In Support of the A in AGW

[mamooth]

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

To expands on Ian's correct explanation, whatever object you put in the center is sort of like a point source at the focal point. The energy it radiates in all directions strikes the parabolic mirror, and is all bounced out of the oven. The backradiation, being diffuse, is not focused by the parabolic mirror. So, energy goes out from the focal point, little energy comes in, temperature drops.

Actual observation there...

And the observation is 100% consistent with how backradiation works.

 

[SSDD]

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

To expands on Ian's correct explanation, whatever object you put in the center is sort of like a point source at the focal point. The energy it radiates in all directions strikes the parabolic mirror, and is all bounced out of the oven. The backradiation, being diffuse, is not focused by the parabolic mirror. So, energy goes out from the focal point, little energy comes in, temperature drops.

Actual observation there...

And the observation is 100% consistent with how backradiation works.

How much is the thermometer radiating vs so called back radiation? You are a blithering idiot hairball....the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy....if back radiation existed the dish would collect, concentrate, and focus it upon the thermometer at the focal point and warm it...instead, you see the thermometer cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics....you can't make a parabolic reflector large enough to catch and focus back radiation because it does not exist...

 

[mamooth]

How much is the thermometer radiating vs so called back radiation?

That question might make sense in your kook reality, but it makes no sense anywhere else.

You are a blithering idiot hairball....the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy....

So, we can add "optics" to the list of topics that you fail at hilariously.

Parabolic reflectors do _not_ focus diffuse energy. The whole point of making them is so they _don't_ do that.

Parabolic reflectors focus _parallel_ energy, such as that coming from a distant point source. Or, in broadcast mode, they take energy from a point source at the focal point and send it out in a focused parallel beam.

if back radiation existed the dish would collect, concentrate, and focus it upon the thermometer at the focal point and warm it...instead, you see the thermometer cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics....you can't make a parabolic reflector large enough to catch and focus back radiation because it does not exist...

Only a moron would claim diffuse energy is focused. In most cases, that would defeat the entire purpose of a parabolic reflector.

If, for example, you're using a satellite dish, you want it focusing the parallel energy coming down from the satellite, and not focusing anything else. You want signal, not noise. If the dish focused all of diffuse energy coming into it, it would just be gathering massive amounts of noise, that would overwhelm the signal, and the dish would be useless.

 

[IanC]

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

To expands on Ian's correct explanation, whatever object you put in the center is sort of like a point source at the focal point. The energy it radiates in all directions strikes the parabolic mirror, and is all bounced out of the oven. The backradiation, being diffuse, is not focused by the parabolic mirror. So, energy goes out from the focal point, little energy comes in, temperature drops.

Actual observation there...

And the observation is 100% consistent with how backradiation works.

How much is the thermometer radiating vs so called back radiation? You are a blithering idiot hairball....the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy....if back radiation existed the dish would collect, concentrate, and focus it upon the thermometer at the focal point and warm it...instead, you see the thermometer cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics....you can't make a parabolic reflector large enough to catch and focus back radiation because it does not exist...

Good grief, you're stupid. Most people learn when their mistakes are pointed out, in detail. But you are just obstinately ignorant.

You make it more difficult for honest Skeptics to get their position out when you broadcast bullshit.

 

[Wuwei]

...the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy...

Some of the physics you don't understand is complex. But a parabolic reflector is high school science. No wonder you don't understand how a parabolic reflector works in the CMB experiment.

 

[SSDD]

So, we can add "optics" to the list of topics that you fail at hilariously.

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

 

[SSDD]

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

To expands on Ian's correct explanation, whatever object you put in the center is sort of like a point source at the focal point. The energy it radiates in all directions strikes the parabolic mirror, and is all bounced out of the oven. The backradiation, being diffuse, is not focused by the parabolic mirror. So, energy goes out from the focal point, little energy comes in, temperature drops.

Actual observation there...

And the observation is 100% consistent with how backradiation works.

How much is the thermometer radiating vs so called back radiation? You are a blithering idiot hairball....the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy....if back radiation existed the dish would collect, concentrate, and focus it upon the thermometer at the focal point and warm it...instead, you see the thermometer cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics....you can't make a parabolic reflector large enough to catch and focus back radiation because it does not exist...

Good grief, you're stupid. Most people learn when their mistakes are pointed out, in detail. But you are just obstinately ignorant.

You make it more difficult for honest Skeptics to get their position out when you broadcast bullshit.

And still....not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe in, while every observation ever made supports my position..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

A colder object can not warm a warmer object.. The atmosphere, being colder, cannot warm the surface.

The IR from the atmosphere does not posses the ability or mass to warm the surface, it can however slow heat release to space. The only thing our atmosphere can do is slow how fast heat travels upward and towards cooler objects.

The major problem with the warmer hypothesis is the water vapor, which is not slowed by CO2 or the atmosphere. The convection cycle has speed up in the last thirty or so years we have been watching it. One observation just recently showed the Hadley Cells have increased their cycle speeds by 1/6 causing cloud formations to increase towards the poles and at higher altitudes.

Not only has the albedo of the clouds reflected energy but the convective cycles have released more heat. This speeding up appears to be directly related to solar cycles and magnetic flux from the sun.

The last two years we have begun to see a reduction in Hadley Cell size, indicating the atmosphere is now cooling in correlation with solar output.

IR photons are not heat, CO2 does not warm at all, and only the excited particles, photons cause, create warmth. The absence of a troposphereic hot spot proves there is no heat retention in our atmosphere as defined by the CAGW hypothesis.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, we can add "optics" to the list of topics that you fail at hilariously.

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

Skylight Tube Low-Profile Tubular Skylight for Easy, Versatile Daylighting

You mean like these? Sorry, idiot child, but that is not a parabolic reflector.

 

[jc456]

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

To expands on Ian's correct explanation, whatever object you put in the center is sort of like a point source at the focal point. The energy it radiates in all directions strikes the parabolic mirror, and is all bounced out of the oven. The backradiation, being diffuse, is not focused by the parabolic mirror. So, energy goes out from the focal point, little energy comes in, temperature drops.

Actual observation there...

And the observation is 100% consistent with how backradiation works.

How much is the thermometer radiating vs so called back radiation? You are a blithering idiot hairball....the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy....if back radiation existed the dish would collect, concentrate, and focus it upon the thermometer at the focal point and warm it...instead, you see the thermometer cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics....you can't make a parabolic reflector large enough to catch and focus back radiation because it does not exist...

Good grief, you're stupid. Most people learn when their mistakes are pointed out, in detail. But you are just obstinately ignorant.

You make it more difficult for honest Skeptics to get their position out when you broadcast bullshit.

And yet you still can't prove back radiation. Why not?

 

[jc456]

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.

A colder object can not warm a warmer object.. The atmosphere, being colder, cannot warm the surface.

The IR from the atmosphere does not posses the ability or mass to warm the surface, it can however slow heat release to space. The only thing our atmosphere can do is slow how fast heat travels upward and towards cooler objects.

The major problem with the warmer hypothesis is the water vapor, which is not slowed by CO2 or the atmosphere. The convection cycle has speed up in the last thirty or so years we have been watching it. One observation just recently showed the Hadley Cells have increased their cycle speeds by 1/6 causing cloud formations to increase towards the poles and at higher altitudes.

Not only has the albedo of the clouds reflected energy but the convective cycles have released more heat. This speeding up appears to be directly related to solar cycles and magnetic flux from the sun.

The last two years we have begun to see a reduction in Hadley Cell size, indicating the atmosphere is now cooling in correlation with solar output.

IR photons are not heat, CO2 does not warm at all, and only the excited particles, photons cause, create warmth. The absence of a troposphereic hot spot proves there is no heat retention in our atmosphere as defined by the CAGW hypothesis.

So all that IR with all that energy just travels from sky to surface, warms the surface, but nothing in between. The sun warms the air and the surface. Has to warm what passes through if it's supposed to warn the surface. And, they can't prove it. DOH!

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

No wonder you are so naive in science. You get your physics education from product literature.

 

[Olde Europe]

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

No wonder you are so naive in science. You get your physics education from product literature.

The sales pitch by a skylight company trumps physics. The most amazing things happen in Up-Is-Downistan.

 

[SSDD]

A colder object can not warm a warmer object.. The atmosphere, being colder, cannot warm the surface.

The IR from the atmosphere does not posses the ability or mass to warm the surface, it can however slow heat release to space. The only thing our atmosphere can do is slow how fast heat travels upward and towards cooler objects.

CO2 however does not further impede the movement of energy out of the atmosphere...were there no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, the only means of moving energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it is then radiated out into space would be conduction and convection...which are slower than radiation...radiative gasses are holes in the blanket...not the material itself...it is just silly to suggest that radiative gasses impede the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

No wonder you are so naive in science. You get your physics education from product literature.

I suppose you aren't aware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees and still, parabolic reflectors can concentrate that light and boil water or start fires....but back radiation can't be collected or measured till the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...which means that it is not back radiation at all.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...

No wonder you are so naive in science. You get your physics education from product literature.

The sales pitch by a skylight company trumps physics. The most amazing things happen in Up-Is-Downistan.

Guess you are also unaware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees of latitude...guess you think that parabolic reflectors don't work except near the equator... set yourself a pot of water out in the sun and see how quickly that diffuse light boils it.

 

[mamooth]

Guess you are also unaware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees of latitude...

Everyone was unaware of it, because it's yet another of your hilariously stupid fictions.

But please, amuse everyone. Give us the scientific backing for your very peculiar "sunlight is diffuse beyond 30 degrees" theory. What magical thing happens at 30 degrees to make the sunlight diffuse?

 

[SSDD]

Guess you are also unaware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees of latitude...

Everyone was unaware of it, because it's yet another of your hilariously stupid fictions.

No hairball...it seems that only you were unaware of it...

Solar Power - Advantages and Disadvantages - Sustainable Development Information

clip: Because sunlight is diffuse, a large number of solar panels are needed to produce adequate amounts of electricity, necessitating both expense and space.

Solar fuels via artificial photosynthesis. - PubMed - NCBI

clip: Abstract Because sunlight is diffuse and intermittent, substantial use of solar energy to meet humanity's needs will probably require energy storage in dense, transportable media via chemical bonds

Synthetic Biology for Fuels - Science in the News

clip: The total solar energy falling on the earth exceeds the energy humans consume globally by several thousand fold [1]. However, the two main challenges of harvesting this energy are its diffuse nature and the low efficiencies in capturing and storing it. Sunlight is diffuse in two ways – it is distributed across a wide range of wavelengths (a property of light manifested through the different colors of light, which carry different amounts of energy), and is also spread across the surface of the earth.

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/FOCUS_ProgramOverview.pdf

clip:
A third challenge is presented by the angular distribution of the sunlight reaching Earth’s surface: even the direct component of sunlight has a finite angular width of about 5 degrees,16 and a significant fraction of sunlight is diffuse in every geographic area, reaching Earth’s surface only after scattering in the atmosphere.

Space Future - Introduction - Energy From Space

clip: However, sunlight is diffuse and not available continuously at the Earth's surface. So one additional possibility is to collect solar energy 24 hours per day in space, and transmit it as microwave beams to receivers on Earth.

InterAcademy Council - 3.3 Non-biomass renewables

clip: As with all energy supply options, renewable energy technologies also have drawbacks, many of them related to the fact that the resource being tapped (e.g., wind or sunlight) is diffuse and typically has low power density

and I could go on and on with references stating that sunlight is diffuse....sorry that you didn't know...so again, why doesn't that thermometer at the focal point of the parabolic dish warm when pointed at open sky and is bathed with all that claimed back radiation?....it certainly heats up when pointed at the sun and according to you lot the energy coming in from the sun is less than half of what is coming back as a result of back radiation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A colder object can not warm a warmer object.. The atmosphere, being colder, cannot warm the surface.

The IR from the atmosphere does not posses the ability or mass to warm the surface, it can however slow heat release to space. The only thing our atmosphere can do is slow how fast heat travels upward and towards cooler objects.

CO2 however does not further impede the movement of energy out of the atmosphere...were there no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, the only means of moving energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it is then radiated out into space would be conduction and convection...which are slower than radiation...radiative gasses are holes in the blanket...not the material itself...it is just silly to suggest that radiative gasses impede the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

CO2 has no ability to retard heat loss by itself, infact higher concentrations of it in our atmosphere appear to speed up radiative cooling by reducing the other gases, which can hold heat, proportionally.

 

[SSDD]

A colder object can not warm a warmer object.. The atmosphere, being colder, cannot warm the surface.

The IR from the atmosphere does not posses the ability or mass to warm the surface, it can however slow heat release to space. The only thing our atmosphere can do is slow how fast heat travels upward and towards cooler objects.

CO2 however does not further impede the movement of energy out of the atmosphere...were there no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, the only means of moving energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it is then radiated out into space would be conduction and convection...which are slower than radiation...radiative gasses are holes in the blanket...not the material itself...it is just silly to suggest that radiative gasses impede the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

CO2 has no ability to retard heat loss by itself, infact higher concentrations of it in our atmosphere appear to speed up radiative cooling by reducing the other gases, which can hold heat, proportionally.

Like I said...the atmosphere may act as a metaphorical blanket, but CO2 and all radiative gasses except water vapor are holes in that blanket..