one place to another? And the fact remains that energy has never been observed moving from a cool object to a warmer object.....ever.

 

[SSDD]

Come on, radiation emerging from Object A, and having measured the temperature of Object A, then takes the temperature of its target (Object B), and upon comparison, realizes that Object B is hotter than Object A, chooses to fly around Object B, in order to avoid violating the SSDD-Law of Radiative Picky-ness.

SSDD's photons are sure smart aren't they.

How smart does one need to be to not go to where on already knows it can't be absorbed? Certainly no smarter than the marble that knows that it can't roll up hill, or the outside air that knows that it can't go into the hole in the tire that is leaking air...or the rock that knows when it is dropped that it can't fall into the sky...

It never fails to entertain me when you people suppose that an object must be smart to do what the laws of the universe command that they do....you think an electron must be smart to know which direction to travel in a wire? You must see magic in everything....is that an offshoot of gaia worship or just a peculiarity you picked up from rocks?

 

[Wuwei]

And the fact remains that energy has never been observed moving from a cool object to a warmer object.....ever.

You keep saying the same thing and the answer is still the same.
If you mean net energy then yes, you are correct.

If you are talking about radiation energy. Then you are incorrect because radiation moves anywhere and can move between objects at any temperature.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And the fact remains that energy has never been observed moving from a cool object to a warmer object.....ever.

You keep saying the same thing and the answer is still the same.
If you mean net energy then yes, you are correct.

If you are talking about radiation energy. Then you are incorrect because radiation moves anywhere and can move between objects at any temperature.

While this is the base emission theroy it does not prove that "Back Radiation" more commonly known as black body radiative property has much of an effect, being cooler than the surface below it.

A cooled detector can not differentiate the wave lengths of water, CO2, N2 and many other gases from one another.

 

[Wuwei]

How smart does one need to be to not go to where on already knows it can't be absorbed

How does a photon "know" it can't be absorbed in a certain direction? That sounds like smarts to me.

Certainly no smarter than the marble that knows that it can't roll up hill, or the outside air that knows that it can't go into the hole in the tire that is leaking air...or the rock that knows when it is dropped that it can't fall into the sky...

You are talking about classical forces: gravity with a marble, pressure with a tire, gravity with a rock, and electric potential with an electron. Analogies don't always work in science. There is no measurable force that can affect the direction of a photon.

It never fails to entertain me when you people suppose that an object must be smart to do what the laws of the universe command that they do....you think an electron must be smart to know which direction to travel in a wire? You must see magic in everything....is that an offshoot of gaia worship or just a peculiarity you picked up from rocks?

You are the one who thinks photons are smart. When you speak of "you people" you are not just referring to the more scientifically astute people on this board; you are referring to millions of scientists throughout the world. You are in a dark cave all by yourself.

 

[Wuwei]

A cooled detector can not differentiate the wave lengths of water, CO2, N2 and many other gases from one another.

A spectroscope can. That was used in the experiment being referred to .