Wow some Yale/Harvard guy agrees with my argument on climate change

[Toddsterpatriot]

So that would be a no...you can not show a single measurement of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

Even though you can measure radiation emitting from the earth with an uncooled instrument, if you flip it over and point it towards the sky, you can't measure any discrete band of IR from CO2 coming back down....even though you believe it is coming down at the rate of more than 300wm^2, and is warming the atmosphere of the earth it can't be measured without a cooled instrument...and you aren't bright enough to wonder why.

Typical....you claim the back radiation is happening...and it is warming the earth...but can't be measured without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....Just how stupid are you?

Here are measurements of back-radiation. Water vapor was subtracted out. What remains are the usual GH gases. The spectrometer most likely was cooled to reduce internal thermal interference; otherwise the fact that it was cooled is immaterial.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.F.J. Evans

Sorry guy, that is most certainly not a measurement of back radiation. Can you read at all? The top of your chart states that it is a measurement of surface forcing...meaning that it is a measurement taken looking down on the surface...and yes, there are the discrete bands of radiation. You don't get that when you point the instrument at the sky, however, unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the sky. Ever stop to wonder why?

You are so easily fooled by instrumentation...that and not having the first clue as to what the instruments are actually measuring. No wonder you are such a dupe.

You don't get that when you point the instrument at the sky, however, unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the sky. Ever stop to wonder why?

Because smart photons "know" that the surface is warmer and only travel toward space.
They also "know" when it is "safe" to move down toward a cooler instrument.

You never explained how they know the precise moment when "too hot to move toward"
becomes "cool enough to move toward". Seems like a violation of causality for information
to travel faster than the speed of light and without the exchange of photons.

Maybe Dr. Raeder can help you explain your theory?

 

[SSDD]

Because smart photons "know" that the surface is warmer and only travel toward space.
They also "know" when it is "safe" to move down toward a cooler instrument.

No...becasue the second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. Anyone who believes they are seeing energy move spontaneously from cool to warm is simply wrong and unable to work out exactly what they are seeing and determine that it is not, in fact, spontaneous energy movement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because smart photons "know" that the surface is warmer and only travel toward space.
They also "know" when it is "safe" to move down toward a cooler instrument.

No...becasue the second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. Anyone who believes they are seeing energy move spontaneously from cool to warm is simply wrong and unable to work out exactly what they are seeing and determine that it is not, in fact, spontaneous energy movement.

No...becasue the second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

Yes, we've heard your unique misinterpretation.

Weird that you've produced zero backup.

Why don't you email someone?

Anyone who believes they are seeing energy move spontaneously from cool to warm is simply wrong and unable to work out exactly what they are seeing

Anyone who believes objects at equilibrium cease all radiating is simply wrong.

 

[Maxdeath]

Funny that we did not have global warming during the so called "little ice age" from the 14th through the 19th centuries.

Wyoming used to be a swamp with high temperatures trees and ferns. Now it is considered a high desert.

Where was global warming during the ice ages that carved out the Great Lakes.

Temperatures were once very warm when Dinosaurs roamed the earth.

The Sahara Desert used to be a green oasis.

Scientists tell use early in earths life the planet was frozen into a solid ball of snow and ice.

Where was man and his machines during all these climate changes?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy, that is most certainly not a measurement of back radiation. Can you read at all? The top of your chart states that it is a measurement of surface forcing...meaning that it is a measurement taken looking down on the surface...and yes, there are the discrete bands of radiation. You don't get that when you point the instrument at the sky, however, unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the sky. Ever stop to wonder why?

You are so easily fooled by instrumentation...that and not having the first clue as to what the instruments are actually measuring. No wonder you are such a dupe.

"Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate" is the title of the paper!

The caption to the diagram is "Spectrum of greenhouse radiation". That means looking up.

I forgot to give you the link. Just Google the title and author to get it. The author says, "The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected"

The detector was on the earth aimed at the sky. Yes it was cooled so it gave an accurate picture of downward radiation from greenhouse gases. If you don't think it was greenhouse gases scattering radiation then what was it?

 

[SSDD]

The caption to the diagram is "Spectrum of greenhouse radiation". That means looking up.p

I asked for an observation of discrete wavelengths of CO2 made with an un cooled instrument...why not simply state outright that no such measurements exist? Dancing around your inability to provide observed evidence for your beliefs just highlights the fact that you can't provide any observed evidence.

 

[Wuwei]

Nobody would design a sensitive LW IR spectrometer without cooling it. The internal temperature of the instrument would cause a high noise level.

The cooled detector facing upward measured the spectrum I showed in post #59. . If you don't think it measured greenhouse gases scattering radiation downward, then what was it measuring?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody would design a sensitive LW IR spectrometer without cooling it. The internal temperature of the instrument would cause a high noise level.

The cooled detector facing upward measured the spectrum I showed in post #59. . If you don't think it measured greenhouse gases scattering radiation downward, then what was it measuring?

If you don't think it measured greenhouse gases scattering radiation downward, then what was it measuring?

It was measuring downward radiation. The smart kind.

The kind that won't travel downward until the moment the instrument dips below the temperature
of the emitter. Because it's smart. He's emailing someone right now who will agree...……..LOL!

 

[SSDD]

Nobody would design a sensitive LW IR spectrometer without cooling it. The internal temperature of the instrument would cause a high noise level.

Sorry guy, but a cooled instrument is not necessary to measure discrete wavelengths if it is pointed towards the ground....or for that matter anything warmer than the instrument itself.

Here is an instrument for 600 dollars which will measure discrete wavelengths of energy...just don't try to measure energy coming from a source cooler than the instrument since energy doesn't move in that direction.

The simple fact is that an instrument has to be cooler than the energy source it is measuring because energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm. There is a reason you can't measure such energy movement at ambient temperature. Give me a rational, scientifically valid reason you can measure discrete bands of energy with an uncooled instrument if the source is warmer than the instrument but you can't measure those same bands if the instrument is warmer than the source.

The cooled detector facing upward measured the spectrum I showed in post #59. . If you don't think it measured greenhouse gases scattering radiation downward, then what was it measuring?

It was measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument. You can't measure energy moving spontaneously from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer instrument because it doesn't happen.

 

[Wuwei]

It was measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Exactly. But that doesn't answer my question. What the cooler instrument measured was a complex spectrum with peaks at the various resonant bands of different molecules.

What was the instrument measuring? Where did the energy of that complex spectrum emanate?

 

[SSDD]

It was measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Exactly. But that doesn't answer my question. What the cooler instrument measured was a complex spectrum with peaks at the various resonant bands of different molecules.

What was the instrument measuring? Where did the energy of that complex spectrum emanate?

Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just that stupid? You can measure a complex spectrum just fine if you are measuring energy coming from a warmer object...that's because according to the second law of thermodynamics, energy moves spontaneously from a warm object to a cool object...you can't however measure energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object because it doesn't happen...it's like not being able to photograph rocks falling from the ground to the sky. Just doesn't happen. If you cool the instrument then you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

 

[Wuwei]

You avoided my question 3 times so far. Let me make it simple:

The author of the paper showing data from a very cold spectrometer aiming upward at a much warmer atmosphere calls the data

Do you agree this is a measurement of greenhouse radiation.

.

 

[mamooth]

I have been saying this forever..

And it was just as retarded every time you said it. And you're belligerently ignorant about your total failure at basic statistics, classic Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Myself, I recognize that there are fields I don't understand. I don't look at, say, string theory and say it's an obvious fraud because I don't understand it. That's because I'm not consumed by narcissism and paranoia.

Think about it. Consider the fact that if the whole world says you're clueless, you might actually be clueless, and the whole world really isn't plotting against you.

 

[mamooth]

I asked for an observation of discrete wavelengths of CO2 made with an un cooled instrument...why not simply state outright that no such measurements exist?

I can look at the cold sky and clouds with a simple uncooled IR camera, and it shows me an accurate image.

This is where you invoke intelligent photons to explain why, and everyone busts a gut laughing at the crazy guy shaking his fist at reality.

Now, I can tell you why an IR spectrometer is cooled. Accuracy. It would work uncooled, but the much higher thermal noise of the electronics inside would greatly degrade the accuracy. As the point of using it is to get the most accurate data, of course it's cooled. That's not the case with cheap consumer electronics. They don't need stellar accuracy, so they don't have to be cooled.

 

[Old Rocks]

Funny that we did not have global warming during the so called "little ice age" from the 14th through the 19th centuries.

Wyoming used to be a swamp with high temperatures trees and ferns. Now it is considered a high desert.

Where was global warming during the ice ages that carved out the Great Lakes.

Temperatures were once very warm when Dinosaurs roamed the earth.

The Sahara Desert used to be a green oasis.

Scientists tell use early in earths life the planet was frozen into a solid ball of snow and ice.

Where was man and his machines during all these climate changes?

And where the hell is your ability to do minimal research? Ever bother to look into the GHG levels at these times? Or how bright the sun was at that time? Here, learn something, if you are capable of that;

 

[Maxdeath]

Funny that we did not have global warming during the so called "little ice age" from the 14th through the 19th centuries.

Wyoming used to be a swamp with high temperatures trees and ferns. Now it is considered a high desert.

Where was global warming during the ice ages that carved out the Great Lakes.

Temperatures were once very warm when Dinosaurs roamed the earth.

The Sahara Desert used to be a green oasis.

Scientists tell use early in earths life the planet was frozen into a solid ball of snow and ice.

Where was man and his machines during all these climate changes?

And where the hell is your ability to do minimal research? Ever bother to look into the GHG levels at these times? Or how bright the sun was at that time? Here, learn something, if you are capable of that;

And so you point to a minute in time, the last few years and say we have global warming. The earth has had changes for millions of years. We are not even sure how much the intensity of the sun has changed in the last century or how much even a minor fluctuation can change temperatures on earth. There were people that at one point were claiming that we would be in an ice age by now.

I feel sorry for you that you can not have an intelligent conversation but it is what it is.