NOAA/NCDC Commit Scienctic Fraud... Through Data Manipulation..

[Billy_Bob]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

 

[jc456]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Yes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists.

What are you talking about? It's measured everyday. With actual scientific instruments.

I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

I'm not surprised. You make SSDD look smart.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

You don't believe the equation either?

Fact is you don't have evidence ! Facts

The accidental discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 is a major development in modern physical cosmology. Although predicted by earlier theories, it was first found accidentally by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna. The discovery was important evidence for a hot early Universe (big bang theory) and was evidence against the rival steady state theory. In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint discovery.

Working at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a supersensitive, 6 meter (20 ft) horn antenna originally built to detect radio waves bounced off Echo balloon satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero.


Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

 

[jc456]

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

You just lied

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

You just lied

Please, go on.

 

[jc456]

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists.

What are you talking about? It's measured everyday. With actual scientific instruments.

I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

I'm not surprised. You make SSDD look smart.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

You don't believe the equation either?

Fact is you don't have evidence ! Facts

The accidental discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 is a major development in modern physical cosmology. Although predicted by earlier theories, it was first found accidentally by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna. The discovery was important evidence for a hot early Universe (big bang theory) and was evidence against the rival steady state theory. In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint discovery.

Working at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a supersensitive, 6 meter (20 ft) horn antenna originally built to detect radio waves bounced off Echo balloon satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero.


Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem I have is as all photons emit, they also all collide. And re-emit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. It is a basic law of physics. What they do not agree with you on, as I recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc? they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum. so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists.

What are you talking about? It's measured everyday. With actual scientific instruments.

I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

I'm not surprised. You make SSDD look smart.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

You don't believe the equation either?

Fact is you don't have evidence ! Facts

The accidental discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 is a major development in modern physical cosmology. Although predicted by earlier theories, it was first found accidentally by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna. The discovery was important evidence for a hot early Universe (big bang theory) and was evidence against the rival steady state theory. In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint discovery.

Working at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a supersensitive, 6 meter (20 ft) horn antenna originally built to detect radio waves bounced off Echo balloon satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero.


Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem I have is as all photons emit, they also all collide. And re-emit.

Photons do not collide with each other.
They do get absorbed by matter and re-emitted.
Even if the matter they came from is cooler than the matter they hit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. What they do not agree with you on, as i recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times.

No, they don't.
SSDD will tell you that matter at 50 K will not emit toward matter at 100 K, just as an example.
He will also claim that two objects, both at 100 K will stop emitting when placed next to each other.

and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2.

Who claimed all back radiation is from CO2?

Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

Argue all you want about what the back radiation does, just don't claim it does not exist.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists.

What are you talking about? It's measured everyday. With actual scientific instruments.

I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

I'm not surprised. You make SSDD look smart.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

You don't believe the equation either?

Fact is you don't have evidence ! Facts

The accidental discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 is a major development in modern physical cosmology. Although predicted by earlier theories, it was first found accidentally by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna. The discovery was important evidence for a hot early Universe (big bang theory) and was evidence against the rival steady state theory. In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint discovery.

Working at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a supersensitive, 6 meter (20 ft) horn antenna originally built to detect radio waves bounced off Echo balloon satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero.


Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem I have is as all photons emit, they also all collide. And re-emit.

The collision and redirect is a hard one to even extrapolate. Most of this portion of Quantum theroy is speculation at this point in time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. It is a basic law of physics. What they do not agree with you on, as I recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc? they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum. so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc?

Why would I need to account for them?

they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum.

That's awesome, they radiate in all directions, even toward a warmer surface.

so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

To prove back radiation exists, why would I have to?

 

[Billy_Bob]

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. What they do not agree with you on, as i recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times.

No, they don't.
SSDD will tell you that matter at 50 K will not emit toward matter at 100 K, just as an example.
He will also claim that two objects, both at 100 K will stop emitting when placed next to each other.

and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2.

Who claimed all back radiation is from CO2?

Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

Argue all you want about what the back radiation does, just don't claim it does not exist.

"Back Radiation" as the alarmists claim it, does not exist. I am not sure about their magical heat source to power it at night.

Two objects at 100k side by side will still emit to each other, they will not however, cause temperature shift. Heat latency in our atmosphere is because the two molecules are the same temperature and it takes longer for the heat to find an accepting molecule at a lower temp (like water vapor which accepts and then re-emits at a much broader spectrum and lower temperature) or be emitted to space.

The fantasy that ocean water absorbs IR at 12-16um is pure fantasy as the particulate matter in the first three microns reflects it. It can not cause warming of the oceans in this direct manner.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. It is a basic law of physics. What they do not agree with you on, as I recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc? they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum. so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc?

Why would I need to account for them?

they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum.

That's awesome, they radiate in all directions, even toward a warmer surface.

so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

To prove back radiation exists, why would I have to?

I assumed you were talking about AGW theroy and how "back radiation" is magically heating up the oceans.. The reason, in this instance, that one would need to quantify it, is attribution to specific cause and its remediation.

 

[Crick]

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Yes, but as you've been told, SSDD's believes this only applies to black bodies in vacuo - with no surroundings. He believes that all matter throttles it's emissions in proportion to the temperature difference between it and its surroundings and that matter will not radiate towards anything with a higher temperature.

He therefore believes that no back radiation takes place from any portion of the atmosphere that is colder than the surface. He believes the radiation simply will not take place in that direction. When asked to explain the mechanism behind such behavior, he simply says it is something we do not - and may never - understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. What they do not agree with you on, as i recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times.

No, they don't.
SSDD will tell you that matter at 50 K will not emit toward matter at 100 K, just as an example.
He will also claim that two objects, both at 100 K will stop emitting when placed next to each other.

and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2.

Who claimed all back radiation is from CO2?

Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

Argue all you want about what the back radiation does, just don't claim it does not exist.

"Back Radiation" as the alarmists claim it, does not exist. I am not sure about their magical heat source to power it at night.

Two objects at 100k side by side will still emit to each other, they will not however, cause temperature shift. Heat latency in our atmosphere is because the two molecules are the same temperature and it takes longer for the heat to find an accepting molecule at a lower temp (like water vapor which accepts and then re-emits at a much broader spectrum and lower temperature) or be emitted to space.

The fantasy that ocean water absorbs IR at 12-16um is pure fantasy as the particulate matter in the first three microns reflects it. It can not cause warming of the oceans in this direct manner.

I am not sure about their magical heat source to power it at night.

Matter does not need a heat source at night in order to radiate.

Two objects at 100k side by side will still emit to each other,

SSDD (and JC) disagree.

Heat latency in our atmosphere is because the two molecules are the same temperature and it takes longer for the heat to find an accepting molecule at a lower temp

I don't know what you're trying to say here.
Molecules in the atmosphere can and do emit photons toward the Earth, night and day.
That's all back radiation is.

The fantasy that ocean water absorbs IR at 12-16um is pure fantasy as the particulate matter in the first three microns reflects it.

Whatever you mean here has nothing to do with my mocking of SSDD's idiocy concerning radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. It is a basic law of physics. What they do not agree with you on, as I recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc? they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum. so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc?

Why would I need to account for them?

they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum.

That's awesome, they radiate in all directions, even toward a warmer surface.

so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

To prove back radiation exists, why would I have to?

I assumed you were talking about AGW theroy and how "back radiation" is magically heating up the oceans.. The reason, in this instance, that one would need to quantify it, is attribution to specific cause and its remediation.

I assumed you were talking about AGW theroy and how "back radiation" is magically heating up the oceans..

No. I'm talking about back radiation and how some idiots believe it does not exist.

 

[Crick]

I assumed you were talking about AGW theroy and how "back radiation" is magically heating up the oceans.

What makes you think any magic is required?

The reason, in this instance, that one would need to quantify it, is attribution to specific cause and its remediation.

What is "this instance", why would one need to quantify it, attribute it to a specific cause or... what, identify a rememdiation strategy? Your sentence is not properly constructed and your science sucks. What are you trying to say here?

 

[ScienceRocks]

If I may, The problem, as I see it, here is quantification.

Do all particles emit photons at the frequency of their temperature? Physics tells us that they do.

Back radiation is a poor term to describe the actions of all matter emitting radiation, which it does all of the time. I like to think of photons flowing in a stream. They overwhelm the smaller stream, thus warming the cooler body.

Photons dont care if its warmer or cooler but when they collide with other like matter they are disrupted in their paths.

I know this is simplistic and the subject goes much deeper but in order to even discuss the subject there must be common ground work on which we all agree or there is no way to discuss it.

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. It is a basic law of physics. What they do not agree with you on, as I recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc? they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum. so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc?

Why would I need to account for them?

they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum.

That's awesome, they radiate in all directions, even toward a warmer surface.

so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

To prove back radiation exists, why would I have to?

I assumed you were talking about AGW theroy and how "back radiation" is magically heating up the oceans.. The reason, in this instance, that one would need to quantify it, is attribution to specific cause and its remediation.

I assumed you were talking about AGW theroy and how "back radiation" is magically heating up the oceans..

No. I'm talking about back radiation and how some idiots believe it does not exist.

So you don't believe in the greenhouse effect? Earth would be a ice cube without it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would you all agree that all matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths?

SSDD won't. And JC always agrees with him, see above.

SSDD agrees as does JC because we have discussed this topic many times. It is a basic law of physics. What they do not agree with you on, as I recall, is the use of a receiver which must be cooled to near zero K and that all of the measured radiation is from CO2. Nor do they agree on the result of that re-radiated IR and its affect on the surface of the earth.

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc? they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum. so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

How do you account for H4 (helium), Nitrogen, Water Vapor, Ozone, etc?

Why would I need to account for them?

they radiate as well and they also have overlapping bands within the spectrum.

That's awesome, they radiate in all directions, even toward a warmer surface.

so how do you tell which is actually from CO2?

To prove back radiation exists, why would I have to?

I assumed you were talking about AGW theroy and how "back radiation" is magically heating up the oceans.. The reason, in this instance, that one would need to quantify it, is attribution to specific cause and its remediation.

I assumed you were talking about AGW theroy and how "back radiation" is magically heating up the oceans..

No. I'm talking about back radiation and how some idiots believe it does not exist.

So you don't believe in the greenhouse effect? Earth would be a ice cube without it.

Are you drunk?