Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.You have missed the actual GHG hypothesis, it requires a region above the tropical zone, where CO2 and its radiative properties cause an energy loop where water vapor is warmed and held, causing the tropics to warm and forcing energy pole ward, warming the earth. This is the IPCC's "sensitivity" numbers that started at 6-8 deg C/doubling and have now been revised downward to 0.0-0.6 deg C/ Doubling.
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
Dr Evans looked at it this way;
View attachment 261963
There is no hotspot and no climate sensitivity to CO2. There is more cooling in the troposphere which is an indication of a NEGATIVE FORCING not a net positive one when interacting with water vapor.
Below is the ERBE data followed by the top models in use today. You will note their slopes are inconsistent with observed data.
View attachment 261964
The models do not reflect reality and according to them should show a hot spot in our troposphere.
Dr. Evans places the GHG hypothesis in a more layman's terms here:-> The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
That's awful! So does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere don't absorb IR?
Does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere are prevented, in any way, from emitting photons in all
directions, including toward a warmer surface?
Your question is one of semantics. As the properties of LWIR are still in question (wave energy or particle energy) the definition of what it is matters. In a wave it can radiate in all directions but it has no effect on the warmer object due to its wave length rejection/reflection by the warmer object. As a particle it can radiate in all directions but when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
In either case the net result is a cooling object not a warming one.
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
If the photon is actually a particle of matter
I don't think it is. Do you?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?
What a friggin' idiot you are. Did you ever look up fermions and bosons?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
That's awful! So does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere don't absorb IR?
Does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere are prevented, in any way, from emitting photons in all
directions, including toward a warmer surface?
Your question is one of semantics. As the properties of LWIR are still in question (wave energy or particle energy) the definition of what it is matters. In a wave it can radiate in all directions but it has no effect on the warmer object due to its wave length rejection/reflection by the warmer object. As a particle it can radiate in all directions but when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
In either case the net result is a cooling object not a warming one.
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
If the photon is actually a particle of matter
I don't think it is. Do you?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?
What a friggin' idiot you are. Did you ever look up fermions and bosons?
This question has not been answered and the papers you two quote do not make valid assertions by empirical evidence... This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave.
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.This means there should be a lag between energy input and energy output of the globe. This does not exist. The Models FAIL!
That's awful! So does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere don't absorb IR?
Does that mean GHGs in the atmosphere are prevented, in any way, from emitting photons in all
directions, including toward a warmer surface?
Your question is one of semantics. As the properties of LWIR are still in question (wave energy or particle energy) the definition of what it is matters. In a wave it can radiate in all directions but it has no effect on the warmer object due to its wave length rejection/reflection by the warmer object. As a particle it can radiate in all directions but when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
In either case the net result is a cooling object not a warming one.
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
If the photon is actually a particle of matter
I don't think it is. Do you?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?
What a friggin' idiot you are. Did you ever look up fermions and bosons?
This question has not been answered and the papers you two quote do not make valid assertions by empirical evidence... This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave.
This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Your question is one of semantics. As the properties of LWIR are still in question (wave energy or particle energy) the definition of what it is matters. In a wave it can radiate in all directions but it has no effect on the warmer object due to its wave length rejection/reflection by the warmer object. As a particle it can radiate in all directions but when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
In either case the net result is a cooling object not a warming one.
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
If the photon is actually a particle of matter
I don't think it is. Do you?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?
What a friggin' idiot you are. Did you ever look up fermions and bosons?
This question has not been answered and the papers you two quote do not make valid assertions by empirical evidence... This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave.
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
All you have is ahdom's...This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave
Over a hundred years of studying light in the quantum era and you still think light can be defined as a wave or a particle?
Did you go to the same school as tubefreek to become a 'trained physicist '?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
If the photon is actually a particle of matter
I don't think it is. Do you?
Tell me Todd, If the photon is actually a particle of matter, then the laws governing matter apply, do they not?
What a friggin' idiot you are. Did you ever look up fermions and bosons?
This question has not been answered and the papers you two quote do not make valid assertions by empirical evidence... This is an area that is uncertain and unanswered as there are actions we observe that indicate they are both. IE; a particle within a wave.
All Matter radiates at its temperature above 0Kelvin.
Even at equilibrium?
when it collides with warmer matter requires energy from the warmer object to bring it up to its vibration (temperature) level before it can re-emit it, using up energy and cooling the object.
A photon from cooler matter absorbs energy from the warmer matter and after the warmer matter emits a photon it is cooler than it was before the "cooler photon" originally was absorbed?
If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).
Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. --> strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C consuming energy = cooling of the warmer object.
Sorry Charlie, but your tuna boat doesn't float. The matter will then emit according to its cooler temperature.
As for energy of equal value striking each other, no change is seen. The mass will dictate rate of energy loss, just like our atmosphere. When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.
Observed Empirical Evidence just kills those failing models.
Actually its not ridicules... We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).
Cool story. Any link that backs up your feeling?
Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. --> strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C consuming energy = cooling of the warmer object.
Sounds ridiculous.
Actually its not ridicules... We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).
Cool story. Any link that backs up your feeling?
Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. --> strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C consuming energy = cooling of the warmer object.
Sounds ridiculous.
If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction
When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.
Actually its not ridicules... We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).
Cool story. Any link that backs up your feeling?
Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. --> strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C consuming energy = cooling of the warmer object.
Sounds ridiculous.
Actually its not ridicules...
Yes, the claim that a photon has a temperature is ridiculous.
We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.
Is this real research, or your "energy destroying tube" research?
Cool Story Bro... I suppose you can tell me how a photon emitted from a mass at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. where does the extra energy come from to do this?When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.
Hahahahaha. He just never stops being stupid. Surely he must be pulling our leg. No one could say such asinine things by accident. But he has kept up the act for years now. You would think he would slip out of character once in a while.
Actually its not ridicules... We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).
Cool story. Any link that backs up your feeling?
Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. --> strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C consuming energy = cooling of the warmer object.
Sounds ridiculous.
Actually its not ridicules...
Yes, the claim that a photon has a temperature is ridiculous.
We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.
Is this real research, or your "energy destroying tube" research?
Its basic physics of particle matter.
Enjoy your ignorance on this. You will never see what is being presented because you "believe". I refuse to go round and round in circles because of your inability to think critically.
Tell Me Todd, Every photon has a temperature (energy level given at time it is emitted). How do they all magically become all powerful and gain energy so they have the ability to warm a colder object than the one that emitted it?
Cool Story Bro... I suppose you can tell me how a photon emitted from a mass at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. where does the extra energy come from to do this?When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.
Hahahahaha. He just never stops being stupid. Surely he must be pulling our leg. No one could say such asinine things by accident. But he has kept up the act for years now. You would think he would slip out of character once in a while.
Cool Story Bro... I suppose you can tell me how a photon emitted from a mass at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. where does the extra energy come from to do this?When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.
Hahahahaha. He just never stops being stupid. Surely he must be pulling our leg. No one could say such asinine things by accident. But he has kept up the act for years now. You would think he would slip out of character once in a while.
DO the MATH Ian.... The power contained in the particle is defined by the emitting body.Cool Story Bro... I suppose you can tell me how a photon emitted from a mass at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. where does the extra energy come from to do this?When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.
Hahahahaha. He just never stops being stupid. Surely he must be pulling our leg. No one could say such asinine things by accident. But he has kept up the act for years now. You would think he would slip out of character once in a while.
sorry the temperature is not-80C but the relationshipholds. both temperatures can emit photons from any part of the almost exactly similar ranges. how can you differentiate a 600nm photon as coming from one or the other? obviously you cannot.
With a cooled IR detector you can isolate the exact ranges.Cool Story Bro... I suppose you can tell me how a photon emitted from a mass at -80 deg C can warm a warmer object. where does the extra energy come from to do this?When it is dry the mass is low, heating and cooling are rapid. When it is wet, the mass is high, warming is slowed as is cooling.
Hahahahaha. He just never stops being stupid. Surely he must be pulling our leg. No one could say such asinine things by accident. But he has kept up the act for years now. You would think he would slip out of character once in a while.
What is the range of possible photons emitted ftom a blackbody at -80C? 10 microns and higher? How about 0C? 4 microns and higher? The range is almost identical. Can ypu tell the difference between a 15 micron photon emitted from a -80C object to one emitted from a 0C object? No you cannot.
Actually its not ridicules... We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.If a photon is a piece of matter, then all rules to matter apply (conduction).
Cool story. Any link that backs up your feeling?
Photon emitted @ -80 deg C. --> strikes a black body that is 40 Deg C and is absorbed. --> that MATTER then must warm to 40 Deg C consuming energy = cooling of the warmer object.
Sounds ridiculous.
Actually its not ridicules...
Yes, the claim that a photon has a temperature is ridiculous.
We observed this when we bombarded an object with LWIR at a cooler emission temperature as the rate of cooling increased when we did so.
Is this real research, or your "energy destroying tube" research?
Its basic physics of particle matter.
Enjoy your ignorance on this. You will never see what is being presented because you "believe". I refuse to go round and round in circles because of your inability to think critically.
Tell Me Todd, Every photon has a temperature (energy level given at time it is emitted). How do they all magically become all powerful and gain energy so they have the ability to warm a colder object than the one that emitted it?
Its basic physics of particle matter.
Excellent. Then you'll have no problem quickly posting 6 reputable sources that agree with your claim.
Tick-tock.
I refuse to go round and round in circles because of your inability to think critically.
Conveniently also refusing to post any backup.
Tell Me Todd, Every photon has a temperature
I disagree. Change my mind.
(energy level given at time it is emitted)
Not the same thing as temperature.
How do they all magically become all powerful and gain energy so they have the ability to warm a colder object than the one that emitted it?
Any links that agree with your claim that, "photons from cooler matter don't add energy to cooler matter when absorbed"?
