Why do so many people deny climate change

[Toddsterpatriot]

I suggest you narrow your research to a description of post modern science....

Or you could post what you mean.

This is actually hysterically funny and now ya gotta sit thru an explanation..
I saw that sucker punch coming and ducked. Because ASSUMING that SSDD realized the implications of labeling my science advice and views as "post modern" --- BECAUSE

The THREE of us (you, me and him) are actually more "Traditionalist" than "Post Modern" on many issues.. Like for instance --- the Constitution.. Which was written BEFORE NSA had massive satellite and communications gear to monitor "our Private Papers and Effects".

Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.

It is our JOB to make certain that any NEW issues or insights do not violate the letter of the law. And I've explained to him that they do not.. However --- with no Supreme Court to weigh traditionalist versus post modern "truth" ---- we're at an impasse.. It's like all those 5 to 4 decisions that are based on opinion.. Except that science backed me up and left him DENYING the existence of the new technology and insights that are REAL and MODERN.

Try DENYING computer spying and communications hacking from a Traditionalist View of our Constitution...

ROFLing in an awkward sort of way...

He has issues with the gas laws as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.
..

There are no measurements of backradiation because it does not exist. There are examples of people fooling themselves with measuring devices, but no measurements of backradiation.

Uh non, mon ami.. SERIOUSLY?? I've been trying to be diplomatic..

I've got a $120 IR thermometer with a 12deg beam.. If it's at room temp and I point it at a colder window to find the leak ---- I've just MEASURED "back radiation". IR photons traveling from a COLDER OBJECT to a warmer one.

And it's quite damn accurate.. Ya really want another 12 pages of Hatfields and McCoys???

 

[flacaltenn]

Please SSDD --- let's go back to DEFCON 1..

Or not....

Start with the 26 references at the end.. Apparently NONE of these atmos scientists, physicists or meterologists ever knew they "can't measure backradiation..

Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

1.Aldos-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J. I., 1988: Effects of solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometers with silicon domes.J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,5, 666–670.
2.Albrecht, B., Cox, S. K., 1977: Procedures for improving pyrgeometer performance.J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 188–197.
3.Albrecht, B., Poellot, M., Cox, S. K., 1974: Pyrgeometer measurements from aircraft.Rev. Sci. Instrum.,45, 33–38.
4.Anderson, E. R., 1952: Energy budget studies,U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ.,229, 138–144.
5.Bauer, P., Schlüssel, P., 1993: Rainfall, total water, ice water and water vapour over sea from polarized microwave simulations and SSM/I data.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20737–20760.
6.Berdahl, P., Fromberg, R., 1982: The thermal radiance of clear skies,Solar Energy,29, 299–314.
7.Brutsaert, W., 1975: On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies.Water Resour. Res.,11, 742–744.
8.Darnell, W. L., Gupta, S. K., Staylor, W. F., 1983: Downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,22, 1956–1960.
9.Frouin, R., Gautier, C., Morcrette, J. J., 1988: Downward longwave irradiance at the ocean surface from satellite data: Methodology and in situ validation.J. Geophys. Res.,93, 597–619.
10.Gupta, S. K., Darnell, W. L., Staylor, W. F., 1983: A parameterization for downward longwave radiation from satellite meteorological data, Preprints, Fifth Conf. on Atmospheric Radiation, Baltimore, 436–439.
11.Hinzpeter, H., 1977: Atmospheric radiation instruments.Atmospheric Radiation, 491–507.
12.Hollweg, H. D., 1993: A k distribution method considering centres and wings of atmospheric absorption lines.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 2747–2756.
13.Idso, S. B., 1981: A set of equations for the full spectrum and 8–14 micron and 10.5–12.5 micron thermal radiation from cloudless skies.Water Resour. Res.,17, 295–304.
14.Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., 1969: Thermal radiation from the atmosphere.J. Geophys. Res.,74, 5397–5403.
15.Lind, R. J., Katsaros, K. B., 1982: A model of longwave irradiance for use with surface observations.J. Appl. Meteor.,2, 1015–1023.
16.Martin, M., Berdahl, P., 1984: characteristics of infrared sky radiation in the United States.Solar Energy,33, 321–336.
17.McClatchey, R. A., Fenn, R. W., Selby, J. E. A., Volz, F. E., Garing, J. S., 1972: Optical properties of the atmosphere, AFCRL-Report 72-0497.
18.Morcrette, J. J., Deschamps, P. Y., 1986: Downward longwave radiation at the surface in clear-sky atmosphere: comparison of measured, satellite-derived and calculated fluxes, ISLSCP Conference, Rome, Italy, ESA SP-248, 257–261.
19.Ramanathan, V., Subasilar, B., Zhang, G. J., Conant, W., Cess, R. D., Kiehl, J. T., Grassl, H., Shi, L., 1995: Warm pool heat budget and shortwave cloud forcing: A missing physics?Science,267, 499–503.
20.Schlüssel, P., Emery, W. J., 1990: Atmospheric water vapour over oceans from SSM/I measurements.Int. J. Remote Sens.,11, 705–721.
21.Schlüssel, P., Schanz, L., Englisch, G., 1995: Retrieval of latent heat flux and longwave irradiance at the sea surface from SSM/I and AVHRR measurements.Adv. Space Res., (10)107–(10)116.
22.Schmetz, J., 1989: Towards a surface radiation climatology: Retrieval of downward irradiances from satellites.Atmos. Res.,23, 287–321.
23.Schmetz, J., 1991: Retrieval of radiation fluxes from satellite data.Dynam. Atmosph. Oceans,16, 61–72.
24.Schmetz, P., Schmetz, J., Raschke, E., 1986: Estimation of daytime downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite and grid point data.Theor. Appl. Climatol.,37, 136–149.
25.Smith, W. L., Woolf, H. M., 1983: Geostationary satellite sounder (VAS) observations of longwave radiation flux. Conf. on Satellite Systems to Measure Radiation Budget Parameters and Climate Change Signal, International Radiation Commission, Igls, Austria.
26.Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1991: Free software helps map and display data.Trans. Am. Geophys. U.,72, 441 and 445–446.

This body of work goes back the 1986.. All that "post-modern" crap that you hate...

Truce???

 

[bripat9643]

Here's an idea. Build the Keystone Pipeline to the moon instead of Louisiana. Gather up all of the fossil fuel wastes that we fart into our atmosphere and pipe them to the moon, thus creating on the moon the prelife earth atmosphere and therefore climate. Then farm it.

Those are the kinds of ideas we expect from you, PMS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.
..

There are no measurements of backradiation because it does not exist. There are examples of people fooling themselves with measuring devices, but no measurements of backradiation.

Uh non, mon ami.. SERIOUSLY?? I've been trying to be diplomatic..

I've got a $120 IR thermometer with a 12deg beam.. If it's at room temp and I point it at a colder window to find the leak ---- I've just MEASURED "back radiation". IR photons traveling from a COLDER OBJECT to a warmer one.

And it's quite damn accurate.. Ya really want another 12 pages of Hatfields and McCoys???

Oh come on, photons can't travel from a cold object to a warmer object.

That's why I don't go out in winter anymore, all cold objects are invisible to my warm eyeball.

 

[SSDD]

Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.
..

There are no measurements of backradiation because it does not exist. There are examples of people fooling themselves with measuring devices, but no measurements of backradiation.

Uh non, mon ami.. SERIOUSLY?? I've been trying to be diplomatic..

I've got a $120 IR thermometer with a 12deg beam.. If it's at room temp and I point it at a colder window to find the leak ---- I've just MEASURED "back radiation". IR photons traveling from a COLDER OBJECT to a warmer one.

And it's quite damn accurate.. Ya really want another 12 pages of Hatfields and McCoys???

I have one also....and neither yours nor mine actually measures IR radiation. They compare the temperature of the object you are pointing them at with an internal thermopile. You aren't getting a reading as the result of an incoming flow of photons, you are getting a reading based on a temperature difference. If the thermopile is heating, then the rate of heating is used to determine the temperature difference between itself and the object you are pointing at.....if it is cooling, then the rate of cooling is used to determine the difference between its temperature and the temperature of the object it is pointed at. Refer to the many available papers on fooling yourself with instrumentation.

There are no measurements of backradiation because there is no backradiation. The scientific agencies who supposedly have data bases of backradiation to an agency measure the "backradiation" with an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to get a measurement...of course, if the instrument is colder than the atmosphere, then the warmer atmosphere is radiating to the warmer instrument and they aren't actually measuring backradiation.

 

[flacaltenn]

There are no measurements of backradiation because it does not exist. There are examples of people fooling themselves with measuring devices, but no measurements of backradiation.

Uh non, mon ami.. SERIOUSLY?? I've been trying to be diplomatic..

I've got a $120 IR thermometer with a 12deg beam.. If it's at room temp and I point it at a colder window to find the leak ---- I've just MEASURED "back radiation". IR photons traveling from a COLDER OBJECT to a warmer one.

And it's quite damn accurate.. Ya really want another 12 pages of Hatfields and McCoys???

Oh come on, photons can't travel from a cold object to a warmer object.

That's why I don't go out in winter anymore, all cold objects are invisible to my warm eyeball.

Same problem here. Sometimes my wife fades from view also..



Well -- when diplomacy fails --- you gotta be ready.

 

[SSDD]

Please SSDD --- let's go back to DEFCON 1..

Or not....

Start with the 26 references at the end.. Apparently NONE of these atmos scientists, physicists or meterologists ever knew they "can't measure backradiation..

Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

1.Aldos-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J. I., 1988: Effects of solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometers with silicon domes.J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,5, 666–670.
2.Albrecht, B., Cox, S. K., 1977: Procedures for improving pyrgeometer performance.J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 188–197.
3.Albrecht, B., Poellot, M., Cox, S. K., 1974: Pyrgeometer measurements from aircraft.Rev. Sci. Instrum.,45, 33–38.
4.Anderson, E. R., 1952: Energy budget studies,U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ.,229, 138–144.
5.Bauer, P., Schlüssel, P., 1993: Rainfall, total water, ice water and water vapour over sea from polarized microwave simulations and SSM/I data.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20737–20760.
6.Berdahl, P., Fromberg, R., 1982: The thermal radiance of clear skies,Solar Energy,29, 299–314.
7.Brutsaert, W., 1975: On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies.Water Resour. Res.,11, 742–744.
8.Darnell, W. L., Gupta, S. K., Staylor, W. F., 1983: Downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,22, 1956–1960.
9.Frouin, R., Gautier, C., Morcrette, J. J., 1988: Downward longwave irradiance at the ocean surface from satellite data: Methodology and in situ validation.J. Geophys. Res.,93, 597–619.
10.Gupta, S. K., Darnell, W. L., Staylor, W. F., 1983: A parameterization for downward longwave radiation from satellite meteorological data, Preprints, Fifth Conf. on Atmospheric Radiation, Baltimore, 436–439.
11.Hinzpeter, H., 1977: Atmospheric radiation instruments.Atmospheric Radiation, 491–507.
12.Hollweg, H. D., 1993: A k distribution method considering centres and wings of atmospheric absorption lines.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 2747–2756.
13.Idso, S. B., 1981: A set of equations for the full spectrum and 8–14 micron and 10.5–12.5 micron thermal radiation from cloudless skies.Water Resour. Res.,17, 295–304.
14.Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., 1969: Thermal radiation from the atmosphere.J. Geophys. Res.,74, 5397–5403.
15.Lind, R. J., Katsaros, K. B., 1982: A model of longwave irradiance for use with surface observations.J. Appl. Meteor.,2, 1015–1023.
16.Martin, M., Berdahl, P., 1984: characteristics of infrared sky radiation in the United States.Solar Energy,33, 321–336.
17.McClatchey, R. A., Fenn, R. W., Selby, J. E. A., Volz, F. E., Garing, J. S., 1972: Optical properties of the atmosphere, AFCRL-Report 72-0497.
18.Morcrette, J. J., Deschamps, P. Y., 1986: Downward longwave radiation at the surface in clear-sky atmosphere: comparison of measured, satellite-derived and calculated fluxes, ISLSCP Conference, Rome, Italy, ESA SP-248, 257–261.
19.Ramanathan, V., Subasilar, B., Zhang, G. J., Conant, W., Cess, R. D., Kiehl, J. T., Grassl, H., Shi, L., 1995: Warm pool heat budget and shortwave cloud forcing: A missing physics?Science,267, 499–503.
20.Schlüssel, P., Emery, W. J., 1990: Atmospheric water vapour over oceans from SSM/I measurements.Int. J. Remote Sens.,11, 705–721.
21.Schlüssel, P., Schanz, L., Englisch, G., 1995: Retrieval of latent heat flux and longwave irradiance at the sea surface from SSM/I and AVHRR measurements.Adv. Space Res., (10)107–(10)116.
22.Schmetz, J., 1989: Towards a surface radiation climatology: Retrieval of downward irradiances from satellites.Atmos. Res.,23, 287–321.
23.Schmetz, J., 1991: Retrieval of radiation fluxes from satellite data.Dynam. Atmosph. Oceans,16, 61–72.
24.Schmetz, P., Schmetz, J., Raschke, E., 1986: Estimation of daytime downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite and grid point data.Theor. Appl. Climatol.,37, 136–149.
25.Smith, W. L., Woolf, H. M., 1983: Geostationary satellite sounder (VAS) observations of longwave radiation flux. Conf. on Satellite Systems to Measure Radiation Budget Parameters and Climate Change Signal, International Radiation Commission, Igls, Austria.
26.Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1991: Free software helps map and display data.Trans. Am. Geophys. U.,72, 441 and 445–446.

This body of work goes back the 1986.. All that "post-modern" crap that you hate...

Truce???

Did you note that your paper stated that "The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. It went on to say "The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2.

Here, have a read:

How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

CO2 alarmism feeds on an idea of massive backradiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, about 330 W/m2 to be compared with 170 W/m2 absorbed shortwave radiation from the Sun.

DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?

The answer by a CO2 alarmist is: DLR exists because you can measure it, e.g. it by a pyrgeometer:

a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.
Here is how it works according to Wikipedia:


The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect the earth surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:


Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Ein - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²]
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Uemf - thermopile output voltage [V]
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]
The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]
To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:


Where:
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
σ - Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m²·K4)]
T - Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]
From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.
As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.


So now we now how DLR is measured. Does this mean that DLR exists as a physical transfer of energy from atmosphere to Earth surface? No, it does not as explained as myth of backradiation or DLR. We recall:
A pyrgeometer measures a net transfer and then invents DLR by adding the net to outgoing radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann for a blackbody emitting into a void at 0 K.

We see that a pyrgeometer does not measure DLR directly but invents it from the formula
E_in = E_net + E_out,
which is supposed to result from E_net = E_in - E_out expressing a Stefan-Boltzmann law of the form
E_net = sigma Ta^4 - sigma Te^4,
where Ta and Te are the temperatures of atmosphere and Earth surface. But Stefan-Boltzmann's law is not described this way in physics literature, where it instead takes the form
E_net = sigma (Ta^4 - Te^4),
which does not allow extracting DLR as sigma Ta^4.

DLR and backradiation is thus fiction invented from an ad hoc formula without physical reality, which is not described in the physics literature. Nevertheless there are companies selling pyrgeometers at price of 4.000 Euro, but of course selling fiction can also serve as a business idea. But is it legal to sell fiction as science? As science fiction?

To sum up: Working with fictional differences of massive gross flows feeds alarm, while physically correct net flow does not.

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

 

[flacaltenn]

There are no measurements of backradiation because it does not exist. There are examples of people fooling themselves with measuring devices, but no measurements of backradiation.

Uh non, mon ami.. SERIOUSLY?? I've been trying to be diplomatic..

I've got a $120 IR thermometer with a 12deg beam.. If it's at room temp and I point it at a colder window to find the leak ---- I've just MEASURED "back radiation". IR photons traveling from a COLDER OBJECT to a warmer one.

And it's quite damn accurate.. Ya really want another 12 pages of Hatfields and McCoys???

I have one also....and neither yours nor mine actually measures IR radiation. They compare the temperature of the object you are pointing them at with an internal thermopile. You aren't getting a reading as the result of an incoming flow of photons, you are getting a reading based on a temperature difference. If the thermopile is heating, then the rate of heating is used to determine the temperature difference between itself and the object you are pointing at.....if it is cooling, then the rate of cooling is used to determine the difference between its temperature and the temperature of the object it is pointed at. Refer to the many available papers on fooling yourself with instrumentation.

You're talking to a guy that designs photon counting cameras for medical use.. These handheld IR "non-contact" thermometers are all optical.. They ALL specify an angle of acceptance for the beam so that you know how big an area you're measuring at what distance. In fact --- on the ones I use at client's places --- they have various plug-on filters for observing different IR bands. EVEN THERMOPILES measure photons if they used in NON-CONTACT applications..

There are no measurements of backradiation because there is no backradiation. The scientific agencies who supposedly have data bases of backradiation to an agency measure the "backradiation" with an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to get a measurement...of course, if the instrument is colder than the atmosphere, then the warmer atmosphere is radiating to the warmer instrument and they aren't actually measuring backradiation.

Someone's misled you.. The reason that these high grade pyrometers are super cooled is NOT because back radiation doesn't exist. It's for accuracy of measurement and calibration to -----

A) reduce temperature drift in the sensors and processing circuits.
B) to reduce 1/F type thermal noise in the amplifiers and processing.

I do cooled cameras all the time with Peltier and other solid state coolers.. NOT BECAUSE the flourescing protein I'm looking at and counting photons from is colder --- but because the signal is so close to the noise level.. Cooling from room temperature to even close to zero reduces the ELECTRONIC noise level sometimes 10 fold.

 

[PMZ]

Please SSDD --- let's go back to DEFCON 1..

Or not....

Start with the 26 references at the end.. Apparently NONE of these atmos scientists, physicists or meterologists ever knew they "can't measure backradiation..

Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

1.Aldos-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J. I., 1988: Effects of solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometers with silicon domes.J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,5, 666–670.
2.Albrecht, B., Cox, S. K., 1977: Procedures for improving pyrgeometer performance.J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 188–197.
3.Albrecht, B., Poellot, M., Cox, S. K., 1974: Pyrgeometer measurements from aircraft.Rev. Sci. Instrum.,45, 33–38.
4.Anderson, E. R., 1952: Energy budget studies,U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ.,229, 138–144.
5.Bauer, P., Schlüssel, P., 1993: Rainfall, total water, ice water and water vapour over sea from polarized microwave simulations and SSM/I data.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20737–20760.
6.Berdahl, P., Fromberg, R., 1982: The thermal radiance of clear skies,Solar Energy,29, 299–314.
7.Brutsaert, W., 1975: On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies.Water Resour. Res.,11, 742–744.
8.Darnell, W. L., Gupta, S. K., Staylor, W. F., 1983: Downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,22, 1956–1960.
9.Frouin, R., Gautier, C., Morcrette, J. J., 1988: Downward longwave irradiance at the ocean surface from satellite data: Methodology and in situ validation.J. Geophys. Res.,93, 597–619.
10.Gupta, S. K., Darnell, W. L., Staylor, W. F., 1983: A parameterization for downward longwave radiation from satellite meteorological data, Preprints, Fifth Conf. on Atmospheric Radiation, Baltimore, 436–439.
11.Hinzpeter, H., 1977: Atmospheric radiation instruments.Atmospheric Radiation, 491–507.
12.Hollweg, H. D., 1993: A k distribution method considering centres and wings of atmospheric absorption lines.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 2747–2756.
13.Idso, S. B., 1981: A set of equations for the full spectrum and 8–14 micron and 10.5–12.5 micron thermal radiation from cloudless skies.Water Resour. Res.,17, 295–304.
14.Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., 1969: Thermal radiation from the atmosphere.J. Geophys. Res.,74, 5397–5403.
15.Lind, R. J., Katsaros, K. B., 1982: A model of longwave irradiance for use with surface observations.J. Appl. Meteor.,2, 1015–1023.
16.Martin, M., Berdahl, P., 1984: characteristics of infrared sky radiation in the United States.Solar Energy,33, 321–336.
17.McClatchey, R. A., Fenn, R. W., Selby, J. E. A., Volz, F. E., Garing, J. S., 1972: Optical properties of the atmosphere, AFCRL-Report 72-0497.
18.Morcrette, J. J., Deschamps, P. Y., 1986: Downward longwave radiation at the surface in clear-sky atmosphere: comparison of measured, satellite-derived and calculated fluxes, ISLSCP Conference, Rome, Italy, ESA SP-248, 257–261.
19.Ramanathan, V., Subasilar, B., Zhang, G. J., Conant, W., Cess, R. D., Kiehl, J. T., Grassl, H., Shi, L., 1995: Warm pool heat budget and shortwave cloud forcing: A missing physics?Science,267, 499–503.
20.Schlüssel, P., Emery, W. J., 1990: Atmospheric water vapour over oceans from SSM/I measurements.Int. J. Remote Sens.,11, 705–721.
21.Schlüssel, P., Schanz, L., Englisch, G., 1995: Retrieval of latent heat flux and longwave irradiance at the sea surface from SSM/I and AVHRR measurements.Adv. Space Res., (10)107–(10)116.
22.Schmetz, J., 1989: Towards a surface radiation climatology: Retrieval of downward irradiances from satellites.Atmos. Res.,23, 287–321.
23.Schmetz, J., 1991: Retrieval of radiation fluxes from satellite data.Dynam. Atmosph. Oceans,16, 61–72.
24.Schmetz, P., Schmetz, J., Raschke, E., 1986: Estimation of daytime downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite and grid point data.Theor. Appl. Climatol.,37, 136–149.
25.Smith, W. L., Woolf, H. M., 1983: Geostationary satellite sounder (VAS) observations of longwave radiation flux. Conf. on Satellite Systems to Measure Radiation Budget Parameters and Climate Change Signal, International Radiation Commission, Igls, Austria.
26.Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1991: Free software helps map and display data.Trans. Am. Geophys. U.,72, 441 and 445–446.

This body of work goes back the 1986.. All that "post-modern" crap that you hate...

Truce???

Did you note that your paper stated that "The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. It went on to say "The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2.

Here, have a read:

How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

CO2 alarmism feeds on an idea of massive backradiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, about 330 W/m2 to be compared with 170 W/m2 absorbed shortwave radiation from the Sun.

DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?

The answer by a CO2 alarmist is: DLR exists because you can measure it, e.g. it by a pyrgeometer:

a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.
Here is how it works according to Wikipedia:


The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect the earth surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:


Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Ein - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²]
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Uemf - thermopile output voltage [V]
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]
The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]
To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:


Where:
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
σ - Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m²·K4)]
T - Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]
From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.
As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.


So now we now how DLR is measured. Does this mean that DLR exists as a physical transfer of energy from atmosphere to Earth surface? No, it does not as explained as myth of backradiation or DLR. We recall:
A pyrgeometer measures a net transfer and then invents DLR by adding the net to outgoing radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann for a blackbody emitting into a void at 0 K.

We see that a pyrgeometer does not measure DLR directly but invents it from the formula
E_in = E_net + E_out,
which is supposed to result from E_net = E_in - E_out expressing a Stefan-Boltzmann law of the form
E_net = sigma Ta^4 - sigma Te^4,
where Ta and Te are the temperatures of atmosphere and Earth surface. But Stefan-Boltzmann's law is not described this way in physics literature, where it instead takes the form
E_net = sigma (Ta^4 - Te^4),
which does not allow extracting DLR as sigma Ta^4.

DLR and backradiation is thus fiction invented from an ad hoc formula without physical reality, which is not described in the physics literature. Nevertheless there are companies selling pyrgeometers at price of 4.000 Euro, but of course selling fiction can also serve as a business idea. But is it legal to sell fiction as science? As science fiction?

To sum up: Working with fictional differences of massive gross flows feeds alarm, while physically correct net flow does not.

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

''DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?''

Of course the real question is what is the evidence that GHGs don't absorb longwave radiation. Of course the answer is, none.

 

[itfitzme]

Did you note that your paper stated that "The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. It went on to say "The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2.

Here, have a read:

How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

CO2 alarmism feeds on an idea of massive backradiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, about 330 W/m2 to be compared with 170 W/m2 absorbed shortwave radiation from the Sun.

DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?

The answer by a CO2 alarmist is: DLR exists because you can measure it, e.g. it by a pyrgeometer:

a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.
Here is how it works according to Wikipedia:


The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect the earth surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:


Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Ein - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²]
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Uemf - thermopile output voltage [V]
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]
The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]
To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:


Where:
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
σ - Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m²·K4)]
T - Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]
From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.
As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.


So now we now how DLR is measured. Does this mean that DLR exists as a physical transfer of energy from atmosphere to Earth surface? No, it does not as explained as myth of backradiation or DLR. We recall:
A pyrgeometer measures a net transfer and then invents DLR by adding the net to outgoing radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann for a blackbody emitting into a void at 0 K.

We see that a pyrgeometer does not measure DLR directly but invents it from the formula
E_in = E_net + E_out,
which is supposed to result from E_net = E_in - E_out expressing a Stefan-Boltzmann law of the form
E_net = sigma Ta^4 - sigma Te^4,
where Ta and Te are the temperatures of atmosphere and Earth surface. But Stefan-Boltzmann's law is not described this way in physics literature, where it instead takes the form
E_net = sigma (Ta^4 - Te^4),
which does not allow extracting DLR as sigma Ta^4.

DLR and backradiation is thus fiction invented from an ad hoc formula without physical reality, which is not described in the physics literature. Nevertheless there are companies selling pyrgeometers at price of 4.000 Euro, but of course selling fiction can also serve as a business idea. But is it legal to sell fiction as science? As science fiction?

To sum up: Working with fictional differences of massive gross flows feeds alarm, while physically correct net flow does not.

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

''DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?''

Of course the real question is what is the evidence that GHGs don't absorb longwave radiation. Of course the answer is, none.

Sunlight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Direct sunlight has a luminous efficacy of about 93 lumens per watt of radiant flux. Bright sunlight provides illuminance of approximately 100,000 lux or lumens per square meter at the Earth's surface. The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation. At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, with more than three times the fraction of ultraviolet (UV), with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically-damaging shortwave ultraviolet.[3][4][5]"

Any idea what he's talking about?

 

[orogenicman]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

Global warming and climate change are nothing but Globalist agendas to put carbon taxes on people so the Globalists can fund a world bank.

It is a scam thought up by bankers for the benefits of bankers. No real environmentalism is going on.

This is why people are tired of it.

Yeah, it's all an evil science/banker conspiracy, while the deniers have humanity's best interest at heart. Oh wait...

 

[flacaltenn]

Please SSDD --- let's go back to DEFCON 1..

Or not....

Start with the 26 references at the end.. Apparently NONE of these atmos scientists, physicists or meterologists ever knew they "can't measure backradiation..

Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

1.Aldos-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J. I., 1988: Effects of solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometers with silicon domes.J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,5, 666–670.
2.Albrecht, B., Cox, S. K., 1977: Procedures for improving pyrgeometer performance.J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 188–197.
3.Albrecht, B., Poellot, M., Cox, S. K., 1974: Pyrgeometer measurements from aircraft.Rev. Sci. Instrum.,45, 33–38.
4.Anderson, E. R., 1952: Energy budget studies,U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ.,229, 138–144.
5.Bauer, P., Schlüssel, P., 1993: Rainfall, total water, ice water and water vapour over sea from polarized microwave simulations and SSM/I data.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20737–20760.
6.Berdahl, P., Fromberg, R., 1982: The thermal radiance of clear skies,Solar Energy,29, 299–314.
7.Brutsaert, W., 1975: On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies.Water Resour. Res.,11, 742–744.
8.Darnell, W. L., Gupta, S. K., Staylor, W. F., 1983: Downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,22, 1956–1960.
9.Frouin, R., Gautier, C., Morcrette, J. J., 1988: Downward longwave irradiance at the ocean surface from satellite data: Methodology and in situ validation.J. Geophys. Res.,93, 597–619.
10.Gupta, S. K., Darnell, W. L., Staylor, W. F., 1983: A parameterization for downward longwave radiation from satellite meteorological data, Preprints, Fifth Conf. on Atmospheric Radiation, Baltimore, 436–439.
11.Hinzpeter, H., 1977: Atmospheric radiation instruments.Atmospheric Radiation, 491–507.
12.Hollweg, H. D., 1993: A k distribution method considering centres and wings of atmospheric absorption lines.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 2747–2756.
13.Idso, S. B., 1981: A set of equations for the full spectrum and 8–14 micron and 10.5–12.5 micron thermal radiation from cloudless skies.Water Resour. Res.,17, 295–304.
14.Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., 1969: Thermal radiation from the atmosphere.J. Geophys. Res.,74, 5397–5403.
15.Lind, R. J., Katsaros, K. B., 1982: A model of longwave irradiance for use with surface observations.J. Appl. Meteor.,2, 1015–1023.
16.Martin, M., Berdahl, P., 1984: characteristics of infrared sky radiation in the United States.Solar Energy,33, 321–336.
17.McClatchey, R. A., Fenn, R. W., Selby, J. E. A., Volz, F. E., Garing, J. S., 1972: Optical properties of the atmosphere, AFCRL-Report 72-0497.
18.Morcrette, J. J., Deschamps, P. Y., 1986: Downward longwave radiation at the surface in clear-sky atmosphere: comparison of measured, satellite-derived and calculated fluxes, ISLSCP Conference, Rome, Italy, ESA SP-248, 257–261.
19.Ramanathan, V., Subasilar, B., Zhang, G. J., Conant, W., Cess, R. D., Kiehl, J. T., Grassl, H., Shi, L., 1995: Warm pool heat budget and shortwave cloud forcing: A missing physics?Science,267, 499–503.
20.Schlüssel, P., Emery, W. J., 1990: Atmospheric water vapour over oceans from SSM/I measurements.Int. J. Remote Sens.,11, 705–721.
21.Schlüssel, P., Schanz, L., Englisch, G., 1995: Retrieval of latent heat flux and longwave irradiance at the sea surface from SSM/I and AVHRR measurements.Adv. Space Res., (10)107–(10)116.
22.Schmetz, J., 1989: Towards a surface radiation climatology: Retrieval of downward irradiances from satellites.Atmos. Res.,23, 287–321.
23.Schmetz, J., 1991: Retrieval of radiation fluxes from satellite data.Dynam. Atmosph. Oceans,16, 61–72.
24.Schmetz, P., Schmetz, J., Raschke, E., 1986: Estimation of daytime downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite and grid point data.Theor. Appl. Climatol.,37, 136–149.
25.Smith, W. L., Woolf, H. M., 1983: Geostationary satellite sounder (VAS) observations of longwave radiation flux. Conf. on Satellite Systems to Measure Radiation Budget Parameters and Climate Change Signal, International Radiation Commission, Igls, Austria.
26.Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1991: Free software helps map and display data.Trans. Am. Geophys. U.,72, 441 and 445–446.

This body of work goes back the 1986.. All that "post-modern" crap that you hate...

Truce???

Did you note that your paper stated that "The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. It went on to say "The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2.

Here, have a read:

How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

CO2 alarmism feeds on an idea of massive backradiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, about 330 W/m2 to be compared with 170 W/m2 absorbed shortwave radiation from the Sun.

DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?

I almost quit reading right there. Mr SnowJob has already weighed in with his Wiki brain to observe that the sun flux to the surface is in the range of 1000W/m2 by its lonesome. So don't panic yet..

Now IT'S TRUE that the down-IR is about 330W/m2, but that does not ADD to the heat energy at the surface because your "mentor midget" here has neglected to tell you that at the SAME TIME --- 400W/m2 is LEAVING the surface. A little radiative complex subtraction tells you that the NET FLOW is UP.. About 70W/m2 towards the sky. That's the prime "cooling rate" of the planet... Had the 333 back radiation NOT EXISTED, you'd be a fudgesickle right now. So there are no eggs boiling, frying or being scrambled.

The answer by a CO2 alarmist is: DLR exists because you can measure it, e.g. it by a pyrgeometer:

a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.
Here is how it works according to Wikipedia:


The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect the earth surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:


Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Ein - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²]
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Uemf - thermopile output voltage [V]
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]
The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]
To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:

DUDE !!! Wake up !!! this is not a conspiracy.. ALL radiative IR fluxes are measured this way.. If you're gonna count photons, you need to tally them in BOTH DIRECTIONS..
All that is being done is to subtract from the sensor reading an amount equal to the Black Body radiation of the sensor itself.. Thats all that Boltzmann crap that follows here.


[[Do you see a parallel here? The analogy between subtracting the "back flow" of photons from the sensor to accurately determine the INPUT flow?
It's really is defined in EVERY Radiative Physics textbook.. True story. Back flow -- Back Radiation? ]]

Nothing more than compensating a temperature reading for the "heat energy" being generated by the device itself.. CALIBRATION MAN....

[/quote]

Can't do the rest of this turdish quote.. The conclusions are based on severe misunderstandings of physics and instrumentation already addressed...

Can we quit now?

 

[SSDD]

You're talking to a guy that designs photon counting cameras for medical use.. These handheld IR "non-contact" thermometers are all optical.. They ALL specify an angle of acceptance for the beam so that you know how big an area you're measuring at what distance. In fact --- on the ones I use at client's places --- they have various plug-on filters for observing different IR bands. EVEN THERMOPILES measure photons if they used in NON-CONTACT applications..

I am also talking to a guy who obviously doesn't know what is instrument is measuring. IR thermometers work on the same principle as Pictet's experiment. Look it up and perhaps learn to apply your knowledge to the real world as opposed to the model world.

misled you.. The reason that these high grade pyrometers are super cooled is NOT because back radiation doesn't exist. It's for accuracy of measurement and calibration to -----

Alas, you have been misled...if they weren't cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, they would not measure downdwelling radiation as it would not be happening.

You are fooling yourself with your instrumentation....not uncommon but very unfortunate. Don't worry though, it is prevalent among today's scientists. Hell, no less than dr roy spencer still believes that when he points his IR thermometer at the sky, he is measuring downdwelling IR even after the manufacturer of the device explained in no uncertain terms that he wasn't and why. Being able to use a device is no assurance of knowing exactly what it is measuring.

 

[SSDD]

Of course the real question is what is the evidence that GHGs don't absorb longwave radiation. Of course the answer is, none.

There is no question about CO2 absorbing...but absorption and emission does not equal warming. You really are clueless.

 

[Abraham3]

Of course the real question is what is the evidence that GHGs don't absorb longwave radiation. Of course the answer is, none.

There is no question about CO2 absorbing...but absorption and emission does not equal warming. You really are clueless.

It seems that you really have no point to make and no evidence to support the point you'd like to.

Personally, until you admit the validity of quantum theory and the reality of un-magically-restrained radiative heat transfer("if they weren't cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, they would not measure downdwelling radiation as it would not be happening"), I see no point in anyone discussing ANY technical topic with you. Your views on those two points identify you as unqualified to form an opinion worth discussion.

ps: it's downwelling, not downdwelling.

 

[SSDD]

Now IT'S TRUE that the down-IR is about 330W/m2, but that does not ADD to the heat energy at the surface because your "mentor midget" here has neglected to tell you that at the SAME TIME --- 400W/m2 is LEAVING the surface. A little radiative complex subtraction tells you that the NET FLOW is UP.. About 70W/m2 towards the sky. That's the prime "cooling rate" of the planet... Had the 333 back radiation NOT EXISTED, you'd be a fudgesickle right now. So there are no eggs boiling, frying or being scrambled.

There is no 333 backradiation...you are not freezing because you live under a column of air that is miles high....the heat of compression explains the temperature on earth, not a fictitious greenhouse effect.

!!! Wake up !!! this is not a conspiracy.. ALL radiative IR fluxes are measured this way.. If you're gonna count photons, you need to tally them in BOTH DIRECTIONS.. All that is being done is to subtract from the sensor reading an amount equal to the Black Body radiation of the sensor itself.. Thats all that Boltzmann crap that follows here.

You aren't counting photons "dude". You don't even know whether photons exist or not. At present, they are an ad hoc explanation for a behavior of light that we can't think of any other explanation for.

Do you see a parallel here? The analogy between subtracting the "back flow" of photons from the sensor to accurately determine the INPUT flow? It's really is defined in EVERY Radiative Physics textbook.. True story. Back flow -- Back Radiation?

There is no backflow. There is either inflow if the object being measured is warmer, or outflow if the object is cooler....the rest is a calculation based on the changing temperature. Sorry that you don't understand how your instrumentation works....You would think that since you make your living with it apparently, you would take time to actually understand it.

we quit now?

Sure, anytime. You are wrong and won't see it. You believe in the magic and nothing can convince you otherwise....I only hope that I live long enough to see the collapse of post modern science back to a state of actual science so that I can have the chance to fully enjoy your humble apology. I won't gloat though...I am bigger than that.

 

[SSDD]

Personally, until you admit the validity of quantum theory and the reality of un-magically-restrained radiative heat transfer, I see no point in discussing ANY technical topic with you. Your views on those two points identify you as unqualified to form an opinion worth discussion.

So long as quantum theory remains full of errors, contradictions, and ad hoc fixes, what idiot would even think that it is valid. The contradictions found within it raise far more questions than it answers. It is a best guess at explaining a lot of things that we don't understand....the suggestion of validity is laughable at this point in our learning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're talking to a guy that designs photon counting cameras for medical use.. These handheld IR "non-contact" thermometers are all optical.. They ALL specify an angle of acceptance for the beam so that you know how big an area you're measuring at what distance. In fact --- on the ones I use at client's places --- they have various plug-on filters for observing different IR bands. EVEN THERMOPILES measure photons if they used in NON-CONTACT applications..

I am also talking to a guy who obviously doesn't know what is instrument is measuring. IR thermometers work on the same principle as Pictet's experiment. Look it up and perhaps learn to apply your knowledge to the real world as opposed to the model world.

misled you.. The reason that these high grade pyrometers are super cooled is NOT because back radiation doesn't exist. It's for accuracy of measurement and calibration to -----

Alas, you have been misled...if they weren't cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, they would not measure downdwelling radiation as it would not be happening.

You are fooling yourself with your instrumentation....not uncommon but very unfortunate. Don't worry though, it is prevalent among today's scientists. Hell, no less than dr roy spencer still believes that when he points his IR thermometer at the sky, he is measuring downdwelling IR even after the manufacturer of the device explained in no uncertain terms that he wasn't and why. Being able to use a device is no assurance of knowing exactly what it is measuring.

Alas, you have been misled...if they weren't cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, they would not measure downdwelling radiation as it would not be happening.

My optic nerve is a toasty 98 degrees.
My home is a chilly 70 degrees.
Why isn't my home and all its chilly contents invisible to me?

 

[SSDD]

My optic nerve is a toasty 98 degrees.
My home is a chilly 70 degrees.
Why isn't my home and all its chilly contents invisible to me?

You might consider the temperature of the original light sources relative to the temperature of your optic nerve. Knowing things is pointless if you can't apply that knowledge to the world around you.