Let`s have a vote on back radiation

[SSDD]

No, actually, as I just pointed out, quantum physics is needed to describe the very absorption processes that make global warming happen.

There is no warming and hasn't been for nearly 2 decades now while CO2 continues to rise. CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

Two way energy transfer between objects happens any time photons are flowing both ways between two objects.

Ao you say. And what is the basis for that claim? Mathematical models? Computer simulations? Can you even prove the existence of a photon for that matter?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, actually, as I just pointed out, quantum physics is needed to describe the very absorption processes that make global warming happen.

There is no warming and hasn't been for nearly 2 decades now while CO2 continues to rise.

Regardless, quantum physics is necessary to describe absorption processes.

CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere.

What does that even mean?

 

[polarbear]

Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube


wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.

thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said about the solar oven/fridge. did you even read my comment to you about it? here-



now let's just run the experiment backwards because you seem to have a problem with directionality. the heated and unheated plate have been allowed to come to equilibrium and the side facing the container wall is 160F. if we take away the unheated plate, what will happen to the temperature of the heated plate? surely you dont think it can do anything but go down? it now has additional exposure to a cold surface into which it can radiate away heat. just like taking off the lens cap off of your telescope.

and just to be sure we are straight- the electric heater is heating the plate, and the sun is heating the earth. the unheated plate and GHGs only alter the equilibrium temperature at a point in the energy flow path that we have chosen to measure.

Okay then let`s try to "straighten things out"...AGAIN...but every time I do either Poop mouth starts mouthing off having a direct contact "word coming out of a cattle prod"

Cattle prods word by direct contact

Or insisting I should talk the same street-lingo he and his "bros" talk in the Chicago East end:

Its pidgin English, not pigeon.

And throw frogs into micro wave ovens...well it`s not quite as bad as what his cousins in Africa still enjoy doing, where they get their jollies watching people die wearing a burning tire necklace

Which, in the case of our hapless frog, travels from a cold object, to a warmer object, and causes it to get warmer. Thus being an example of a cold object making a warmer object warmer.

First he manages to modulate microwaves with a frog and puts frogs instead of a signal into a "microwave" and then goes on to claim that a 1000 Watt magnetron is a "cooler radiation" source, than a cold blooded frog..contradicting every equation that has ever been written about frequency specific EM energy. Even if that were so and we are ignoring that and just talk about the heat as in temperature a magnetron generates...which is wasted and not the energy used for cooking, any micro wave magnetron would would go up in smoke if you don`t cool it with forced air.
I remember a post this foul mouthed dim-wit wrote...which he deleted...where he claimed he is a "physicist"...and spelled it "phyisist"


Before that You changed the subject from what`s being discussed here from radiative transfer to "what I would have said about Newton`s law, if I were "...or had been around Newton`s time .

Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you should be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when v=c.

After You repeatedly changed the subject which is something you always do when you get stuck in your own crap, you try to high school debate your way out of it with "directionality"

thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said
you seem to have a problem with directionality.
surely you dont think it can do anything but go down? it now has additional exposure to a cold surface into which it can radiate away heat. just like taking off the lens cap off of your telescope.

Neither I nor photons have a "problem with directionality". Heat radiation has a "directionality" from hot to cold
It`s Roy, Virgina and you that have a problem with "directionality"


Tell me where You did see an additional exposure "to a cold surface" in that video ?
Exposure is as ambiguous as it can possibly get...what kind of exposure...? Direct exposure, as in contact ?
You sound just like your idiot Virginia mentor Roy:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07...ts-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

Roy W. Spencer, says:
All I said was that the presence of a cooler object can make a warmer object warmer still. I was being deliberately ambiguous to point out that when ..
Roy W. Spencer, says:
I purposely phrased the title in a somewhat ambiguous manner because those how say the opposite (who disagree with me) do the same thing.

"Exposure" to a cold surface would be, if you sit butt naked in the snow or go skiing in the nude.




It`s not as if I stuck the thermistor or the clear plastic cover of that Telescope against a cold window pane. The front of the telescope was more than 12 inches away from any cold surface.
Also, You don`t seem to know what`s inside a reflector telescope and how it works...
Because between the window, that You claim was the cold surface that cooled down the "exposed" thermistor which was behind a clear plastic wrap there is a second mirror...and the focal point where the thermistor was is BEHIND that mirror not in front of the "exposed" thermistor. This "exposed" thermistor in that telescope was shielded even more than Spencer`s "hot plate" is "shielded" with the colder bar that is supposed to heat the heated bar even more.
So go on and specify the "exposure to a cold surface" you are talking about...of that thermistor in that telescope

wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.

thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said about....hahahaha.

How much more twisted out of shape can You get...?

a cold surface into which it can radiate away heat. just like taking off the lens cap off of your telescope.

That`s the whole point...Spencer claims that a cold object can radiate heat to a warmer object...
I always said and showed you that it can`t...and that it`s the other way around, not like Roy would have it, the warmer object radiates heat to a colder object...that`s the DIRECTIONALITY...and even your latest gibberish conforms to this "directionality"

a cold surface into which it can radiate away heat

That`s what everybody has been trying to tell you, that a warm object radiates heat to a cold object...not the other way around...
Except now you want to twist the "object" into a "cold surface"...as in surface contact by being ambiguous what kind of "exposure" you are yapping about in your latest version.



but as you still can`t see even if it`s done right in front of You instead just on a silly drawing, that is just not happening. By the way all my windows are not "cold", they are double pane . We run a humidifier during the winter and if these windows were "cold" You would have to wipe off the condensation every few minutes when it`s cold outside. So what was the "additional cold surface" the thermistor was "exposed to" other than the trees, houses and so on that the telescope was looking at. The only avenue the out-going heat energy had was heat radiation...radiating the heat faster to the colder objects than the constant heat supply from the heated air in my house to the Telescope & Thermistor could warm it.

You are not only ignorant, you are also a liar, because even the ignorant Virginia knew that her Daddy Roy`s claim to fame is that cold objects add to the heat energy of a heated object by "back-radiating" from cold to hot...which you have defended only a few postings ago and now you are lying and pretend that you held the position that it`s from hot to cold, which is no matter how you want to phrase and re-phrase it the exact opposite of what Roy claims and you did in a shit load of your other posts.

So tell me again how the fact that a thermistor which is in a metallic (black to boot) metal tube which is constantly being heated by the warm ambient air in my house, like all the other objects inside my house.....cooled down this thermistor below room temperature when a 6 inch mirror captures nothing else but the "back radiation" from cooler objects instead of warming it even more....how exactly is that all over sudden something that you say you said all along,...while you put out a whole ton of posts where you said that Spencer (who tells fairy tales with nothing more than a silly sketch)... was right... before I showed you with this telescope that he is not....none of the colder objects, colder than the thermistor inside a telescope that is constantly warmed from the outside warmed up this thermistor,....it cooled down because heat not only flows by conduction from hot to cold, but does so with radiative heat transfer also...
No matter how Spencer or all the "climate science" Virginias twist an turn words or who said what.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you should be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when v=c.

E_kinetic = 0.5* m*v^2 is the classical formula.

E = M c^2 includes both kinetic and rest mass energy. M = gamma * m where m is the rest mass of the particle and gamma = 1.0 / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2/c^2).

In the units where c = 1,

E = m / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2 )

In the limit that v << 1,

E =(approx)= m * (1.0 + 0.5 * v^2) = m + 0.5 * m *v^2. The first term is the rest energy, and if you subtract it the kinetic energy is what's left, E_kinetic = E - E_rest = 0.5 * m * v^2.

So we see Einstein's equation goes to the NEwtonian in the limit that v is much less than c.

 

[polarbear]

Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you should be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when v=c.

E_kinetic = 0.5* m*v^2 is the classical formula.

E = M c^2 includes both kinetic and rest mass energy. M = gamma * m where m is the rest mass of the particle and gamma = 1.0 / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2/c^2).

In the units where c = 1,

E = m / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2 )

In the limit that v << 1,

E =(approx)= m * (1.0 + 0.5 * v^2) = m + 0.5 * m *v^2. The first term is the rest energy, and if you subtract it the kinetic energy is what's left, E_kinetic = E - E_rest = 0.5 * m * v^2.

So we see Einstein's equation goes to the NEwtonian in the limit that v is much less than c.

It took you that long to look that up at wikipedia...?
besides I never asked you...!
While you are here explain then why you deleted that posting so quickly where you claimed to be a "phyisisist" and knew about "worm holes" when you shot your mouth off about "causality" in connection with the Twinkie bankruptcy and you ridiculed conservatives claiming they have said that the Twinkie bankruptcy was "caused by a baker`s strike that happened 6 months later"....You know the one where you posted a picture of a time machine and a wormhole picture from Wikipedia.
You are no different from all these New York loudmouths that can`t smart mouth any more just as soon as the power is down and they can`t google wikipedia ....I`m willing to bet that`s all you "know"

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you should be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when v=c.

E_kinetic = 0.5* m*v^2 is the classical formula.

E = M c^2 includes both kinetic and rest mass energy. M = gamma * m where m is the rest mass of the particle and gamma = 1.0 / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2/c^2).

In the units where c = 1,

E = m / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2 )

In the limit that v << 1,

E =(approx)= m * (1.0 + 0.5 * v^2) = m + 0.5 * m *v^2. The first term is the rest energy, and if you subtract it the kinetic energy is what's left, E_kinetic = E - E_rest = 0.5 * m * v^2.

So we see Einstein's equation goes to the NEwtonian in the limit that v is much less than c.

It took you that long to look that up at wikipedia...?
besides I never asked you...!
While you are here explain then why you deleted that posting so quickly where you claimed to be a "phyisisist" and knew about "worm holes" when you shot your mouth off about "causality" in connection with the Twinkie bankruptcy and you ridiculed conservatives claiming they have said that the Twinkie bankruptcy was "caused by a baker`s strike that happened 6 months later"....You know the one where you posted a picture of a time machine and a wormhole picture from Wikipedia.
You are no different from all these New York loudmouths that can`t smart mouth any more just as soon as the power is down and they can`t google wikipedia ....I`m willing to bet that`s all you "know"

I am a physicist.

 

[IanC]

Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube


wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.

thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said about the solar oven/fridge. did you even read my comment to you about it? here-



now let's just run the experiment backwards because you seem to have a problem with directionality. the heated and unheated plate have been allowed to come to equilibrium and the side facing the container wall is 160F. if we take away the unheated plate, what will happen to the temperature of the heated plate? surely you dont think it can do anything but go down? it now has additional exposure to a cold surface into which it can radiate away heat. just like taking off the lens cap off of your telescope.

and just to be sure we are straight- the electric heater is heating the plate, and the sun is heating the earth. the unheated plate and GHGs only alter the equilibrium temperature at a point in the energy flow path that we have chosen to measure.

Before that You changed the subject from what`s being discussed here from radiative transfer to "what I would have said about Newton`s law, if I were "...or had been around Newton`s time .

Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you should be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when v=c.

After You repeatedly changed the subject which is something you always do when you get stuck in your own crap, you try to high school debate your way out of it with "directionality"
Neither I nor photons have a "problem with directionality". Heat radiation has a "directionality" from hot to cold
It`s Roy, Virgina and you that have a problem with "directionality"


Tell me where You did see an additional exposure "to a cold surface" in that video ?
Exposure is as ambiguous as it can possibly get...what kind of exposure...? Direct exposure, as in contact ?
You sound just like your idiot Virginia mentor Roy:

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
"Exposure" to a cold surface would be, if you sit butt naked in the snow or go skiing in the nude.




It`s not as if I stuck the thermistor or the clear plastic cover of that Telescope against a cold window pane. The front of the telescope was more than 12 inches away from any cold surface.
Also, You don`t seem to know what`s inside a reflector telescope and how it works...
Because between the window, that You claim was the cold surface that cooled down the "exposed" thermistor which was behind a clear plastic wrap there is a second mirror...and the focal point where the thermistor was is BEHIND that mirror not in front of the "exposed" thermistor. This "exposed" thermistor in that telescope was shielded even more than Spencer`s "hot plate" is "shielded" with the colder bar that is supposed to heat the heated bar even more.
So go on and specify the "exposure to a cold surface" you are talking about...of that thermistor in that telescope
How much more twisted out of shape can You get...?

a cold surface into which it can radiate away heat. just like taking off the lens cap off of your telescope.

That`s the whole point...Spencer claims that a cold object can radiate heat to a warmer object...
I always said and showed you that it can`t...and that it`s the other way around, not like Roy would have it, the warmer object radiates heat to a colder object...that`s the DIRECTIONALITY...and even your latest gibberish conforms to this "directionality"

a cold surface into which it can radiate away heat

That`s what everybody has been trying to tell you, that a warm object radiates heat to a cold object...not the other way around...
Except now you want to twist the "object" into a "cold surface"...as in surface contact by being ambiguous what kind of "exposure" you are yapping about in your latest version.



but as you still can`t see even if it`s done right in front of You instead just on a silly drawing, that is just not happening. By the way all my windows are not "cold", they are double pane . We run a humidifier during the winter and if these windows were "cold" You would have to wipe off the condensation every few minutes when it`s cold outside. So what was the "additional cold surface" the thermistor was "exposed to" other than the trees, houses and so on that the telescope was looking at. The only avenue the out-going heat energy had was heat radiation...radiating the heat faster to the colder objects than the constant heat supply from the heated air in my house to the Telescope & Thermistor could warm it.

You are not only ignorant, you are also a liar, because even the ignorant Virginia knew that her Daddy Roy`s claim to fame is that cold objects add to the heat energy of a heated object by "back-radiating" from cold to hot...which you have defended only a few postings ago and now you are lying and pretend that you held the position that it`s from hot to cold, which is no matter how you want to phrase and re-phrase it the exact opposite of what Roy claims and you did in a shit load of your other posts.

So tell me again how the fact that a thermistor which is in a metallic (black to boot) metal tube which is constantly being heated by the warm ambient air in my house, like all the other objects inside my house.....cooled down this thermistor below room temperature when a 6 inch mirror captures nothing else but the "back radiation" from cooler objects instead of warming it even more....how exactly is that all over sudden something that you say you said all along,...while you put out a whole ton of posts where you said that Spencer (who tells fairy tales with nothing more than a silly sketch)... was right... before I showed you with this telescope that he is not....none of the colder objects, colder than the thermistor inside a telescope that is constantly warmed from the outside warmed up this thermistor,....it cooled down because heat not only flows by conduction from hot to cold, but does so with radiative heat transfer also...
No matter how Spencer or all the "climate science" Virginias twist an turn words or who said what.

I see you are still clutching desparately to strawmen. you say so many non-factual things mixed in with your ad homs that it is hard to get to them all, especially because you like to mix things all together and your writing style is akin to diarrhea. big gushes with little of substance in there, and it is noxious to wade through it looking.

you said-

You are not only ignorant, you are also a liar, because even the ignorant Virginia knew that her Daddy Roy`s claim to fame is that cold objects add to the heat energy of a heated object by "back-radiating" from cold to hot...which you have defended only a few postings ago and now you are lying and pretend that you held the position that it`s from hot to cold, which is no matter how you want to phrase and re-phrase it the exact opposite of what Roy claims and you did in a shit load of your other posts.

in one short paragraph you have managed to call me a liar twice, insulted a world renowned climate physicist, and for some obscure reason, his daughter as well. I can see why you live in an isolated northern town where perhaps civility is not quite as valued or expected as in other places. you have also accused Spencer and myself of stating things we have not said, even though both of us have repeatedly made efforts to explain more clearly to reduce your confusion. you obviously prefer to not listen. it is very similar to how the extreme warmists refuse to listen to any evidence that does not support their position.

you said-

So tell me again how the fact that a thermistor which is in a metallic (black to boot) metal tube which is constantly being heated by the warm ambient air in my house, like all the other objects inside my house.....cooled down this thermistor below room temperature when a 6 inch mirror captures nothing else but the "back radiation" from cooler objects instead of warming it even more

it works just like your other example, the solar oven/fridge. a significant portion of the thermistor radiation is focused at the window which is cooler than the room. surely you are not pretending that your windows are the same temperature as the ambient air or interior objects? energy transfer is by the usual (constant)x(T1^4 - T2^4). aim your telescope at the fireplace. will you be surprised to find the thermistor increases temperature?

you said-

Also, You don`t seem to know what`s inside a reflector telescope and how it works...

why do you make such churlish insults for no reason?



I am interested in your view on radiative energy transfer. do you agree with standard science that the radiation goes in both directions, and that net energy always goes from warmer to cooler. or do you subscribe to SSDD and his Maxwell's Daemon who counts up everything in the universe before allowing radiation to happen. or perhaps wirebender's cancelling 'EM fields' where the energy just disappears is more to your style. this is a serious question: two objects at the same temperature, close together but not touching, do their near faces radiate into each other or not? if not, then what happened to the radiation?

 

[IanC]

polarbear said-

Before that You changed the subject from what`s being discussed here from radiative transfer to "what I would have said about Newton`s law, if I were "...or had been around Newton`s time .

Since You are the one that brought that up and claim that You REALLY understand it, then you should be able to explain why E= (m* v^2)/2 as in Newton`s law if v < c and not as Einstein said E= m * v^2 when v=c.

I missed this little one lodged in your tirade against the troll. I didnt actually bring this up, I said something to the effect of 'bodies in motion tend to stay in motion unless some force acts upon them'.

anyways your question is in your usual style of switching around one thing for another when they mean something else out of context. Lewis Carroll was an excellent mathematician and he loved to devise problems with inadvertent division by zero....and leap years of course.

 

[polarbear]

Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube


wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.

thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said about the solar oven/fridge. did you even read my comment to you about it? here-




I see you are still clutching desparately to strawmen. you say so many non-factual things mixed in with your ad homs that it is hard to get to them all, especially because you like to mix things all together and your writing style is akin to diarrhea. big gushes with little of substance in there, and it is noxious to wade through it looking.
why do you make such churlish insults for no reason?



I am interested in your view on radiative energy transfer. do you agree with standard science that the radiation goes in both directions, and that net energy always goes from warmer to cooler. or do you subscribe to SSDD and his Maxwell's Daemon who counts up everything in the universe before allowing radiation to happen. or perhaps wirebender's cancelling 'EM fields' where the energy just disappears is more to your style. this is a serious question: two objects at the same temperature, close together but not touching, do their near faces radiate into each other or not? if not, then what happened to the radiation?

It`s You who is clutching the straw man.Where exactly did I say that radiation does not go in all directions ?
What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does NOT INCREASE the temperature of a warmer object. Spencer the "world renowned scientist" says it does and has nothing to show for except his electric hot plate drawing and his say so. So after that straw man went up in smoke you use a new one...my window and "exposed"..
If You insist it was my window, which is way warmer than the objects outside which my telescope was looking at, that does not make a real man of your newer straw man, because the "Spencer effect" should have materialized with an object that is not as cold as the objects outside even more. If you insist I`ll tape a thermometer to my widow and show you that it is the same temperature as the wall next to it. In Canada they sell windows that have almost the same R-factor as a standard wall .
If I had done that demo with an open window what else could be expected than an even better cooling rate for that thermistor...had I done that then your next straw man would be the cold air that came in.
I have told you from the start, that the only thing that any other object which is less war can only DIMINISH THE RATE OF COOLING...but it can`t WARM a WARMER object...be that by radiative heat transfer or by heat conduction..and if you understand physics as you claim you do, then you should know what the difference between warming and less cooling is.

You being such a "radiation expert" should also have realized from the start that your "world renowned scientist" and all his disciples use diffuse light as if all of it were parallel light rays.
Any light that is "absorbed" by CO2 is DISPERSED in all directions which makes it diffuse light...your "climate science" not only claims that this radiation from a cooler source WARMS UP (as in INCREASES T ) but claims in addition, that 50% of the rays going in all directions will eventually have a down direction..and then go on to milk the same effect from a light which is even more diffuse than what CO2 re-emitted the same "back radiation heating" effect as a light ray with a 90 deg angle of incidence...
It works with people like you, because by then your mental capacity is exceeded, there was no more room and the fact has been dropped that the (albedo) reflected / absorbed light of ANY OBJECT (other than a perfect black body)dramatically increases as this angle deviates from 90 degrees ....eventually to a point where 7/10 of the REAL EARTH surface which is water has almost the same reflectivity as a mirror

You`ld never have a snowballs chance in hell playing a game of chess if you can only keep track of one piece instead of all the pieces on the chess board.
Don`t expect to win a game of chess against somebody who can, if all you know is checkers where all the pieces move the same

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does NOT INCREASE the temperature of a warmer object.

Yes it can. Any time radiation is absorbed by matter the matter gains energy.

You being such a "radiation expert" should also have realized from the start that your "world renowned scientist" and all his disciples use diffuse light as if all of it were parallel light rays.

I don't think they do that. I think you just don't know what you're talking about.


You seem to be claiming the global warming mechanism cannot work. If it didn't you'd be freezing to death right now. Do you understand that?

 

[percysunshine]

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and shit happens.

The immutable laws of physics.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere.

What does that even mean?

You claim to be a physicist. That shoud be an easy one for a physicist. Ever hear of the ideal gas laws?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere.

What does that even mean?

You claim to be a physicist. That shoud be an easy one for a physicist. Ever hear of the ideal gas laws?

Ever heard of explaining what you're talking about? Give it a try. You aren't making sense. "Ever heard of the ideal gas laws?" isn't an explanation of anything.

 

[polarbear]

E_kinetic = 0.5* m*v^2 is the classical formula.

E = M c^2 includes both kinetic and rest mass energy. M = gamma * m where m is the rest mass of the particle and gamma = 1.0 / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2/c^2).

In the units where c = 1,

E = m / sqrt( 1.0 - v^2 )

In the limit that v << 1,

E =(approx)= m * (1.0 + 0.5 * v^2) = m + 0.5 * m *v^2. The first term is the rest energy, and if you subtract it the kinetic energy is what's left, E_kinetic = E - E_rest = 0.5 * m * v^2.

So we see Einstein's equation goes to the NEwtonian in the limit that v is much less than c.

It took you that long to look that up at wikipedia...?
besides I never asked you...!
While you are here explain then why you deleted that posting so quickly where you claimed to be a &quot;phyisisist&quot; and knew about &quot;worm holes&quot; when you shot your mouth off about &quot;causality&quot; in connection with the Twinkie bankruptcy and you ridiculed conservatives claiming they have said that the Twinkie bankruptcy was &quot;caused by a baker`s strike that happened 6 months later&quot;....You know the one where you posted a picture of a time machine and a wormhole picture from Wikipedia.
You are no different from all these New York loudmouths that can`t smart mouth any more just as soon as the power is down and they can`t google wikipedia ....I`m willing to bet that`s all you &quot;know&quot;

I am a physicist.

You are nothing but a loudmouth heckler and do the same thing what you are doing here in all the other threads,...24/7 !! If you were a physicist you would not have the time for that. I`m still willing to bet that you would seize to be a physicist at the exact time with split second precision when the power is out and you can`t Google

 

[polarbear]

What does that even mean?

You claim to be a physicist. That shoud be an easy one for a physicist. Ever hear of the ideal gas laws?

Ever heard of explaining what you're talking about? Give it a try. You aren't making sense. &quot;Ever heard of the ideal gas laws?&quot; isn't an explanation of anything.

If you were a physicist then he should not have to explain it to you what he meant after he reminded you already that any gas CO2 included wants to expand if you heat it up. You claim to be a physicist and it`s news to you that gasses do that ??? So why don`t you Google the ideal gas law then copy and paste what happens to an ideal gas when you let it expand...hint...: Stick your frog into a fridge instead of a micro wave oven

 

[polarbear]

What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does NOT INCREASE the temperature of a warmer object.

Yes it can. Any time radiation is absorbed by matter the matter gains energy.

You being such a "radiation expert" should also have realized from the start that your "world renowned scientist" and all his disciples use diffuse light as if all of it were parallel light rays.

I don't think they do that. I think you just don't know what you're talking about.


You seem to be claiming the global warming mechanism cannot work. If it didn't you'd be freezing to death right now. Do you understand that?

GAIN ENERGY Any time ? Really ?
Even if this radiation is just a fraction of it`s own radiation "echo" ?
As in...:
Plate A radiates a portion (x) of it`s heat to Plate B which "echoes" back a FRACTION of (x) to A and now A GAINED energy...???
You claim to be a physicist and fail to comprehend that you just described the radiation version of a perpetual motion energy generator.

You seem to be claiming the global warming mechanism cannot work. If it didn't you'd be freezing to death right now. Do you understand that?

You`ld be freezing to death after the sun goes down if there were no water vapor in the atmosphere, do you understand that ?


I would not freeze if all the CO2 in the atmosphere would have vanished, but we would all be starving. No plant- or any other life as we know it would exist either

But you would be cooking like your frog in your microwave oven when the sun is up...if there were no water vapor in the atmosphere, do you understand that ?
you don't know what you're talking about.
According to your Googled "climate science", what you call physics, you should be cooking under a cloud from all the extra radiation energy you would gain . .and cool off in the desert sun where you don`t gain any Spencer energy from overcast,.... or would if you`ld wear a hat or stand under a sun umbrella that cooks your brains with all the Spencer extra energy You gain from the umbrella.

 

[IanC]

Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube


wow! the wind and bluster is coming hard off Bernie. probably from both ends, hahahaha.

thanks for making a youtube video just to support what I said about the solar oven/fridge. did you even read my comment to you about it? here-




I see you are still clutching desparately to strawmen. you say so many non-factual things mixed in with your ad homs that it is hard to get to them all, especially because you like to mix things all together and your writing style is akin to diarrhea. big gushes with little of substance in there, and it is noxious to wade through it looking.
why do you make such churlish insults for no reason?



I am interested in your view on radiative energy transfer. do you agree with standard science that the radiation goes in both directions, and that net energy always goes from warmer to cooler. or do you subscribe to SSDD and his Maxwell's Daemon who counts up everything in the universe before allowing radiation to happen. or perhaps wirebender's cancelling 'EM fields' where the energy just disappears is more to your style. this is a serious question: two objects at the same temperature, close together but not touching, do their near faces radiate into each other or not? if not, then what happened to the radiation?

It`s You who is clutching the straw man.Where exactly did I say that radiation does not go in all directions ?
What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does NOT INCREASE the temperature of a warmer object. Spencer the "world renowned scientist" says it does and has nothing to show for except his electric hot plate drawing and his say so. So after that straw man went up in smoke you use a new one...my window and "exposed"..
If You insist it was my window, which is way warmer than the objects outside which my telescope was looking at, that does not make a real man of your newer straw man, because the "Spencer effect" should have materialized with an object that is not as cold as the objects outside even more. If you insist I`ll tape a thermometer to my widow and show you that it is the same temperature as the wall next to it. In Canada they sell windows that have almost the same R-factor as a standard wall .
If I had done that demo with an open window what else could be expected than an even better cooling rate for that thermistor...had I done that then your next straw man would be the cold air that came in.
I have told you from the start, that the only thing that any other object which is less war can only DIMINISH THE RATE OF COOLING...but it can`t WARM a WARMER object...be that by radiative heat transfer or by heat conduction..and if you understand physics as you claim you do, then you should know what the difference between warming and less cooling is.

You being such a "radiation expert" should also have realized from the start that your "world renowned scientist" and all his disciples use diffuse light as if all of it were parallel light rays.
Any light that is "absorbed" by CO2 is DISPERSED in all directions which makes it diffuse light...your "climate science" not only claims that this radiation from a cooler source WARMS UP (as in INCREASES T ) but claims in addition, that 50% of the rays going in all directions will eventually have a down direction..and then go on to milk the same effect from a light which is even more diffuse than what CO2 re-emitted the same "back radiation heating" effect as a light ray with a 90 deg angle of incidence...
It works with people like you, because by then your mental capacity is exceeded, there was no more room and the fact has been dropped that the (albedo) reflected / absorbed light of ANY OBJECT (other than a perfect black body)dramatically increases as this angle deviates from 90 degrees ....eventually to a point where 7/10 of the REAL EARTH surface which is water has almost the same reflectivity as a mirror

You`ld never have a snowballs chance in hell playing a game of chess if you can only keep track of one piece instead of all the pieces on the chess board.
Don`t expect to win a game of chess against somebody who can, if all you know is checkers where all the pieces move the same

I see you are finally coming around to my way of thinking. I really can't understand why you have vehemently disagreed with the perfectly logical things that I have said while staying silent and ignoring the obvious fallacies that wirebender and SSDD proclaimed to be true.

let us do a little recap.

I said CO2 can absorb certain frequencies of IR. that energy can be either re-emitted at the same frequency but in a random direction, or in the case of an excited CO2 molecule having a collision with another molecule then the photon or photons emitted can be a random frequency emitted in a random direction but typically the frequency will less energetic according to SLoT. in response you implied that I was an idiot.

wirebender agreed that CO2 emitted radiation, sometimes towards the surface, but that none of that radiation actually reached the earth because it was cancelled out at some unknown position by some unknown process, and without the need for matter to be present. the photons and their energy just 'disappeared'. in response to this you said nothing.

SSDD says that CO2 cannot emit radiation towards the surface because the SLoT forbids any movement of energy from cold to hot, not even a photon. he gives no mechanism for this amazing control of every atom in the universe, nor the knowledge of the temperature of every object, both in the present and in the future, when the photons are emitted and absorbed. again, you say nothing. allowing people to infer your approval because you fight so hard for 'correctness', at least against some.

then Spencer's thought experiment comes along. Spencer devised it to show people that screamed "2nd Law!!!" that there were many examples of how disturbing the equilibrium of energy flow through a system can result in increased temperature at a certain measured location by the inclusion of a colder body. Spencer's experiment can run both ways. not only can adding a cool body make a warm body warmer but if you then take away the now warmed second plate it makes the heated plate cooler. Latour's hodgepodge letter brought in all sorts of conduction and convection red herrings into what was supposed to be an analysis of radiation. Latour even messed up his blanket example by saying that insulation doesnt warm up the skin, it just makes shivering unneccessary! obviously if the human body was still producing the extra heat from shivering the skin would be warmer. have you ever started to sweat on a cold day while doing exercise in a big coat? again, you treated Latour like the word of God while slandering Spencer with your interpretation of what he said.

Bernie- I agree with many of your points about how real world conditions diminish the effect of CO2. I am a skeptic concerning CO2 and I have said that it makes little difference theoretically, and much less practically. what I am not willing to do is ignore that CO2 does have a theoretical impact on the climate if all other variables were kept the same. when the extreme side of the skeptical position dismiss CO2 altogether it makes moderate warmers ignore everything else that skeptics say because they started with a lie.

oh...and just think about how annoyed you were when I put words into your mouth about Newton's Law. you have been doing the same thing to me for months. I keep asking you to respond to what I have actually said, and you keep making up strawmen and attributing them to me.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You claim to be a physicist. That shoud be an easy one for a physicist. Ever hear of the ideal gas laws?

Ever heard of explaining what you're talking about? Give it a try. You aren't making sense. &quot;Ever heard of the ideal gas laws?&quot; isn't an explanation of anything.

If you were a physicist then he should not have to explain it to you what he meant after he reminded you already that any gas CO2 included wants to expand if you heat it up.

Yes, he should. If he doesn't want to explain his ideas he should shut up.

So why don`t you Google the ideal gas law then copy and paste what happens to an ideal gas when you let it expand...hint...:

I could do that - a million times over - and it still wouldn't explain his comment "CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere."

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What I have said, and not only just said but also shown you is that the radiation from a cooler object does NOT INCREASE the temperature of a warmer object.

Yes it can. Any time radiation is absorbed by matter the matter gains energy.


I don't think they do that. I think you just don't know what you're talking about.


You seem to be claiming the global warming mechanism cannot work. If it didn't you'd be freezing to death right now. Do you understand that?

GAIN ENERGY Any time ? Really ?

Yes. Any time a photon is absorbed by matter the matter gains energy. Any time it is emitted by matter the matter loses energy. This is called "conservation of energy".

Even if this radiation is just a fraction of it`s own radiation "echo" ?
As in...:
Plate A radiates a portion (x) of it`s heat to Plate B which "echoes" back a FRACTION of (x) to A and now A GAINED energy...???
You claim to be a physicist and fail to comprehend that you just described the radiation version of a perpetual motion energy generator.

Its not a perpetual motion machine. In the absence of an energy source both plates will eventually cool to absolute zero. When radiation from A hits B, it can be reflected back immediately, in which case B never absorbs it - or B can absorb it and then re-emit it later.

Its pretty simple. In the absence of other energy sources:

electromagnetic energy + heat energy + work = constant.

Do you understand?

I would not freeze if all the CO2 in the atmosphere would have vanished,

The average temperature of the Earth would be a about 5 degrees C if there were no greenhouse effect. So you're right, you wouldn't freeze - on average.