how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

I think Ian and flac should read this..

Godel and the End of Physics - Stephen Hawking

Please try and read the whole thing with an open mind. It's not my work, or the work of some obscure scientist either pro or con AGW. It's from Stephen Hawking,and it explains (among other things) the problems with what we know vs what we theorize..

 

[SSDD]

Bottom Line:

If the mechanisms that you warmers claim are at work were actually at work, the tropospheric hot spot would be found in the real world rather than only in the models which believe the same mechanism is at work.

You would think that at least Ian and flacaltenn would at some point wake up and see that if what they beleived were true, it would be evident out in the real world. The rest of the warmers, I doubt will ever wake up.

 

[SSDD]

Try this, page 91, statistical mechanics

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

It comes down to basically, given the nature of quantum mechanics, the photon has a probabitity of being emitted at a given time at a given frequency given the temperature of the body.

No need for some other body to be coupled across space.

And as IanC notes, when it's two bodies, the net flow is the difference between the two.

Yes, yes, yes, all well and good we have seen the theoretical reasoning behind it, now can you prove it? Can you even supply a text book which states back-radiation as a known and proven fact? I looked all through that text book your Science of doom site referenced and didn't find a thing on back-radiation but obviously you, Ian, and the AGW pseudo-scientists/enviro-rockstars know better. So please pony up this evidence.. That's evidence not theory..

BTW, I noticed you still avoid answering my question... So I ask again, because the dancing is ridiculous now... Just because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, what makes you certain it will effect change in it's greater source?

Please answer it or not, but continued avoidance while accusing me of not answering your questions is tedious...

As I pointed out already....backradiation is not taught in physics....classical physics doesn't even leave room for the possibility...post modern climate science physics strongly suggest it, but again, don't teach it as proven fact. Postmodern physics has a nasty habit of confusing what is real with what is only dreamed of...no proof needed.

 

[SSDD]

physics is 75% manipulation of mathematical equations to understand the relationships between things. are you against the rearranging and replacing of equal terms for the equation F=ma ?

That isn't the question. Why would you apply any property to an already elegant equation? Even physics does not apply properties to already elegant equations, it is neither good math, nor good physics. So again, why?

 

[gslack]

Try this, page 91, statistical mechanics

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

It comes down to basically, given the nature of quantum mechanics, the photon has a probabitity of being emitted at a given time at a given frequency given the temperature of the body.

No need for some other body to be coupled across space.

And as IanC notes, when it's two bodies, the net flow is the difference between the two.

Yes, yes, yes, all well and good we have seen the theoretical reasoning behind it, now can you prove it? Can you even supply a text book which states back-radiation as a known and proven fact? I looked all through that text book your Science of doom site referenced and didn't find a thing on back-radiation but obviously you, Ian, and the AGW pseudo-scientists/enviro-rockstars know better. So please pony up this evidence.. That's evidence not theory..

BTW, I noticed you still avoid answering my question... So I ask again, because the dancing is ridiculous now... Just because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, what makes you certain it will effect change in it's greater source?

Please answer it or not, but continued avoidance while accusing me of not answering your questions is tedious...

As I pointed out already....backradiation is not taught in physics....classical physics doesn't even leave room for the possibility...post modern climate science physics strongly suggest it, but again, don't teach it as proven fact. Postmodern physics has a nasty habit of confusing what is real with what is only dreamed of...no proof needed.

You're preaching to the choir on that one.. I was just making the point to them, that a possibility of incidental radiation being emitted in the direction of the source does not mean it will effect change in that source...

LOL, did you see Ian try to prove back-conduction of all things, using virtual photons? ROFL, using the Ian logic, we can call whatever we want fact, and every form of thermal or energy transfer of any kind can go both ways. Electrical circuits? Doesn't matter now which way you wire em. Heat engines? Ian can reuse the same heat at least twice, and in time maybe 3 or even 4 times.. Oh what the hell, make it infinite times, why not it's theoretically possible so fact..

Unbelievable. It's like there is no difference between fact and theory with many people these days. I Bet you, if you took 10 people and had them watch an episode of "into the wormhole" and after asked them each how much of what they saw was fact, and how much was theory, 7 or more couldn't tell you.. Frightening..

 

[SSDD]

Yes, yes, yes, all well and good we have seen the theoretical reasoning behind it, now can you prove it? Can you even supply a text book which states back-radiation as a known and proven fact? I looked all through that text book your Science of doom site referenced and didn't find a thing on back-radiation but obviously you, Ian, and the AGW pseudo-scientists/enviro-rockstars know better. So please pony up this evidence.. That's evidence not theory..

BTW, I noticed you still avoid answering my question... So I ask again, because the dancing is ridiculous now... Just because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, what makes you certain it will effect change in it's greater source?

Please answer it or not, but continued avoidance while accusing me of not answering your questions is tedious...

As I pointed out already....backradiation is not taught in physics....classical physics doesn't even leave room for the possibility...post modern climate science physics strongly suggest it, but again, don't teach it as proven fact. Postmodern physics has a nasty habit of confusing what is real with what is only dreamed of...no proof needed.

You're preaching to the choir on that one.. I was just making the point to them, that a possibility of incidental radiation being emitted in the direction of the source does not mean it will effect change in that source...

LOL, did you see Ian try to prove back-conduction of all things, using virtual photons? ROFL, using the Ian logic, we can call whatever we want fact, and every form of thermal or energy transfer of any kind can go both ways. Electrical circuits? Doesn't matter now which way you wire em. Heat engines? Ian can reuse the same heat at least twice, and in time maybe 3 or even 4 times.. Oh what the hell, make it infinite times, why not it's theoretically possible so fact..

Unbelievable. It's like there is no difference between fact and theory with many people these days. I Bet you, if you took 10 people and had them watch an episode of "into the wormhole" and after asked them each how much of what they saw was fact, and how much was theory, 7 or more couldn't tell you.. Frightening..

What next, back convection? And you are absolutely right...there are to many who subscribe to post modern science, QM in particular who have lost the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is hypothesized. Look at Ian, claiming to be able to create backradiation by altering an already elegant equation. Unfortuntately, a great swaths of science have fallen for the post modern habit of accepting the output of models of hypothesized universes as real.

 

[flacaltenn]

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

It simply DOES reduce the net flow.. Hot and cold objects EXCHANGE radiative energy.. The hot source kinda wins in the long run.. Any IR photons from the colder object will add to the heat energy of the hotter landing spot. There is not a microprocessor on board that tells a photon ANYTHING about temperature.

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Not really for cond/conv, ((although I did comment that statistical violations of the 2nd Law CAN exist temporarily under certain conditions)).. But we're discussing the 3rd major mode of heat transfer here.. (Radiative) Asked you and SSDD to comment on the 2 examples I posted a page or so now back.. BOTH of you took a pass. Didn't get YOUR explanation why I can read temperatures on my IR thermometer of something COLDER than than the measurement tool.. Wanna take a crack at it NOW? I'll find you the post number.

Second example was 2 identical bars in a vacuum heated to equilibrium at 100degF. Do they STOP emitting IR radiation because the neighboring bar is the SAME temp? Of course they don't...

Questions for your "theory" are at ----- http://www.usmessageboard.com/7545096-post2133.html


Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

REALLY??? So you don't see the quote on that page that says..



There's no qualification about the temperature of the SOURCE is there?? "The surface will intercept and ABSORB radiation originating from the surroundings.. "


In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

I did .. Go to the questions I posed in the post link above. I'd love to hear how YOUR theory handles those explanations..

WHY? your questions do not in any way negate or disprove my statements...

But here ya go... Your questions..

"Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"???? "-flac...

Are you reading the flow from warmer to colder? Seriously is that what your thermometer is reading? Or is it the change in temperature itself. OR in this example from wikkipedia...

Obviously in my example,, I'm reading a COLDER object.. It's a leaking window 15degF BELOW ambient...


Infrared thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



According to wikki they can be used for various purposes but somehow proving back-radiation isn't one of them... Hmmm...

Infrared thermometers can be used to serve a wide variety of temperature monitoring functions. A few examples provided to this article include:
Detecting clouds for remote telescope operation
Checking mechanical equipment or electrical circuit breaker boxes or outlets for hot spots
Checking heater or oven temperature, for calibration and control purposes
Detecting hot spots / performing diagnostics in electrical circuit board manufacturing
Checking for hot spots in fire fighting situations
Monitoring materials in process of heating and cooling, for research and development or manufacturing quality control situations

Sorry you've apparently never used one of these.. They are carried by every HVAC tech on the planet.. I've got 3 or 4 in my lab.. No mystery.. They will read HOTTER or COLDER than the ambient surroundings.. Here...

http://www.instrumart.com/assets/rayst-infrared-thermometers.pdf

Raytek’s ST20 Infrared Non-Contact Thermometers offer accurate readings in a compact and reliable design. The ST20 Pro has a temperature
range of -25 to 999°F (-32 to 535°C), a 500 msec reading response time and a weight of 11 ounces. This thermometer is safe
to use as it requires no contact with the surface measured so long as it is within the thermometer’s range (D:S=12:1).

Don't care about confusing heat with other sources if the target is isolated in the field of view. Temp is temp at an IC on a circuit board. Or a chilly window leak...



Simple dude show me the text book which states it being a fact and we are done.. Shouldn't be too hard if it's as factual and obvious as you claim...

If photon energy WAS NOT flowing from colder to warmer AND bring thermal energy to the IR sensor in those instruments, that IR thermometer WOULD NOT FUNCTION for below ambient targets -- would it?
There's your "backradiation" from a cooler sky thru radiative heating..




Your next question...

"2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?"

Sure they may radiate at one another, BUT... And please pay attention this time because you keep ignoring this point.... DO THEY EFFECT CHANGE IN THEIR HEAT SOURCE? OR ONE ANOTHER?

NO!

Wasn't my question. Did not ask if they effected ANY change in Temp.. I asked if they STOPPED radiating at each other? Because by YOUR rules, there is no thermal gradient and therefore no heat flow.. So --- can you answer the question now???

And why? Because the nature of blackbody radiation, or thermal equilibrium achieved by both bodies negating any gain in temperature from one another..

But hey, Don't take my word for it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature T surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature T on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium. The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[20][21] Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body. This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature T, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature T.[22]

You are circle-talking, pretending that because something can radiate towards it's source, that means it can effect change in that source. It's a false assumption. Mathematically it should, but due to QM or Quantum theory being incomplete (the math behind it), reality and real world experience shows it doesn't effect change in the source.. See the problem yet?

You like Ian and so many others learned to do the math through a process, but you didn't learn to question it or think through what it means in application. Hence your attempt to use an IR thermometer to prove backradiation. If it were really that simple, there wouldn't be a case against it would there... It would be in the text books wouldn't it.. Well it's not and the reason is it's a mathematical concept which doesn't stand up to real world observation..

NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???

Please, if you can't answer it fine, just don't ignore it and try to make up my position for me... It's getting old..

BTW.. "kinda wins in the long run." LOL are you serious.. It wins but you aren't gonna admit it so you try and justify it with that ? ROFL

The rest is pretty much mutual assault.. Let's concentrate on the questions..

 

[flacaltenn]

See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..

equilibrium temperature is a function of input minus output. where is the extra input into the surface coming from if not the atmosphere? why are you ducking the question?

if a wire has two opposing forces the electrons will flow in the direction of the larger force. not at the rate of only the stronger force but proportionall to the net force. the virtual photons are still moving in both directions and transferring their energy to electrons independently of the opposing force. photons are only affected by interacting with matter, not other photons. interference patterns can be present but only in the presence of matter. a magnetic field can polarize light but only if it is in the region of either the emitter, or the receiver, not in the open space between them. this is because photons do not transfer energy except in the presence of matter.

thermal radiation in an object that is conducting heat is going in all directions, as is demanded by physical laws that say radiative emission from kinetic energy has no preferred direction. you need to separate kinetic interactions from radiative ones. one is mechanical and is mostly property of matter, the other is quantum emission and is mostly a property of photons. photons can exist in the same space as another photon, particles of matter cannot.



edit- back convection? convection can go in any direction but it is mostly up or down because it is a function of gravity. it is also made up of particles of matter so it is a net force mechanism because matter cannot be in the same space as other matter. radiation does not have the same limitations.

No ducking by me Ian, you are the dancing bear who runs everytime you have to defend spencers position... Not a word from you until flac came to your rescue... LOL..

Back-convection would flow back to it's warmer source silly... That's the second time you tried to play obtuse to get by.. Grow up Ian, that's just as silly as your "decides to emit" Bullshit... Warmer air rises, colder air falls, hence back-convection would allow the opposite.. DOesn't exist dumbass..

Virtual photons? LOL, why not stick with actual photons schmuck? LOL, your BS requires you to delve ever deeper into theory and you don't see a problem yet? LOL, tell ya what you prove that virtual photons flow both ways in a circuit okay... Get back with me..

ROFL.. You are too ridiculous for words Ian..

Ian doesn't need rescuing.. I comment on his posts because he's CONTRIBUTED something significant that I hadn't thought of.. We're pretty much on the same wavelength as far as the Greenhouse being a REAL and defendable paradigm for understanding the atmos heat retention..

 

[Foxfyre]

As I pointed out already....backradiation is not taught in physics....classical physics doesn't even leave room for the possibility...post modern climate science physics strongly suggest it, but again, don't teach it as proven fact. Postmodern physics has a nasty habit of confusing what is real with what is only dreamed of...no proof needed.

You're preaching to the choir on that one.. I was just making the point to them, that a possibility of incidental radiation being emitted in the direction of the source does not mean it will effect change in that source...

LOL, did you see Ian try to prove back-conduction of all things, using virtual photons? ROFL, using the Ian logic, we can call whatever we want fact, and every form of thermal or energy transfer of any kind can go both ways. Electrical circuits? Doesn't matter now which way you wire em. Heat engines? Ian can reuse the same heat at least twice, and in time maybe 3 or even 4 times.. Oh what the hell, make it infinite times, why not it's theoretically possible so fact..

Unbelievable. It's like there is no difference between fact and theory with many people these days. I Bet you, if you took 10 people and had them watch an episode of "into the wormhole" and after asked them each how much of what they saw was fact, and how much was theory, 7 or more couldn't tell you.. Frightening..

What next, back convection? And you are absolutely right...there are to many who subscribe to post modern science, QM in particular who have lost the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is hypothesized. Look at Ian, claiming to be able to create backradiation by altering an already elegant equation. Unfortuntately, a great swaths of science have fallen for the post modern habit of accepting the output of models of hypothesized universes as real.

And that is a crucial part of the debate isn't it? Separating what we know to exist from that some WANT to be true? I don't pretend to have the math skills to evaluate or even understand whether backradiation and/or Planck's Law et al are the real deal or whether other scientific probabilities are more coherent. But I do know that ice never becomes colder in an environment that is warmer than it is.

And I do know that it is a sad fact that there are those who are willing to use flawed or even bogus science or any other faulty observed phenomena to take more and more control over our lives. I cannot understand those who can't see that unless they are in fact paid or recruited to be a part of it.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...

Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation

And to show another example.. I did a google search for the words "Back-radiation proof'. here's the list I got..

back-radiation proof - Google Search

What I got was a list that contained spencer and science of doom first and second respectively (no shock there) and then in third was my link above, followed by a mass of links to various sites and articles that for the most part call the concept of back-radiation a mathematical concept or possibility that does not stand up to observation in reality..

Disagree with me all you want, but the world seems to disagree with you and Ian.. Pretty blatantly too..

You're not gonna find the answer to this Physics question searching Back-Radiation.. Because that's a recent term SPECIFIC to the GreenHouse argument as IanC pointed out....

There are 20 someodd textbooks SPECIFICALLY on Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics. IN FACT ---- you COULD search those because they all show BIdirectional calculations for radiative flow..

But the pages of simple THERMO texts are EXTRACTED in the last link I provided to ScienceofDoom.. The guy went and photocopied at LEAST 8 cites to calculating BIDIRECTIONAL FLOW for radiative heating.. That's the calculations shown.. ALL BODIES becomes sources for radiative calculation.. Find the link --- the Thermo textbooks descriptions are right there.. Or buy a Radiative Thermal Physics text...
(one or two free online. One from MIT I believe)..

 

[flacaltenn]

Bottom Line:

If the mechanisms that you warmers claim are at work were actually at work, the tropospheric hot spot would be found in the real world rather than only in the models which believe the same mechanism is at work.

You would think that at least Ian and flacaltenn would at some point wake up and see that if what they beleived were true, it would be evident out in the real world. The rest of the warmers, I doubt will ever wake up.

I'm just trying to show you how much fun you and Gslack are missing out on.. There is so much wrong with AGW assertions and theory, that if you waste time on challenging the existence of a GreenHouse, you're gonna lose the opportunity to mock some REAL ridiculous stuff.. Lighten up..

There's a parallel to the invasion of Iraq here.. EVERYONE focuses on the WMD issue.. But EVEN NEOCONS missed justifying the invasion on a half dozen valid OTHER reasons..
Like getting our bases the hell out of Saudi, The UN out of corruption Oil for Food deals, the DAILY bombings of Iraq and returning to them the keys to their economy that we had snatched.

I'd like to think the guys watching my sorry ass skeptic back --- were holding focus on the bigger picture...

 

[Foxfyre]

Arctic ice update July 2013. Despite several warmers' giving doomsday predictions that no Arctic ice would survive the summer of 2013, the official reports show ice melt at a slower rate this year than last year.

So what do the warmers do? They say that the extent of Arctic sea ice is below the 1981-2010 average as if that is significant. Below a record kept for 29 years. Twenty nine years isn't even measurable on a paleontological scale, but we are to base policy and give control over to governments who don't like us very much and who won't have our best interests at heart based on that twenty nine years?

I figure some of ya'll are getting tired of me beating that drum. But warming and cooling is not really an issue, but how warming and cooling will affect the living species of plants and animals on Earth. So please forgive me if I insert some policy issues amongst the scientific discussion. That is what interests me most.

 

[SSDD]

You're not gonna find the answer to this Physics question searching Back-Radiation.. Because that's a recent term SPECIFIC to the GreenHouse argument as IanC pointed out....

Actually backradiation is a recent fiction specific to the greehhouse hypothesis. It is nothing more than an ad hoc construct.

There are 20 someodd textbooks SPECIFICALLY on Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics. IN FACT ---- you COULD search those because they all show BIdirectional calculations for radiative flow..

Twenty textbooks? Really? Wow!! Twenty whole textbooks. Tell me, if you don't mind....how many textbooks do you think have been written on radiative physics? And 20 of them preach two way energy flow. Again...wow...

I am betting that they aren't classical....you know...real as opposed to fictional post modern physics texts, are they?

 

[SSDD]

I'm just trying to show you how much fun you and Gslack are missing out on.. There is so much wrong with AGW assertions and theory, that if you waste time on challenging the existence of a GreenHouse, you're gonna lose the opportunity to mock some REAL ridiculous stuff.. Lighten up..

Supporting the greenhouse hypothesis but not believing parts of it is like believing in fairies but not believing in fairy dust.

I'd like to think the guys watching my sorry ass skeptic back --- were holding focus on the bigger picture...

The picture is that you guys still believe in the magic whether or not you believe it is as powerful as the true wacko warmists. If you are going to believe in fairies, you may as well go whole hog and believe in fairy dust as well...they are one in the same.

 

[SSDD]

Arctic ice update July 2013. Despite several warmers' giving doomsday predictions that no Arctic ice would survive the summer of 2013, the official reports show ice melt at a slower rate this year than last year.

So what do the warmers do? They say that the extent of Arctic sea ice is below the 1981-2010 average as if that is significant. Below a record kept for 29 years. Twenty nine years isn't even measurable on a paleontological scale, but we are to base policy and give control over to governments who don't like us very much and who won't have our best interests at heart based on that twenty nine years?

I figure some of ya'll are getting tired of me beating that drum. But warming and cooling is not really an issue, but how warming and cooling will affect the living species of plants and animals on Earth. So please forgive me if I insert some policy issues amongst the scientific discussion. That is what interests me most.

Did you see that the guys who were going to row a boat through the northwest passage are hanging it up after not even being able to make it into the northwest passage because it is completely choked by ice?

The wackos were really worried about the ice a few weeks ago....wonder if they will start a thread expressing their relief that it isn't melting as they feared.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're not gonna find the answer to this Physics question searching Back-Radiation.. Because that's a recent term SPECIFIC to the GreenHouse argument as IanC pointed out....

Actually backradiation is a recent fiction specific to the greehhouse hypothesis. It is nothing more than an ad hoc construct.

There are 20 someodd textbooks SPECIFICALLY on Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics. IN FACT ---- you COULD search those because they all show BIdirectional calculations for radiative flow..

Twenty textbooks? Really? Wow!! Twenty whole textbooks. Tell me, if you don't mind....how many textbooks do you think have been written on radiative physics? And 20 of them preach two way energy flow. Again...wow...

I am betting that they aren't classical....you know...real as opposed to fictional post modern physics texts, are they?

I lied.. According to Amazon --- there's 100s of them.. And that's just the search for Radiative Heat Transfer.. I didn't try Thermal Radiation Physics or other varieties..

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=radiative+heat+transfer&sprefix=Radiative%2Cstripbooks%2C334#/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aradiative+heat+transfer&keywords=radiative+heat+transfer&ie=UTF8&qid=1374110340]Amazon.com: radiative heat transfer: Books[/ame]

 

[gslack]

I did .. Go to the questions I posed in the post link above. I'd love to hear how YOUR theory handles those explanations..

WHY? your questions do not in any way negate or disprove my statements...

But here ya go... Your questions..

"Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"???? "-flac...

Are you reading the flow from warmer to colder? Seriously is that what your thermometer is reading? Or is it the change in temperature itself. OR in this example from wikkipedia...

Obviously in my example,, I'm reading a COLDER object.. It's a leaking window 15degF BELOW ambient...


Infrared thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



According to wikki they can be used for various purposes but somehow proving back-radiation isn't one of them... Hmmm...



Sorry you've apparently never used one of these.. They are carried by every HVAC tech on the planet.. I've got 3 or 4 in my lab.. No mystery.. They will read HOTTER or COLDER than the ambient surroundings.. Here...



Don't care about confusing heat with other sources if the target is isolated in the field of view. Temp is temp at an IC on a circuit board. Or a chilly window leak...



Simple dude show me the text book which states it being a fact and we are done.. Shouldn't be too hard if it's as factual and obvious as you claim...

If photon energy WAS NOT flowing from colder to warmer AND bring thermal energy to the IR sensor in those instruments, that IR thermometer WOULD NOT FUNCTION for below ambient targets -- would it?
There's your "backradiation" from a cooler sky thru radiative heating..




Your next question...

"2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?"

Sure they may radiate at one another, BUT... And please pay attention this time because you keep ignoring this point.... DO THEY EFFECT CHANGE IN THEIR HEAT SOURCE? OR ONE ANOTHER?

NO!

Wasn't my question. Did not ask if they effected ANY change in Temp.. I asked if they STOPPED radiating at each other? Because by YOUR rules, there is no thermal gradient and therefore no heat flow.. So --- can you answer the question now???

And why? Because the nature of blackbody radiation, or thermal equilibrium achieved by both bodies negating any gain in temperature from one another..

But hey, Don't take my word for it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature T surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature T on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium. The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[20][21] Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body. This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature T, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature T.[22]

You are circle-talking, pretending that because something can radiate towards it's source, that means it can effect change in that source. It's a false assumption. Mathematically it should, but due to QM or Quantum theory being incomplete (the math behind it), reality and real world experience shows it doesn't effect change in the source.. See the problem yet?

You like Ian and so many others learned to do the math through a process, but you didn't learn to question it or think through what it means in application. Hence your attempt to use an IR thermometer to prove backradiation. If it were really that simple, there wouldn't be a case against it would there... It would be in the text books wouldn't it.. Well it's not and the reason is it's a mathematical concept which doesn't stand up to real world observation..

NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???

Please, if you can't answer it fine, just don't ignore it and try to make up my position for me... It's getting old..

BTW.. "kinda wins in the long run." LOL are you serious.. It wins but you aren't gonna admit it so you try and justify it with that ? ROFL

The rest is pretty much mutual assault.. Let's concentrate on the questions..

Want to stop the red text inside my quotes? It makes it hard to differentiate what you say from what I say for the rest of the forum.. As well as simply being flat-out annoying to have to pick them out in a response...

LOL I cited your questions, see them? Of course you do...

Again, the thermometer shows as you said above.."They will read HOTTER or COLDER than the ambient surroundings.." Agreed,now please explain how it is proof of backradiation... Seems like proof of radiation but not back-radiation Get it yet? The thing measures IR radiation that's it, it doesn't measure raidiation flowing back to it's warmer source.. ANd frankly, You may have them and you may use them, but you obviously don't understand how they work if you think they can show back-radiation..

The devices use blackbody radiation concepts to give a numerical (likie the one you linked to) or visual color spectrum representation of thermal radiation coming from objects. That's it.. It doesn't measure energy re-emitted back towards it's warmer source... Using your logic everything is proof of backradaition. If it radiates it's back-radiation...LOL

You're still not going to answer my question are you... So once more, why isn't this simply shown phenomenon shown in text books? The one you cited from Science of doom for instance, Not a peep on it anywhere... Keep on trying to avoid it and I will keep on asking it...

And your second question was addressed silly person right there plain as day. And again if it doesn't effect change in it's source, how can it warm the surface further?

Either you are doing the Ian-approved two-step/obtuse diversion or you are unable to follow the claim you're making to it's logical meaning.. IF you claim back-radiation warms the surface of the planet further, than you matter of fact claim that it can effect change in it's source. Following it yet? It's how logic works.

I think you are caught in the same spot Ian ends up in everytime he tries to sneak a new spencer thought experiment in on us. He talks and claims it fact until he's asked toprove it, or show it in a text book and BOOM! he stops and resorts to playing dumb or deaf, or both... Repeating the same things, whether answered, addressed, or not, he repeats or vanishes to lick his wounds for a while. He will not accept the fact his hero is wrong, or selling his latest book or website. And he certainly will not accept QM as anything but fact, despite the rest of the world calling it theory..

You two are on the same page.. The same page, in a piece fiction that you are convinced is fact...

 

[gslack]

equilibrium temperature is a function of input minus output. where is the extra input into the surface coming from if not the atmosphere? why are you ducking the question?

if a wire has two opposing forces the electrons will flow in the direction of the larger force. not at the rate of only the stronger force but proportionall to the net force. the virtual photons are still moving in both directions and transferring their energy to electrons independently of the opposing force. photons are only affected by interacting with matter, not other photons. interference patterns can be present but only in the presence of matter. a magnetic field can polarize light but only if it is in the region of either the emitter, or the receiver, not in the open space between them. this is because photons do not transfer energy except in the presence of matter.

thermal radiation in an object that is conducting heat is going in all directions, as is demanded by physical laws that say radiative emission from kinetic energy has no preferred direction. you need to separate kinetic interactions from radiative ones. one is mechanical and is mostly property of matter, the other is quantum emission and is mostly a property of photons. photons can exist in the same space as another photon, particles of matter cannot.



edit- back convection? convection can go in any direction but it is mostly up or down because it is a function of gravity. it is also made up of particles of matter so it is a net force mechanism because matter cannot be in the same space as other matter. radiation does not have the same limitations.

No ducking by me Ian, you are the dancing bear who runs everytime you have to defend spencers position... Not a word from you until flac came to your rescue... LOL..

Back-convection would flow back to it's warmer source silly... That's the second time you tried to play obtuse to get by.. Grow up Ian, that's just as silly as your "decides to emit" Bullshit... Warmer air rises, colder air falls, hence back-convection would allow the opposite.. DOesn't exist dumbass..

Virtual photons? LOL, why not stick with actual photons schmuck? LOL, your BS requires you to delve ever deeper into theory and you don't see a problem yet? LOL, tell ya what you prove that virtual photons flow both ways in a circuit okay... Get back with me..

ROFL.. You are too ridiculous for words Ian..

Ian doesn't need rescuing.. I comment on his posts because he's CONTRIBUTED something significant that I hadn't thought of.. We're pretty much on the same wavelength as far as the Greenhouse being a REAL and defendable paradigm for understanding the atmos heat retention..

Wait... Did you just tell me to leave your man alone??? ROFL..

 

[gslack]

BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...

Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation

And to show another example.. I did a google search for the words "Back-radiation proof'. here's the list I got..

back-radiation proof - Google Search

What I got was a list that contained spencer and science of doom first and second respectively (no shock there) and then in third was my link above, followed by a mass of links to various sites and articles that for the most part call the concept of back-radiation a mathematical concept or possibility that does not stand up to observation in reality..

Disagree with me all you want, but the world seems to disagree with you and Ian.. Pretty blatantly too..

You're not gonna find the answer to this Physics question searching Back-Radiation.. Because that's a recent term SPECIFIC to the GreenHouse argument as IanC pointed out....

There are 20 someodd textbooks SPECIFICALLY on Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics. IN FACT ---- you COULD search those because they all show BIdirectional calculations for radiative flow..

But the pages of simple THERMO texts are EXTRACTED in the last link I provided to ScienceofDoom.. The guy went and photocopied at LEAST 8 cites to calculating BIDIRECTIONAL FLOW for radiative heating.. That's the calculations shown.. ALL BODIES becomes sources for radiative calculation.. Find the link --- the Thermo textbooks descriptions are right there.. Or buy a Radiative Thermal Physics text...
(one or two free online. One from MIT I believe)..

The first bolded part... Yeah, LOL we know that. And one of the reasons it's not in any textbooks... Hence my entire point when I asked why there is no back convection, or back conduction, as well as the purpose of the electrical circuit crack... Is this an act or what?

Second bolded paragraph... Your words..."Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics." Yeah and they do not state proof of back-radiation by either implication or intent, much less directly stating such.. Why do you refuse to accept the fact, that possibly, is not will? Just because something can mathematically be shown to be a possibility, doesn't mean it's a fact. Especially if the real world observation refutes it...

Simple prove it exists, OR prove it can effect change in it's warmer source. If you can't prove it exists, than it's a theory with holes to say the least. And if you can't prove it can effect change in it's source, than along with the previous point, we cannot call backradiation a source of additional warming of the surface..

No rush, take your time. I've waited years for Ian to prove either case, and all he does is the Ian two-step, and run..

 

[gslack]

You're not gonna find the answer to this Physics question searching Back-Radiation.. Because that's a recent term SPECIFIC to the GreenHouse argument as IanC pointed out....

Actually backradiation is a recent fiction specific to the greehhouse hypothesis. It is nothing more than an ad hoc construct.

There are 20 someodd textbooks SPECIFICALLY on Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics. IN FACT ---- you COULD search those because they all show BIdirectional calculations for radiative flow..

Twenty textbooks? Really? Wow!! Twenty whole textbooks. Tell me, if you don't mind....how many textbooks do you think have been written on radiative physics? And 20 of them preach two way energy flow. Again...wow...

I am betting that they aren't classical....you know...real as opposed to fictional post modern physics texts, are they?

I lied.. According to Amazon --- there's 100s of them.. And that's just the search for Radiative Heat Transfer.. I didn't try Thermal Radiation Physics or other varieties..

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=radiative+heat+transfer&sprefix=Radiative%2Cstripbooks%2C334#/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aradiative+heat+transfer&keywords=radiative+heat+transfer&ie=UTF8&qid=1374110340]Amazon.com: radiative heat transfer: Books[/ame]

And which of those hundreds prove back-radiation? I'll wait...