Let`s have a vote on back radiation

[IanC]

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 ?
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 ?

again with the perpetual motion machine strawman. at any one instant, there is x amount of radiation going one direction and y amount going in the opposite direction. the net flow is x-y. just because we choose to pick one side to measure and label first, that doesnt mean it is not happening continuously and in both directions at the same time.

 

[IanC]

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 guys are arguing over different things. energy and temperature are not interchangeable.

and measurement bias. if the object has absorbed one unit of energy while simultaneously emitted two units of energy, it is incorrect to say it has gained one unit or lost two units. it has had a net loss of one unit.

 

[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 guys are arguing over different things. energy and temperature are not interchangeable.

and measurement bias. if the object has absorbed one unit of energy while simultaneously emitted two units of energy, it is incorrect to say it has gained one unit or lost two units. it has had a net loss of one unit.

If the absorbed energy is thermalized and the matter is ordinary its temperature will also go up.

 

[percysunshine]

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.

 

[IanC]

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

you guys are arguing over different things. energy and temperature are not interchangeable.

and measurement bias. if the object has absorbed one unit of energy while simultaneously emitted two units of energy, it is incorrect to say it has gained one unit or lost two units. it has had a net loss of one unit.

If the absorbed energy is thermalized and the matter is ordinary its temperature will also go up.

are you arguing about the temperature of a single particle of matter? that makes no sense. temperature is the average of many molecules or atoms. some higher, some lower.

 

[IanC]

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.

one of the biggest problems in discussing thermodynamics is that electromagnetic radiation flows in both directions at once, entirely bypassing each other unless some bit of matter is present. two water hoses counteract each other, electrons only flow through a wire in the net strongest direction (usually, there is room for quantum weirdness) but photons are created and speed away until they are absorbed, reflected or refracted by matter.

 

[percysunshine]

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.

one of the biggest problems in discussing thermodynamics is that electromagnetic radiation flows in both directions at once, entirely bypassing each other unless some bit of matter is present. two water hoses counteract each other, electrons only flow through a wire in the net strongest direction (usually, there is room for quantum weirdness) but photons are created and speed away until they are absorbed, reflected or refracted by matter.

Conduction, convection, and radiation.

It is the first chapter.

 

[IanC]

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.

one of the biggest problems in discussing thermodynamics is that electromagnetic radiation flows in both directions at once, entirely bypassing each other unless some bit of matter is present. two water hoses counteract each other, electrons only flow through a wire in the net strongest direction (usually, there is room for quantum weirdness) but photons are created and speed away until they are absorbed, reflected or refracted by matter.

Conduction, convection, and radiation.

It is the first chapter.

true, but this thread is about radiation.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.

No it isn't. There are many first year courses which teach aspects of thermodynamics - but thermodynamics or statistical mechanics as a course all into itself is not generally taught in the first year.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

you guys are arguing over different things. energy and temperature are not interchangeable.

and measurement bias. if the object has absorbed one unit of energy while simultaneously emitted two units of energy, it is incorrect to say it has gained one unit or lost two units. it has had a net loss of one unit.

If the absorbed energy is thermalized and the matter is ordinary its temperature will also go up.

are you arguing about the temperature of a single particle of matter? that makes no sense. temperature is the average of many molecules or atoms. some higher, some lower.

No. I thought that would have been implied by the term 'thermalized'.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.

one of the biggest problems in discussing thermodynamics is that electromagnetic radiation flows in both directions at once, entirely bypassing each other unless some bit of matter is present. two water hoses counteract each other, electrons only flow through a wire in the net strongest direction (usually, there is room for quantum weirdness) but photons are created and speed away until they are absorbed, reflected or refracted by matter.

Conduction, convection, and radiation.

It is the first chapter.

At the university level?
Of which thermodynamics text?

Convection is a complex problem that requires not only an understanding of thermodynamics but an understanding of hydrodynamics as well. I don't think I can recall a thermo text that covers it in the first chapter except perhaps by way of mentioning it in introductory fashion.

 

[IanC]

If the absorbed energy is thermalized and the matter is ordinary its temperature will also go up.

are you arguing about the temperature of a single particle of matter? that makes no sense. temperature is the average of many molecules or atoms. some higher, some lower.

No. I thought that would have been implied by the term 'thermalized'.

as always, terminology gets in the way of many discussions. in climatology the term thermalization is often used to separate the two ways of losing energy by radiation. eg. CO2 has specific wavelengths it likes to absorb and emit. when an excited molecule collides with another molecule that energy gets added to the total and photon(s) are emitted that can be different from the normal spectra.

 

[polarbear]

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.

No it isn't. There are many first year courses which teach aspects of thermodynamics - but thermodynamics or statistical mechanics as a course all into itself is not generally taught in the first year.

No matter even freshmen should have noticed the Spencer cheats

First we have to make some common sense assumptions to fill the information vacuum which was in Roy`s brain when he cooked up his "Yes Virginia" scheme. So we have to assign some specifics. Spencer does not specify the mass and thermal properties of his 2 plates. Neither does he specify the distance between the 2. Most indicative is the cheat when Roy leaves out the most important dimension, namely the elapsed time from this scheme. The only way he refers to elapsed time is "eventually" while he is heating objects with an electric heater. Roy does not assign any power rating to this heater either but promises that it will remain at a constant power setting during his dopy anecdote.

To sum it up, Roy wants to make it as impossible as he possibly could for any engineers to fact check his outlandish hypothesis.
No matter, because the laws of physics apply to any mass and material that Roy could have possibly chosen
To make it easier for ourselves, but far from as easy as Roy has made it for himself we assign 1000 Watts to his active heater, a 1000 gram mass for both the active and the passive plate and a thermal property of 1 cal per gram degree for both. In order not to generate a whole lot of least significant decimal places we round up a 0.05 and > to 0.1 and down if if it`s < 0.05.


So let`s proceed and assign 20 deg C room temp for the second object as an initial temp that Roy sticks into his brain chamber....assuming it came from a real room and not from Roy`s vacuum brain chamber
Roy has it warming up to 37.8 C in the test chamber, but does not say how long that takes, all he says "eventually it will".
assigning the thermal properties and mass we chose for this object it takes ...
17.8 * 1000 *4.18400 ~74391.5 watt seconds to do that, even if we assign a 1000 watt component to the radiative heat transfer rate that step would take at least 74 seconds.
Then Roy also has both objects hotter, one the active object by 5.5 C from 65.6 to 71.1 C
that takes 158 063 watt seconds and the cooler passive plate staying stabilized at 100 F (37.8 C) while it is being radiated by the active plate which is now at 160 F ( 71.1 C)
All the while both objects can also radiate to the cooled enclosure wall which is at 0 F ( -17.8ºC)
When I showed with that video what happens if the coldest object the thermistor could irradiate it was only ~ - 3.5 C outside

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&feature=youtu.be"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

Already the constant heat supply from the ambient room could no longer keep up with the thermistor`s radiative heat transfer at the increased rate of cooling that resulted when the cooler object is ~ 24 C cooler than the warmer one.
IanC insists the cooler object was my window and not anything outside...in that case the "cold object" with a window pane that has a R40 rating the best I could grant him then would be no more than just 2 C cooler instead of 24 C cooler

Maybe I should redo that demo when it`s - 15 C or more outside as Roy has his "cooled chamber walls". Hey I`ll even blow an exact and constant supply of air at a precise temperature into the telescope tube, clock the time and I`m 100 % certain that it will take EXACTLY the same amount of extra ( as in additional) watt secs to hold the thermistor Ohms constant as the radiative cooling is increasing with a second much cooler object.
But there are a lot of people that have a lot more time than I have to try it out for themselves.
Right now I only have enough time to fact check what`s happening in Roy`s vacuum brain chamber...:

Which is now at the point of time Roy only refers to as "eventually" ...where he has his passive plate at 100 F and the active one at 160 F, up by an entirely arbitrarily chosen ( by him!!!) 10 F from 150.
The additional energy in the passive plate (74391.52 watt seconds) can only come from the first object which Roy has "eventually" at 160 F (65.6ºC) and at best at 1/2 the rate (500 watts) what the active plate radiates in that direction.
The elapsed time Roy only mentions as "eventually" would then be ~ 150 seconds.
After 150 seconds the sum of all energy in Roy`s chamber is already at 158 063 + 74392 = 232 455 watt seconds

Roy only feeds a constant 1000 watts into his vacuum brain chamber and manages to heat 2 unspecified objects at a rate of ~1500 watts during the time frame he specifies as "eventually"

Intentionally not specifying the time beyond the ambiguos term "eventually" Roy hopes he can hide behind it from fact checking engineers with sharp pencils with a Teflon Don rhetoric argument that 1000 watts for 150 seconds = 150 000 watt seconds is still only 1000 Watts ...hoping nobody would notice that he milked his "constant " 1000 W electric hot plate in fact for 232 455 watt seconds during these 150 seconds.....which makes it more than 1500 Watts


If this Spencer energy occurs only during this time 150 second time frame after the cooler passive plate was inserted all Spencer has to do is change his Spencer energy "fuel rod" and replace the passive bar when it got to 100 F with a new one which is at room temperature.


All he has to do now is add a simple generator to his drawings, specify that the reactor chamber must be a "Yes Virginia" brain box and submit it to the patent office where it has to wait with all the other perpetual motion power generators for a patent examiner that is as dumb Spencer`s Virginia to grant a a patent. If Al Gore can win a Nobel prize this would be as easy as cooking your hapless frogs in Your micro wave oven.
With all this left wing "equal employment opportunity quota" legislation he may just get his wish .

So go ahead and apply...if you resemble your avatar You are assured to graduate as some sort of "physicist" and get the job while Obama is president

 

[IanC]

Thermodynamics 101 is a first year course in most universities.

No it isn't. There are many first year courses which teach aspects of thermodynamics - but thermodynamics or statistical mechanics as a course all into itself is not generally taught in the first year.

First we have to make some common sense assumptions to fill the information vacuum which was in Roy`s brain when he cooked up his "Yes Virginia" scheme. So we have to assign some specifics. Spencer does not specify the mass and thermal properties of his 2 plates. Neither does he specify the distance between the 2. Most indicative is the cheat when Roy leaves out the most important dimension, namely the elapsed time from this scheme. The only way he refers to elapsed time is "eventually" while he is heating objects with an electric heater. Roy does not assign any power rating to this heater either but promises that it will remain at a constant power setting during his dopy anecdote.

To sum it up, Roy wants to make it as impossible as he possibly could for any engineers to fact check his outlandish hypothesis.
No matter, because the laws of physics apply to any mass and material that Roy could have possibly chosen
To make it easier for ourselves, but far from as easy as Roy has made it for himself we assign 1000 Watts to his active heater, a 1000 gram mass for both the active and the passive plate and a thermal property of 1 cal per gram degree for both. In order not to generate a whole lot of least significant decimal places we round up a 0.05 and > to 0.1 and down if if it`s < 0.05.


So let`s proceed and assign 20 deg C room temp for the second object as an initial temp that Roy sticks into his brain chamber.
Roy has it warming up to 37.78 C in the test chamber, but does not say how long that takes, all he says "eventually it will".
assigning the thermal properties and mass we chose this object it takes ...
17.78 * 1000 *4.18400 =74391.52 watt seconds to do that, even if we assign a 1000 watt component to the radiative heat transfer rate that step would take at least 74 seconds.
Then Roy also has both objects hotter, one the active object by 5.5 C from 65.6 to 71.1 C
that takes 158 063 watt seconds and the cooler passive plate staying stabilized at 100 F (37.8 C) while it is being radiated by the active plate which is now at 160 F ( 71.1 C)
All the while both objects can also radiate to the cooled enclosure wall which is at 0 F ( -17.8ºC)
When I showed with that video what happens if the coldest object the thermistor could irradiate it was only ~ - 3.5 C outside

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&feature=youtu.be"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

Already the constant heat supply from the ambient room could no longer keep up with the thermistor`s radiative heat transfer at the increased rate of cooling that resulted when the cooler object is ~ 24 C cooler than the warmer one.
IanC insists the cooler object was my window and not anything outside...in that case the "cold object" with a window pane that has a R40 rating the best I could grant him then would be no more than just 2 C cooler instead of 24 C cooler

Maybe I should redo that demo when it`s - 15 C or more outside as Roy has his "cooled chamber walls". Hey I`ll even blow an exact and constant supply of air at a precise temperature into the telescope tube, clock the time and I`m 100 % certain that it will take EXACTLY the same amount of extra ( as in additional) watt secs to hold the thermistor Ohms constant as the radiative cooling is increasing with a second much cooler object.
But there are a lot of people that have a lot more time than I have to try it out for themselves.
Right now I only have enough time to fact check what`s happening in Roy`s vacuum brain chamber...:

Which is now at the point of time Roy only refers to as "eventually" ...where he has his passive plate at 100 F and the active one at 160 F, up by 10 F from 150.
The additional energy in the passive plate (74391.52 watt seconds) can only come from the first object which Roy has "eventually" at 160 F (65.6ºC) and at best at 1/2 the rate (500 watts) what the active plate radiates in that direction.
The elapsed time Roy only mentions as "eventually" would then be ~ 150 seconds.
After 150 seconds the sum of all energy in Roy`s chamber is already at 158 063 + 74392 = 232 455 watt seconds

Roy only feeds a constant 1000 watts into his vacuum brain chamber and manages to heat 2 unspecified objects at a rate of ~1500 watts during the time frame he specifies as "eventually"

Intentionally not specifying the time beyond the ambiguos term "eventually" Roy hopes he can hide behind it from fact checking engineers with sharp pencils with a Teflon Don rhetoric argument that 1000 watts for 150 seconds = 150 000 watt seconds is still only 1000 Watts ...hoping nobody would notice that he milked his "constant " 1000 W electric hot plate in fact for 232 455 watt seconds during these 150 seconds.....which makes it 1500 Watts


If this Spencer energy occurs only during this time 150 second time frame after the cooler passive plate was inserted all Spencer has to do is change his Spencer energy "fuel rod" and replace the passive bar when it got to 100 F with a new one which is at room temperature.


All he has to do now is add a simple generator to his drawings, specify that the reactor chamber must be a "Yes Virginia" brain box and submit it to the patent office where it has to wait with all the other perpetual motion power generators for a patent examiner that is as dumb Spencer`s Virginia to grant a a patent. If Al Gore can win a Nobel prize this would be as easy as cooking your hapless frogs in Your micro wave oven.
With all this left wing "equal employment opportunity quota" legislation he may just get his wish .

So go ahead and apply...if you resemble your avatar You are assured to graduate as some sort of "physicist" and get the job while Obama is president

its still just a though experiment Bernie.

it doesnt matter how long it takes to charge the heat sink of the second plate. we wait until it comes to equilibrium. if you want to ***** about things, ***** about the right ones.

the illustration is massively simplified, that is the point of thought experiments. the heated plate will have an energy flow gradient between the side facing out and the side facing the other plate. the unheated plate will have an even larger temperature gradient across it between the side heated from the first plate and the side facing the cool wall. so what? as always the first and second laws will find the most efficient way to distribute the energy from the heater so that conduction and radiation will dissipate the energy. the emissivity of the materials that make up the plates and the wall may make some difference to the equilibrium points but the basic statements are undeniable. the original internally heated plate will have one equilibrium temperature when it radiates directly into the cold container. input equals output.

when the second plate is put next to it, the energy flow will change as the second plate becomes warmer and affects the k(T1^4 - T2^4) relationship. at some point the second plate will reach equilibrium where the absorbed radiation is balanced by the loss to the cooled wall. at that time the first plate will also be at equilibrium but at a higher temperature than originally. energy in equals energy out.

months ago I actually put in the temps and the numbers worked out very well, except the second plate was considerably colder on the side which faces the wall, which we would expect because it is externally heated and the material would slow the energy flow.

you can moan all you want about there not being exact numbers but the thought experiment is about first principles. your putting a time limit on the time to reach equilibrium is just as stupid as wirebender saying that both plates would be the same temperature at equilibrium even though one is heated and the other is not.

 

[SSDD]

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

For a physicist, you seem very uninformed. Refer to Nikolov and Zeller's unified theory of climate. Unlike the hypothesis you cling to which doesn't even come close to predicting the temperature of other bodies in the solar system with atmosphere's, N&Z's theory, when applied to every other body in the solar system with an atmosphere is damned near dead on in its temperature prediction.

The greenhouse theory only predicts the temperature here because it is an ad hoc construct designed to do just that and requires constant tweaking just to keep up.

 

[SSDD]

one of the biggest problems in discussing thermodynamics is that electromagnetic radiation flows in both directions at once, entirely bypassing each other unless some bit of matter is present. two water hoses counteract each other, electrons only flow through a wire in the net strongest direction (usually, there is room for quantum weirdness) but photons are created and speed away until they are absorbed, reflected or refracted by matter.

You are making a lot of unproven assumptions there Ian. Can you prove that electrons flow in two directions along a wire with the net being in the strongest direction? Can you prove that radiation flows in both directions at once, and can you prove the existence of photons?

I am talking actual proof, not a questionable mathematical model or computer simulation...actual proof. If you can't, and we both know neither you, nor anyone else can prove those things, why do you talk about them as if they were facts rather than assumptions?

 

[polarbear]

its still just a though experiment Bernie.

it doesnt matter how long it takes to charge the heat sink of the second plate. we wait until it comes to equilibrium. if you want to ***** about things, ***** about the right ones.

the illustration is massively simplified, that is the point of thought experiments. the heated plate will have an energy flow gradient between the side facing out and the side facing the other plate. the unheated plate will have an even larger temperature gradient across it between the side heated from the first plate and the side facing the cool wall. so what? as always the first and second laws will find the most efficient way to distribute the energy from the heater so that conduction and radiation will dissipate the energy. the emissivity of the materials that make up the plates and the wall may make some difference to the equilibrium points but the basic statements are undeniable. the original internally heated plate will have one equilibrium temperature when it radiates directly into the cold container. input equals output.

when the second plate is put next to it, the energy flow will change as the second plate becomes warmer and affects the k(T1^4 - T2^4) relationship. at some point the second plate will reach equilibrium where the absorbed radiation is balanced by the loss to the cooled wall. at that time the first plate will also be at equilibrium but at a higher temperature than originally. energy in equals energy out.

months ago I actually put in the temps and the numbers worked out very well, except the second plate was considerably colder on the side which faces the wall, which we would expect because it is externally heated and the material would slow the energy flow.

you can moan all you want about there not being exact numbers but the thought experiment is about first principles. your putting a time limit on the time to reach equilibrium is just as stupid as wirebender saying that both plates would be the same temperature at equilibrium even though one is heated and the other is not.

I`m glad You stepped up and want to begin thinking outside the Virginia brain box. But drop the rhetoric "bitching", "moaning" that a typical Virginia resorts to when the scam is exposed.
Have you ever given it any thought how much damage Spencer`s phony "science" propaganda, this "thought experiment" has caused and continues to do so..????
It has been as damaging to the economy in some countries if not more than this kind of pyramid scheme accounting:

that winds up with 11 fingers at the bottom line....in case my "gif" does not show up animated...You count from finger #10 backwards till at finger #6 all Fingers on one hand have been assigned a number and then add the 5 Fingers from the other hand.

If You really want to start discussing the real world physics which are involved outside Spencer`s or Virginia`s vacuum brain box, then do it with all the chess pieces that come into play...
1.) How much energy has been stripped from the incoming sunlight by upper atmosphere CO2 compared to the energy a 30 -35 % albedo body can actually produce at that wavelength
2.) The REAL albedo
3.) How much more of the radiation is at an angle beyond which the % reflected radiation is way higher than the "average albedo" used by AGW after all the energy CO2 did absorbed is re-emitted in all possible directions as diffused light
4.) Refrain from "lawyering" an increased rate of warming out of a process that actually increased the rate of cooling
5.) Make a distinction between any instrument that measures IR by photometry,...as with a photomultiplier or a "LSD" (light sensitive diode) or any other device that registers radiation intensity and not the actual temperature at the locality where the instrument has been placed.

They can only be calibrated for the temperature of a body they are "looking at"....not tell you by how much the temperature of a colder object would increase with this radiation at the locality where You placed this optical sensor.

To get the temperature at the locality where you want to measure the ACTUAL temperature...as opposed to an apparent temperature the way an optical sensor would,... you have to use a direct temperature measuring device,...like a thermistor or a thermometer that actually converts absorbed radiation into the dimension that you want to report.
For that you need a mass that actually did absorb this radiation and caused an actual increase in temperature.

You can let yourself be irradiated all day long next door to a 150 kw radio wave transmitter measure the field strength where you are...but none of that energy is converted into "Hitze" raising the temperature. To do that you need a resonator like a resistor shunted coil that can absorb at that wavelength and convert ("wasting") it into "Hitze" (as heat) not just re-radiate almost all of it at the same wavelength at which it has been aborbed
I am forced to use that German word "Hitze", because the entire mis-understanding of Planck, Kirchhoff etc began when the original German text was translated into other languages that use the same word "heat" to describe 2 entirely different things...namely a measure of temperature and the other heat ENERGY , which is something entirely different.

6.) Don`t leave out how any "Hitze" that causes a temperature increase is expended as increased evaporation as long as there is any water present
...which then gives rise to huge skyward convection currents, where it is subject to the altitude "lapse rate".

7.) Don`t leave out that heated gasses want to expand, as as soon as they do the temperature drops.
(Carnot cycle)...

that applies not only to piston, jet or rocket engines:




but also to air masses.


That`s only a small part of the huge number of factors that are at play if you want to get serious about radiation effects and how they can impact on a mass , regardless at what wavelength if You want to express the impact as an actual temperature increase.

I also want to point out to you, that most of the people who really want to dig into physics prefer to study German and read Einstein`s, Planck`s etc original German text, because all these ambiguities that appear when any is translated into English don`t exist in German...a very precise and explicit language unlike English.
Look how easy it is to make a mistake..:
watts , watt S...just to point out a common one. It`s not quite that easy to make this mistake either in thought or writing in German.
So excuse my "bitching" when I see Spencer deliberately exploiting the same ambiguity that the English language affords to crooked lawyers and insurance companies that refuse to pay up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

are you arguing about the temperature of a single particle of matter? that makes no sense. temperature is the average of many molecules or atoms. some higher, some lower.

No. I thought that would have been implied by the term 'thermalized'.

as always, terminology gets in the way of many discussions. in climatology the term thermalization is often used to separate the two ways of losing energy by radiation. eg. CO2 has specific wavelengths it likes to absorb and emit. when an excited molecule collides with another molecule that energy gets added to the total and photon(s) are emitted that can be different from the normal spectra.

Different from normal spectra under what definition of normal spectra?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

For a physicist, you seem very uninformed. Refer to Nikolov and Zeller's unified theory of climate. Unlike the hypothesis you cling to which doesn't even come close to predicting the temperature of other bodies in the solar system with atmosphere's, N&Z's theory, when applied to every other body in the solar system with an atmosphere is damned near dead on in its temperature prediction.

The greenhouse theory only predicts the temperature here because it is an ad hoc construct designed to do just that and requires constant tweaking just to keep up.

I could read N&Z until I'm blue in the face - I still won't know what YOU meant when you said "CO2 is not causing warming beyond its contriubution to the total volume of the atmosphere". Only YOU can answer that. Or rather, it would appear, you cannot.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Can you prove that radiation flows in both directions at once

Take two flashlights. Turn them on. Shine one at another. There. Now you have radiation travelling two directions at once.

For fuckssake you're an expert on EVERYTHING so you should know these things.

, and can you prove the existence of photons?

You want proof of the particle nature of light?

Really?https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=particle+nature+of+light&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8