Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[SSDD]

T1^4 - T2^4 equals zero if they are the same. That does not mean that T1 and T2 have a zero value.

Don't be obtuse....Set T and Tc to the same number...what does that make P...and by definition what is P. Again...it isn't my fault if you don't like the answer the physical law gives you...

 

[SSDD]

I want to know how the cooler atmosphere "knows" not to emit toward the warmer surface and suddenly, with no exchange of information, "senses" that it is safe to emit downward because an instrument has just been cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere?

And I want to know how dropped rocks "know" to fall down...and how air on the outside of a punctured tire "knows" not to rush in...and how free electrons "know" which way to move along an electrical wire...and the winning power ball number this weekend...just because you want to know something doesn't mean that you get to know it...till we learn more about energy movement and exchange, we have to be satisfied with every observation and measurement ever made...energy moves in one direction...from less entropy to more entropy...from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state (cool). tough cookies that you don't get to know why at this point in history...none of us do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I want to know how the cooler atmosphere "knows" not to emit toward the warmer surface and suddenly, with no exchange of information, "senses" that it is safe to emit downward because an instrument has just been cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere?

And I want to know how dropped rocks "know" to fall down...and how air on the outside of a punctured tire "knows" not to rush in...and how free electrons "know" which way to move along an electrical wire...and the winning power ball number this weekend...just because you want to know something doesn't mean that you get to know it...till we learn more about energy movement and exchange, we have to be satisfied with every observation and measurement ever made...energy moves in one direction...from less entropy to more entropy...from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state (cool). tough cookies that you don't get to know why at this point in history...none of us do.

And I want to know how dropped rocks "know" to fall down

Because mass curves spacetime.

Now, back to your smart emitter claim.

...just because you want to know something doesn't mean that you get to know it...

That's a long way of saying you have no proof for your silly claim....but ok.

...energy moves in one direction

Still hilarious.

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."


In Support of the A in AGW

Those guys, who knew so much less than you, seemed to understand that at equilibrium, radiation continues to be emitted and absorbed at the same time.
How did you get to know so much more than them?
Where have you published your incredible wisdom?

 

[SSDD]

Because mass curves spacetime.

Now, back to your smart emitter claim.

Dodging the fact that we don't know what the basic mechanism of gravity is? Dishonesty along with smoke and mirrors seems to be all you guys have.

That's a long way of saying you have no proof for your silly claim....but ok.

No..that is the truthful way to say that science is just starting to scratch the surface as to the how and why of most things...we have buckets full of observation, but very little real grasp of the how and why...again, don't worry about not being honest because I don't expect it from you.

Still hilarious.

And yet, that is what the physical law says.

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

Nope...I just accept the physical law as it is stated...if it says P=zero, then I accept that P is zero...I don't try to make it obey or mesh with an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model as is the case with far to much post modern "science"...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because mass curves spacetime.

Now, back to your smart emitter claim.

Dodging the fact that we don't know what the basic mechanism of gravity is? Dishonesty along with smoke and mirrors seems to be all you guys have.

That's a long way of saying you have no proof for your silly claim....but ok.

No..that is the truthful way to say that science is just starting to scratch the surface as to the how and why of most things...we have buckets full of observation, but very little real grasp of the how and why...again, don't worry about not being honest because I don't expect it from you.

Still hilarious.

And yet, that is what the physical law says.

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

Nope...I just accept the physical law as it is stated...if it says P=zero, then I accept that P is zero...I don't try to make it obey or mesh with an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model as is the case with far to much post modern "science"...

Nope...I just accept the physical law as it is stated...if it says P=zero, then I accept that P is zero...

They also accepted that when P=zero that P is zero.
While knowing that emissions didn't cease.

So when did you discover their error? How fast after you published your findings until you received
your Nobel Prize in Physics? Such a huge discovery....it must have been quick, eh?

 

[SSDD]

They also accepted that when P=zero that P is zero.
While knowing that emissions didn't cease.

Guess in addition to everything else you don't know...the meaning of zero escapes you as well. Here, let me help you out....from the science dictionary...

zero - The numerical symbol 0, representing a number that when added to another number leaves the original number unchanged. Out here in the real world zero means zero....apparently in your fantasy world zero means something else....that should clue you in to how wrong you are..but alas, it doesn't.

So when did you discover their error? How fast after you published your findings until you received
your Nobel Prize in Physics? Such a huge discovery....it must have been quick, eh?

Not my discovery...Stefan-Boltzman discovered it....I, unlike you, can read an equation and know what it means...and I, also unlike you, know what zero means. Appeal to ridicule is just one more impotent trick in the bag of tricks you use to hide the fact that you are completely unable to debate this, or any other topic in detail...you are limited to idiotic one liners. Your inability to debate any topic beyond the juvenile question of why has not gone unnoticed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They also accepted that when P=zero that P is zero.
While knowing that emissions didn't cease.

Guess in addition to everything else you don't know...the meaning of zero escapes you as well. Here, let me help you out....from the science dictionary...

zero - The numerical symbol 0, representing a number that when added to another number leaves the original number unchanged. Out here in the real world zero means zero....apparently in your fantasy world zero means something else....that should clue you in to how wrong you are..but alas, it doesn't.

So when did you discover their error? How fast after you published your findings until you received
your Nobel Prize in Physics? Such a huge discovery....it must have been quick, eh?

Not my discovery...Stefan-Boltzman discovered it....I, unlike you, can read an equation and know what it means...and I, also unlike you, know what zero means. Appeal to ridicule is just one more impotent trick in the bag of tricks you use to hide the fact that you are completely unable to debate this, or any other topic in detail...you are limited to idiotic one liners. Your inability to debate any topic beyond the juvenile question of why has not gone unnoticed.

Guess in addition to everything else you don't know...the meaning of zero escapes you as well. Here, let me help you out....from the science dictionary...

Does that definition also say matter stops radiating at equilibrium? LOL!

Not my discovery...Stefan-Boltzman discovered it....

They discovered it before all those real scientists talked about equilibrium. How did you discover they were all wrong about Stefan-Boltzmann?

Appeal to ridicule is just one more impotent trick in the bag of tricks you use to hide the fact that you are completely unable to debate this

Debate?
Did you ever explain how that cooler matter on the Sun's surface manages to emit through the hotter corona?

I must have missed your Nobel winning explanation, please post it again, so we can debate your idiocy...then I can stop merely ridiculing your idiocy. Thanks!

 

[SSDD]

Does that definition also say matter stops radiating at equilibrium? LOL!

Nope...merely a definition of zero...a number you clearly don't understand.

They discovered it before all those real scientists talked about equilibrium. How did you discover they were all wrong about Stefan-Boltzmann?

You mean back when science was based on experiment, measurement, observation, and actually testing hypotheses and tossing them out if they don't match up with reality as opposed to modern "science" which depends far to heavily on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models......

Debate?
Did you ever explain how that cooler matter on the Sun's surface manages to emit through the hotter corona?

Excellent example demonstrating my point perfectly.....thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does that definition also say matter stops radiating at equilibrium? LOL!

Nope...merely a definition of zero...a number you clearly don't understand.

They discovered it before all those real scientists talked about equilibrium. How did you discover they were all wrong about Stefan-Boltzmann?

You mean back when science was based on experiment, measurement, observation, and actually testing hypotheses and tossing them out if they don't match up with reality as opposed to modern "science" which depends far to heavily on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models......

Debate?
Did you ever explain how that cooler matter on the Sun's surface manages to emit through the hotter corona?

Excellent example demonstrating my point perfectly.....thanks.

Nope...merely a definition of zero...a number you clearly don't understand.

I understand no loss of energy at equilibrium.
Do you understand continued emission, at all temps above 0K, even at equilibrium?

You mean back when science was based on experiment, measurement, observation, and actually testing hypotheses and tossing them out if they don't match up with reality

Yes! Which is how Riedl, Kirchoff, Spencer, Einstein and Planck came to their conclusions about matter at equilibrium. How did you come to your conclusion that they were all wrong?

Perhaps you could post your Nobel acceptance speech?

Excellent example demonstrating my point perfectly.....thanks.

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.

 

[polarbear]

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

I suppose almost all of you believe that absorbed radiation has no other choice than to warm the material which absorbed it. And anyone who says different is being called an idiot by the forum photon experts.

Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.

Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted
Often true but not quite and not always.

There are circumstances where radiation is absorbed, emitted and in the process the material which is re-emitting it cools down to a lower temperature than it was before it absorbed the photons.

 

[SSDD]

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.

Guess in addition to not knowing what zero means...and a boat load of other stuff, I guess you don't know what evidence means either...when a bunch of people accept a statement as fact when there is in fact no EVIDENCE in support of that statement that bunch of people are exhibiting faith.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim....since there are no observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating back radiation, there is no evidence...and here is the clincher...if there were evidence, the second law of thermodynamics would be scrapped, and or rewritten to state that energy moves from both warm to cool and cool to warm. So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool...anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong...and if they are unable to see that...then they are also demonstrably stupid.

And yes...scientists can be wrong...and stupid....the number of times the scientific community has been almost universally wrong on a topic is just about as large as the number of topics.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
Since 7/10 th of the earth surface is water and air at 400 ppm is available and free it is very easy to prove that
All it takes is 2 soda cans filled with water, one hot an another one cold, take note of the room temperature and observe the heat transfer.
Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to 30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec) in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.
With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2
I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2
Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.

I'm sorry, WHAT? Who has ever said that cold air warms warmer air? You're the first person I've ever heard say that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.

Guess in addition to not knowing what zero means...and a boat load of other stuff, I guess you don't know what evidence means either...when a bunch of people accept a statement as fact when there is in fact no EVIDENCE in support of that statement that bunch of people are exhibiting faith.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim....since there are no observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating back radiation, there is no evidence...and here is the clincher...if there were evidence, the second law of thermodynamics would be scrapped, and or rewritten to state that energy moves from both warm to cool and cool to warm. So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool...anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong...and if they are unable to see that...then they are also demonstrably stupid.

And yes...scientists can be wrong...and stupid....the number of times the scientific community has been almost universally wrong on a topic is just about as large as the number of topics.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.

So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool..

It never said that.

anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong

These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

 

[polarbear]

The sun warms the ground and the ground warms the air. That we can all agree on.
Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a colder one, but the AGW advocates argue that heat can also be transferred from the colder mass to the warmer one. Climate "scientists" must insist on it else they don't have a case.
That means that the air has to be able to warm the warmer ground with "back radiation", which they say has increased with the increase in CO2.
They don't worry about mass or specific heat and simply apply black body physics for the radiative heat transfer while eyeballing heat conduction and convection yet claim that their results are accurate within a fraction of a degree.
Any scientist and/or engineer who has to deal with heat transfer in the real world knows how ridiculous this claim is.
Since 7/10 th of the earth surface is water and air at 400 ppm is available and free it is very easy to prove that
All it takes is 2 soda cans filled with water, one hot an another one cold, take note of the room temperature and observe the heat transfer.
Wait till the can with the warm water has cooled to 10 deg C above room temperature and note the time.
After 1 hour note the water temperature. Next measure the exact dimensions of the soda can and the amount of water in it. That allows you to get the cals per second or the # of watts.
The pop can surface area was 292.3 cm^2 the water in it was 370 ccm and it cooled from 34.5 C to 30 C in 1 hour. So it transferred 1665 calories (6996 watt sec) in 1 hour to the air that was 10.5 deg C cooler.
With the STB equation for this temperature difference you get 65 Watt/m^2
I observed 66.5 Watt/m^2 which of course includes heat conduction from the water through the thin Alu skin and into still air (convection=negligeble)....which are the extra 1.5 watt/m^2 (heat conduction) over the theoretical 65 W radiative transfer
If the climate warmers were right I should have only had 65(StB) - 1.8 (back radiation)+ my 1.5 conduction = 64.7 Watts/m^2
Which would be less cooling ergo more warming....but that did not happen, neither is global warming by CO2 back radiation.

I'm sorry, WHAT? Who has ever said that cold air warms warmer air? You're the first person I've ever heard say that.

I'm sorry, WHAT? Who has ever said that cold air warms warmer air? You're the first person I've ever heard say that
Why are you asking me? You should ask the backradiation planet warmer society. They are the ones who make that claim and I haven`t seen them make an exception for air not being able to radiate. Have you?
Physics laws are universal they don`t require your or your occult`s consent

 

[polarbear]

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.

Guess in addition to not knowing what zero means...and a boat load of other stuff, I guess you don't know what evidence means either...when a bunch of people accept a statement as fact when there is in fact no EVIDENCE in support of that statement that bunch of people are exhibiting faith.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim....since there are no observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating back radiation, there is no evidence...and here is the clincher...if there were evidence, the second law of thermodynamics would be scrapped, and or rewritten to state that energy moves from both warm to cool and cool to warm. So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool...anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong...and if they are unable to see that...then they are also demonstrably stupid.

And yes...scientists can be wrong...and stupid....the number of times the scientific community has been almost universally wrong on a topic is just about as large as the number of topics.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.

So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool..

It never said that.

anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong

These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.
How many more times does that have to be explained to you?
I told you at least 3 times that the corona is ionized which means that it can`t absorb with electrons that are not where they need to be in order to absorb
These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.
No scientist ever said that so there is nobody that could be proven wrong except the straw man scientist you just invented.

 

[mamooth]

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

Where did you ever get that idea?

From what you've been telling us for years, obviously.

Your crank theory states that an object either radiates at full strength towards a colder object, or cuts off radiating instantly and completely if the object is warmer. There's no in-between. Your theory also states the colder object can send absolutely zero energy to the warmer object.

Therefore, your theory states that a 20C thermopile will radiate the same amount away, whether it's pointed at -20C sky or -10C clouds, and that in both cases, it will get nothing back. Hence, your theory states the thermopile with be at the same temperature in both cases.

The notion that the temperature flux between the sensor and the object remains the same no matter how much the two temperatures differ is just stupid and only an idiot would think of it...

Yet it's what you've been screaming at us for years, which means you're self-classifying yourself as an idiot. With this latest flipflop, your theory hasn't gotten any less dumb, and it's now self-contradicting, so it's gotten worse.

I have no theory...I have fact as described by the engineers who design and build the devices...refer above to the handbook of modern sensors...

No, you copied part a correct theory that contradicts your crank theory, and now you're lying big by pretending that the correct theory is actually the same as your crank theory.

We all now agree that the thermopile should lose more heat when pointed at a colder object.

The normal people here can use the S-B equation to show how that happens.

You can't. Your one-way distortion of the S-B equation makes that impossible. Under your theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat in both cases.

If you disagree, simply show us the math. That will be difficult, being you've been doubling down over and over on your incorrect version of the equation, meaning you won't be able to suddenly flipflop to the correct version.

 

[SSDD]

From what you've been telling us for years, obviously.

Sorry hairball...once again, you prove that you simply can't keep up with adult conversation...I have never said anything even remotely like that...Either you are to stupid to keep up...or you are just making it up as you go.

Your crank theory states that an object either radiates at full strength towards a colder object, or cuts off radiating instantly and completely if the object is warmer. There's no in-between. Your theory also states the colder object can send absolutely zero energy to the warmer object.

I have no theory...I only have the laws of thermodynamics...and the laws of thermodynamics certainly say no such thing. Ian often claims that objects radiate all the time in all directions according to their temperature, but i am quick to point out his error on that point....

The SB equations which I routinely use state explicitly that objects do not radiate at full strength all the time...

That equation states explicitly that an object radiates according to the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its environment. I couldn't say how many times I have made that statement and yet, you fail completely to understand it. That would be because you are an idiot.

Therefore, your theory states that a 20C thermopile will radiate the same amount away, whether it's pointed at -20C sky or -10C clouds, and that in both cases, it will get nothing back. Hence, your theory states the thermopile with be at the same temperature in both cases.

Therefore you are an idiot...as I have demonstrated, you couldn't possibly have misconstrued my position more...

Yet it's what you've been screaming at us for years, which means you're self-classifying yourself as an idiot. With this latest flipflop, your theory hasn't gotten any less dumb, and it's now self-contradicting, so it's gotten worse.

Not even close...but if you care to provide a quote from me saying such a thing, by all means bring it forward....or just admit that you aren't bright enough to actually understand and comprehend much of what anyone says.

No, you copied part a correct theory that contradicts your crank theory, and now you're lying big by pretending that the correct theory is actually the same as your crank theory.

Again...I copied how the instruments work which meshes exactly with what I have been stating all along...your misunderstanding of what I have been saying is so profound that you really should be embarrassed off the board for even stating it.

We all now agree that the thermopile should lose more heat when pointed at a colder object.

Now you are going to claim that you have been claiming all along that the temperature is due to energy flowing away from the instrument rather than cool radiation flowing towards it?....what a load of bullshit.

Here is just one instance of you claiming just the opposite.

And I've pointed out you're a lying sack of shit, as cheap uncooled consumer electronics show that backradiation with great precision.

that post is here: Arctic Ice

and it goes on with you claiming that the cool radiation from the sky is what the sensor array is receiving and measuring rather than the FACT that it is measuring its loss of heat to the cooler sky.

You can't. Your one-way distortion of the S-B equation makes that impossible. Under your theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat in both cases.

The SB equation describes a one way movement of energy..from cool to warm...but if you think otherwise..I provided the equation above....do feel free to show where you believe it describes a two way energy exchange...and again...I have no theory...the SB equation says that the amount of radiation an object radiates is dictated by the temperature of its environment...that amount changes and can go into negative numbers when the environment is warmer than the radiator. I still can't believe how incredibly badly you have been misunderstanding my position for all this time...had you the faintest clue of how to read a relatively simple equation (from above) you would have understood my position perfectly.

If you disagree, simply show us the math. That will be difficult, being you've been doubling down over and over on your incorrect version of the equation, meaning you won't be able to suddenly flipflop to the correct version.

The math is shown above...sorry it is so far over your head.

 

[jc456]

actually, I continue to get a kick out of the wackiness you all respond with. SSDD has torn you all new ones continuously. And the funny thing that attracts me to this discussion. back radiation.

The simple question you have to ask yourself is 'does the atmosphere radiate?'.

The obvious answer is yes.

The IR gun does not read minus 273C even at night. If you point the gun parellel to the surface it gives the ambient temperature, even at night. The radiation exists, it can be further described as back radiation because most of the energy stored in the atmosphere comes from the surface.

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

I suppose almost all of you believe that absorbed radiation has no other choice than to warm the material which absorbed it. And anyone who says different is being called an idiot by the forum photon experts.

Warming only happens when more radiation is being absorbed than emitted.

what happens to all of the conduction and convection?

 

[jc456]

well of course the atmosphere radiates. who ever said it doesn't? The argument has always been the direction of the radiation. Do you think the temperature is always the same in an area? heat flows toward cold always. the radiation is also always that direction.

I believe the manufacture information SSDD posted.

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. none, nadda, zip, zero all make believe. Dude, I get it, it has to do that for your thought to be correct. just that your thought is not correct because, you have nothing that supports it.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

you have?

View attachment 122237

sorry, that isn't evidence of anything discussed in here.

 

[mamooth]

The SB equations which I routinely use state explicitly that objects do not radiate at full strength all the time...

Oh, so you're completely insane, and far more stupid than anyone could have imagined.

Sorry. I had assumed you weren't the biggest retard to ever walk planet earth. My bad. I won't make that mistake again.

Not only do you posit intelligent photons ... you posit an intelligent universe! In your deranged dimension, every atom literally knows the state of every other atom in the universe, and radiates accordingly.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

The most hilarious thing? You expect to be taken seriously.