Climate change

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another basic concept, hotter objects give off more IR,

Yes. Which doesn't stop IR from colder CO2 from traveling toward the warmer surface.

No, once again heat only travels from the warmer to the colder.

What part of that is NOT sinking in??

No, once again heat only travels from the warmer to the colder.

We're not talking about heat. we're talking about radiation.

They are the same, too bad you are so ignorant.

You're making a fool of yourself.
Warm objects radiate. Even if a warmer object is nearby.

 

[jc456]

Naw, it doesn't make it to me ground

Where does it stop? Why?

Good question, tell me.

Your claim, you don't know?

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where does it stop? Why?

Good question, tell me.

Your claim, you don't know?

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

I asked you to tell me.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

I asked you to tell me.

I'm telling you it can and does reach the ground.

And you can't prove it does.

It's been proven.

If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

Yes, this radiation coming from above is either absorbed or reflected.
Neither of which would happen if you were right about it not reaching the ground.

 

[jc456]

Good question, tell me.

Your claim, you don't know?

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

I asked you to tell me.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

I asked you to tell me.

I'm telling you it can and does reach the ground.

And you can't prove it does.

It's been proven.

If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

Yes, this radiation coming from above is either absorbed or reflected.
Neither of which would happen if you were right about it not reaching the ground.

Well then there would be more heat and that isn't happening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your claim, you don't know?

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

I asked you to tell me.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

I asked you to tell me.

I'm telling you it can and does reach the ground.

And you can't prove it does.

It's been proven.

If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

Yes, this radiation coming from above is either absorbed or reflected.
Neither of which would happen if you were right about it not reaching the ground.

Well then there would be more heat and that isn't happening.

Well then there would be more heat and that isn't happening.

More heat than what? Without an atmosphere, the Earth's surface temp would be about 0 F.

 

[flacaltenn]

I realize you were asking Todd, but it's really quite easy and doesn't stretch any laws of Physics.
The problem is that in school --- they teach you about heat flow in thermodynamics thru convection and conduction in materials.. But there is barely a mention of Radiative Transfer. That's taught in Fields and Wave and radio stuff. Technically InfraRed light is NOT HEAT.. It's Light. But when absorbed by an object, it becomes heat very efficiently.

We have been talking about IR heat which :
Infrared (IR) is invisible radiant energy, electromagnetic radiation with longer wavelengths than those of visible light, extending from the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum at 700 nanometers (frequency 430 THz) to 1 mm (300 GHz)[1.

Your point in this statement was??

And Radiative transfers follow different propagation rules. Like any "light source"..

You do realize "propagation" deals with plants not electromagnetic frequencies.

propagation mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a propagation, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).
From Wikipedia.

So it doesn't CARE about origin or destination temperatures and bodies give off IR flux proportionally to their temp.

Another basic concept, hotter objects give off more IR, guess that is why the fire department uses infrared cameras on fire scenes.

So a cooler object can not OVERWHELM the hotter object with IR flow, but it can REDUCE the NET flow from the warmer object

You mean like icing down a warm beverage. Yes when you start the process if you check the amount of IR given off by the beverage it will be more than if you take the same beverage add ice and shoot it again.

Your point is??

Simple subtraction of the Fluxes. And the Net flow of Radiative heat is always from the warmer to the cooler object. Or in this case from the ground to the sky. As the cooler object takes on more heat (GH gases). They retard the net heat loss to the sky.

Fluxes??

Also called field flux. A readily fusible glass or enamel used as a base in ceramic work. An additive that improves the flow of plastics during fabrication. A substance applied to a surface to be joined by welding, soldering, or brazing to facilitate the flowing of solder and prevent formation of oxides.
From Wikipedia

The next part rambles that the atmosphere being the cooler object will absorb heat from the ground, they(GHG's) then retard the net heat loss to the sky.....

Retard the net heat loss, you mean they warm up and act as a heat sink??

So the GHG have to absorb energy to be effected by this energy it stores, yet you folks claim it gives off the same amount of energy as comsumed.

So net in = net out plus energy to affect GHG

The Las of Conservation of Energy says it ain't happening.[/QUOTE]

______________________________________________


Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).

Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.

"Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature. But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it.

Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas. The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body, they can emit IR proportional to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...

 

[flacaltenn]

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

Radiation is photons. All matter above 0K radiates photons.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface

I'm talking about CO2 molecules. Molecules which radiate energy, as long as they are above 0K, which radiate in all directions, even if that means that sometimes they are radiating toward the warmer ground.

Those laws are constants no matter which molecule / atom you speak of.

So what do you think the 0K is relevant to??

Once again a cooler object does not radiate heat to a warmer object no matter how you phrase it.

It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest .......................

So what do you think the 0K is relevant to??

Radiation.

Once again a cooler object does not radiate heat to a warmer object no matter how you phrase it.

Once again, that's not the case.

I promise I'll stay out after this. But DrDoom is almost there. The laws of thermo are the same for heat as they are for IR transfer. As DrDoom said --- ""It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest""

With HEAT flow, if I use a heatsink to DRAW the heat from an object, my ability to draw it will be due to how cool I can keep my heatsink. If I don't have enough airflow to carry the heat away -- the transfer will SLOW because "the cooler object" has warmed.

SAME DEAL kinda for IR Radiative transfer. The NET transfer is always from the warmer object. But the magnitude of that transfer can be reduced by the amount of photons shot from the cooler object. Nothing is violated and cooler object never wins the transfer.

In fact, for extry credit. Take two objects of similar IR absorption characteristics and start them at the same temperature and the NET exchange will bounce back and forth statistically. Similar to the occasional errant mechanical HEAT energy that goes the "wrong way" in a material. Statistically, SOME molecular energy WILL flow the opposite way in heat conduction -- but it never wins the battle.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where does it stop? Why?

Good question, tell me.

Your claim, you don't know?

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

BINGO -- it is absorbed as heat energy or reflected as InfraRed light..

You shine an IRed Laser from a drone. What STOPS that light transmission? And what happens to that energy? Is the IR laser WARMER than the ground? Does it CARE???

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).

Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.

Please provide a proper definition for "propagation" :
This Merriam Webster ..............

propagation
noun prop·a·ga·tion \ˌprä-pə-ˈgā-shən\
Definition of PROPAGATION
: the act or action of propagating: as

a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body
Which of those would you like to try and fit into this conversation.

It really is simple, a printed ACCEPTED definition that you would like to use from a reputable source.

"Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature.

Link to that assertion please.

Who mentioned "retarding net heat loss" are you thinking of some other conversation or just dancing for us??

NO, once again, objects have "heat signatures" but radiate implies to give off and the object which receives the radiation warms up.

Nope, it ain't happening and there is every scientific principle against you and zero for you.

More song and dance though, let's continue.

But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it

Optical path :

op·ti·cal
ˈäptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: optical

1. 1.
   of or relating to sight, especially in relation to the physical action of light.
   "optical illusions"
   • constructed to assist sight.
   • devised on the principles of optics.
2. 2.
   Physics
   operating in or employing the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
   "optical telescopes"

op·ti·cal path
noun
Physics
noun: optical path; plural noun: optical paths

1. the distance of the path that in a vacuum would contain the same number of wavelengths as the actual path taken by a ray of light traveling through a medium.

From Wikipedia.

Which bodies are you eluding to??

Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas. The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body, they can emit IR proportional to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...

I am being light.

You are no different than anyone else, if your story don't fly, it don't fly.

Here you want to come out and act all technically superior bur fail to realize the simple concept of cloud cover??

I guess all these scientific based results that I have been debunking your mumbo jumbo line with don't exist.


Effects of Cloud Cover on forecasted temperatures

During the day, the earth is heated by the sun. If skies are clear, more heat reaches the earth's surface (as in the diagram below). This leads to warmer temperatures.

However, if skies are cloudy, some of the sun's rays are reflected off the cloud droplets back into space. Therefore, less of the sun's energy is able to reach the earth's surface, which causes the earth to heat up more slowly. This leads to cooler temperatures.

Forecast Tip:
When forecasting daytime temperatures, if cloudy skies are expected, forecast lower temperatures than you would predict if clear skies were expected.


At night cloud cover has the opposite effect. If skies are clear, heat emitted from the earth's surface freely escapes into space, resulting in colder temperatures.

However, if clouds are present, some of the heat emitted from the earth's surface is trapped by the clouds and reemitted back towards the earth. As a result, temperatures decrease more slowly than if the skies were clear.

So one last question, based on the simple pictures above, how does this tie into your assertions??

You do realize as weather changes or just through sheer physical principles the heat still escapes just at a different rate and time.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I promise I'll stay out after this. But DrDoom is almost there. The laws of thermo are the same for heat as they are for IR transfer. As DrDoom said --- ""It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest""

With HEAT flow, if I use a heatsink to DRAW the heat from an object, my ability to draw it will be due to how cool I can keep my heatsink. If I don't have enough airflow to carry the heat away -- the transfer will SLOW because "the cooler object" has warmed.

SAME DEAL kinda for IR Radiative transfer. The NET transfer is always from the warmer object. But the magnitude of that transfer can be reduced by the amount of photons shot from the cooler object. Nothing is violated and cooler object never wins the transfer.

In fact, for extry credit. Take two objects of similar IR absorption characteristics and start them at the same temperature and the NET exchange will bounce back and forth statistically. Similar to the occasional errant mechanical HEAT energy that goes the "wrong way" in a material. Statistically, SOME molecular energy WILL flow the opposite way in heat conduction -- but it never wins the battle.

So you can ramble, the relation to this conversation or the point you were trying to make??

You basically now are saying that I am absolutely right, but you still want every one to think you are ............

Is that about the size of it??'

Did I miss read that??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wave propagation is any of the ways in which waves travel.

With respect to the direction of the oscillation relative to the propagation direction, we can distinguish between longitudinal wave and transverse waves.

For electromagnetic waves, propagation may occur in a vacuum as well as in a material medium. Other wave types cannot propagate through a vacuum and need a transmission medium to exist.

Wave propagation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).

Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.

Please provide a proper definition for "propagation" :
This Merriam Webster ..............

propagation
noun prop·a·ga·tion \ˌprä-pə-ˈgā-shən\
Definition of PROPAGATION
: the act or action of propagating: as

a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body
Which of those would you like to try and fit into this conversation.

It really is simple, a printed ACCEPTED definition that you would like to use from a reputable source.

"Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature.

Link to that assertion please.

Who mentioned "retarding net heat loss" are you thinking of some other conversation or just dancing for us??

NO, once again, objects have "heat signatures" but radiate implies to give off and the object which receives the radiation warms up.

Nope, it ain't happening and there is every scientific principle against you and zero for you.

More song and dance though, let's continue.

But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it

Optical path :

op·ti·cal
ˈäptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: optical

1. 1.
   of or relating to sight, especially in relation to the physical action of light.
   "optical illusions"
   • constructed to assist sight.
   • devised on the principles of optics.
2. 2.
   Physics
   operating in or employing the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
   "optical telescopes"

op·ti·cal path
noun
Physics
noun: optical path; plural noun: optical paths

1. the distance of the path that in a vacuum would contain the same number of wavelengths as the actual path taken by a ray of light traveling through a medium.

From Wikipedia.

Which bodies are you eluding to??

Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas. The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body, they can emit IR proportional to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...

I am being light.

You are no different than anyone else, if your story don't fly, it don't fly.

Here you want to come out and act all technically superior bur fail to realize the simple concept of cloud cover??

I guess all these scientific based results that I have been debunking your mumbo jumbo line with don't exist.


Effects of Cloud Cover on forecasted temperatures

During the day, the earth is heated by the sun. If skies are clear, more heat reaches the earth's surface (as in the diagram below). This leads to warmer temperatures.

However, if skies are cloudy, some of the sun's rays are reflected off the cloud droplets back into space. Therefore, less of the sun's energy is able to reach the earth's surface, which causes the earth to heat up more slowly. This leads to cooler temperatures.

Forecast Tip:
When forecasting daytime temperatures, if cloudy skies are expected, forecast lower temperatures than you would predict if clear skies were expected.


At night cloud cover has the opposite effect. If skies are clear, heat emitted from the earth's surface freely escapes into space, resulting in colder temperatures.

However, if clouds are present, some of the heat emitted from the earth's surface is trapped by the clouds and reemitted back towards the earth. As a result, temperatures decrease more slowly than if the skies were clear.

So one last question, based on the simple pictures above, how does this tie into your assertions??

You do realize as weather changes or just through sheer physical principles the heat still escapes just at a different rate and time.

Nice picture. Look, it shows cooler clouds emit toward the warmer surface.

 

[flacaltenn]

I promise I'll stay out after this. But DrDoom is almost there. The laws of thermo are the same for heat as they are for IR transfer. As DrDoom said --- ""It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest""

With HEAT flow, if I use a heatsink to DRAW the heat from an object, my ability to draw it will be due to how cool I can keep my heatsink. If I don't have enough airflow to carry the heat away -- the transfer will SLOW because "the cooler object" has warmed.

SAME DEAL kinda for IR Radiative transfer. The NET transfer is always from the warmer object. But the magnitude of that transfer can be reduced by the amount of photons shot from the cooler object. Nothing is violated and cooler object never wins the transfer.

In fact, for extry credit. Take two objects of similar IR absorption characteristics and start them at the same temperature and the NET exchange will bounce back and forth statistically. Similar to the occasional errant mechanical HEAT energy that goes the "wrong way" in a material. Statistically, SOME molecular energy WILL flow the opposite way in heat conduction -- but it never wins the battle.

So you can ramble, the relation to this conversation or the point you were trying to make??

You basically now are saying that I am absolutely right, but you still want every one to think you are ............

Is that about the size of it??'

Did I miss read that??

Don't know.. My impression was you were contending that GH gases could not influence the warming of the surface because of the warmer-cooler thingy.. If we're clear on that -- I apologize for rambling. Except that JC IS definitely confused by this and is in this discussion as well.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Don't know.. My impression was you were contending that GH gases could not influence the warming of the surface because of the warmer-cooler thingy.. If we're clear on that -- I apologize for rambling. Except that JC IS definitely confused by this and is in this discussion as well.

You are still trying to phrase this as I agree with your global warming rambling.

NO, NO, NO, NO NO NO ...............

You have not proved anything but you can ramble.

You certainly have not proved GHG's have any relationship to global warming / global climate change.

I wonder what your technical version of the "warmer-cooler thingy" is .......

Another of those highly technical scientific terms that boggle the mind.

So no you have convinced me of nada, nada, nada ...................

 

[jc456]

Good question, tell me.

Your claim, you don't know?

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

BINGO -- it is absorbed as heat energy or reflected as InfraRed light..

You shine an IRed Laser from a drone. What STOPS that light transmission? And what happens to that energy? Is the IR laser WARMER than the ground? Does it CARE???

So, if it reaches and reflects, where does it go? It has to go back up. I didn't know CO2 absorbed IR waves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your claim, you don't know?

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

BINGO -- it is absorbed as heat energy or reflected as InfraRed light..

You shine an IRed Laser from a drone. What STOPS that light transmission? And what happens to that energy? Is the IR laser WARMER than the ground? Does it CARE???

So, if it reaches and reflects, where does it go? It has to go back up. I didn't know CO2 absorbed IR waves.

Durr.

 

[jc456]

Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.

Is that what I said?

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.

BINGO -- it is absorbed as heat energy or reflected as InfraRed light..

You shine an IRed Laser from a drone. What STOPS that light transmission? And what happens to that energy? Is the IR laser WARMER than the ground? Does it CARE???

So, if it reaches and reflects, where does it go? It has to go back up. I didn't know CO2 absorbed IR waves.

Durr.

Yeah, that's on me. Stated it wrong, I meant reflected waves,

 

[jc456]

Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).

Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.

Please provide a proper definition for "propagation" :
This Merriam Webster ..............

propagation
noun prop·a·ga·tion \ˌprä-pə-ˈgā-shən\
Definition of PROPAGATION
: the act or action of propagating: as

a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body
Which of those would you like to try and fit into this conversation.

It really is simple, a printed ACCEPTED definition that you would like to use from a reputable source.

"Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature.

Link to that assertion please.

Who mentioned "retarding net heat loss" are you thinking of some other conversation or just dancing for us??

NO, once again, objects have "heat signatures" but radiate implies to give off and the object which receives the radiation warms up.

Nope, it ain't happening and there is every scientific principle against you and zero for you.

More song and dance though, let's continue.

But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it

Optical path :

op·ti·cal
ˈäptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: optical

1. 1.
   of or relating to sight, especially in relation to the physical action of light.
   "optical illusions"
   • constructed to assist sight.
   • devised on the principles of optics.
2. 2.
   Physics
   operating in or employing the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
   "optical telescopes"

op·ti·cal path
noun
Physics
noun: optical path; plural noun: optical paths

1. the distance of the path that in a vacuum would contain the same number of wavelengths as the actual path taken by a ray of light traveling through a medium.

From Wikipedia.

Which bodies are you eluding to??

Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas. The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body, they can emit IR proportional to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...

I am being light.

You are no different than anyone else, if your story don't fly, it don't fly.

Here you want to come out and act all technically superior bur fail to realize the simple concept of cloud cover??

I guess all these scientific based results that I have been debunking your mumbo jumbo line with don't exist.


Effects of Cloud Cover on forecasted temperatures

During the day, the earth is heated by the sun. If skies are clear, more heat reaches the earth's surface (as in the diagram below). This leads to warmer temperatures.

However, if skies are cloudy, some of the sun's rays are reflected off the cloud droplets back into space. Therefore, less of the sun's energy is able to reach the earth's surface, which causes the earth to heat up more slowly. This leads to cooler temperatures.

Forecast Tip:
When forecasting daytime temperatures, if cloudy skies are expected, forecast lower temperatures than you would predict if clear skies were expected.


At night cloud cover has the opposite effect. If skies are clear, heat emitted from the earth's surface freely escapes into space, resulting in colder temperatures.

However, if clouds are present, some of the heat emitted from the earth's surface is trapped by the clouds and reemitted back towards the earth. As a result, temperatures decrease more slowly than if the skies were clear.

So one last question, based on the simple pictures above, how does this tie into your assertions??

You do realize as weather changes or just through sheer physical principles the heat still escapes just at a different rate and time.

View attachment 47480

Nice picture. Look, it shows cooler clouds emit toward the warmer surface.

Yeah, you misunderstood the picture with the clouds. You should read what it states.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).

Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.

Please provide a proper definition for "propagation" :
This Merriam Webster ..............

propagation
noun prop·a·ga·tion \ˌprä-pə-ˈgā-shən\
Definition of PROPAGATION
: the act or action of propagating: as

a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body
Which of those would you like to try and fit into this conversation.

It really is simple, a printed ACCEPTED definition that you would like to use from a reputable source.

"Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature.

Link to that assertion please.

Who mentioned "retarding net heat loss" are you thinking of some other conversation or just dancing for us??

NO, once again, objects have "heat signatures" but radiate implies to give off and the object which receives the radiation warms up.

Nope, it ain't happening and there is every scientific principle against you and zero for you.

More song and dance though, let's continue.

But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it

Optical path :

op·ti·cal
ˈäptək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: optical

1. 1.
   of or relating to sight, especially in relation to the physical action of light.
   "optical illusions"
   • constructed to assist sight.
   • devised on the principles of optics.
2. 2.
   Physics
   operating in or employing the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
   "optical telescopes"

op·ti·cal path
noun
Physics
noun: optical path; plural noun: optical paths

1. the distance of the path that in a vacuum would contain the same number of wavelengths as the actual path taken by a ray of light traveling through a medium.

From Wikipedia.

Which bodies are you eluding to??

Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas. The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body, they can emit IR proportional to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...

I am being light.

You are no different than anyone else, if your story don't fly, it don't fly.

Here you want to come out and act all technically superior bur fail to realize the simple concept of cloud cover??

I guess all these scientific based results that I have been debunking your mumbo jumbo line with don't exist.


Effects of Cloud Cover on forecasted temperatures

During the day, the earth is heated by the sun. If skies are clear, more heat reaches the earth's surface (as in the diagram below). This leads to warmer temperatures.

However, if skies are cloudy, some of the sun's rays are reflected off the cloud droplets back into space. Therefore, less of the sun's energy is able to reach the earth's surface, which causes the earth to heat up more slowly. This leads to cooler temperatures.

Forecast Tip:
When forecasting daytime temperatures, if cloudy skies are expected, forecast lower temperatures than you would predict if clear skies were expected.


At night cloud cover has the opposite effect. If skies are clear, heat emitted from the earth's surface freely escapes into space, resulting in colder temperatures.

However, if clouds are present, some of the heat emitted from the earth's surface is trapped by the clouds and reemitted back towards the earth. As a result, temperatures decrease more slowly than if the skies were clear.

So one last question, based on the simple pictures above, how does this tie into your assertions??

You do realize as weather changes or just through sheer physical principles the heat still escapes just at a different rate and time.

View attachment 47480

Nice picture. Look, it shows cooler clouds emit toward the warmer surface.

Yeah, you misunderstood the picture with the clouds. You should read what it states.

It says clouds absorb some radiation emitted from the ground and re-emit back to Earth.
It doesn't say the energy never makes it. So where'd you get that idea? From poor SSDD?

 

[Old Rocks]

I must say that jc, Doom, Billy Bob, and SSDD have provided some of the most interesting interpretations of basic physics I have ever seen.