What the science says

[jc456]

I understand you don't get test, I understand that.

Proof that GHGs absorb IR and emit toward the surface, disproving your idiocy, makes you sad.

that doesn't prove jack shit.

What does incoming long-wave radiation suggest to your feeble mind?

sunlight?

At night?

why not, doesn't CO2 absorb incoming long-wave radiation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Proof that GHGs absorb IR and emit toward the surface, disproving your idiocy, makes you sad.

that doesn't prove jack shit.

What does incoming long-wave radiation suggest to your feeble mind?

sunlight?

At night?

why not, doesn't CO2 absorb incoming long-wave radiation?

Not really.

 

[jc456]

that doesn't prove jack shit.

What does incoming long-wave radiation suggest to your feeble mind?

sunlight?

At night?

why not, doesn't CO2 absorb incoming long-wave radiation?

Not really.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface. again, please present that test and I'll be wrong.

edit, sorry, re-emitted IR emitted from the surface does not warm the surface.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does incoming long-wave radiation suggest to your feeble mind?

sunlight?

At night?

why not, doesn't CO2 absorb incoming long-wave radiation?

Not really.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface. again, please present that test and I'll be wrong.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.

Re-emitted IR that travels from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?

 

[jc456]

sunlight?

At night?

why not, doesn't CO2 absorb incoming long-wave radiation?

Not really.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface. again, please present that test and I'll be wrong.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.

Re-emitted IR that travels from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?

nope. it's why there is no hotspot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At night?

why not, doesn't CO2 absorb incoming long-wave radiation?

Not really.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface. again, please present that test and I'll be wrong.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.

Re-emitted IR that travels from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?

nope. it's why there is no hotspot.

There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.

 

[jc456]

why not, doesn't CO2 absorb incoming long-wave radiation?

Not really.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface. again, please present that test and I'll be wrong.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.

Re-emitted IR that travels from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?

nope. it's why there is no hotspot.

There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.

quote my admittance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not really.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface. again, please present that test and I'll be wrong.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.

Re-emitted IR that travels from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?

nope. it's why there is no hotspot.

There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.

quote my admittance.

"well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface"

 

[jc456]

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface. again, please present that test and I'll be wrong.

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.

Re-emitted IR that travels from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?

nope. it's why there is no hotspot.

There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.

quote my admittance.

"well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface"

and?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.

Re-emitted IR that travels from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?

nope. it's why there is no hotspot.

There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.

quote my admittance.

"well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface"

and?

I showed you downward IR from the atmosphere. You thought it was from the Sun.
I told you it wasn't and that it occurs 24 hours a day. You said that downward IR that hits the surface, magically doesn't warm the surface. Either smart photons or hotspots was your reasoning.

 

[LaDexter]

Or that IR is a particularly weak part of the EM spectrum....

 

[jc456]

nope. it's why there is no hotspot.

There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.

quote my admittance.

"well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface"

and?

I showed you downward IR from the atmosphere. You thought it was from the Sun.
I told you it wasn't and that it occurs 24 hours a day. You said that downward IR that hits the surface, magically doesn't warm the surface. Either smart photons or hotspots was your reasoning.

you claim back radiation warms the surface. I asked you for a test that proves that there is such a thing as back radiation that warms the surface. To date, you have yet to provide that. CO2 absorbs, it emits, I asked for you to show it warms its surrounding, you got nothing. No other discussion is necessary until you can present that experiment.

BTW, then you claimed that CO2 only slows the output from the surface, I asked how, and still nothing. so right now, you have yet to produce any evidence to support either of your two claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.

quote my admittance.

"well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface"

and?

I showed you downward IR from the atmosphere. You thought it was from the Sun.
I told you it wasn't and that it occurs 24 hours a day. You said that downward IR that hits the surface, magically doesn't warm the surface. Either smart photons or hotspots was your reasoning.

you claim back radiation warms the surface. I asked you for a test that proves that there is such a thing as back radiation that warms the surface. To date, you have yet to provide that. CO2 absorbs, it emits, I asked for you to show it warms its surrounding, you got nothing. No other discussion is necessary until you can present that experiment.

BTW, then you claimed that CO2 only slows the output from the surface, I asked how, and still nothing. so right now, you have yet to produce any evidence to support either of your two claims.

you claim back radiation warms the surface

And you claim back radiation doesn't exist.
The chart of incoming long-wave is proof against your claim.

CO2 absorbs, it emits,

Because it's a greenhouse gas.

then you claimed that CO2 only slows the output from the surface

No, nothing slows output, because output is dependent on temperature.
I said it slows loss of heat....because it sends heat back to the surface.

 

[Crick]

Loss of heat from the atmosphere to space. Loss of heat from the Earth.

 

[IanC]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you believe. And are so CERTAIN about.

 

[Crick]

There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.

quote my admittance.

"well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface"

and?

I showed you downward IR from the atmosphere. You thought it was from the Sun.
I told you it wasn't and that it occurs 24 hours a day. You said that downward IR that hits the surface, magically doesn't warm the surface. Either smart photons or hotspots was your reasoning.

you claim back radiation warms the surface. I asked you for a test that proves that there is such a thing as back radiation that warms the surface. To date, you have yet to provide that. CO2 absorbs, it emits, I asked for you to show it warms its surrounding, you got nothing. No other discussion is necessary until you can present that experiment.

BTW, then you claimed that CO2 only slows the output from the surface, I asked how, and still nothing. so right now, you have yet to produce any evidence to support either of your two claims.

How many times now have you been shown spectrums - graphs of radiation - observed coming from the night sky towards the ground? A dozen?

 

[jc456]

quote my admittance.

"well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface"

and?

I showed you downward IR from the atmosphere. You thought it was from the Sun.
I told you it wasn't and that it occurs 24 hours a day. You said that downward IR that hits the surface, magically doesn't warm the surface. Either smart photons or hotspots was your reasoning.

you claim back radiation warms the surface. I asked you for a test that proves that there is such a thing as back radiation that warms the surface. To date, you have yet to provide that. CO2 absorbs, it emits, I asked for you to show it warms its surrounding, you got nothing. No other discussion is necessary until you can present that experiment.

BTW, then you claimed that CO2 only slows the output from the surface, I asked how, and still nothing. so right now, you have yet to produce any evidence to support either of your two claims.

How many times now have you been shown spectrums - graphs of radiation - observed coming from the night sky towards the ground? A dozen?

 

[Crick]

This is the spectrum of radiation coming down from the night sky

All of these graphs were created from measurements looking upwards into the night sky. THIS is backradiation.

 

[jc456]

This is the spectrum of radiation coming down from the night sky

All of these graphs were created from measurements looking upwards into the night sky. THIS is backradiation.

Sure it is. How was it measured

 

[IanC]

This is the spectrum of radiation coming down from the night sky

All of these graphs were created from measurements looking upwards into the night sky. THIS is backradiation.

Sure it is. How was it measured

Hahahaha, very carefully! What is with you guys?

The instruments are designed to be sensitive at specific wavelengths. Why do you think it is impossible?