AGW: atmospheric physics

[westwall]

'

Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?

An interesting psychological study worthy of an international conference may lie here.
.

I've noticed the same thing, and you could also add 'extreme right-wing political views' to that mix.

The only people who throw abuse around on these threads are Deniers. I wonder why that is?

Sure thing mr. journalist from Finland. I guess your little barbs don't count because you think sceptics are too dumb to understand them huh....

What a sad, pathetic little man you are.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Thanks for proving my point.

And to you too.....for proving mine

Looks like your sock noooman is getting pounded. Seems he's a lib with a flippant mouth too.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

'

Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?

An interesting psychological study worthy of an international conference may lie here.
.

You lie here. There. Everywhere.

noman, you worthless hack twit, you have as much credibility as Stephen Hawking has mobility.

 

[Meister]

'

Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?

An interesting psychological study worthy of an international conference may lie here.
.

I've noticed the same thing, and you could also add 'extreme right-wing political views' to that mix.

The only people who throw abuse around on these threads are Deniers. I wonder why that is?

I guess when you people keep getting your butts handed to you in discussions, that's all that's left.

 

[Saigon]

'

Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?

An interesting psychological study worthy of an international conference may lie here.
.

You lie here. There. Everywhere.

noman, you worthless hack twit, you have as much credibility as Stephen Hawking has mobility.

And yet here you are - proving his point.

Numan just dangles his line in the water, and you guys not only grab the bait - you scale, gut and fry yourselves.

 

[westwall]

'

Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?

An interesting psychological study worthy of an international conference may lie here.
.

You lie here. There. Everywhere.

noman, you worthless hack twit, you have as much credibility as Stephen Hawking has mobility.

And yet here you are - proving his point.

Numan just dangles his line in the water, and you guys not only grab the bait - you scale, gut and fry yourselves.

Really? Since when is stating the truth about someone and their methods beligerent conduct? Only to you who wish to shut down any form of discussion where you lose because you either have no science to back up your claims or because you have made stuff up whole cloth and when you get caught you scream bloody murder about how mean everyone is.

**** you and your chickenshit tactics. You make a claim you back it up or piss off. You trolls are alike.

 

[Saigon]

Since when is stating the truth about someone and their methods beligerent conduct?

At the point you lose the ability to debate the topic like an adult.

For you that was several months ago.

 

[polarbear]

great example. I am short on time right now but I think this is a case of convection and conduction being a much more efficient way of transferring heat. as well there is 1000w heater putting the power through much less than 1 m2. and thirdly there is the matter of emissivity, what wavelengths a material preferentially absorbs. as a kid I hated chrome doorhandles on sunny summer days.

please be careful when saying or even implying what I have said. you have distorted my position almost every time in the past, so please just make an actual quote of my words, preferably with the context. as far as Spencer, do you disagree that the temperature of an object is not only affected by the energy input but also by the energy loss?

I can tell you were too much in a hurry, because I never said there was a 1000 watt heater in the BBQ, I said a 500 watt heater.
Most BBQ`s resemble a cube with rounded edges and cubes have 6 sides, my BBQ is no exception. So the "1000 watts and less surface" argument was a slip-up I attribute to you being in a hurry,...or as you put it " I am short on time right now".
Take all the time you need and think about it when you are not too busy answering somebody else.
A 500 watt heater inside a metal cube (a BBQ) radiates heat in all directions except a little less through it`s own base down to the BBQ bottom. So if anything the radiation energy flux to the surfaces that face the sun is less with the 500 watt heater than what the same surfaces get from 1000 watts/ m^2 from solar.
If you don`t like the BBQ with the 500 watt heater inside...which is pretty well the same arrangement as Roy Spencer`s heated bar...with an internal electric heater then try it out with a 1 m^2 piece of sheet metal on top of a 500 watt electric heater.
After 5 minutes you won`t be able to pick up that sheet metal without wearing gloves...not even at the edges....they are sizzling hot.
Not so the same piece of sheet metal even if it`s black and laid for over an hour in the noon sun.
We`ll talk about it after "numan" shuts up...he can`t even figure out how many watt seconds a 500 watt heater delivers in 5 minutes and argues that the inside of the thin gauge metal lid is way hotter than the outside, because the 500 watt heater was inside.
We have been around this bend last year when I told you to be cautious with your acquired habit to equate radiation flux Joules into 100 % heat...after you read Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment".
That 100% radiation absorption and conversion to heat only happens in theory with a theoretical black body of a non specified material and mass, a non specified specific heat and in a vacuum

'
Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!

First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!

Moreover, how similar, how very similar the way heat is built up inside the barbeque is to the back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth!!!

Idiocy like this is unimaginable to mere mortals -- it takes a genius of the absurd like bear-brain and his fellow Denialists to come up with something this nuts!!
.

Hey "numan"...if you connect 2 light bulbs 100 watts each in series how many watts worth of light will they radiate ?...Including "back radiating" each other inside a mirror sphere ?
Did it get as bright as a single 100 watt bulb ?
Or as dim as you, together with your nuclear admiral friend, the expert on black bodies, who had no idea why heat sinks are painted black.

Sorry. Maybe later. How hot with 500watts of light truncated to cut out the IR and enough ventilation to remove conduction and convection?

That`s Okay, like I said I`m quite busy too but in the meantime I have another example for you...and those who want to discuss "back - radiation". I keep saying that photons do represent energy but it`s not heat till photons encounter a system that does convert that energy into heat..and only quantitatively if that system was a PERFECT black body.
A Carbon Arc search light is perhaps a better example than a heater inside a BBQ, but quite similar:

Before you open the Carbon rod contacts there are about 600 Watts rms generating mostly heat and only very little IR with the resistive filament when the arc light is "shunted".
You could heat air with it no problem. Even water in a pot if you put it on top of the shunted arc light.

But when you open the contacts the 600 watts will generate very little heat in comparison but millions of candelas

The searchlights were based around extremely high-powered Carbon Arc lamps.
These were developed in the late 1930s, with a 60 centimetre diameter parabolic glass reflector and was powered by an 8 kilowatt generator. The lamp output was rated at 135 million candelas, and it had a detection range of about 5 kilometres
the Flak Searchlight-34 and -37 used 150-centimetre-diameter parabolic glass reflectors with an output of 990 million candelas. The system was powered by a 24-kilowatt generator, based around a 51-horsepower (38 kW) 8-cylinder engine, giving a current of 200 amperes at 110 volts. The searchlight was attached to the generator by a cable 200 meters long. The system had a detection range of about 8 kilometers

And when such a spot light hit a cloud, then there was some "back radiation"..:

Back scatter is a more accurate term.
You can see about a dozen or so back scatter spots over the Port of Gibraltar. You can be sure that the Port of Gibraltar would have been a lot brighter if there would have been ~ 1200 million candelas worth of Magnesium flares air dropped above it.

Heat does not generate it`s quantitative energy equivalent in photons and photons do not generate their quantitative equivalent in heat:

Elastic collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An elastic collision is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms.
Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photons are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.

 

[westwall]

Since when is stating the truth about someone and their methods beligerent conduct?

At the point you lose the ability to debate the topic like an adult.

For you that was several months ago.

You don't debate asshole. You make a claim. It gets shot down in flames and you resort to "you people are so mean and don't talk nice".

Grow a pair or get the **** out.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Again, thanks for proving the point.

Luckily there are still a few other posters here who can debate scientific topics sensibly and without your tantrums!

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Again, thanks for proving the point.

Luckily there are still a few other posters here who can debate scientific topics sensibly and without your tantrums!

And thank you for proving mine....yet again...

 

[polarbear]

Since when is stating the truth about someone and their methods beligerent conduct?

At the point you lose the ability to debate the topic like an adult.

For you that was several months ago.

You don't debate asshole. You make a claim. It gets shot down in flames and you resort to "you people are so mean and don't talk nice".

Grow a pair or get the **** out.

"Saigon" keeps crapping the same crap as "numan" and the nuclear admiral just as soon as IanC gets stuck with his back-radiation energy.
.

I am short on time right now....

Sorry. Maybe later....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-94.html#post7164375

potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy (when the particles move with this force, i.e. the angle between the force and the relative velocity is acute).kinetic energy is exchanged between the molecules’ translational motion and their internal degrees of freedom with each collision. At any one instant, half the collisions are, to a varying extent, inelastic collisions (the pair possesses less kinetic energy in their translational motions after the collision than before), and half could be described as “super-elastic” (possessing more kinetic energy after the collision than before). Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photons are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.

And only 10 minutes "later" it`s already buried by a page full of Saigon crap...with more "numan" and nuclear admiral crap to come.
If that`s all they can do all day long every day, that just shows how much out of their depth they are when it comes to physics.
I`ll look back in here maybe tomorrow to see if "IanC" had more to say than

I am short on time right now....

Sorry. Maybe later....

 

[numan]

And only 10 minutes "later" it`s already buried by a page full of Saigon crap....

Well, there is the pot calling the linen napkin black !!
· · · · ·

.

 

[SSDD]

The only people who throw abuse around on these threads are Deniers. I wonder why that is?

Guess you haven't read any of neuman's posts. He hurls plenty of abuse around these threads...and thunder???the board champion abuse hurler...and you yourself hurl plenty.

How is it that you could be so blind....and if you are blind to something so obvious, what else might you be blind to?

 

[mamooth]

"Saigon" keeps crapping the same crap as "numan" and the nuclear admiral just as soon as IanC gets stuck with his back-radiation energy. And only 10 minutes "later" it`s already buried by a page full of Saigon crap...with more "numan" and nuclear admiral crap to come.

You do realize that obsessing over an enemies list is not the sign of a healthy mind, right?

Let's do what you hate most, and talk common sense, by addressing your meander into the land of carbon arc searchlights, where you showed no common sense.

I keep saying that photons do represent energy but it`s not heat till photons encounter a system that does convert that energy into heat..and only quantitatively if that system was a PERFECT black body.

Black body properties have jack to do with anything. It's just conservation of energy. That's all you need to know about. Energy is conserved. If the photons are gone, the energy of the photons had to have gone somewhere.

Back scatter is a more accurate term. You can see about a dozen or so back scatter spots over the Port of Gibraltar. You can be sure that the Port of Gibraltar would have been a lot brighter if there would have been ~ 1200 million candelas worth of Magnesium flares air dropped above it.

Was there any point to such a meaningless apples and oranges comparison? After all, only a small portion of the searchlight visible light output scatters off the clouds. Most of it gets absorbed by the cloud and turned into heat in the cloud. So of course the tiny amount scattered will be dimmer than the flares.

Heat does not generate its quantitative energy equivalent in photons

And no one ever said it did. Unless you somehow eliminate all conduction and convection, in which case the heat will have to eventually generate its energy equivalent in photons. If it didn't, the heat would keep building up and the object would eventually vaporize. Again, common sense.

and photons do not generate their quantitative equivalent in heat:

Sure they do, assume that the photons are absorbed by something, and that the energy isn't stored as chemical/electrical energy. The energy has to go somewhere, and that somewhere almost always ends up being heat. Conservation of energy may not be denied. Sure, a person can try, but doing so reveals that person as a crank.

Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photons are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.

Note the phrase "averaged across the entire sample". Unlike you, wiki understands statistical mechanics, and how the second law describes a statistical average.

 

[IanC]

I can tell you were too much in a hurry, because I never said there was a 1000 watt heater in the BBQ, I said a 500 watt heater.
Most BBQ`s resemble a cube with rounded edges and cubes have 6 sides, my BBQ is no exception. So the "1000 watts and less surface" argument was a slip-up I attribute to you being in a hurry,...or as you put it " I am short on time right now".
Take all the time you need and think about it when you are not too busy answering somebody else.
A 500 watt heater inside a metal cube (a BBQ) radiates heat in all directions except a little less through it`s own base down to the BBQ bottom. So if anything the radiation energy flux to the surfaces that face the sun is less with the 500 watt heater than what the same surfaces get from 1000 watts/ m^2 from solar.
If you don`t like the BBQ with the 500 watt heater inside...which is pretty well the same arrangement as Roy Spencer`s heated bar...with an internal electric heater then try it out with a 1 m^2 piece of sheet metal on top of a 500 watt electric heater.
After 5 minutes you won`t be able to pick up that sheet metal without wearing gloves...not even at the edges....they are sizzling hot.
Not so the same piece of sheet metal even if it`s black and laid for over an hour in the noon sun.
We`ll talk about it after "numan" shuts up...he can`t even figure out how many watt seconds a 500 watt heater delivers in 5 minutes and argues that the inside of the thin gauge metal lid is way hotter than the outside, because the 500 watt heater was inside.
We have been around this bend last year when I told you to be cautious with your acquired habit to equate radiation flux Joules into 100 % heat...after you read Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment".
That 100% radiation absorption and conversion to heat only happens in theory with a theoretical black body of a non specified material and mass, a non specified specific heat and in a vacuum


Hey "numan"...if you connect 2 light bulbs 100 watts each in series how many watts worth of light will they radiate ?...Including "back radiating" each other inside a mirror sphere ?
Did it get as bright as a single 100 watt bulb ?
Or as dim as you, together with your nuclear admiral friend, the expert on black bodies, who had no idea why heat sinks are painted black.

Sorry. Maybe later. How hot with 500watts of light truncated to cut out the IR and enough ventilation to remove conduction and convection?

That`s Okay, like I said I`m quite busy too but in the meantime I have another example for you...and those who want to discuss "back - radiation". I keep saying that photons do represent energy but it`s not heat till photons encounter a system that does convert that energy into heat..and only quantitatively if that system was a PERFECT black body.
A Carbon Arc search light is perhaps a better example than a heater inside a BBQ, but quite similar:

Before you open the Carbon rod contacts there are about 600 Watts rms generating mostly heat and only very little IR with the resistive filament when the arc light is "shunted".
You could heat air with it no problem. Even water in a pot if you put it on top of the shunted arc light.

But when you open the contacts the 600 watts will generate very little heat in comparison but millions of candelas

The searchlights were based around extremely high-powered Carbon Arc lamps.
These were developed in the late 1930s, with a 60 centimetre diameter parabolic glass reflector and was powered by an 8 kilowatt generator. The lamp output was rated at 135 million candelas, and it had a detection range of about 5 kilometres
the Flak Searchlight-34 and -37 used 150-centimetre-diameter parabolic glass reflectors with an output of 990 million candelas. The system was powered by a 24-kilowatt generator, based around a 51-horsepower (38 kW) 8-cylinder engine, giving a current of 200 amperes at 110 volts. The searchlight was attached to the generator by a cable 200 meters long. The system had a detection range of about 8 kilometers

And when such a spot light hit a cloud, then there was some "back radiation"..:

Back scatter is a more accurate term.
You can see about a dozen or so back scatter spots over the Port of Gibraltar. You can be sure that the Port of Gibraltar would have been a lot brighter if there would have been ~ 1200 million candelas worth of Magnesium flares air dropped above it.

Heat does not generate it`s quantitative energy equivalent in photons and photons do not generate their quantitative equivalent in heat:

Elastic collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An elastic collision is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms.
Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photons are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.

why do you keep bringing up examples that obscure basic principles? when we are discussing radiation you put up examples of convection and conduction. when we are talking about blackbodies you bring up examples of non-blackbody emission. what is with you? are you purposely being dishonest or is your attention span so short that you cannot stay on topic? it pisses me off that you just want to lay down red herrings all the time.

 

[polarbear]

Sorry. Maybe later. How hot with 500watts of light truncated to cut out the IR and enough ventilation to remove conduction and convection?

That`s Okay, like I said I`m quite busy too but in the meantime I have another example for you...and those who want to discuss "back - radiation". I keep saying that photons do represent energy but it`s not heat till photons encounter a system that does convert that energy into heat..and only quantitatively if that system was a PERFECT black body.
A Carbon Arc search light is perhaps a better example than a heater inside a BBQ, but quite similar:

Before you open the Carbon rod contacts there are about 600 Watts rms generating mostly heat and only very little IR with the resistive filament when the arc light is "shunted".
You could heat air with it no problem. Even water in a pot if you put it on top of the shunted arc light.

But when you open the contacts the 600 watts will generate very little heat in comparison but millions of candelas

Heat does not generate it`s quantitative energy equivalent in photons and photons do not generate their quantitative equivalent in heat:

Elastic collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An elastic collision is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms.
Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photons are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.

why do you keep bringing up examples that obscure basic principles? when we are discussing radiation you put up examples of convection and conduction. when we are talking about blackbodies you bring up examples of non-blackbody emission. what is with you? are you purposely being dishonest or is your attention span so short that you cannot stay on topic? it pisses me off that you just want to lay down red herrings all the time.

After ~ a week that`s the best you can do?
Get pissed off ?
Instead of getting "pissed off" you should have given it some rational thought instead of basing your "conclusion" on your emotions.
I keep telling you that the "heat" energy equivalent of a photon is not heat unless it encounters a system that converts it into heat.
How many times do you have to be told that the only system that is able to do that is AN IDEAL BLACK BODY.
Name 1 square inch of the earth`s surface that qualifies as such and while you are at it point out a location where convection and conduction can be ruled out.
What`s the matter with you..what`s so "obscure" with that basic principle:

elastic collision is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms. Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photonsare not permitted to carry away energy from the system.

When you heat matter, the higher the temperature, the higher the kinetic energy and if more "black body photons" are permitted to carry away energy from the system, while you are heating it, the lower the temperature that can be achieved with a given amount of energy.

Was that sentence too long for your attention span ?
Take some Prozac and try read it without "getting pissed off" because you get confused if there are more than 3 words in a sentence.

If it finally dawned on you then there is no need to further explain, that the same applies if conduction and convection occurs at the same time.
That`s not a "red herring". It's a "red herring" flaunting an ideal black body radiation profile copied& pasted from Wkipedia, like you keep doing it, insisting that
the energy within this envelope is converted from radiation into heat as in increasing the temperature of an absorbing gas which in the real world is removing most of the "black body" heat via conduction and convection, not giving a rat`s ass how many
ppm CO2 that gas contains.
I gave you a whole bunch of examples and by now even a fifth grader would have understood these " obscured basic principles"
that a heated object heats up air (or you hand if you get near it) almost at the same rate (in watts) as you feed heat to the object
with a heater as opposed to radiation even if you feed more watts as radiation into the system as you do by directly heating it.
The only time radiation heats an object at the same rate is with a purely theoretical black body while no work is performed.
Show me 1 square inch of planet earth`s surface that matches this condition.

 

[mamooth]

I keep telling you that the "heat" energy equivalent of a photon is not heat unless it encounters a system that converts it into heat. How many times do you have to be told that the only system that is able to do that is AN IDEAL BLACK BODY.

And so PolarBear has now redefined physics in a new wacky way that claims that only an ideal black body can convert photons to heat.

Thus, by the PolarBear theory, the earth should be completely frozen, since it's not a perfect black body, and thus can't convert any photons to heat.

One wonders just where PolarBear got the insane idea that only an ideal black body can convert photons to heat. PolarBear, where did you get such an insane idea?

That`s not a "red herring".

Correct. It's much too stupid to even rise to the level of "red herring".

 

[IanC]

That`s Okay, like I said I`m quite busy too but in the meantime I have another example for you...and those who want to discuss "back - radiation". I keep saying that photons do represent energy but it`s not heat till photons encounter a system that does convert that energy into heat..and only quantitatively if that system was a PERFECT black body.
A Carbon Arc search light is perhaps a better example than a heater inside a BBQ, but quite similar:

Before you open the Carbon rod contacts there are about 600 Watts rms generating mostly heat and only very little IR with the resistive filament when the arc light is "shunted".
You could heat air with it no problem. Even water in a pot if you put it on top of the shunted arc light.

But when you open the contacts the 600 watts will generate very little heat in comparison but millions of candelas

Heat does not generate it`s quantitative energy equivalent in photons and photons do not generate their quantitative equivalent in heat:

Elastic collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why do you keep bringing up examples that obscure basic principles? when we are discussing radiation you put up examples of convection and conduction. when we are talking about blackbodies you bring up examples of non-blackbody emission. what is with you? are you purposely being dishonest or is your attention span so short that you cannot stay on topic? it pisses me off that you just want to lay down red herrings all the time.

After ~ a week that`s the best you can do?
Get pissed off ?
Instead of getting "pissed off" you should have given it some rational thought instead of basing your "conclusion" on your emotions.
I keep telling you that the "heat" energy equivalent of a photon is not heat unless it encounters a system that converts it into heat.
How many times do you have to be told that the only system that is able to do that is AN IDEAL BLACK BODY.
Name 1 square inch of the earth`s surface that qualifies as such and while you are at it point out a location where convection and conduction can be ruled out.
What`s the matter with you..what`s so "obscure" with that basic principle:

elastic collision is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms. Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photonsare not permitted to carry away energy from the system.

When you heat matter, the higher the temperature, the higher the kinetic energy and if more "black body photons" are permitted to carry away energy from the system, while you are heating it, the lower the temperature that can be achieved with a given amount of energy.

Was that sentence too long for your attention span ?
Take some Prozac and try read it without "getting pissed off" because you get confused if there are more than 3 words in a sentence.

If it finally dawned on you then there is no need to further explain, that the same applies if conduction and convection occurs at the same time.
That`s not a "red herring". It's a "red herring" flaunting an ideal black body radiation profile copied& pasted from Wkipedia, like you keep doing it, insisting that
the energy within this envelope is converted from radiation into heat as in increasing the temperature of an absorbing gas which in the real world is removing most of the "black body" heat via conduction and convection, not giving a rat`s ass how many
ppm CO2 that gas contains.
I gave you a whole bunch of examples and by now even a fifth grader would have understood these " obscured basic principles"
that a heated object heats up air (or you hand if you get near it) almost at the same rate (in watts) as you feed heat to the object
with a heater as opposed to radiation even if you feed more watts as radiation into the system as you do by directly heating it.
The only time radiation heats an object at the same rate is with a purely theoretical black body while no work is performed.
Show me 1 square inch of planet earth`s surface that matches this condition.

I dont believe you are stupid so you must be acting dense on purpose. radiation is not conduction or convection. we also know radiation is much less efficient for transfering energy than conduction or convection. is that your 'amazing revelation' that you think I dont understand? maybe you are retarded, or at least getting senile.

you want a realistic example? let's compare radiant floor heating to forced air. radiant floor heating is much more comfortable but it is slow to warm up (or cool down) because it is comprised of a large heat sink that needs to be charged, then it heats the rest of the room by passive transfer. there is still conduction and convection but only by natural processes. there are no cold spots and there is a much smaller temperature gradient from the floor to the ceiling. on the other hand, forced air heating adds a bolus of hot air which quickly changes air temp but often leaves cold spots in areas where the forced convection doesnt reach, and the floor is always much cooler than the ceiling.

you are comparing large temperature differential, specific location transfers of heat by mostly conduction and convection with a little radiation whereas I am talking about a small temperature gradient, diffuse transfer of heat over large areas which reduces the action of conduction and convection, and increases the proportion of radiative transfer.

all of the SLoT 'truthers' are screwed up for the same reason. they confuse the two way flow of radiation from the surface to the atmosphere as something special but it is diffuse, small temperature gradient, low energy radiation that is not capable of doing work. sunlight is ordered, large temperature gradient, high energy radiation that is capable of doing work. none of them seemed to understand enough to comment on my thread about how small changes in solar output are much more likely to change areas of the climate system than the same nominal amount of change in the IR side of the equation because the IR does nothing besides hinder the outflow of surface IR to space. blocking IR escape can change the temperature of the heat sink by allowing it to absorb and hold more sunlight energy but not much else.

so, while it was amusing to me that you noticed my absence polarbear, I am not really interested in your stupid off topic red herrings that do nothing to clarify any issues. you dont even try to explain what they are supposed to be an example of.