Let`s have a vote on back radiation

[flacaltenn]

hahahahaha. I dont know whether OPPD is a physicist or not but I sure know that you have never taken physics or math if you are offended by rearranging terms in a formula. are you even sure that OPPD believes in CAGW? so far I have only noticed him laughing at your stupidity.

I notice that you didn't answer the question either. Between you two geniuses, you should be able to answer the question I have asked.

Why would you apply any property to an equation that is already elegant? What is to be gained by doing it? What do you get that you don't get when you use the equation as it is actually written?

How about an answer?

OK, I have 5 minutes to kill.

Planck curves for two objects, one at 10C, the other at -10C. if you wanted to see how much energy was leaving the warmer object to the cooler one how would you do it? in a stripped down, complexities removed thought experiment you would simply calculate the radiation leaving the first, then calculate the radiation leaving the second, subtract them and the net result would be your answer, and depending on whether the answer was positive or negative you would know the direction.

The rate of energy emitted by an ideal surface, frequently called a blackbody, is given by the following relationship:
E = KsbT^4
where T is absolute temperature & Ksb is the Stefan-Boltzamnn constant which is 0.567 x 10-9 W/mK4

you may have noticed that there is only one (T^4) term. that is because the other term is assumed to be zero and 0^4=0. this also the reason why we must measure in the absolute temperature scale of degrees Kelvin.

we could work out both terms and subtract them, but it is easier to just subtract the T^4 terms immediately so that we only have to write the constant terms once.

what I find elegant is how the visual Planck curves so easily describe what is going on in radiation exchanges. it is easy to see why the second law is correct. the warmer object always has an excess of radiation to give to the other cooler object. as the two objects get closer together in temperature there is less and less excess (this is where polarbear's first derivative comes into play) to drive heat exchange. and when the two objects are the same temperature, it shows how there is still an exchange of radiation, just no movement of heat.


I will ask you again....what do you think happens when two objects are the same temperature? you said before that radiation could only go from a warmer to cooler object, even down to one single photon. if that is correct, then where does the radiation go?

Wow.. I see this has gotten real ugly since I left. Probably saw that coming.. Hope you've made progress.. But I don't think so.. I think we are still confusing Thermodynamics with EM Fields and Waves here..

Would I be out of line if I observed that photons don't KNOW and don't CARE if they are pointed towards a "warmer" or a "cooler" object??? Otherwise, Captain Kirk would be defenseless if the Klingon Vessel was sitting in a warm pool...

 

[polarbear]

I notice that you didn't answer the question either. Between you two geniuses, you should be able to answer the question I have asked.

Why would you apply any property to an equation that is already elegant? What is to be gained by doing it? What do you get that you don't get when you use the equation as it is actually written?

How about an answer?

OK, I have 5 minutes to kill.

Planck curves for two objects, one at 10C, the other at -10C. if you wanted to see how much energy was leaving the warmer object to the cooler one how would you do it? in a stripped down, complexities removed thought experiment you would simply calculate the radiation leaving the first, then calculate the radiation leaving the second, subtract them and the net result would be your answer, and depending on whether the answer was positive or negative you would know the direction.

The rate of energy emitted by an ideal surface, frequently called a blackbody, is given by the following relationship:
E = KsbT^4
where T is absolute temperature & Ksb is the Stefan-Boltzamnn constant which is 0.567 x 10-9 W/mK4

you may have noticed that there is only one (T^4) term. that is because the other term is assumed to be zero and 0^4=0. this also the reason why we must measure in the absolute temperature scale of degrees Kelvin.

we could work out both terms and subtract them, but it is easier to just subtract the T^4 terms immediately so that we only have to write the constant terms once.

what I find elegant is how the visual Planck curves so easily describe what is going on in radiation exchanges. it is easy to see why the second law is correct. the warmer object always has an excess of radiation to give to the other cooler object. as the two objects get closer together in temperature there is less and less excess (this is where polarbear's first derivative comes into play) to drive heat exchange. and when the two objects are the same temperature, it shows how there is still an exchange of radiation, just no movement of heat.


I will ask you again....what do you think happens when two objects are the same temperature? you said before that radiation could only go from a warmer to cooler object, even down to one single photon. if that is correct, then where does the radiation go?

Wow.. I see this has gotten real ugly since I left. Probably saw that coming.. Hope you've made progress.. But I don't think so.. I think we are still confusing Thermodynamics with EM Fields and Waves here..

Would I be out of line if I observed that photons don't KNOW and don't CARE if they are pointed towards a "warmer" or a "cooler" object??? Otherwise, Captain Kirk would be defenseless if the Klingon Vessel was sitting in a warm pool...

That could have been settled years ago had the AGW con-artists shared their raw data...which they refused. They even deleted most of it after the e-mail scandal...and all we have now is "error corrected" data.
Even if we, who are being called "deniers" had only all the "error corrected" data we could still test the hypothesis.
The last time I looked up the definition of "denier" it was when a proven fact is denied. Here we have a bunch of clowns who call themselves "scientists" that skipped all the necessary tests and call everyone who wants to test them a "denier".
One of these clowns keeps bragging he was a NASA Scientist:

How did Spencer get the bragging rights to "NASA Scientist" ?

A.) was NASA engaged in Global Warming Research
and Spencer applied for the job, then got it having won a competition against lesser qualified scientists...?
Or was it the other way around ?
B.) A leftist political pressure group where Spencer was front and center along with Al Gore etc was engaged
in a left wing tax $ grabbing scheme and Government funded NASA was the easiest target to be pressured
to bend over, either with the pants up or down for their boy Roy Spencer
But Spencer does not even meet the category B criteria..today he is as much of a NASA scientist as I am

Any scientist that is part of category A would have been able to settle the Global Warming argument and the mechanism
the hypothesis outlines with the existing statistical data already at hand without additional huge expenditures to NASA.
Climatologists assure us they have gathered enough valid day by day temperature data for many decades.

Any category A-rated NASA scientist would have realized from the start that the best STATISTICAL test for
the backbone of the "cooler black body-which can warm a warmer black body even warmer" hypothesis
is to see if that held true with a statistical significance of 5 % for all the full moon night time temperatures.

http://www.moonphases.info/full_moon_calendar_dates.html

It`s easy to show what the cooling rate of air with 380 ppm is if You go outside during such a night and point a telescope with a sensitive Thermistor in the focal point at any celestial body.
NASA’s AMSU-A satellite does it exactly the same way I did it, looking down...the only difference is that I get the cooling rate at the ground level looking up...and AMSU-A got it averaged looking from the top down. AMSU-A used a Platinum wire resistor and I used a modern high precision Thermistor
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=3"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

...and the Negro avatar Poophead "physicist"

and IanC who doesn`t understand the difference between power, energy, temperature and what a rate of change is came back with childish "hahahaas" and "lol" twitter-mudflinging-english

Precision Platinum wire resistance thermometers and Thermistors have been around since the time when Spencer was still
in elementary school.

Only a B-rated braggart with influential friends in high places would abuse NASA`s resources to gather even more skewed and equally useless statistical data like this which he gathered long after being a "NASA Scientist" and continues to tarnish NASA`s reputation with crap like that :

Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (Oct. '12: +0.33°C)

Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSUs. The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

By the way if it came down to this low level where bragging rights are used to settle scientific arguments I could lay claim to way more real substance than anything Roy Spencer has ever done.
No, I`m not claiming I worked with Wernher von Braun at NASA...that politically correct post-Wernher von Braun "equal employment opportunity" NASA,...which Roy still keeps bragging about, but on another military project that came much later and was quite a bit more complex than the drones that get all the claim to fame...even though there is a remote pilot involved as opposed to the early Tomahawks I`m referring to.
You can strap any engine to a low-G maneuver drone, but not just any turbine (like a low cost A.P.U. turbine) to a high G-rate of turn missile...as most contractors who had politically correct hiring policies and bid on that project found out the hard way...and I bet anything neither poophead nor IanC would have a clue what the problem would be if you did

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The result is still the same you fucking idiot. Whether or not its "elegant" is a matter of opinion and of no scientific merit.

We aren't talking about results, we are talking about equations. Why is it that you can't answer such a simple question. Why would someone apply an unnecessary property to an equation that is already elegant? Is that question over your head? If it is, just say so and I will stop asking. If it isn't, then answer.

Maybe they have a different idea of what "elegant" means. Maybe they don't care about whether or not its "elegant". Maybe the nurse should be informed you're spending way more than the time allowed on the internet.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow.. I see this has gotten real ugly since I left. Probably saw that coming.. Hope you've made progress.. But I don't think so.. I think we are still confusing Thermodynamics with EM Fields and Waves here..

Would I be out of line if I observed that photons don't KNOW and don't CARE if they are pointed towards a "warmer" or a "cooler" object??? Otherwise, Captain Kirk would be defenseless if the Klingon Vessel was sitting in a warm pool...

That could have been settled years ago had the AGW con-artists shared their raw data...which they refused. They even deleted most of it after the e-mail scandal...and all we have now is "error corrected" data.
Even if we, who are being called "deniers" had only all the "error corrected" data we could still test the hypothesis.
The last time I looked up the definition of "denier" it was when a proven fact is denied. Here we have a bunch of clowns who call themselves "scientists" that skipped all the necessary tests and call everyone who wants to test them a "denier".
One of these clowns keeps bragging he was a NASA Scientist:

How did Spencer get the bragging rights to "NASA Scientist" ?

A.) was NASA engaged in Global Warming Research
and Spencer applied for the job, then got it having won a competition against lesser qualified scientists...?
Or was it the other way around ?
B.) A leftist political pressure group where Spencer was front and center along with Al Gore etc was engaged
in a left wing tax $ grabbing scheme and Government funded NASA was the easiest target to be pressured
to bend over, either with the pants up or down for their boy Roy Spencer
But Spencer does not even meet the category B criteria..today he is as much of a NASA scientist as I am

Any scientist that is part of category A would have been able to settle the Global Warming argument and the mechanism
the hypothesis outlines with the existing statistical data already at hand without additional huge expenditures to NASA.
Climatologists assure us they have gathered enough valid day by day temperature data for many decades.

Any category A-rated NASA scientist would have realized from the start that the best STATISTICAL test for
the backbone of the "cooler black body-which can warm a warmer black body even warmer" hypothesis
is to see if that held true with a statistical significance of 5 % for all the full moon night time temperatures.

http://www.moonphases.info/full_moon_calendar_dates.html

It`s easy to show what the cooling rate of air with 380 ppm is if You go outside during such a night and point a telescope with a sensitive Thermistor in the focal point at any celestial body.
NASA’s AMSU-A satellite does it exactly the same way I did it, looking down...the only difference is that I get the cooling rate at the ground level looking up...and AMSU-A got it averaged looking from the top down. AMSU-A used a Platinum wire resistor and I used a modern high precision Thermistor
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=3"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

...and the Negro avatar Poophead "physicist"

and IanC who doesn`t understand the difference between power, energy, temperature and what a rate of change is came back with childish "hahahaas" and "lol" twitter-mudflinging-english

Precision Platinum wire resistance thermometers and Thermistors have been around since the time when Spencer was still
in elementary school.

Only a B-rated braggart with influential friends in high places would abuse NASA`s resources to gather even more skewed and equally useless statistical data like this which he gathered long after being a "NASA Scientist" and continues to tarnish NASA`s reputation with crap like that :

Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (Oct. '12: +0.33°C)

Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSUs. The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

By the way if it came down to this low level where bragging rights are used to settle scientific arguments I could lay claim to way more real substance than anything Roy Spencer has ever done.
No, I`m not claiming I worked with Wernher von Braun at NASA...that politically correct post-Wernher von Braun "equal employment opportunity" NASA,...which Roy still keeps bragging about, but on another military project that came much later and was quite a bit more complex than the drones that get all the claim to fame...even though there is a remote pilot involved as opposed to the early Tomahawks I`m referring to.
You can strap any engine to a low-G maneuver drone, but not just any turbine (like a low cost A.P.U. turbine) to a high G-rate of turn missile...as most contractors who had politically correct hiring policies and bid on that project found out the hard way...and I bet anything neither poophead nor IanC would have a clue what the problem would be if you did

WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something?

What is with these observations that we can't detect nightime warming from the moon from a simple meteorological temp record?

The total photon energy is less than a firefly/m2 and that is the NET flux -- MOST of which doesn't make it thru the atmospere. We're talking about probably .002Watt/M2 (at most). But it DOES deliver energy. Just like those McDonalds heating lamps that are probably cooler than a burger when it first comes off the grill and becomes warmer than the burger after a couple hours of it laying on the counter. The energy is simply NOT ENOUGH to overcome the THERMAL LOSSES over time. It provides a SMALL increment of warming energy CONSTANTLY -- regardless of the relative temperatures. The 2nd law simply states that in STEADY STATE -- the burger cannot become hotter than the lamp. (because of energy transfer OVER TIME). The experiment is not to measure relative temps, but to quantify the amount of heating provided by the IR to the object REGARDLESS of relative temperature. Turn the lamp OFF and measure the diff in the time required for the burger to cool to it's 1st 10Degs.

Your experiment needs adjustment.. A thermistor is about 4mm squared. The amount of heating will be proportional to the WATTS/M2 absorbed by that body. The thermistor will NOT WARM enough in that 4mm sq to matter. You're measuring the AIR temp around the detector mostly. And --- as you observe -- the heat LOSS is orders of magnitude ABOVE the incoming flux from anything celestial..

So the observation SHOULD BE -- that you DON'T EXPECT an increase in temperature at ALL !!!! You should be looking (as with the hamburger) for a DECREASE in the rate of HEAT LOSS !!!! And this can not be measured statically. It can only be quantified OVER TIME.


And this VENDETTA against Spencer is totally irrational. What is the problem with his treatment of the Satellite data and the graphs you posted above? Spencer is and will be hero to me --- and his poor attempt to deflect questions with less than rigorous analysis is identical to the common sense I gave you above to show that we're not gonna be able to detect "moon warming" from a general nighttime temp record. If you WANTED to prove that -- you'd need more than a normal thermometer at a weather station.

When you're defending a scientific observation or theory -- sometimes you don't have TIME or MOTIVATION to spend days or weeks responding from 1st principles. That's not what I get paid to do -- nor does Spencer...

 

[IanC]

I consider Spencer a hero too, flac. It would have been much easier for him to have not published all of his negative feedback cloud papers considering the amount of criticism he has taken from the 'consensus'.

Do you think any scientists pass muster with the extreme deniers like polarbear ?

 

[IanC]

After receiving his Ph.D. in 1982, Spencer worked for two years as a research scientist in the Space Science and Engineering Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.[1] He then joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984,[2] where he later became a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies.[1] After leaving NASA in 2001, Spencer has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UHA).

hey polarbear- I think Spencer earned the right to be called a NASA scientist by actually being a NASA scientist for close to two decades.

 

[flacaltenn]

I consider Spencer a hero too, flac. It would have been much easier for him to have not published all of his negative feedback cloud papers considering the amount of criticism he has taken from the 'consensus'.

Do you think any scientists pass muster with the extreme deniers like polarbear ?

Obviously not..

It worries me when there's this much "piling on" over one of us "skeptics" actually BELIEVING that the GreenHouse effect is supportable science. The issue is how much we know about the MAGNITUDE of man-made contributions. And how perturbations to the atmospheric composition play out over time.

I'm not ready to accept that the earth's surface temp is balanced on a knife edge that can be totally screwed by a 100ppm addition of CO2. There is a energy balance equation ala Trenberth --- it's just not as simple as a 1/2 dozen static rates of energy transfer.

 

[IanC]

I consider Spencer a hero too, flac. It would have been much easier for him to have not published all of his negative feedback cloud papers considering the amount of criticism he has taken from the 'consensus'.

Do you think any scientists pass muster with the extreme deniers like polarbear ?

Obviously not..

It worries me when there's this much "piling on" over one of us "skeptics" actually BELIEVING that the GreenHouse effect is supportable science. The issue is how much we know about the MAGNITUDE of man-made contributions. And how perturbations to the atmospheric composition play out over time.

I'm not ready to accept that the earth's surface temp is balanced on a knife edge that can be totally screwed by a 100ppm addition of CO2. There is a energy balance equation ala Trenberth --- it's just not as simple as a 1/2 dozen static rates of energy transfer.

exactly. the atmosphere and climate system is robust. it has had to deal with many other larger disturbances and it has come out just fine. there are many, many homeostatic mechanisms that return the system to balance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Polar, when you faith in "consensus", you can dispense with science and common sense

 

[polarbear]

WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something?

What is with these observations that we can't detect nightime warming from the moon from a simple meteorological temp record?

The total photon energy is less than a firefly/m2 and that is the NET flux -- MOST of which doesn't make it thru the atmospere. We're talking about probably .002Watt/M2 (at most).

Your experiment needs adjustment.. A thermistor is about 4mm squared. The amount of heating will be proportional to the WATTS/M2 absorbed by that body. The thermistor will NOT WARM enough in that 4mm sq to matter. You're measuring the AIR temp around the detector mostly. And --- as you observe -- the heat LOSS is orders of magnitude ABOVE the incoming flux from anything celestial..

So the observation SHOULD BE -- that you DON'T EXPECT an increase in temperature at ALL !!!! You should be looking (as with the hamburger) for a DECREASE in the rate of HEAT LOSS !!!! And this can not be measured statically. It can only be quantified OVER TIME.


And this VENDETTA against Spencer is totally irrational. What is the problem with his treatment of the Satellite data and the graphs you posted above? Spencer is and will be hero to me


---That's not what I get paid to do -- nor does Spencer...

So here we have another one that claims that he can work the St-B. equation backwards from watts per m^2 to 2 different yet specific temperatures Th and Tc without making assumptions.
I`m still waiting on IanC to show me how he did that with k*(Th ^4 - Tc ^4 ) = Energy flux.

Now you are as obliged as IanC.
You have exactly the same problem as IanC with every equation relating to black body radiation,....

WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something?
What is with these observations that we can't detect nightime warming from the moon from a simple meteorological temp record?

The total photon energy is less than a firefly/m2 and that is the NET flux -- MOST of which doesn't make it thru the atmospere. We're talking about probably .002Watt/M2 (at most).

Actually it`s about 10 x less than that
And that`s the whole point of what I wrtote...!!!!,... because...:

If you, IanC or any other Roy Spencer admirer knew what to do with the St.B. equation or Planck`s black-body equations you would have realized how dumb that was what you just said
Because the moon`s "firefly watts / m^2" as you put it assigns it a black body temperature of 271 K...and that it way more than the earth`s black body temperature which is only 254 K.

So now, tell me again which of the 2 has the "firefly" heating effect ?
Full moon light or what 380 ppm CO2 could possibly "back-radiate" what it got from a 20 K cooler "black body" earth.

By the way I`m not the only engineer that noticed that Spencer is an idiot..so does almost every NASA engineer.
Spencer has been writing blogs for all these years claiming that the data he has been using was obtained by satellites using optical IR spectral sensors.

Some time AFTER Nov. 2012 , when he had the Nov. 2012 average Spencer added this URL into his "Yes Virginia" blog :

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

where he pretends he knew all along how these sensors really work:

As of September 2012, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSUs.

They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

But it took a whole bunch of "AGW denier" engineers to point out the difference between the sensor types...yet he still insisted...
Till some more engineers, very likely NASA engineers told Roy that the on board sensors do not work the way he assumed they do ...
As late as Nov 2011 Spencer still e-mailed replies like this:



http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/Back-radiation_Story_21Mar12.pdf

From: Roy Spencer Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 5:49 PM To: Pierre Latour

Why does a hand-held IR thermometer measuring a clear sky apparent temperature of, say, 0 deg. F, increase its reading to, say, 40 deg. F when it is pointed at a low cloud, in both cases the ground air temperature being (say) 60 deg. F?

To which Latour promptly replied.

From: Pierre Latour To: Roy W Spencer Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, v1.1 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:38:51 -0600 Thermometers and thermocouples measure a different point property, thermal temperature of matter, the molecules surrounding the bulb or thermocouple, like the surface air around it. Radiating matter has two different types of temperatures.
That is why we use pyrometers to measure radiation intensity of electric fields and thermometers to measure thermal heat intensity of gases, liquids and solids. (This is basic physics, chemical engineering and instrumentation business.)
One of many causes of confusion in the low level public literature on GHG is failure to understand these two temperatures

To which Spencer promptly replied.

From: Roy Spencer Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:56 AM To: Pierre Latour Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, v1.1
Pierre: But the IR thermometer measurements can prove the same point at night, too!

Pierre, surely you are smart enough to recognize this as basic thermal radiation physics.
-Roy

Look how far off base you are :

Your experiment needs adjustment.. A thermistor is about 4mm squared. The amount of heating will be proportional to the WATTS/M2 absorbed by that body. The thermistor will NOT WARM enough in that 4mm sq to matter. You're measuring the AIR temp around the detector mostly. And --- as you observe -- the heat LOSS is orders of magnitude ABOVE the incoming flux from anything celestial..

A 6 inch reflector telescope has a 182 cm^2 mirror that focuses everything to a focal point...which is where the high precision thermistor was placed...almost exactly the way the Platinum wire resistor ~ the same size of my thermistor is in the AMSU Satellites.

It`s not my experiment that :needs adjusting"...it`s you, & IanC etc...
Stick your finger into the eye-piece hole of a 6 inch reflector telescope which is pointed into the sun...that might just help you to make the necessary mental adjustments

What you said was not much better than the Poophead heckler who claims to be a physicist...he cooks frogs in a microwave oven that according to him have a "cold" radiation source...but subscribes to the IPCC & Roy Spencer myth that doubling 380 ppm CO2 to 760 ppm and [FONT=Arial, Geneva]0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2 [/SIZE][/FONT]can cause global warming.[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]

[/SIZE][/FONT]I can come up with way more than 0.054 watts/m^2 Poophead microwave oven frog friers if I add up all the Radar station wattage just by using what we have with the number of airports we have since global warming statistics covering 1945 till today


There is enough "Poophead-frog fry" micro wave around,...You don`t even need an active RADAR transmitter any more to locate aircraft.
It can already be done just using passive RADAR...:

http://www.spiegel.de/video/testvideo-vom-passivradar-video-1221692.html


If You think that any of the active RADAR x-mitters & airports is just "firefly wattage"...why don`t You sit in a run of the mill twin Cessna, point the nose at a fuel drum in front of it and switch on the on board RADAR ...and see what happens..!!! Do You think they put these warning stickers on there just for the fun of it to scare pilots and ground crews?


[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]I`m still laughing about all those idiots who fried their cameras when they tried to take a picture of the phased array RADAR dish we have at AFB Thule from 1/2 mile away.[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]


[/SIZE][/FONT]And don`t even think twisting my words around (again as IanC, poophead did so far ) and you just did before...I`m NOT SAYING RADAR IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.....but it`s got more wattage than what Spencer, the IPCC etc can muster up with the 380 ppm CO2 "back-radiation" from a "black body" earth at 254 deg Kelvin
I`m using the world wide stray RADAR wattage to show how dumb it was what you just replied...and how dumb it is what Spencer, the IPCC etc are claiming.
The IPCC is already adding up farting cows, sheep etc and their impact

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12895166



...which like 380 ppm CO2, is dwarfed if you would add up the wattage of each active micro wave transmitter on this planet.
Next thing the poophead "physicist" who cooks frogs in a "microwave" as he put it, will come back here and claim that microwave can not heat water vapor
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[IanC]

WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something?

What is with these observations that we can't detect nightime warming from the moon from a simple meteorological temp record?

The total photon energy is less than a firefly/m2 and that is the NET flux -- MOST of which doesn't make it thru the atmospere. We're talking about probably .002Watt/M2 (at most).

Your experiment needs adjustment.. A thermistor is about 4mm squared. The amount of heating will be proportional to the WATTS/M2 absorbed by that body. The thermistor will NOT WARM enough in that 4mm sq to matter. You're measuring the AIR temp around the detector mostly. And --- as you observe -- the heat LOSS is orders of magnitude ABOVE the incoming flux from anything celestial..

So the observation SHOULD BE -- that you DON'T EXPECT an increase in temperature at ALL !!!! You should be looking (as with the hamburger) for a DECREASE in the rate of HEAT LOSS !!!! And this can not be measured statically. It can only be quantified OVER TIME.


And this VENDETTA against Spencer is totally irrational. What is the problem with his treatment of the Satellite data and the graphs you posted above? Spencer is and will be hero to me


---That's not what I get paid to do -- nor does Spencer...

So here we have another one that claims that he can work the St-B. equation backwards from watts per m^2 to 2 different yet specific temperatures Th and Tc without making assumptions.
I`m still waiting on IanC to show me how he did that with k*(Th ^4 - Tc ^4 ) = Energy flux.

Now you are as obliged as IanC.
You have exactly the same problem as IanC with every equation relating to black body radiation,....

WTF Polar Bear?? Did you swallow a coke can or something?
What is with these observations that we can't detect nightime warming from the moon from a simple meteorological temp record?

The total photon energy is less than a firefly/m2 and that is the NET flux -- MOST of which doesn't make it thru the atmospere. We're talking about probably .002Watt/M2 (at most).

Actually it`s about 10 x less than that
And that`s the whole point of what I wrtote...!!!!,... because...:

If you, IanC or any other Roy Spencer admirer knew what to do with the St.B. equation or Planck`s black-body equations you would have realized how dumb that was what you just said
Because the moon`s "firefly watts / m^2" as you put it assigns it a black body temperature of 271 K...and that it way more than the earth`s black body temperature which is only 254 K.

So now, tell me again which of the 2 has the "firefly" heating effect ?
Full moon light or what 380 ppm CO2 could possibly "back-radiate" what it got from a 20 K cooler "black body" earth.

By the way I`m not the only engineer that noticed that Spencer is an idiot..so does almost every NASA engineer.
Spencer has been writing blogs for all these years claiming that the data he has been using was obtained by satellites using optical IR spectral sensors.

Some time AFTER Nov. 2012 , when he had the Nov. 2012 average Spencer added this URL into his "Yes Virginia" blog :

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

where he pretends he knew all along how these sensors really work:
But it took a whole bunch of "AGW denier" engineers to point out the difference between the sensor types...yet he still insisted...
Till some more engineers, very likely NASA engineers told Roy that the on board sensors do not work the way he assumed they do ...
As late as Nov 2011 Spencer still e-mailed replies like this:



http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/Back-radiation_Story_21Mar12.pdf

From: Roy Spencer Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 5:49 PM To: Pierre Latour

Why does a hand-held IR thermometer measuring a clear sky apparent temperature of, say, 0 deg. F, increase its reading to, say, 40 deg. F when it is pointed at a low cloud, in both cases the ground air temperature being (say) 60 deg. F?

To which Latour promptly replied.

From: Pierre Latour To: Roy W Spencer Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, v1.1 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:38:51 -0600 Thermometers and thermocouples measure a different point property, thermal temperature of matter, the molecules surrounding the bulb or thermocouple, like the surface air around it. Radiating matter has two different types of temperatures.
That is why we use pyrometers to measure radiation intensity of electric fields and thermometers to measure thermal heat intensity of gases, liquids and solids. (This is basic physics, chemical engineering and instrumentation business.)
One of many causes of confusion in the low level public literature on GHG is failure to understand these two temperatures

To which Spencer promptly replied.

From: Roy Spencer Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:56 AM To: Pierre Latour Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, v1.1
Pierre: But the IR thermometer measurements can prove the same point at night, too!

Pierre, surely you are smart enough to recognize this as basic thermal radiation physics.
-Roy

Look how far off base you are :

Your experiment needs adjustment.. A thermistor is about 4mm squared. The amount of heating will be proportional to the WATTS/M2 absorbed by that body. The thermistor will NOT WARM enough in that 4mm sq to matter. You're measuring the AIR temp around the detector mostly. And --- as you observe -- the heat LOSS is orders of magnitude ABOVE the incoming flux from anything celestial..

A 6 inch reflector telescope has a 182 cm^2 mirror that focuses everything to a focal point...which is where the high precision thermistor was placed...almost exactly the way the Platinum wire resistor ~ the same size of my thermistor is in the AMSU Satellites.

It`s not my experiment that :needs adjusting"...it`s you, & IanC etc...
Stick your finger into the eye-piece hole of a 6 inch reflector telescope which is pointed into the sun...that might just help you to make the necessary mental adjustments

What you said was not much better than the Poophead heckler who claims to be a physicist...he cooks frogs in a microwave oven that according to him have a "cold" radiation source...but subscribes to the IPCC & Roy Spencer myth that doubling 380 ppm CO2 to 760 ppm and [FONT=Arial, Geneva]0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2 [/SIZE][/FONT]can cause global warming.[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]

[/SIZE][/FONT]I can come up with way more than 0.054 watts/m^2 Poophead microwave oven frog friers if I add up all the Radar station wattage just by using what we have with the number of airports we have since global warming statistics covering 1945 till today


There is enough "Poophead-frog fry" micro wave around,...You don`t even need an active RADAR transmitter any more to locate aircraft.
It can already be done just using passive RADAR...:

Testvideo vom Passivradar -Video - SPIEGEL ONLINE


If You think that any of the active RADAR x-mitters & airports is just "firefly wattage"...why don`t You sit in a run of the mill twin Cessna, point the nose at a fuel drum in front of it and switch on the on board RADAR ...and see what happens..!!! Do You think they put these warning stickers on there just for the fun of it to scare pilots and ground crews?


[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]I`m still laughing about all those idiots who fried their cameras when they tried to take a picture of the phased array RADAR dish we have at AFB Thule from 1/2 mile away.[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]


[/SIZE][/FONT]And don`t even think twisting my words around (again as IanC, poophead did so far ) and you just did before...I`m NOT SAYING RADAR IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.....but it`s got more wattage than what Spencer, the IPCC etc can muster up with the 380 ppm CO2 "back-radiation" from a "black body" earth at 254 deg Kelvin
I`m using the world wide stray RADAR wattage to show how dumb it was what you just replied...and how dumb it is what Spencer, the IPCC etc are claiming.
The IPCC is already adding up farting cows, sheep etc and their impact

BBC News - UK study looks to serve cows and sheep burp-free fodder



...which like 380 ppm CO2, is dwarfed if you would add up the wattage of each active micro wave transmitter on this planet.
Next thing the poophead "physicist" who cooks frogs in a "microwave" as he put it, will come back here and claim that microwave can not heat water vapor
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

snowing us under with yet another deluge of meaningless words polarbear? of should I say Cliff Clavin?

I skimmed your BS looking for your latest strawman distortion of what I have said

So here we have another one that claims that he can work the St-B. equation backwards from watts per m^2 to 2 different yet specific temperatures Th and Tc without making assumptions.
I`m still waiting on IanC to show me how he did that with k*(Th ^4 - Tc ^4 ) = Energy flux.

Now you are as obliged as IanC.
You have exactly the same problem as IanC with every equation relating to black body radiation,....

sounds like you are already into early onset senility. Spencer's is a thought experiment. it is all assumptions and general principles. it shows that slowing radiation loss changes the equilibrium temperatures along the pathway from input to output. quite well thank you.

as I said before, when you want to attribute a statement to me, quote it. I am getting sick and tired of your lies.

oh, and by the way. no one here is obliged to your pompous ass.

 

[IanC]

from your beloved Latour-

What I feel with a warm blanket is reduction in heat transfer rate, not higher temperature. (Skin may sense T change but mostly Q change.) A blanket reduces the conductive heat transfer coefficient, U, between my body and air. Since Q = UA*(T body – T air), Q decreases with U so long as T body > T air. Metabolism adjusts Q to hold T body constant 98.6F (37.0 C for Europeans). When you die, Q = 0, and T body = T air, no matter what U is or how thick the blanket is. Blankets, coats and gloves reduce the rate of heat loss from one’s body, and hence the required shivering metabolism rate to maintain 37C. They do not warm cold stones.

do you guys honestly expect me to believe that a naked person shivering in a 0C room has the same skin temperature as that same person with clothes on? hahahaha, especially if you shortcircuited the metabolism control and made the clothed person shiver?

Spencer's thought experiment has a constant energy input. if you change the rate of energy loss then you change the equilibrium temperatures along the pathway. it's as simple as that in a thought experiment. the real world is much more complicated but that mechanism is still one of the factors in play.

 

[flacaltenn]

<<Polar Bear ---->>

If you, IanC or any other Roy Spencer admirer knew what to do with the St.B. equation or Planck`s black-body equations you would have realized how dumb that was what you just said
Because the moon`s "firefly watts / m^2" as you put it assigns it a black body temperature of 271 K...and that it way more than the earth`s black body temperature which is only 254 K.

So now, tell me again which of the 2 has the "firefly" heating effect ?
Full moon light or what 380 ppm CO2 could possibly "back-radiate" what it got from a 20 K cooler "black body" earth.

You do understand that blackbody temp only describes the peak of relatively broad ELECTROMAGNETIC emission spectrum? AND --- that there is NO thermal exchange of heat energy between the Earth and the Moon. Right? THere is only only an exchange of photons capable of producing heat.

So in this case -- the diff of 20K is virtually irrevelent. The 20K shift only manifests in slight shift in spectrum of the emanating light and has no concept of whether the reciever of its EM is hotter or colder. EXCEPT THAT the Earth (if you have the numbers right) is producing slightly LESS EM radiation energy at longer wavelengths.

What's MORE important would be what percentage of those photons REACH the black bodies because of absorption in their composition.

I COULD (with a big enough collector) light a campfire with moonlight. (I'll pass on the YouTube proof of that !! <<Grin>>) There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature of an object HIGHER than the emitter black body temp. You shouldn't be surprised by this if you have (as you described) stuck your finger into the focal point of a lens aimed at the sun. The incoming energy (in a vacuum) is not measurable by thermistors or thermometers, only by IR sensors.

That SAME EM radiation is CONVERTED to heat by the Earth as a black body and (some) RE-RADIATED towards SPACE as IR once again.. ((This is the NUT of your problem)) where it CAN BE ABSORBED by OBJECTS and gases (regardless of their temp) if they have the proper spectral absorption characteristics. YES VIRGINIA -- that's true.

The "window" in the greenhouse allows broader spectrum GOING DOWN -- than coming back up. Thus the black body is pumped with an energy stream of a BROADER spectrum than it emits. Fortunately for Earth dwellers --- this results in a net heating effect at the surface.

Now the earth is NOT a black body as a whole.. We just childishly model the SURFACE as a black body. So that atmosphere IS a THERMAL TRANSFER system as well as an EM filter. And in that SYSTEM heat WILL NOT FLOW from cooler to warmer layers.

This is where the silly attacks on Spencer are based. Because he didn't spend enough time defending the science from 1st principles ASSUMING that his interrogator was aware of these things. And all the hub-bub is over the sloppiness of the explanation... But nothing Spencer said is obviously wrong.
An IR sensor WILL read higher on a cloud than a star. And trying to ream him for that observation is pointless and somewhat psychotic..

 

[IanC]

I COULD (with a big enough collector) light a campfire with moonlight. (I'll pass on the YouTube proof of that !! <<Grin>>) There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature of an object HIGHER than the emitter black body temp. You shouldn't be surprised by this if you have (as you described) stuck your finger into the focal point of a lens aimed at the sun.

interesting idea. but isnt it the higher energy reflected sunlight that would heat the campfire, not just the IR actually being radiated by the moon?

 

[IanC]

here is an interesting comment from somebody named Mike-

Michael Hammer has suggested this as a line of reasoning that may help people discuss this. If you don&#8217;t agree with the end conclusion (that greenhouse gases can&#8217;t warm earth because they are not hotter than Earth), point out exactly which step in the sequence is the one you think is wrong and explain it so we can understand why.

Do you agree that if you stand surrounded by cold objects (say a ring of huge ice blocks) you feel cold?
Do you agree that the colder the object you are surrounded by the colder you feel? eg: if they were blocks of frozen CO2 (dry ice) instead of water ice would you feel colder?
OK now if you have been standing surrounded by extremely cold objects and then move so that you are now surrounded by merely cool objects does the move make you feel less cold than you were before?
In the absence of green house gases the earth is surrounded by an extremely cold object &#8211; outer space at 4K (-269C). Green house gases make the atmosphere opaque at some wavelengths. With these in place the earths surface is in effect surrounded by a merely cool atmosphere instead of the truly frigid outer space. Because the surface is now surrounded by a less cold object than it was before it is less cold.
Since warm and cold are opposites, less cold is the equivalent of warmer. Surrounding earth&#8217;s surface with an opaque cool atmosphere make it warmer than it would be if exposed directly to the ultra frigid outer space.

of course the opposite situation occurs during the daytime when the atmosphere slows the heating of the surface by the Sun's emitted IR.

any comments?

 

[flacaltenn]

I COULD (with a big enough collector) light a campfire with moonlight. (I'll pass on the YouTube proof of that !! <<Grin>>) There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature of an object HIGHER than the emitter black body temp. You shouldn't be surprised by this if you have (as you described) stuck your finger into the focal point of a lens aimed at the sun.

interesting idea. but isnt it the higher energy reflected sunlight that would heat the campfire, not just the IR actually being radiated by the moon?

The moon is a pretty inefficient reflector. I "believe" the Albedo is like .1 compared to the Earths .3 or .4 --- so MAYBE the black body radiation is even mildly significant to the overall optically reflected light. I don't know how the 2 contributions stack together.

(The diff in Albedo is probably largely responsible for the slightly higher BBody temp for the moon)

 

[polarbear]

<<Polar Bear ---->>

If you, IanC or any other Roy Spencer admirer knew what to do with the St.B. equation or Planck`s black-body equations you would have realized how dumb that was what you just said
Because the moon`s "firefly watts / m^2" as you put it assigns it a black body temperature of 271 K...and that it way more than the earth`s black body temperature which is only 254 K.

So now, tell me again which of the 2 has the "firefly" heating effect ?
Full moon light or what 380 ppm CO2 could possibly "back-radiate" what it got from a 20 K cooler "black body" earth.

You do understand that blackbody temp only describes the peak of relatively broad ELECTROMAGNETIC emission spectrum? AND --- that there is NO thermal exchange of heat energy between the Earth and the Moon. Right? THere is only only an exchange of photons capable of producing heat.

So in this case -- the diff of 20K is virtually irrevelent. The 20K shift only manifests in slight shift in spectrum of the emanating light and has no concept of whether the reciever of its EM is hotter or colder. EXCEPT THAT the Earth (if you have the numbers right) is producing slightly LESS EM radiation energy at longer wavelengths.

What's MORE important would be what percentage of those photons REACH the black bodies because of absorption in their composition.

I COULD (with a big enough collector) light a campfire with moonlight. (I'll pass on the YouTube proof of that !! <<Grin>>) There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature of an object HIGHER than the emitter black body temp. You shouldn't be surprised by this if you have (as you described) stuck your finger into the focal point of a lens aimed at the sun. The incoming energy (in a vacuum) is not measurable by thermistors or thermometers, only by IR sensors.

That SAME EM radiation is CONVERTED to heat by the Earth as a black body and (some) RE-RADIATED towards SPACE as IR once again.. ((This is the NUT of your problem)) where it CAN BE ABSORBED by OBJECTS and gases (regardless of their temp) if they have the proper spectral absorption characteristics. YES VIRGINIA -- that's true.

The "window" in the greenhouse allows broader spectrum GOING DOWN -- than coming back up. Thus the black body is pumped with an energy stream of a BROADER spectrum than it emits. Fortunately for Earth dwellers --- this results in a net heating effect at the surface.

Now the earth is NOT a black body as a whole.. We just childishly model the SURFACE as a black body. So that atmosphere IS a THERMAL TRANSFER system as well as an EM filter. And in that SYSTEM heat WILL NOT FLOW from cooler to warmer layers.

This is where the silly attacks on Spencer are based. Because he didn't spend enough time defending the science from 1st principles ASSUMING that his interrogator was aware of these things. And all the hub-bub is over the sloppiness of the explanation... But nothing Spencer said is obviously wrong.
An IR sensor WILL read higher on a cloud than a star. And trying to ream him for that observation is pointless and somewhat psychotic..

First, be on notice, no matter how many insults you use to bloat up your gibberish might work with Virginias in a bar room, but not amongst engineers or in a research environment.

When I call your response gibberish, that is not an insult, but merely stating a fact. You, IanC and others never even heard of Planck`s & St.Boltzmann or Kirchhoff before you started shooting your mouths off in this forum....let alone being able to understand and use any of these equations.
Now You sound like IanC, who converted power to energy while claiming he can do that without the time dimension.
Both of you still fail to understand what TEMPERATURE is as opposed to heat ENERGY.

I got a 3, 5 and a 7 year old who already know more than you or this "Virginia"...that Spencer keeps blogging about.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg0rVG4FQ48&feature=youtu.be"]My 3 little engineers - YouTube[/ame]

The incoming energy (in a vacuum) is not measurable by thermistors or thermometers, only by IR sensors.

So all the engineers, including those that work at NASA have it all wrong.
What the hell do you think a platinum wire sensor on an AMSU satellite measures...
My 7 year old could already tell you that the primary measurement is in Ohms...even though these resistors are configured as a Wheatstone bridge at the input of a differential amp and the output is in Volts.

So in this case -- the diff of 20K is virtually irrevelent
has no concept of whether the reciever of its EM is hotter or colder

You have no concept whatsoever how it does work.
We have been measuring heat sources hundreds of light years distant...which also have no "concept" what we are pointing at them..
The CONCEPT is, if the sensor is at the same temperature than the source then you don`t get a measurement at all !!
Engineers prefer to cool the sensor below a temperature which is expected from the source because it`s easier to cancel out the errors caused by the ambient lab environment....which we also would have to deal with if we would choose to allow the sensor to be warmer than the source...and then measure the rate of cooling instead of the rate of warming.

There is no limit to Watts/M2 that I can collect to raise the temperature

Right...go patent it !
It`s yet another version of a perpetual motion energy generator that according to you can produce more ENERGY (in watts/ m^2) than the source impetus energy....with more parabolic mirror m^2 ergo more watts ???

The "window" in the greenhouse allows broader spectrum GOING DOWN -- than coming back up.

While you are at it patent that too...
It might be called a "photon diode"
So far we only have diodes that do that with electrons..:

Engineers would go crazy designing the most amazing things with a photon diode. Of course you would say they already did,...lecturing me on the interrogation room "one way windows" you have seen on police story TV shows.
Gee, my kitchen window does the same thing when it`s darker outside...but not during the daytime..
I wonder, maybe my wife changes the window glass every morning ?

Engineers who point out the tons of crap that Spencer has spread all over the internet are "psychotic"...???

I would call somebody psychotic who first looks up what is on average the hottest day on record in Washington, then schedules a senate meeting about Global Warming on that date, but has it arranged that the janitor turns off all the AC`s the night before...tells a lie, that the AC system is defective and then the presentation starts with the windows wide open after the mid day sun has baked Washington proper.

I don`t get paid giving you and your wannabee "physicists" physics for dummies lessons here...I`ld rather see to it that my 3 boys don`t wind up being as stupid as all these Spencer`s Internet "Virginia`s",...all of whom are instant thermodynamic experts, thanks to Wikipedia

 

[IanC]

polarbear said-

Engineers who point out the tons of crap that Spencer has spread all over the internet are "psychotic"...???

I would call somebody psychotic who first looks up what is on average the hottest day on record in Washington, then schedules a senate meeting about Global Warming on that date, but has it arranged that the janitor turns off all the AC`s the night before...tells a lie, that the AC system is defective and then the presentation starts with the windows wide open after the mid day sun has baked Washington proper.

is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha

 

[polarbear]

is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha

Is it really possible that my 7 year old great grandson is smarter than You or Spencer...hahahaha...yes he is..!

Neither you and all the other instant forum heat radiation experts realize what kind of nonsense you`ve been writing in here about Spencer`s positive back radiation "energy feedback", pretending you have even the slightest understanding of any of the equations you copied&pasted in here.
That does not necessarily make any of you the same kind of idiot Spencer is...unless you sat through physics lectures like Spencer and still are too dumb to understand any of it after the principles of thermodynamics have been thoroughly explained...
hahaha...but you are...because I`ve explained it to you over and over again and yet just like Spencer and his dumb daughter, the realtor you still think that a black body which radiates a temperature specific frequency profile is the same process as heating a black body to a specific temperature with radiation...

Furthermore heating the CO2 in the air with "black body" radiation, then feeding back the CO2 absorbed IR as "back radiation" to increase the GROUND temperature even more is beyond hahahaha..


In case you haven`t noticed,...all the data that has been gathered to support this crap consists of AIR- not GROUND temperature data.

But you still don`t get it !! (hahahaha)

Heat radiation does indeed radiate in a vacuum equally in all directions...but not so in air or any other gas.

Light up a Bic lighter and hold your hand 3 inches off to one side...see you don`t get burned...
Now hold your hand 3 inches above the flame...hahaha...see what I mean?
Like I said my 7 year old is smarter than you.


He already knows what the "Schlieren Effekt" around the tip of a hot soldring gun looks like

And when I showed you what happens to a thermistor cooling below room temperature at the focal point of a 6 inch reflector when the telescope was pointed at a colder object instead of warming up as it`s supposed to according to Spencer you said hahaha and said it cooled off because there was a closed (THERMAL R 40 !!!) window > 6 inches from the thermistor which was inside the tube, behind Saran wrap and behind the second focal mirror.

Another idiot had an issue that my thermistor was only a few millimeters in diameter...and was too dumb to figure out what area a six inch diameter reflector scope had focused on it....some more "hahaha" like that came from pooophysist with the frog in the microwave oven crap.

is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha

Is it really possible that you do ?????...carnally ! hahahahaha

 

[IanC]

is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha

Is it really possible that my 7 year old great grandson is smarter than You or Spencer...hahahaha...yes he is..!

Neither you and all the other instant forum heat radiation experts realize what kind of nonsense you`ve been writing in here about Spencer`s positive back radiation "energy feedback", pretending you have even the slightest understanding of any of the equations you copied&pasted in here.
That does not necessarily make any of you the same kind of idiot Spencer is...unless you sat through physics lectures like Spencer and still are too dumb to understand any of it after the principles of thermodynamics have been thoroughly explained...
hahaha...but you are...because I`ve explained it to you over and over again and yet just like Spencer and his dumb daughter, the realtor you still think that a black body which radiates a temperature specific frequency profile is the same process as heating a black body to a specific temperature with radiation...

Furthermore heating the CO2 in the air with "black body" radiation, then feeding back the CO2 absorbed IR as "back radiation" to increase the GROUND temperature even more is beyond hahahaha..


In case you haven`t noticed,...all the data that has been gathered to support this crap consists of AIR- not GROUND temperature data.

But you still don`t get it !! (hahahaha)

Heat radiation does indeed radiate in a vacuum equally in all directions...but not so in air or any other gas.

Light up a Bic lighter and hold your hand 3 inches off to one side...see you don`t get burned...
Now hold your hand 3 inches above the flame...hahaha...see what I mean?
Like I said my 7 year old is smarter than you.


He already knows what the "Schlieren Effekt" around the tip of a hot soldring gun looks like

And when I showed you what happens to a thermistor cooling below room temperature at the focal point of a 6 inch reflector when the telescope was pointed at a colder object instead of warming up as it`s supposed to according to Spencer you said hahaha and said it cooled off because there was a closed (THERMAL R 40 !!!) window > 6 inches from the thermistor which was inside the tube, behind Saran wrap and behind the second focal mirror.

Another idiot had an issue that my thermistor was only a few millimeters in diameter...and was too dumb to figure out what area a six inch diameter reflector scope had focused on it....some more "hahaha" like that came from pooophysist with the frog in the microwave oven crap.

is it really possible that you dont even know who Spencer is????? hahahahaha

Is it really possible that you do ?????...carnally ! hahahahaha

here we go again with your strawman misquotes of me, and your wild red herrings to veer off topic.

why are you bringing convection to a radiation fight? radiation goes in every available direction. period. convection is powered by gravity. warmer gases are lighter because they take up more volume per unit therefore they float upwards. why are you confusing radiation with convection?

as far as your solar oven/cooler/telescope youtube experiment....I said the temperature reading went down because the mirrors directed most of the radiation towards a cooler area where there was less back radiation returning to the thermistor. I asked you if you would be surprised if the temperature went up if you aimed your telescope at the fireplace but you refused to answer my question because you knew it would destroy your scenario.

I support Spencer's thought experiment in principle because it in fact works. If you are asking me my opinion on other aspects of atmospheric energy exchange, be specific and dont presume to know what my position is in advance.