In Support of the A in AGW

[jc456]

SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy.

All heatsinks cause increased temperatures at some point in the system as energy input moves to energy output.

we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink. You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?

 

[IanC]

why does it matter? The answer is that warm flows to cold and not vice versa. It is true physics. Testable as well. you post up the experiment that shows an ice cube warming a pan at room temperature.

Why does it matter? Gut question. Were you to try - and inevitably fail - to answer it, you'd realize a major misunderstanding of science that currently hampers your understanding of the earth's climate system.

Let's make this (thought) experiment instead. Assume you fly at a fixed point one light-minute above the sun's surface. Sure, you'd be hit with radiation from the sun, right? Now, I replace you with you likeness at the same place earlier occupied by you, only your likeness is ten times hotter than the sun.

According to your theory, the sun would no longer radiate into the direction of your likeness. So, what happens to one minute's worth of the sun's radiation that was sent out when the sun still thought it was sending radiation towards a cooler object (you), but which now heads towards a much hotter object - your incredibly hot likeness (remember, you were one light-minute above the sun)? Does the sun call back the radiation?

Hahahaha Hahahaha, dude way too hard. Relax, you don't have it. I knew it.

Now, take an ice cube and hold it in your hand, does your hand get warm or cold?

A more realistic experiment would be to close your eyes in a heated room on a cold night. Put your flat hand close to the wall but not touching. As you circle the room I guarantee most people could pick out the outside wall(s). Why? Because the amount of radiant energy being received by the hand would be different from cooler outside walls than the warmer inner walls.

Likewise, the same type of experiment could pick out warmer southern facing walls on a hot summer day.

that's no different than what I stated. Take the ice cube and hold it three inches from your hand. Does your hand get warmer? Nope. So it's still comes down to, the cooler atmosphere does not warm the surface.

The Sun heats the surface, the atmosphere changes the equilibrium as to how warm the surface gets from that solar input.

As I have repeatedly said. You are arguing that just because the back radiation is not doing the actual warming that is incapable of affecting the surface temperature. It can and does.

 

[jc456]

why does it matter? The answer is that warm flows to cold and not vice versa. It is true physics. Testable as well. you post up the experiment that shows an ice cube warming a pan at room temperature.

Why does it matter? Gut question. Were you to try - and inevitably fail - to answer it, you'd realize a major misunderstanding of science that currently hampers your understanding of the earth's climate system.

Let's make this (thought) experiment instead. Assume you fly at a fixed point one light-minute above the sun's surface. Sure, you'd be hit with radiation from the sun, right? Now, I replace you with you likeness at the same place earlier occupied by you, only your likeness is ten times hotter than the sun.

According to your theory, the sun would no longer radiate into the direction of your likeness. So, what happens to one minute's worth of the sun's radiation that was sent out when the sun still thought it was sending radiation towards a cooler object (you), but which now heads towards a much hotter object - your incredibly hot likeness (remember, you were one light-minute above the sun)? Does the sun call back the radiation?

Hahahaha Hahahaha, dude way too hard. Relax, you don't have it. I knew it.

Now, take an ice cube and hold it in your hand, does your hand get warm or cold?

A more realistic experiment would be to close your eyes in a heated room on a cold night. Put your flat hand close to the wall but not touching. As you circle the room I guarantee most people could pick out the outside wall(s). Why? Because the amount of radiant energy being received by the hand would be different from cooler outside walls than the warmer inner walls.

Likewise, the same type of experiment could pick out warmer southern facing walls on a hot summer day.

that's no different than what I stated. Take the ice cube and hold it three inches from your hand. Does your hand get warmer? Nope. So it's still comes down to, the cooler atmosphere does not warm the surface.

The Sun heats the surface, the atmosphere changes the equilibrium as to how warm the surface gets from that solar input.

As I have repeatedly said. You are arguing that just because the back radiation is not doing the actual warming that is incapable of affecting the surface temperature. It can and does.

and yet there is no evidence of that.

Again, hold an ice cube three inches from your hand, will your hand become warmer?

 

[IanC]

SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy.

All heatsinks cause increased temperatures at some point in the system as energy input moves to energy output.

we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink. You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?

You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.

 

[jc456]

SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy.

All heatsinks cause increased temperatures at some point in the system as energy input moves to energy output.

we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink. You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?

You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.

sure I am. I know that something cold will not cause something warmer to become warmer. I can prove it, test it. All I'm asking is if you all believe it will warm it, show the experiment that proves it. I gave you mine and so far you haven't answered yes or no.

 

[IanC]

Why does it matter? Gut question. Were you to try - and inevitably fail - to answer it, you'd realize a major misunderstanding of science that currently hampers your understanding of the earth's climate system.

Let's make this (thought) experiment instead. Assume you fly at a fixed point one light-minute above the sun's surface. Sure, you'd be hit with radiation from the sun, right? Now, I replace you with you likeness at the same place earlier occupied by you, only your likeness is ten times hotter than the sun.

According to your theory, the sun would no longer radiate into the direction of your likeness. So, what happens to one minute's worth of the sun's radiation that was sent out when the sun still thought it was sending radiation towards a cooler object (you), but which now heads towards a much hotter object - your incredibly hot likeness (remember, you were one light-minute above the sun)? Does the sun call back the radiation?

Hahahaha Hahahaha, dude way too hard. Relax, you don't have it. I knew it.

Now, take an ice cube and hold it in your hand, does your hand get warm or cold?

A more realistic experiment would be to close your eyes in a heated room on a cold night. Put your flat hand close to the wall but not touching. As you circle the room I guarantee most people could pick out the outside wall(s). Why? Because the amount of radiant energy being received by the hand would be different from cooler outside walls than the warmer inner walls.

Likewise, the same type of experiment could pick out warmer southern facing walls on a hot summer day.

that's no different than what I stated. Take the ice cube and hold it three inches from your hand. Does your hand get warmer? Nope. So it's still comes down to, the cooler atmosphere does not warm the surface.

The Sun heats the surface, the atmosphere changes the equilibrium as to how warm the surface gets from that solar input.

As I have repeatedly said. You are arguing that just because the back radiation is not doing the actual warming that is incapable of affecting the surface temperature. It can and does.

and yet there is no evidence of that.

Again, hold an ice cube three inches from your hand, will your hand become warmer?

If the ice cube is shielding the hand from something colder, then yes, the ice cube would result in a warmer hand. An Igloo is an imperfect example.

 

[jc456]

Hahahaha Hahahaha, dude way too hard. Relax, you don't have it. I knew it.

Now, take an ice cube and hold it in your hand, does your hand get warm or cold?

A more realistic experiment would be to close your eyes in a heated room on a cold night. Put your flat hand close to the wall but not touching. As you circle the room I guarantee most people could pick out the outside wall(s). Why? Because the amount of radiant energy being received by the hand would be different from cooler outside walls than the warmer inner walls.

Likewise, the same type of experiment could pick out warmer southern facing walls on a hot summer day.

that's no different than what I stated. Take the ice cube and hold it three inches from your hand. Does your hand get warmer? Nope. So it's still comes down to, the cooler atmosphere does not warm the surface.

The Sun heats the surface, the atmosphere changes the equilibrium as to how warm the surface gets from that solar input.

As I have repeatedly said. You are arguing that just because the back radiation is not doing the actual warming that is incapable of affecting the surface temperature. It can and does.

and yet there is no evidence of that.

Again, hold an ice cube three inches from your hand, will your hand become warmer?

If the ice cube is shielding the hand from something colder, then yes, the ice cube would result in a warmer hand. An Igloo is an imperfect example.

I disagree, the hand won't get warmer, it just won't get cold. The igloo acts as a wall. A heat source or blanket items would still be needed to survive. Warmer no. not cold yes.

 

[IanC]

SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy.

All heatsinks cause increased temperatures at some point in the system as energy input moves to energy output.

we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink. You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?

You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.

sure I am. I know that something cold will not cause something warmer to become warmer. I can prove it, test it. All I'm asking is if you all believe it will warm it, show the experiment that proves it. I gave you mine and so far you haven't answered yes or no.

No, you are not thinking this through. The Earth is not a static object. It has a heat source, the Sun. Adding an insulating atmosphere that impedes energy loss to space affects the equilibrium temperature at the surface.

 

[jc456]

SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy.

All heatsinks cause increased temperatures at some point in the system as energy input moves to energy output.

we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink. You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?

You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.

sure I am. I know that something cold will not cause something warmer to become warmer. I can prove it, test it. All I'm asking is if you all believe it will warm it, show the experiment that proves it. I gave you mine and so far you haven't answered yes or no.

No, you are not thinking this through. The Earth is not a static object. It has a heat source, the Sun. Adding an insulating atmosphere that impedes energy loss to space affects the equilibrium temperature at the surface.

Oh, I agree with the fact that the sun will heat the earth and that the colder vacum of space can't get in thanks to the greenhouse gases, but the earth doesn't get warmer than the heating source the sun supplies. The heat rises causing the lower level atmosphere to keep the cold from coming in. That's it. There is no evidence that it regenerates heat back to the surface. In fact, the physics shows heat will rise only, no proof it radiates back, it isn't provable. Nor has any experiment been able to recreate that action. It is but a belief.

BTW, it is why when the sun source is gone, it gets cooler on the surface, there is no longer a heating source. Therefore we need heaters in our homes.

 

[IanC]

A more realistic experiment would be to close your eyes in a heated room on a cold night. Put your flat hand close to the wall but not touching. As you circle the room I guarantee most people could pick out the outside wall(s). Why? Because the amount of radiant energy being received by the hand would be different from cooler outside walls than the warmer inner walls.

Likewise, the same type of experiment could pick out warmer southern facing walls on a hot summer day.

that's no different than what I stated. Take the ice cube and hold it three inches from your hand. Does your hand get warmer? Nope. So it's still comes down to, the cooler atmosphere does not warm the surface.

The Sun heats the surface, the atmosphere changes the equilibrium as to how warm the surface gets from that solar input.

As I have repeatedly said. You are arguing that just because the back radiation is not doing the actual warming that is incapable of affecting the surface temperature. It can and does.

and yet there is no evidence of that.

Again, hold an ice cube three inches from your hand, will your hand become warmer?

If the ice cube is shielding the hand from something colder, then yes, the ice cube would result in a warmer hand. An Igloo is an imperfect example.

I disagree, the hand won't get warmer, it just won't get cold. The igloo acts as a wall. A heat source or blanket items would still be needed to survive. Warmer no. not cold yes.

In this case, the body needs to maintain a core temperature. It burns food stores to do this. If it loses less heat to the environment then it needs less food.

If the body always burned the same amount of food, then yes it would be warmer or cooler according to the surrounding temperature. Clothes also affect body temp by changing the equilibrium of heat movement. The atmosphere is the equivalent of clothes.

 

[jc456]

that's no different than what I stated. Take the ice cube and hold it three inches from your hand. Does your hand get warmer? Nope. So it's still comes down to, the cooler atmosphere does not warm the surface.

The Sun heats the surface, the atmosphere changes the equilibrium as to how warm the surface gets from that solar input.

As I have repeatedly said. You are arguing that just because the back radiation is not doing the actual warming that is incapable of affecting the surface temperature. It can and does.

and yet there is no evidence of that.

Again, hold an ice cube three inches from your hand, will your hand become warmer?

If the ice cube is shielding the hand from something colder, then yes, the ice cube would result in a warmer hand. An Igloo is an imperfect example.

I disagree, the hand won't get warmer, it just won't get cold. The igloo acts as a wall. A heat source or blanket items would still be needed to survive. Warmer no. not cold yes.

In this case, the body needs to maintain a core temperature. It burns food stores to do this. If it loses less heat to the environment then it needs less food.

If the body always burned the same amount of food, then yes it would be warmer or cooler according to the surrounding temperature. Clothes also affect body temp by changing the equilibrium of heat movement. The atmosphere is the equivalent of clothes.

agree, except it doesn't make it warmer. It merely keeps the existing warm there. one would eventually freeze if there wasn't another heat source.

 

[IanC]

SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy.

All heatsinks cause increased temperatures at some point in the system as energy input moves to energy output.

we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink. You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?

You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.

sure I am. I know that something cold will not cause something warmer to become warmer. I can prove it, test it. All I'm asking is if you all believe it will warm it, show the experiment that proves it. I gave you mine and so far you haven't answered yes or no.

No, you are not thinking this through. The Earth is not a static object. It has a heat source, the Sun. Adding an insulating atmosphere that impedes energy loss to space affects the equilibrium temperature at the surface.

Oh, I agree with the fact that the sun will heat the earth and that the colder vacum of space can't get in thanks to the greenhouse gases, but the earth doesn't get warmer than the heating source the sun supplies. The heat rises causing the lower level atmosphere to keep the cold from coming in. That's it. There is no evidence that it regenerates heat back to the surface. In fact, the physics shows heat will rise only, no proof it radiates back, it isn't provable. Nor has any experiment been able to recreate that action. It is but a belief.

BTW, it is why when the sun source is gone, it gets cooler on the surface, there is no longer a heating source. Therefore we need heaters in our homes.

You are confusing energy with heat. Energy flows in all directions, heat is a more complicated notion of net energy flowing from warm to cool. The atmospheric doesn't send heat to the surface (except inversions) but it is always sending energy back.

 

[jc456]

we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink. You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?

You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.

sure I am. I know that something cold will not cause something warmer to become warmer. I can prove it, test it. All I'm asking is if you all believe it will warm it, show the experiment that proves it. I gave you mine and so far you haven't answered yes or no.

No, you are not thinking this through. The Earth is not a static object. It has a heat source, the Sun. Adding an insulating atmosphere that impedes energy loss to space affects the equilibrium temperature at the surface.

Oh, I agree with the fact that the sun will heat the earth and that the colder vacum of space can't get in thanks to the greenhouse gases, but the earth doesn't get warmer than the heating source the sun supplies. The heat rises causing the lower level atmosphere to keep the cold from coming in. That's it. There is no evidence that it regenerates heat back to the surface. In fact, the physics shows heat will rise only, no proof it radiates back, it isn't provable. Nor has any experiment been able to recreate that action. It is but a belief.

BTW, it is why when the sun source is gone, it gets cooler on the surface, there is no longer a heating source. Therefore we need heaters in our homes.

You are confusing energy with heat. Energy flows in all directions, heat is a more complicated notion of net energy flowing from warm to cool. The atmospheric doesn't send heat to the surface (except inversions) but it is always sending energy back.

always sending energy back.

in the form of?

 

[IanC]

You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.

sure I am. I know that something cold will not cause something warmer to become warmer. I can prove it, test it. All I'm asking is if you all believe it will warm it, show the experiment that proves it. I gave you mine and so far you haven't answered yes or no.

No, you are not thinking this through. The Earth is not a static object. It has a heat source, the Sun. Adding an insulating atmosphere that impedes energy loss to space affects the equilibrium temperature at the surface.

Oh, I agree with the fact that the sun will heat the earth and that the colder vacum of space can't get in thanks to the greenhouse gases, but the earth doesn't get warmer than the heating source the sun supplies. The heat rises causing the lower level atmosphere to keep the cold from coming in. That's it. There is no evidence that it regenerates heat back to the surface. In fact, the physics shows heat will rise only, no proof it radiates back, it isn't provable. Nor has any experiment been able to recreate that action. It is but a belief.

BTW, it is why when the sun source is gone, it gets cooler on the surface, there is no longer a heating source. Therefore we need heaters in our homes.

You are confusing energy with heat. Energy flows in all directions, heat is a more complicated notion of net energy flowing from warm to cool. The atmospheric doesn't send heat to the surface (except inversions) but it is always sending energy back.

always sending energy back.

in the form of?

IR photons. Every object emits radiation according to its temperature. Whether it is in the direction of another object that is warmer, cooler or the same temperature. Basic physics. The molecules have no control over the creation or direction because it is formed by random molecular collisions.

 

[mamooth]

I think I'll repost this. Both SSDD and jc have seen it before, and they've both simply refused to address it at all.

Here's another way to show backradiation in action ...

The average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.

Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's say the surface area radiating to the world is 1.5 m^2. You can set it at a little more or less, it won't matter for purposes of this example.

Skin temperature is about 35C/95F, or 308K.

IR power radiated out of a person = (surface area) * (S-B constant) * (T^4)

If you run the numbers, that comes out around 800 watts. Over a day, that's 19 kw*hrs, or 16,000 Calories.

If backradiation didn't exist, all of those 16,000 Calories would have to fueled by food that people ate. Even more than that, since heat is usually also conducting away from a human body, but we'll just forget about conduction for this example.

However, people only eat around 2,000 Calories a day. And yet they don't freeze to death from radiating all their body heat away.

Why? Backradiation. The backradiation from the environment is constantly radiating into each person, and each person absorbs that radiation and then radiates it back out. Each person absorbs 14,000 Calories of backradiation each day, so they only have to eat 2,000 Calories to make up the balance.

Another example ...

Inside at 68F, you're comfortable.

Outside in the same clothing at 68F, at night (so no direct solar radiation) and in still air, you'll start getting chilly.

Why? Inside, the walls and ceiling are radiating at 68F. Outside, half of your radiating environment is a much colder sky, so you have much less backradiation warming you.

 

[Wuwei]

I think I'll repost this........... .

That is an excellent example. I always noticed that outside felt colder than inside at the same temperature, but I never wondered why.

Anyone with a grade school education should be able to understand that.

 

[SSDD]

I think I'll repost this........... .

That is an excellent example. I always noticed that outside felt colder than inside at the same temperature, but I never wondered why.

Anyone with a grade school education should be able to understand that.

Grab yourself a solar oven....it is a parabolic reflector with a focal point at which one can cook....put a thermometer at the focal point, and a thermometer a few feet away from the reflector...point it at clear sky away from the sun and watch the temperature drop below the ambient temperature....take it out on a clear evening when the ambient temperature will not be above 45 degrees and won't drop below 40...point it at clear sky and hang a bag of water at the focal point....come back in a few hours and note the ice that has formed while the ambient temperature was well above the freezing point of water....

If back radiation exists, why then, does the temperature at the focal point of the reflector drop below the ambient temperature when it is pointed at clear sky that is, according to you and yours, chock full of CO2 back radiating energy and warming the earth?

Actual observation there...not the result of mathematical models and hypotheses or mind exercises....but actual observation of objects not warming, but instead, cooling below ambient temperature when pointed at clear sky and ice forming at temperatures well above freezing when, according to you and your pseudoscience, the water is being bathed with warming back radiation from CO2.

If you don't have access to a solar oven, I can point you towards a site with instructions to build one for less than $30 or from scrap material for that matter.

 

[SSDD]

I think I'll repost this. Both SSDD and jc have seen it before, and they've both simply refused to address it at all.

Here's another way to show backradiation in action ...

The average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.

Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's say the surface area radiating to the world is 1.5 m^2. You can set it at a little more or less, it won't matter for purposes of this example.

Skin temperature is about 35C/95F, or 308K.

IR power radiated out of a person = (surface area) * (S-B constant) * (T^4)

If you run the numbers, that comes out around 800 watts. Over a day, that's 19 kw*hrs, or 16,000 Calories.

If backradiation didn't exist, all of those 16,000 Calories would have to fueled by food that people ate. Even more than that, since heat is usually also conducting away from a human body, but we'll just forget about conduction for this example.

However, people only eat around 2,000 Calories a day. And yet they don't freeze to death from radiating all their body heat away.

Why? Backradiation. The backradiation from the environment is constantly radiating into each person, and each person absorbs that radiation and then radiates it back out. Each person absorbs 14,000 Calories of backradiation each day, so they only have to eat 2,000 Calories to make up the balance.

Another example ...

Inside at 68F, you're comfortable.

Outside in the same clothing at 68F, at night (so no direct solar radiation) and in still air, you'll start getting chilly.

Why? Inside, the walls and ceiling are radiating at 68F. Outside, half of your radiating environment is a much colder sky, so you have much less backradiation warming you.

Actually you idiot, it is radiation coming up from the ground and from the heat generated by atmospheric pressure, and our clothing which holds air warmed by our bodies.... There is no back radiation warming anything....grab yourself a parabolic reflector as described above and point it at clear sky and see the back ration not happening while the temperature at the focal point of the reflector cools to a temperature 10 or 12 degrees below the ambient temperature.

 

[Wuwei]

If back radiation exists, why then, does the temperature at the focal point of the reflector drop below the ambient temperature when it is pointed at clear sky that is, according to you and yours, chock full of CO2 back radiating energy and warming the earth?

Actual observation there...not the result of mathematical models and hypotheses or mind exercises....but actual observation of objects not warming, but instead, cooling below ambient temperature when pointed at clear sky and ice forming at temperatures well above freezing when, according to you and your pseudoscience, the water is being bathed with warming back radiation from CO2.

So it cools down only 10 or 12 degrees at the focal point. That's disappointing... If there is no back radiation, why doesn't it cool down by 300 K to near absolute zero - the temperature of outer space. The cooling by radiation to space is what sneaks between absorption bands of the GHG's. The back-radiation keeps the focal point from going anywhere near absolute zero. Only 10 or 12 degrees. Doesn't prove anything about back-radiation.

As far as Mamooth's insight, you are right about the clothes. Why don't you try standing in the street stark naked. That would remove any discrepancies on the effect of clothes.

 

[IanC]

I think I'll repost this........... .

That is an excellent example. I always noticed that outside felt colder than inside at the same temperature, but I never wondered why.

Anyone with a grade school education should be able to understand that.

Grab yourself a solar oven....it is a parabolic reflector with a focal point at which one can cook....put a thermometer at the focal point, and a thermometer a few feet away from the reflector...point it at clear sky away from the sun and watch the temperature drop below the ambient temperature....take it out on a clear evening when the ambient temperature will not be above 45 degrees and won't drop below 40...point it at clear sky and hang a bag of water at the focal point....come back in a few hours and note the ice that has formed while the ambient temperature was well above the freezing point of water....

If back radiation exists, why then, does the temperature at the focal point of the reflector drop below the ambient temperature when it is pointed at clear sky that is, according to you and yours, chock full of CO2 back radiating energy and warming the earth?

Actual observation there...not the result of mathematical models and hypotheses or mind exercises....but actual observation of objects not warming, but instead, cooling below ambient temperature when pointed at clear sky and ice forming at temperatures well above freezing when, according to you and your pseudoscience, the water is being bathed with warming back radiation from CO2.

If you don't have access to a solar oven, I can point you towards a site with instructions to build one for less than $30 or from scrap material for that matter.

As usual, there is a simple answer to your conundrum. The radiation from the atmosphere (and surface) is diffuse. That is why a solar oven is more effective as an oven than a cooler. The Sun's rays are collimated, and can easily be collected and focused. The oven only collects atmospheric radiation in a specific orientation, which is only a small fraction of the total.

If you turned the parabolic oven upsidedown you would also find that the temperature at the focal point went down because all the focal radiation escapes but only a portion of the surface radiation is available to replace it.