In Support of the A in AGW

[Wuwei]

hahahahaha! how do you deal with someone like SSDD? he says 'maybe photons dont exist'. what does he mean by that? surely he acknowledges that light exists? is he complaining along the lines of "a diagram of a tree is not a real tree."?

hahahaha. SSDD and his sycophants refuse to address any of these issues. they claim that the laws of thermodynamics prove them right but they refuse to defend their use of the wrong laws for the conditions.

The syncophants (they know who they are) have no understanding of science and come out with the wackiest misunderstandings. They are continually shot down but don't have the understanding of why they were shot down or the fact that they were indeed shot down.

SSDD is different. He has looked into the surface nature of the 2nd law, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, and black body radiation, etc. He can fiddle around with the equations (erroneously) and when he is shot down, I think he realizes why, but further entrenches himself in his ill-constructed brand of science. If his detractors stand by their arguments and he is seriously boxed into a contradiction or hypocrisy, he will in the case of this thread, continually repeat his anti-science mantras, or he will simply leave for a while.

He will come back in a few weeks as if the previous arguments never happened and start over again and the whole thing repeats. I have been wondering if he is a troll or his brain is seriously into science denial. I think it's a bit of both, but the troll aspect is a bit stronger.

A recurring mantra is to add "observed, measured, quantified" to every other sentence. He derides mathematical models of any sort, not realizing that the models ultimate source was a mathematical codification of "observed, measured, quantified" phenomena.

As I said before it is hard to argue science with someone who doesn't believe in it, or pretends not to.

 

[SSDD]

Of course, back radiation has been measured; your ignorance about it is no proof to the contrary, and neither is your failure to understand it. Also, the (decline of the) earth's radiation into space has been measured, and found changes over certain wavelengths characteristically associated with greenhouse gases, altering the earth's energy budget.

Sorry guy, but back radiation has not been either observed, or measured....do you believe measuring radiation with an instrument that is cooler than the emitter is measuring back anything? That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.

 

[SSDD]

Here is something you don't understand about modern physics. All understanding of physics today is embedded in the mathematics. Words like "photons", "weak force", "quarks" are names given to various mathematical constructs that predict what happens in reality.

And you believe that because you hit on a method to predict what happens in reality you understand the forces driving what happens in reality? Back radiation has never been observed...ever...regardless of what the mathematical models say.

 

[Olde Europe]

That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.

Exactly, there really is nothing special there. A warm radiator emits energy (radiation) into every direction, completely unaware of, and unaffected by, the temperature of the instrument measuring this radiation. It has been done and is being done. In the earlier days of LWIR measurement, those instruments had to be cooled to eliminate errors of measurement caused by the instrument's own radiation (which no longer is the case).

This has been explained to you so often on this thread alone, I lost count. You really are embarrassing yourself with your constant repetition of the same tripe.

 

[SSDD]

That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.

Exactly, there really is nothing special there. A warm radiator emits energy (radiation) into every direction, completely unaware of, and unaffected by, the temperature of the instrument measuring this radiation. It has been done and is being done. In the earlier days of LWIR measurement, those instruments had to be cooled to eliminate errors of measurement caused by the instrument's own radiation (which no longer is the case).

This has been explained to you so often on this thread alone, I lost count. You really are embarrassing yourself with your constant repetition of the same tripe.

Measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cool instrument is indeed nothing special...measuring energy moving from a cool radiator to a warmer instrument would be and never has been...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...an explanation is only valid if it is true...there has never been an observation of energy moving from cool to warm...saying that there has doesn't change the fact......the fact is that the cooling systems have only become more advanced so that the instruments can be cooled to lower temperatures....that's because the only way to measure energy moving from the atmosphere to the ground is to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....unless a rare temperature inversion is present.

 

[mamooth]

......the fact is that the cooling systems have only become more advanced so that the instruments can be cooled to lower temperatures....

No, the fact is that the detectors now don't need to be cooled at all.

Mass-market consumer electronic devices now conclusively destroy your kook theory.

It must really suck to fail so hard in front of everyone. However, you need to understand that you only make it worse by lying instead of admitting your failure.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is something you don't understand about modern physics. All understanding of physics today is embedded in the mathematics. Words like "photons", "weak force", "quarks" are names given to various mathematical constructs that predict what happens in reality.

And you believe that because you hit on a method to predict what happens in reality you understand the forces driving what happens in reality? Back radiation has never been observed...ever...regardless of what the mathematical models say.

An experiment was done with a detector facing upward to measure the spectrum of downward radiation. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature. The experiment shows the radiation expected from the known GHG's.

 

[IanC]

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

 

[SSDD]

......the fact is that the cooling systems have only become more advanced so that the instruments can be cooled to lower temperatures....

No, the fact is that the detectors now don't need to be cooled at all.

Mass-market consumer electronic devices now conclusively destroy your kook theory.

It must really suck to fail so hard in front of everyone. However, you need to understand that you only make it worse by lying instead of admitting your failure.

Mass markets consumer electronics only measure the amount of, and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...

 

[SSDD]

Here is something you don't understand about modern physics. All understanding of physics today is embedded in the mathematics. Words like "photons", "weak force", "quarks" are names given to various mathematical constructs that predict what happens in reality.

And you believe that because you hit on a method to predict what happens in reality you understand the forces driving what happens in reality? Back radiation has never been observed...ever...regardless of what the mathematical models say.

An experiment was done with a detector facing upward to measure the spectrum of downward radiation. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature. The experiment shows the radiation expected from the known GHG's.

So you do believe downward radiation is back radiation...downward radiation is just downward radiation...back radiation is radiation absorbed by an object and then emitted back to the object from which it was emitted....and the downward radiation was only measured because it was being received by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere...radiation doesn't care about direction..only that it it is moving always from warm to cool...from less entropy to more entropy...

 

[SSDD]

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

Measurements of downward radiation with pyrogeometers? ...once again...climate pseudoscience fooling itself with instrumentation...pyrogeometers have internal thermopiles and operate on the instruction DLR = V/K + sigma T_s^4 where V is measured voltage by the thermopile, K is a sensitivity coefficient to be determined by calibration to a reference, T_s is the measured temperature of the pyrgeometer and sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant. A pyrgeometer measures a gross transfer and then invents DLR by adding that to outgoing radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann for a blackbody emitting into a void at 0 K.

But hey...you are a believer so believe on Garth.

 

[Wuwei]

So you do believe downward radiation is back radiation...downward radiation is just downward radiation...back radiation is radiation absorbed by an object and then emitted back to the object from which it was emitted....

That is not a belief. That is the definition of back radiation when it is applied to the the GHGs of the atmosphere. Your last sentence is a bit awkward. The earth radiates the full black body spectrum. The GHGs radiate some back to the earth only at their resonance spectra.

and the downward radiation was only measured because it was being received by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.

The downward radiation would go down whether there is a detector or not.

.radiation doesn't care about direction..only that it it is moving always from warm to cool

Yes radiation doesn't care about direction. So what principle stops back radiation from going to a cooler object if it doesn't care about direction.

...from less entropy to more entropy...

The entropy of the system of all objects will increase as it should by the second law since during radiation exchange more radiation goes from the hotter objects to the cooler objects. The net radiation imbalance insures the second law is preserved.

 

[Wuwei]

And you believe that because you hit on a method to predict what happens in reality you understand the forces driving what happens in reality? Back radiation has never been observed...ever...regardless of what the mathematical models say.

I didn't hit on any method. Many other physicists did. The understanding is in the equations of Quantum Mechanics which was derived from countless observed, measured, quantified experiments. Back radiation has been observed. See IanC's response.

 

[IanC]

So you do believe downward radiation is back radiation...downward radiation is just downward radiation...back radiation is radiation absorbed by an object and then emitted back to the object from which it was emitted....

That is not a belief. That is the definition of back radiation when it is applied to the the GHGs of the atmosphere. Your last sentence is a bit awkward. The earth radiates the full black body spectrum. The GHGs radiate some back to the earth only at their resonance spectra.

and the downward radiation was only measured because it was being received by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.

The downward radiation would go down whether there is a detector or not.

.radiation doesn't care about direction..only that it it is moving always from warm to cool

Yes radiation doesn't care about direction. So what principle stops back radiation from going to a cooler object if it doesn't care about direction.

...from less entropy to more entropy...

The entropy of the system of all objects will increase as it should by the second law since during radiation exchange more radiation goes from the hotter objects to the cooler objects. The net radiation imbalance insures the second law is preserved.

The atmosphere produces (imperfect) blackbody radiation. It has some elevated GHG spikes but it still resembles the Planck curve. It would still return energy even if it contained no GHGs.

 

[Wuwei]

The atmosphere produces (imperfect) blackbody radiation. It has some elevated GHG spikes but it still resembles the Planck curve. It would still return energy even if it contained no GHGs.

I agree. But I was focusing only on the GHGs since they are what keeps the earth blanketed.

 

[IanC]

The atmosphere produces (imperfect) blackbody radiation. It has some elevated GHG spikes but it still resembles the Planck curve. It would still return energy even if it contained no GHGs.

I agree. But I was focusing only on the GHGs since they are what keeps the earth blanketed.

That only perpetuates the myth that CO2 molecules act like a half silvered mirror. GHGs directly warm the atmosphere by intercepting surface IR, which then returns blackbody radiation to the surface.

There are very few interactions where a photon leaves the surface, gets absorbed, and is then re-emited back to the surface. It comes back as blackbody radiation and dipole excitation emission, both caused by molecular collisions, which are a byproduct of temperature (kinetic energy).

 

[IanC]

So you do believe downward radiation is back radiation...downward radiation is just downward radiation...back radiation is radiation absorbed by an object and then emitted back to the object from which it was emitted....

That is not a belief. That is the definition of back radiation when it is applied to the the GHGs of the atmosphere. Your last sentence is a bit awkward. The earth radiates the full black body spectrum. The GHGs radiate some back to the earth only at their resonance spectra.

and the downward radiation was only measured because it was being received by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.

The downward radiation would go down whether there is a detector or not.

.radiation doesn't care about direction..only that it it is moving always from warm to cool

Yes radiation doesn't care about direction. So what principle stops back radiation from going to a cooler object if it doesn't care about direction.

...from less entropy to more entropy...

The entropy of the system of all objects will increase as it should by the second law since during radiation exchange more radiation goes from the hotter objects to the cooler objects. The net radiation imbalance insures the second law is preserved.

SSDD doesn't do entropy or conservative of momentum. If he did then he would realize his smart photons cannot be obeying the basic laws of physics.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD doesn't do entropy or conservative of momentum. If he did then he would realize his smart photons cannot be obeying the basic laws of physics.

If he doesn't do entropy he shouldn't have brought it up. He ain't thinkin real good.

 

[Wuwei]

The atmosphere produces (imperfect) blackbody radiation. It has some elevated GHG spikes but it still resembles the Planck curve. It would still return energy even if it contained no GHGs.

Without GHGs the atmosphere of O2 and N2 would have an emissivity way outside the range of the earths IR emission. That means it would be largely transparent to the earth's IR outgoing. How could it still return energy?

That only perpetuates the myth that CO2 molecules act like a half silvered mirror. GHGs directly warm the atmosphere by intercepting surface IR, which then returns blackbody radiation to the surface.

I think of CO2 emission as scattering, although an excited vibrational state can be quenched in collisions and transformed to kinetic energy. There is always a population of excited CO2 maintained that can re-emit IR from the vibration states.

There are very few interactions where a photon leaves the surface, gets absorbed, and is then re-emited back to the surface. It comes back as blackbody radiation and dipole excitation emission, both caused by molecular collisions, which are a byproduct of temperature (kinetic energy).

I'm not sure what you mean by "very few interactions". The earth radiates in the far IR. N2 and O2 are transparent to that IR. It seems that if it were black body radiation in the IR it could only be through the GHGs. Another way of looking at it is that the emissivity of N2 and O2 is near zero in the IR, whereas the emissivity of the GHGs are high in parts of that region. That's what makes them GHGs. Also I don't think that black body radiation is a term that can be used casually in simple gasses. There are very few vibrational states. There are almost a continuum of vibrational states in a solid because the neighboring atoms are intimately coupled. That coupling promotes a flatter emisivity curve as a function of wavelength which in turn promotes truer BB radiation only for solids or liquids.

 

[mamooth]

Mass markets consumer electronics only measure the amount of, and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...

And since the temperature changes only because radiation from a colder object is hitting it, your attempted evasion there makes no sense, and you're still left with your crap theory getting debunked.