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.
Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?
I am sure you can come up with data or at least a link to someone or some agency that says there is no AGW ...but all you do is keep repeating nonsense
Yes it is a bit of critical info. It makes the detector reading more trustworthy. The radiation measured was moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.
A bunch of rambling.[/QUOTE].and who says that direction is important...it isn't...hold a hot iron over your hand...the radiation is warming your hand, but it isn't back radiation...it is just radiation moving from a hot object to a cooler object....it is called fooling yourself with instrumentation....and by the way...did you notice that the area that they measured in alaska actually cooled several degrees during the time of the "observation"...does that mean that CO2 forces cooling?
...they think energy moving from a warm object to a cool object is back radiation...
So you really do think energy moving from a hot iron held above your hand to your hand is back radiation....again...little wonder you have been so easily fooled.
Not a joke: Gore’s “Inconvenient Youth” true. Specifically the scientist believe that atmospheric spectra that show GHGs radiation moving downward is back radiation. The bold faced word radiation is to emphasize that it is radiation under discussion not just the more generic term energy.
you seem to have a seriously flawed concept of what a skeptic is. a skeptic is someone who doesnt believe in anything until the evidence is sufficient to convince him that it is true, and is always willing to look at more evidence and change his position if necessary.
Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?
I am sure you can come up with data or at least a link to someone or some agency that says there is no AGW ...but all you do is keep repeating nonsense
I can come up with all sorts of data that climate science uses....model output...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...corleatory data...but no observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW...that is my entire point and the fact that you warmers can't bring any forward only proves my point.
Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?
I am sure you can come up with data or at least a link to someone or some agency that says there is no AGW ...but all you do is keep repeating nonsense
I can come up with all sorts of data that climate science uses....model output...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...corleatory data...but no observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW...that is my entire point and the fact that you warmers can't bring any forward only proves my point.
Then... why don't you?
The point is that every time you take to your keyboard, we can be guaranteed of two things: You're lying and you're wrong.
Cooling the detector makes the detector reading more trustworthy. The radiation measured was moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.It makes the instrument readings useless because energy moving from a warm object to a cooler object is not back radiation or back scatter or anything else....you may as well be trying to weigh yourself with a thermometer...
Nope to all three questions. JC was sillier than you and claimed that heat always rises and never goes downward. I told him to do that simple experiment, and he correctly surmised that it was radiation going downward. Good for him. But bad for you for misreading the intention of the hot iron experiment.You think energy moving from a hot iron held above your hand to your hand is back radiation? You claimed it was....is that what you really think? Are you that confused?
Cooling the detector makes the detector reading more accurate. The the experiment measured radiation moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.You mean the energy they measured moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument?...that is no more back radiation than the energy moving downward from the hot iron to your cooler hand....back radiation would be energy moving from your cooler hand back to the hot iron...movement that isn't actually happening and can't be measured, but claimed by a mathematical model...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.
That is a lie. I told Popeye that it was radiation moving downward. I never said it was back radiation. Go back and read it. Is that the best argument you have now? Lying?wuewi said something a few posts back and I can't help but wonder if you believe the same thing....he claimed that if you hold a hot iron over your hand the energy you feel warming your hand is back radiation?
You are lying again. Go back and read my discussion with Popeye.Tell me crick...do you think that if you hold a hot iron above your hand and feel the heat that you are experiencing back radiation? Are you as misinformed as wuwei? Tell me you think the energy radiating from the iron to your hand is back radiation because it is moving a a direction that you perceive as down....
No one cares about your denial....you are isolated .....Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?
I am sure you can come up with data or at least a link to someone or some agency that says there is no AGW ...but all you do is keep repeating nonsense
I can come up with all sorts of data that climate science uses....model output...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...corleatory data...but no observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW...that is my entire point and the fact that you warmers can't bring any forward only proves my point.
Then... why don't you?
What's the point? we all know that it isn't observed, measured, quantified data...therefore it is not what I have been asking for....and by now we all know that what I have been asking for doesn't exist even though the atmosphere is a measurable, observable, quantifiable entity.
you seem to have a seriously flawed concept of what a skeptic is. a skeptic is someone who doesnt believe in anything until the evidence is sufficient to convince him that it is true, and is always willing to look at more evidence and change his position if necessary.
Hey, that's me....tell me Ian, which observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out here in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding the observable, measurable, quantifiable, testable atmosphere convinced you? Clearly there is none, so what convinced you?....climate models that fail within days?....unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?....algore's inconvenient truth? What actual evidence convinced you Ian...lets see it...maybe it will convince me if it is actual evidence that can be observed, measured and quantified?...if it isn't then is it really evidence or just something that agrees with your preconceived notions?
wuewi said something a few posts back and I can't help but wonder if you believe the same thing....he claimed that if you hold a hot iron over your hand the energy you feel warming your hand is back radiation? Do you believe that as well?...do you believe that because the energy is moving in a direction that you perceive as down that makes it back radiation?...or do you think that back radiation would be energy moving from your hand, warmed by the iron back to the iron?....energy movement, that can't by the way be measured.
Ed Hawkins @ed_hawkins 
Thank you for the more detailed explanation. An experiment with an iron does demonstrate a radiation exchange environment as you explained.OK, let's use an iron for the example.
before you turn it on it is in equilibrium with its environment, it is radiating out the same amount of energy that it is receiving. the amount of energy that it is receiving from the environment is the back radiation. when you turn on the iron the heating element warms the plate until it comes to equilibrium, the plate's temperature is a function of energy in (heating element and environment) minus energy out (heat loss to the environment). the plate will be warmer than the environment but cooler than the heating element.
if you change the environment to a freezer then the cooler environment will send less energy back to the iron, and the equilibrium temperature will be lower.
this of course is a generalized case where we assume that the environment is not impacted by the energy coming from the iron, and the iron's heat source is constantly producing the same amount of heat energy. in reality the iron is controlled by a thermostat, so it would run more often in the freezer rather than come to a cooler equilibrium temp. either way the environmental energy input will affect the temperature or the amount of electricity needed to maintain the temperature.
Thank you for the more detailed explanation. An experiment with an iron does demonstrate a radiation exchange environment as you explained.OK, let's use an iron for the example.
before you turn it on it is in equilibrium with its environment, it is radiating out the same amount of energy that it is receiving. the amount of energy that it is receiving from the environment is the back radiation. when you turn on the iron the heating element warms the plate until it comes to equilibrium, the plate's temperature is a function of energy in (heating element and environment) minus energy out (heat loss to the environment). the plate will be warmer than the environment but cooler than the heating element.
if you change the environment to a freezer then the cooler environment will send less energy back to the iron, and the equilibrium temperature will be lower.
this of course is a generalized case where we assume that the environment is not impacted by the energy coming from the iron, and the iron's heat source is constantly producing the same amount of heat energy. in reality the iron is controlled by a thermostat, so it would run more often in the freezer rather than come to a cooler equilibrium temp. either way the environmental energy input will affect the temperature or the amount of electricity needed to maintain the temperature.
My objection to SSDD is that he uses the word "back radiation" which is used in climate science, but not in a general setting such as feeling heat from a hot iron. As you imply if you really do want to use the term back radiation with a hot iron, it would be the hand - the cooler object - that is back radiating to the iron. But as we all know far more radiation energy will go from the iron to the hand than the hand to the iron, as it does in the physics of the atmosphere.
I agree that is the crux of the problem with global warming. To simply say that back radiation doesn't exist and therefore climate models are fraudulent, as SSDD does, is first of all a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermo. Secondly, as you say there are plenty of other modeling difficulties that would still remain if he did believe in back radiation.The problem with the atmosphere is that there are so many other variables to consider.
Even the example of the iron is problematic. If you put it in space, would the plate be warmer or cooler than on the surface? Conduction and convection are much more efficient at removing heat. Would loss of environmental input make up for the other pathways at equilibrium? I don't know for sure.
I also stated that if you have an amber the heat off that amber is all around the amber. The amber is the source, but now in order for it to get warmer, it requires the air around it to radiate back to it. At least that is your theory. I merely ask if you believe that is so?Cooling the detector makes the detector reading more trustworthy. The radiation measured was moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.It makes the instrument readings useless because energy moving from a warm object to a cooler object is not back radiation or back scatter or anything else....you may as well be trying to weigh yourself with a thermometer...
Nope to all three questions. JC was sillier than you and claimed that heat always rises and never goes downward. I told him to do that simple experiment, and he correctly surmised that it was radiation going downward. Good for him. But bad for you for misreading the intention of the hot iron experiment.You think energy moving from a hot iron held above your hand to your hand is back radiation? You claimed it was....is that what you really think? Are you that confused?
but you can't provide any evidence that happens. Why is that so difficult for someone who appears to have some smarts about you? There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere. ZERO. Otherwise it would have been posted by now.I agree that is the crux of the problem with global warming. To simply say that back radiation doesn't exist and therefore climate models are fraudulent, as SSDD does, is first of all a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermo. Secondly, as you say there are plenty of other modeling difficulties that would still remain if he did believe in back radiation.The problem with the atmosphere is that there are so many other variables to consider.
Even the example of the iron is problematic. If you put it in space, would the plate be warmer or cooler than on the surface? Conduction and convection are much more efficient at removing heat. Would loss of environmental input make up for the other pathways at equilibrium? I don't know for sure.
The hot iron was a simple example of feeling radiation going downward, but I agree radiation alone is totally inadequate to cover the full dynamics of the iron, let alone the atmosphere.
