Once Again, Skeptics do the Math that Warmists Won't Do....

[mamooth]

Again..there are no, and never have been any direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature any more than there have been photos of unicorns and dragons...none of them exist.

But plenty of measurements exist from a chilled receiver.

If your cult affiliation has driven you insane, you could claim all of the military's FLIR units don't actually work, because they're chilled as well, and therefore the images on them are all fraudulent. Those who have used such FLIR units, however, would rightfully call your claim insane.

Same goes for kooks who think other IR measurements don't count because the receiver is chilled. They're just astonishingly stupid people.

jc, have you officially jumped on SSDD's bandwagon of stupid?

 

[jc456]

Again..there are no, and never have been any direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature any more than there have been photos of unicorns and dragons...none of them exist.

But plenty of measurements exist from a chilled receiver.

If your cult affiliation has driven you insane, you could claim all of the military's FLIR units don't actually work, because they're chilled as well, and therefore the images on them are all fraudulent. Those who have used such FLIR units, however, would rightfully call your claim insane.

Same goes for kooks who think other IR measurements don't count because the receiver is chilled. They're just astonishingly stupid people.

jc, have you officially jumped on SSDD's bandwagon of stupid?

I'm merely waiting for you to disprove what I posted.

 

[SSDD]

Again..there are no, and never have been any direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature any more than there have been photos of unicorns and dragons...none of them exist.

But plenty of measurements exist from a chilled receiver.

If your cult affiliation has driven you insane, you could claim all of the military's FLIR units don't actually work, because they're chilled as well, and therefore the images on them are all fraudulent. Those who have used such FLIR units, however, would rightfully call your claim insane.

Same goes for kooks who think other IR measurements don't count because the receiver is chilled. They're just astonishingly stupid people.

jc, have you officially jumped on SSDD's bandwagon of stupid?

Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot? Perhaps because that is the only way to get radiation to move from the cooler atmosphere to the instrument?

You think FLIR violates the second law of thermodynamics? Laughing in your stupid face I am,

 

[mamooth]

I'm merely waiting for you to disprove what I posted.

If you ever have an actual point to make, state it directly and back it up.

Given you refuse to do that, everyone simply writes you off as both clueless and gutless, and thus not worth wasting time on.

 

[jc456]

I'm merely waiting for you to disprove what I posted.

If you ever have an actual point to make, state it directly and back it up.

Given you refuse to do that, everyone simply writes you off as both clueless and gutless, and thus not worth wasting time on.

Wow you are a trip. So I asked and asked and asked for you or any of your pals to show the experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2, your number...what it does to temperature or climate. I give you what the physics states and you tell me I have nothing. Well...... that's just plain BS and your argument unproven. WiNNiNg

 

[mamooth]

Don't lie. We gave you the evidence, and you squealed and ran. Soiling yourself and then tossing feces at people is not an argument.

 

[mamooth]

Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?

To reduce thermal noise, of course.

Wow, you really stink at this. All the basics elude you.

Those devices still work without chilling, just very badly. That would be demonstration # 651 of how you fail so hard at thermodynamics.

 

[jc456]

Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?

To reduce thermal noise, of course.

Wow, you really stink at this. All the basics elude you.

Those devices still work without chilling, just very badly. That would be demonstration # 651 of how you fail so hard at thermodynamics.

and yet no experiment to prove your point. I get a kick the way you think you can just skate away from this and then comment to someone else the exact same thing. Take care of your laundry first and answer the question. LoSiNg

 

[SSDD]

Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?

To reduce thermal noise, of course.

Chilling would increase the thermal noise idiot....if back radiation were detectable at ambient temperature, chilling would increase the sensing range and in turn increase the noise...if you want to decrease noise, you decrease the range of input.

The sensors must be cooled because energy only moves from warm to cool and to detect energy radiating down from the atmosphere, one must cool the sensor to a temperature lower than the atmosphere so energy can move from the cool atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Make yourself a solar oven...take the temperature at the focal point....now point it away from the sun at open sky....take the temperature at the focal point again and see how the temperature is lower....exactly as the second law predicts....point it at open sky when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or less ice will form....again, exactly as the second law predicts. If the parabolic dish were collecting back radiation, do you think the temperature at the focal point would decrease? What might cause that?....and how on earth might it cause warming?

 

[Crick]

Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?

To reduce thermal noise, of course.

Chilling would increase the thermal noise idiot....if back radiation were detectable at ambient temperature, chilling would increase the sensing range and in turn increase the noise...if you want to decrease noise, you decrease the range of input.

The sensors must be cooled because energy only moves from warm to cool and to detect energy radiating down from the atmosphere, one must cool the sensor to a temperature lower than the atmosphere so energy can move from the cool atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Make yourself a solar oven...take the temperature at the focal point....now point it away from the sun at open sky....take the temperature at the focal point again and see how the temperature is lower....exactly as the second law predicts....point it at open sky when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or less ice will form....again, exactly as the second law predicts. If the parabolic dish were collecting back radiation, do you think the temperature at the focal point would decrease? What might cause that?....and how on earth might it cause warming?

Wow are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?

To reduce thermal noise, of course.

Chilling would increase the thermal noise idiot....if back radiation were detectable at ambient temperature, chilling would increase the sensing range and in turn increase the noise...if you want to decrease noise, you decrease the range of input.

The sensors must be cooled because energy only moves from warm to cool and to detect energy radiating down from the atmosphere, one must cool the sensor to a temperature lower than the atmosphere so energy can move from the cool atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Make yourself a solar oven...take the temperature at the focal point....now point it away from the sun at open sky....take the temperature at the focal point again and see how the temperature is lower....exactly as the second law predicts....point it at open sky when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or less ice will form....again, exactly as the second law predicts. If the parabolic dish were collecting back radiation, do you think the temperature at the focal point would decrease? What might cause that?....and how on earth might it cause warming?

Wow are you stupid.

No answer and another ad hom...how unsurprising is that?

 

[Crick]

Really, really stupid

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere... Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.

Molecular oscillation causes heat/energy transfer between molecules. Each molecule in the chain has a different and always lower oscillation. Thus the wave length of the energy emitted is longer.

The sun emits in the 0.1um to 1.8um range as that wave length passes through our atmosphere it encounters molecules which alter it/absorbs and re-emits at a lower frequency as it passes. Reflection happens in the range of 1.9um to 2.3um at and band pass below that.

At no point does CO2 increase water vapor in our atmosphere. IN fact the increase (as little as 33ppm) at 40,000 feet doubles the amount of LWIR that band passes to space rapidly. Any increase in water vapor adds speed to heat loss at higher altitude.

All the empirical evidence points to AWG being a lie. Their chain of progression is simply wrong. What they say holds energy infact releases it. Every little bit of evidence lays waste to more of the dogma.

 

[mamooth]

Chilling would increase the thermal noise idiot...

So, we can add electronics to the long list of topics you totally fail at.

Thermal noise is proportional to the square root of the temperature. That's basic stuff.

Make yourself a solar oven...take the temperature at the focal point....now point it away from the sun at open sky....take the temperature at the focal point again and see how the temperature is lower....exactly as the second law predicts....point it at open sky when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or less ice will form....again, exactly as the second law predicts. If the parabolic dish were collecting back radiation, do you think the temperature at the focal point would decrease? What might cause that?....and how on earth might it cause warming?

And now we can add optics to the long list of topics you totally fail at.

Parabolic reflectors only concentrate _parallel_ beams of light/radiation. Backradiation is diffuse, not parallel, so a parabolic dish would not collect backradation.

 

[mamooth]

All the empirical evidence points to AWG being a lie. Their chain of progression is simply wrong. What they say holds energy infact releases it. Every little bit of evidence lays waste to more of the dogma.

Yet you refuse to ever show us this information.

That's because you're a cult liar who just makes crazy shit up.

 

[SSDD]

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere... Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.

Molecular oscillation causes heat/energy transfer between molecules. Each molecule in the chain has a different and always lower oscillation. Thus the wave length of the energy emitted is longer.

The sun emits in the 0.1um to 1.8um range as that wave length passes through our atmosphere it encounters molecules which alter it/absorbs and re-emits at a lower frequency as it passes. Reflection happens in the range of 1.9um to 2.3um at and band pass below that.

At no point does CO2 increase water vapor in our atmosphere. IN fact the increase (as little as 33ppm) at 40,000 feet doubles the amount of LWIR that band passes to space rapidly. Any increase in water vapor adds speed to heat loss at higher altitude.

All the empirical evidence points to AWG being a lie. Their chain of progression is simply wrong. What they say holds energy infact releases it. Every little bit of evidence lays waste to more of the dogma.

And now, it has been learned that sea water has very low emissivity to the far IR wavelengths...wavelengths in which CO2 radiates for example...the warmers assume that low emissivity means more warming....more wrong assumptions on their part.. Kirchhoff's law says that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....therefore if sea water has low emissivity in the peak emitting wavelengths of CO2, then it must have low absorptivity as well.

What does the fact that better than 70% of the earth's surface has very low absorptivity to the very wavelengths that CO2 emits do to the AGW hypothesis?....and the greenhouse hypothesis for that matter?

 

[SSDD]

Parabolic reflectors only concentrate _parallel_ beams of light/radiation. Backradiation is diffuse, not parallel, so a parabolic dish would not collect backradation.

Nothing would collect back radiation at ambient temperature because it does not happen...and if back radiation were happening, the focal point of the dish would not be cooler...you guys have excuse after excuse for all the failures of climate science...that was just two more.

 

[mamooth]

Parabolic reflectors only concentrate _parallel_ beams of light/radiation. Backradiation is diffuse, not parallel, so a parabolic dish would not collect backradation.

Nothing would collect back radiation at ambient temperature because it does not happen...and if back radiation were happening, the focal point of the dish would not be cooler...you guys have excuse after excuse for all the failures of climate science...that was just two more.

What part of "diffuse radiation isn't focused" is beyond your capability to grasp?

You can grasp it, of course. You're not as dumb as you pretend to be. You're just lying now. You know it, we know it, everyone knows it, but you don't care. You've got a choice between admitting what a total fuckup you've been and lying, and you choose to lie.

 

[SSDD]

What part of "diffuse radiation isn't focused" is beyond your capability to grasp?

What part of no back radiation at ambient temperature do you not understand......and as to diffuse radiation...solar collectors gather that type as well as direct....not as efficiently but if back radiation were present, you could not form ice when ambient temperatures were above freezing...especially 13 degrees above freezing.

 

[mamooth]

Trying to switch from "Solar ovens" to "Solar collectors" now?

Parabolic reflectors only focus parallel light. Period. Hence, a solar oven would not concentrate backradiation, hence the freezing trick a solar oven can do is not in any way incompatible with backradiation.

It is amusing to see how many denier leaders fail at the basics here.

John O'Sulliven

johnosullivan - Solar Ovens Prove Greenhouse Gas Theory is cooked

Hockey Schtick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK AGW is Science Fiction Hiding Behind False Computer Models