Let`s have a vote on back radiation

Discussion in 'Environment' started by polarbear, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +260
    Without Roy Spencer`s "back radiation" there is no positive feed back from a cooler body to a hotter one and any "global warming" can`t come from 380 ppm CO2. Since Roy has been debunked by a whole lot of engineers he avoids debating this perpetual motion machine principle and the only way we could debate him since then is like Clint Eastwood debated Obama.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhCfjh_IlzI"]Dirty Harry debates Obama chair (anonymous style) - YouTube[/ame]
    But I`m not a Hollywood movie actor so instead I`ll let Roy speak here through his quotes:
    Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
    If Clint Eastwood were an engineer he would have said:
    To which Roy replied:
    and adds:
    Even Clint Eastwood would have noticed that a insulating blanket is not the same as what Roy is trying to pass off as "back radiation" and would have grilled Roy on that point:
    And if Clint Eastwood would be an engineer he would have pointed out a few facts to Roy Spencer:
    Roy replied:
    Clint Eastwood would have said:
    And if there were a few house wives and and a few cooks in the audience who have a solar oven / fridge they would have bust out laughing...:

    Let me google that for you

    Lets pick a couple .:

    How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker
    Or this one :
    http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/SpaceFridge.pdf

    Oh what was that You said before Roy?..:
    I’ve discussed this issue with someone I work with, a physicist, and he pointed out there are photonic IR detectors. I see from internet searches that these can operate at room temperature.

    If such photonic detectors can measure IR photons coming from a cold surface, would you consider that as evidence that IR radiation is indeed emitted by a colder object in the direction of a warmer object?
    yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still ?
    Even your oldest daughter, a realtor who has an aversion to things scientific, got the right answer when You used this example on her ?

    So lets vote on Roy Spencer`s "back radiation" where a cold object can make a warm object even warmer global warming back radiation miracle photons that defy all laws of thermodynamics.

    Would You A.) rather sit in the desert sun under a "back radiation" sun umbrella or B.) do You prefer to "cool off" out in the open with Roy Spencer ?

    And before anybody comes in here and switches the subject ( again) to the "melting glaciers" trying to prove that this crap is science..I don`t care which..don`t shoot your mouth off like Roy and his stupid "Yes Virginina" thought(less) experiment...and before You accuse us that our fossil CO2 can be linked to a "record low" glacier thickness on Greenland without first explaining where all the heat came from that evaporated all that water somewhere else so it could fall as snow and freeze to mile thick glaciers in Greenland .
    If You do I`ll shoot You like fish in a barrel or worse.
    Good night, I`m done and the "Yes Virginia" skeptic fridge I tried out...using a 6 inch bushnell reflector telescope wrapped with fiberglass insulation, pointed out the closed (!!) bedroom window froze a styro-foam cup full of water solid !
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  2. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,196
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,446
    I vote for CO2 being able to absorb and scatter certain frequencies of outbound radiation from the surface. because roughly half of this scattered radiation is directed back at the surface instead of escaping directly into space that means the efficiency of cooling by IR radiation has been reduced.

    because the sun keeps adding the same amount of energy, if you reduce the outgoing energy there is a small temporary imbalance leading to the change of temperature or change of method for heat loss at different points of the pathway from input to output.

    I think the change in temperature is small, and mitigated by other heat transport systems that quickly move to re-establish equilibrium of this open system.

    while I must admit I did not read all of your lonnnnng and rambling post, I am interested as to why you and the engineer call the scattering of IR a perpetual motion machine. please describe the mechanism because I am sure we can easily find where your thinking has gone wrong by some simple error like Zeno's paradox.
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Correct on the back radiation, Ian, wrong on the same energy. The total TSI has been down a bit for a while. But the warming has continued.
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    We're going to vote on the laws of thermodynamics?


    Okay, my vote is that we keep them exactly as they are now.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    OK. I use a UV lamp for prospecting and mineral identification. A crystal of scheelite floureces brilliant star blue in shortwave UV. It does not matter whether the lamp is warm and the crystal is cold, or the lamp is cold and the crystal is warm. That is because the cause of the flourescence is at the atomic level, a quantum effect. The same for the backscatter radiation of CO2 and infrared. No matter what the temperature of the CO2 molecule, if it recieves absorbs a photon, then emits one or more photons, multiple lower energy photons, the temperature of whatever those photons hits is as irrelevant as the temperature of the emittling atom or molecule. If absorbed and not relected, it will deliver it's energy to whatever it hits. Hot, cold, or somewhere inbetween.
     
  6. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,906
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,524
    So where is the hotspot and where is the inevetable warming as CO2 has steadily increased?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,906
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,524
    May as well vote for pigs flying as a transfer of energy from the cold atmosphere to the warm surface of the earth. One is just as likely as the other.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,906
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,524
    Can you prove that? Assumptions, even assumptions by physicists are just that and shouldn't be confused with observed fact.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  9. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,708
    Thanks Received:
    2,449
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,662
    So according to the kooks, the last century of physics is all completely wrong.

    Why? Because their political cult has declared it must be so. And they're the only one's who see it. All those egghead scientists are just soooooo stupid.

    Good luck with that.
     
  10. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,906
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,524
    The last 40 years or so of atmospheric "physics" is wrong. Atmospheric physics ie climate science has deviated from classical physics. You won't find backradiation being taught in classical physics.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2

Share This Page