Let`s have a vote on back radiation

[SSDD]

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.

Obviously you don't understand N&Z's work.

 

[SSDD]

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

Are you sure you are a physicist? Do you really believe the two filaments are swapping photons? Can you prove it?

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

What has become apparent enough for me to know is that you spout a great many assumptions as if they are known facts.

, and can you prove the existence of photons?

You want proof of the particle nature of light?

There is no proof of the particle nature of light. The particle nature of light is, like the greenhouse effect, an ad hoc construct created specifically to explain something that, at the time, and perhaps today, has no other explanation.

Einstein himself was never really satisfied with the photon.

 

[polarbear]

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

Frustrating isn`t it? If You would quit the heckling then the discussion could actually return back to facts that matter. It would also help if you would not insist to log into a forum thread like this one with a username that sound like baby talk when the diaper needs changing...but hey ! freedom of choice is the underpinning of freedom in general.
And that freedom should also be applied for information...especially in the "main stream media", which refuses to report what the overwhelming majority of engineers and scientists who are not climatologists are saying about AGW.

I don`t think anyone said that radiation can`t propagate into 2 directions at once...but ever since Roy`s blogs and the press exposure he got there was more dis-information than information about radiation, photons, frequency specific quantum wave energy..not just on the internet but as I could observe while visiting ex-colleagues, this crap is now "taught" even in university lectures. I was told if a prof refuses he is off the "political correct" brownie points list and that carries real carrier risks. So if you are in fact a physicist in the making or a recent graduate I would not fault you for that.

After all, there is not much else in physics that can play tricks on even the brightest minds as the nature of light can. The best illusions are optical illusions and they won`t work in total darkness without light either.

One of these illusions is the one Roy is exploiting. Of course a colder object can radiate to a warmer object, but unless both are near perfect black bodies the radiation from the cooler object lacks the higher frequency quantum packets that it would take to increase the temperature of the hotter object that radiates way more of these higher energy photons per time because it is hotter .

Roy must know that ! So he creates an optical illusion with "back radiation" which is supposed to raise the temperature of the active (hotter) object with the few photons that were high enough in the spectrum + the already "hot" radiation from the active object "echo" that returned from the cooler passive object. Please don`t knit-pick my choice of words. We have the exact right words in German but in English I would have to use several sentences to accurately express how the process works.

Well that does not work like that with real light at any wavelength.
Let`s consider first if you could get any warmer than your heat source can heat you with only a portion of the IR being "echoed" back?...remember these were photons that came from your much hotter heat source to begin with. You can`t get any hotter with these than if you would have kept them to begin with, under some sort of perfect radiation blanket.
But photons are an energy from that can`t be stored like some other energy forms. So the hotter the active object the more energy it will radiate and the cooler the less. No matter which way you want to slice this onion, we call radiative energy transfer, it all comes down to the rate of cooling....not "back radiation" (echoes).
Okay then I had a rather low rate of cooling with my telescope "seeing" distant objects at ~ -4 C.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&feature=youtu.be"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]

IanC may actually have a point when he said the main object was my R40 window...because after all radiation does conform with the inverse square of the distance and the window was closer than all the even colder stuff outside.
But the fact still remains,...if I had a telescope like this:
http://i.space.com/images/i/13216/i02/vlt-laser-beam-1600.jpg?1320778679

and planted Spencer`s active object with a 1000 watt heater implant in the focal point of a mirror this size and pointed it into a black hole the rate of cooling would be as high as it could get with this setup.

Now if I swing this VLT and point it at one of the brightest IR stars like Betelgeuse my rate of cooling would be way less than what I had at the previous coordinates.

The reason being, is that Betelgeuse radiated enough photons of the wavelength that effected the rate of cooling and were captured by the large mirror.
"Back-radiation" had nothing to do with it, because my 1000 watt active radiation source would have to wait ~ 1280 years for the "back-radiation"....no matter how often Roy or Virginia said "Beetlejuice"

But while I`m waiting over a 1000 years for the "back-radiation" I would observe a variation of the rate of cooling while the telescope is pointed at Betelgeuse:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Light_curve_of_Betelgeuse.png

and if there were a way to have the active 1000 watt object perfectly insulated with a small enough aperture like an ideal black body cavity resonator where the light from Betelgeuse can enter with enough additional UV light from Betelgeuse I might even be bale to make the active object even hotter.

But then I also did use an additional energy source

In closing re-consider that a sphere like planet earth is as opposite as it can get from a black body that does conform to a Planck radiation frequency distribution profile..!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Obviously you don't understand N&Z's work.

Obviously you don't understand your own.

 

[polarbear]

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 got it backwards, energy out may at best be equals energy in if You want to stick with the same form of energy.


Example 1.) Transformer
The energy out at the secondary coil could only be at best be =energy in from the primary coil if you had a perfect super conductor which you could engineer into a transformer...and at the same time you would have prevent any of the magnetic field radiating anywhere else than into the core.


Example 2.) Longitudinal waves
You can superimpose 2 so that they cancel each other out COMPLETELY..
in that case the "energy out" and "energy in" are most certainly no longer equal

Example 3.) circularly polarized waves
And that`s the kind of EM waves we are discussing in this thread
First consider that as soon as light is scattered as it passes through the atmosphere at angles less than perpendicular it becomes polarized, the shallower the angle the more it gets polarized.
The "output" for fully polarized light is only 1/2 of the "input"
Understand, I`m not claiming that we get to "1/2 of the input" situation at any time of the day, but the radiation "input" is seriously reduced before and after the daily zenith and that happens already to a significant degree at any altitude where the overcast happens to be at a particular dew point situation. In that case even thin overcast or any situation where the sky does not look blue the Brewster effect "killed off" easily > 50% of the solar radiation that would otherwise reach the earth`s surface.
For most of the days out of each year we are nowhere near the situation "climate science" factors in as an "average".
And then only during the time slot when the sun is at zenith over the position what this "energy balance" hypothesis snapshot illustrates

In one of your replies You said:

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,

Let me see these numbers,..I don`t have the time to scour US Messageboard.com where You posted them.

If You decide to generate a new set of numbers, don`t worry I,m not going to "police" you if they are the same or not.

I just want to see if your "back radiation" energy stops at the first pass or if it keeps going, as such a feed back process would in the REAL WORLD.

Engineers are by far more aware how a feed back process works than any other scientists who`s problems are over after "thought experiments".

If there is the slightest gain, called a positive feed back, this is what happens:

I simulated that with the distance sensor IR LED on my camera...which plays the "passive" role. The LCD display of my laptop is the "active" emitter which completes the feed back loop.
As You can see this is what happens with a positive feedback.
The original rather dim red LED is already a large bright light after only 6 feedback loops.
This is exactly what would happen to us if the AGW hypothesis were a real world reality...we would all cook like poopie-doo`s hapless frog in the micro wave oven if CO2 could "tip" the "radiation energy balance" the way the IPCC claims it can.

This is how a normal feed back loop works in the real world, the world engineers work with:

There is no gain, as a matter of fact it`s what we call a "negative feed back",...when the feed back loop dampens the output using the input.
In that picture the first loop is the laptop screen front right...and after each loop the brightness and size diminishes...
The same factors which are at play when a real world active energy radiator irradiates a passive one (like Spencers cooler object)
Spencer says that the presence of a second cooler object will heat the active hot object even hotter...
Every engineer worth his salt can tell you it ain`t so...!!!
A cooler object will cool the hotter just like the infinite mirroring negative feedback would, which You see in the lower picture.

The positive feed back "IR catastrophe" which "climate science" uses for it`s scare mongering is simply not possible unless You inject the extra energy required for any positive feedback loop at any wavelength or with any sort of wave propagation,...even sound waves.
In the top, the positive feedback picture the extra energy came from the laptop batteries.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmIY90uCmw&feature=youtu.be"]LCD to Cam feedback - YouTube[/ame]


If you know your physics then you should also realize that the IPCC claims the same long since debunked UV catastrophe scenario, only now this nonsense is re-invented at the other end of the spectrum with IR instead of UV

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is no proof of the particle nature of light. The particle nature of light is, like the greenhouse effect, an ad hoc construct created specifically to explain something that, at the time, and perhaps today, has no other explanation.

If you can explain black body radiation without quantizing radiation myself and the rest of the physics world would love to hear about it. In fact you should publish ASAP.

Einstein himself was never really satisfied with the photon.

Einstein himself was never really satisfied with any of physics. Very few physicists are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It would also help if you would not insist to log into a forum thread like this one with a username that sound like baby talk when the diaper needs changing...but hey !

You're ignorant.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVySGO8Ak_Q]Ooh Poo Pah Doo (Part I & Part II) - Jessie Hill - YouTube[/ame]

[/quote]

I was told if a prof refuses he is off the "political correct" brownie points list and that carries real carrier risks.

You were told. OK. I was told you all full of bullshit.

Of course a colder object can radiate to a warmer object, but unless both are near perfect black bodies the radiation from the cooler object lacks the higher frequency quantum packets that it would take to increase the temperature of the hotter object that radiates way more of these higher energy photons per time because it is hotter .

You don't understand what's going on at all. The Earth's surface is heated by free streaming radiation from the sun. The equilibrium temperature of the Earth depends on how fast this radiation can be re-radiated back into space. The presence of an absorbing barrier impedes this effect by preventing some of the re-radiated light from becoming free streaming, raising the equilibrium temperature

If you threw a blanket over your body in cold weather, the blanket doesn't have to be warmer than your body to keep you warm, does it? Your body has its own heat source - the source of Earth's heat energy is the portion of the free streaming-radiative energy from the Sun which is thermalized upon impact with the surface.

You need to get your head out your ass.

 

[polarbear]

Ooh Poo Pah Doo (Part I & Part II) - Jessie Hill - YouTube




If you threw a blanket over your body in cold weather, the blanket doesn't have to be warmer than your body to keep you warm, does it? Your body has its own heat source - the source of Earth's heat energy is the portion of the free streaming-radiative energy from the Sun which is thermalized upon impact with the surface.

You need to get your head out your ass.

The loudmouth heckler who claims he is a physicist appeared again

just in time to change the subject from what the difference between an imaginary positive CO2 IR feedback loops is and how it really works

to a string of insults and a seedy bar room cacophony CD.
Then he ends with the same idiotic Spencer heat blanket "insulation effect" explanation to make a case for positive feedback that is supposed to be able to raise an existing energy level without any extra energy.
The same Spencer heat blanket "effect" that sacked the dazzled Virginia when it`s there during a cold night but can`t be there when the sun is out and would keep her from baking like your micro wave oven frog.
Even the dumbest know that insulation reduces heat CONDUCTION loss and that an object that totally blocks all light has nothing to do with CO2 that is transparent at all other wavelength expect the few & very narrow absorption bands. I gave you credit for some measure of intelligence which was clearly premature.
Not even IanC`s insistence that time is not a factor when determining how much energy could possibly come from a power source,...and that a feedback loop ends after only 1 cycle, is as not dumb as what you keep pooping all day long every day of the week into almost every US message board thread that does not fit into your childish world view....

Go shit on a police car or something,

just don`t try do that to my car...it`ll be the last thing you ever did.

 

[polarbear]

but at a higher temperature than originally. [/COLOR]
energy in equals energy out.

months ago I actually put in the temps and the numbers worked out very well,

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 still waiting.
Graph it !...there are lots of easy to use online plotters
So use the numbers you had since months where q ( the watts/m^2) the heat transfer rate is : f(x) = Area * k *((T1) ^4 - (T2)^4) till T1-T2 =0...that`s when both are at an equilibrium and show me then how that happens at a higher temperature than where T1 was at the beginning...!!!

Why even bother using the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant k, because you don`t have any idea whatsoever what the surface area of Spencer`s plates were...unless you are his daughter Virginia and he told you, but nobody else.
I do demand you also tell me what these plates were made from.
Unless both are perfect black bodies with an emissivity of 1.0 or you specify a material and the right (e) you have no business at all using this equation..!!!
Name a material where the emissivity stays the same as the temperature varies !
Don`t even dream, that CO2 or the dirt in your yard or the ocean surface that covers 7/10 of the earth could be such a material !

I guess that`s what non engineers and armchair scientists call "moaning for details" when it comes down to the not so minor details.

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.

This is what happens if Roy`s heater is a real electric heater...no heater can put out more heat above the maximum because the increased resistance of the heating element chokes off the current at a constant Voltage.
Neither Roy nor you can wrap your head around it...so who was the stupid one, Wirebender or You ?

Guess what without any EXTRA heat as in "sorry no can do" when the Volts across Roy`s electric heater stay constant both plates stabilize at an equilibrium that is not any warmer than what T1 was before the colder passive plate was inserted.
The only thing wrong with the "Wirebender" function is that he nor anyone else could possibly guess the surface area nor the mass and the material used in this bastardization of science that uses terms like "eventually"...else it would be no problem to show exactly at what temp the colder passive plate would stabilize.
Engineers have to solve for that all the time. What do you think would happen to an engineer that designs cars where the upper exhaust pipe manifold is too close to the floorboard which is lined inside with flammable floor covering...?...
Do you think he figures that out with a "thought experiment" or builds "trial cars" to see if they catch fire ?

How would you even begin to convert power to an energy level if You leave out the time, the mass, the area and the temperature emissivity ?
"eventually it reaches an equilibrium..."...what kind of "science" is that ?
Energy flows take the easiest and shortest paths to get from a higher to a lower energy state...
they don`t just any route which "eventually" gets them there.
Why don`t you stick a fork into one of your hydro sockets if you have some trouble understanding that

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Even the dumbest know that insulation reduces heat CONDUCTION loss and that an object that totally blocks all light has nothing to do with CO2 that is transparent at all other wavelength expect the few & very narrow absorption bands. I gave you credit for some measure of intelligence which was clearly premature.

Actually blankets do not block out all radiation.


The CO2 works exactly like a blanket in the bands in which it absorbs.

Take your medication.

 

[polarbear]

Even the dumbest know that insulation reduces heat CONDUCTION loss and that an object that totally blocks all light has nothing to do with CO2 that is transparent at all other wavelength expect the few & very narrow absorption bands. I gave you credit for some measure of intelligence which was clearly premature.

Actually blankets do not block out all radiation.


The CO2 works exactly like a blanket in the bands in which it absorbs.

Take your medication.

No thanks I don`t smoke "medical marihuana". Reading what you just wrote in here they must have stopped prosecuting all the dope smoking crack heads already.

Actually blankets do not block out all radiation.

So what...how much radiation is that ?
Even the cheapest heat blanket they sell today at any Walmart can hide you from all but the very best night vision sensors as those in the latest Apache attack helicopter nose cone.
Comparing the few narrow bands where CO2 absorbs to the blanket that leaks all that radiation you just complained about is about as dumb as seeking shelter in a downpour under 3 hydro wires....and you just made both statements back to back.
I was playing with the thought to make the mouse clicks which are necessary to put you on my ignore list...but it`s just too funny to read the other stuff between all these insults.
Actually I came here not because of you, but I was wondering when IanC publishes his graph...tomorrow I`m off for the holidays...
Anyhow this is for you Ian:

Now I understand why they place the exhaust manifold so close to the "back-radiating" engine block, so they can make each other hotter with
the extra back radiation heat energy and melt the rubber caps on the spark plugs.

That manifold gets as hot as the exhaust gas once you step on the gas.
Exactly how hot, that`s measured all the time by the ECM under your dashboard...and the guy that wrote the software which is
on the ECM EPROM knows the exact values for each power setting...else the ECM responses , for 8 spark plug HV dwelling times, 8 injectors
for each revolution 15 times per per second would be all fucked up before you even get to step on the gas pedal..

Show me a manifold that`s not as hot as the exhaust already at 1/4 throttle under a moderate load..
unless you cool it with forced air...like the old WW2 VW interior heater
blowers did...till a few people got Carbon monoxide poisoning when the manifold had a leak.

Just take off the manifold on a pre-computer V8 , start the engine, have somebody step on the gas and watch
out, else you get torched to a crisp by at least 4 of the 8 flamethrowers if you are too close...

After that if you still think think that a few Spencer back radiation photons can make that manifold hotter than the exhaust
then you must be living in the same State where Poophead lives and the D.A. already quit prosecuting people that smoke dope.

If not and you are still convinced Roy`s back radiation positive feedback (energy gain) can make the manifold hotter than the exhaus gas can make it...
Go ahead and patent it...because if that works why should it stop at the manifold...a hotter manifold can make the hot exhaust gas even hotter yet...
isn`t that the same thing as what you have already claculated months ago ?
Now I know why these numbers are a secret, just like Roy`s secret details, it`s still in the patent pending stage ...wink wink...

Because you and Roy realized that instead of blowing the even hotter gas out the tailpipe you can run it through as many Stirling engines as you want and behind each Stirling engine you install a Spencer cold plate "fuel reactor" to reheat the exhaust...
All that`s left to do and perfect the perpetual motion car, is to run it on hydrogen, ...there should be lots of power to spare to make it by electrolysis from a bit of water...which you replenish of course from the exhaust condensate...because that condenser gives you additional latent heat when steam condenses to water and with that heat you can even run some more Stirling engines.
The only problem you would have to worry about is how to control a beast like that, which increases the power with so many Spencer positive feed back loops so it does not go super nova.
Is that the delay, or is the prototype that the patent office wants to see not quite finished yet, before this sensational piece of engineering is rolled out of the Area 51 gate ?
No wonder people have been seeing strange lights coming out of there,...they leaked out from a top secret Spencer positive feed back photon reactor



Does it make a cool science fiction sound like that in positive feed back mode...? All the "Star Treckies" will buy it just for that reason...you can`t miss...just watch out for Obama`s tax the rich plan..Would you or Roy be interested in a large chunk of ice way out in the Lincoln sea in international territory for a air head office headquarters?

 

[IanC]

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.

that is funny! N&Z cook up a formula that uses a handful of data points and just about as many tweakable variables and you are complaining about ad hoc hypotheses. not that I am supporting AGW and CO2 as the control knob of climate, I am just laughing at your complete approval of an alternate theory just because you want it to be true.

 

[IanC]

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?

I am agreeing with you that electrons flow in one direction but leaving room for strange quantum exceptions, because there always seems to be strange quantum exceptions.

the thing is.....electrons are matter, and they dont flow through each other like photons do. a photon, one emitted, proceeds at the same frequency and in a straight line until it interacts with a particle of matter. with the usual caveats about gravity and expansion of space which are moot when dealing with low energy, short distance conditions on earth. photons pass right through each other with no exchange of energy.

if you dont believe in photons, why dont you disprove them? rather than expect others to prove that a basic building block of the universe actually exists? hahahahaha, you are looney.

 

[IanC]

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?

atmospheric vs strictly CO2

 

[IanC]

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:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY308O42Ur4]V- 1 Flying Bomb - Fieseler Fi 103 (Vergeltungswaffe) - YouTube[/ame]

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.

why are you asking me to defend factors not in play in the specific case of Spencer's experiment?

are you saying that you believe that CO2 has absolutely no effect what so ever on the radiative transfer of energy in the atmosphere? that CO2 does not interact in any form? or are you stating that you dont believe that CO2 has any meaningful influence upon the climate? those are very different questions. just because known mechanisms exist where CO2 interacts with the atmosphere and hence the climate, that does not mean that the CAGW warmists are correct in saying that CO2 is the control knob. I personally believe that CO2 has some small effect that is reduced by negative feedbacks but I would not deny any effect what so ever because there is a known mechanism, known spectral lines, known increases.

you make yourself look like a kook if you insist that CO2 is not even a factor to be discussed.

I honestly dont know why you have such a hatred for Spencer. he has done more to debunk climate models and show that the feedbacks are negative than just about anybody else. have you actually read anything he has to say about climate? unlike you, Spencer has a voice that has to be listened to by 'the consensus', and he uses it to promote skeptical issues and to debunk CAGW (non)science. if you are waiting for SSDD's N&Z to overturn public opinion then you are as crazy as they are.

your points 1-7 are red herrings. I have never said there were no other factors involved, I have repeatedly said that there are! I find it dishonest of you and insulting to me that you present these things as if it were a rebuttal to anything I have actually said. quote my actual words the next time you feel the need to accuse me, or to lecture me.

 

[IanC]

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

.....
I don`t think anyone said that radiation can`t propagate into 2 directions at once...but ever since Roy`s blogs and the press exposure he got there was more dis-information than information about radiation, photons, frequency specific quantum wave energy..not just on the internet but as I could observe while visiting ex-colleagues, this crap is now "taught" even in university lectures. I was told if a prof refuses he is off the "political correct" brownie points list and that carries real carrier risks. So if you are in fact a physicist in the making or a recent graduate I would not fault you for that.

.....
One of these illusions is the one Roy is exploiting. Of course a colder object can radiate to a warmer object, but unless both are near perfect black bodies the radiation from the cooler object lacks the higher frequency quantum packets that it would take to increase the temperature of the hotter object that radiates way more of these higher energy photons per time because it is hotter .

Roy must know that ! So he creates an optical illusion with "back radiation" which is supposed to raise the temperature of the active (hotter) object with the few photons that were high enough in the spectrum + the already "hot" radiation from the active object "echo" that returned from the cooler passive object. Please don`t knit-pick my choice of words. We have the exact right words in German but in English I would have to use several sentences to accurately express how the process works.

.....

wirebender before, and SSDD presently have denied that a cooler object can radiate towards a warmer object. wirebender said it was 'EM fields' cancelling out and SSDD says it is the second law but the mechanism is unknown.

one of the more interesting papers I quoted to wirebender involved a new type of incandescent light bulb that had the filament encased in a carbon fibre grid that stopped the escape of longwave radiation. it emitted a much higher percentage of visible light and need less energy to achieve the neccessary temperature. you were there, you must have read it.

that segues into Spencer's thought experiment because you keep implying that the heater inbedded in the first plate is at maximum heat at 150F outside plate temperature, or perhaps that the plate inself is the heater. while it was not explicitely stated, Spencer implied that both the heater and chiller were electrically based entities that both added and then removed energy

Imagine a heated plate in a cooled vacuum chamber

with electrical wires connected to both in the illustration

why is this distinction important? because a thought experiment is supposed to give us relevent insight into some problem. if we just had a heating element then the surface area would be too small to be significantly affected by the radiation from a second object (one of the reasons flashlight filaments dont get brighter when external light is shone at them). if the whole first plate was the heater then you would presumably run afoul of small temperature changes changing the resistance. we want to analyze the changes in equilibrium and radiation between different objects so we must have conditions that facilitate the scale so that it is observable.

why would my special incandescent light bulb not work? because the design changes the emitted radiation by reducing IR and therefore changing the shape ofthe Planck curve and deviating from a near blackbody. likewise a mercury vapour light would also not be applicable, even though I think you, polarbear, posted a truncated planck curve of a mercury or flourescent the last time this was discussed. if it wasnt you then I apologize.

again, I hate to keep harping on planck curves but they show that any two blackbody objects of even remotely similar temperatures produce the same wavelengths of radiation, just in different quantities. there is no difference between an IR photon from a 10C source or a 100C source. if a body can emit it, then that same body can absorb it.

 

[polarbear]

wirebender before, and SSDD presently have denied that a cooler object can radiate towards a warmer object. wirebender said it was 'EM fields' cancelling out and SSDD says it is the second law but the mechanism is unknown.
that segues into Spencer's thought experiment ....the heater inbedded in the first plate......

with electrical wires connected to both in the illustration

why is this distinction important? because a thought experiment is supposed to give us relevent insight into some problem. i

there is no difference between an IR photon from a 10C source or a 100C source. if a body can emit it, then that same body can absorb it.

Okay I`m up already, it`s past 0600 and we are getting ready to leave for the holidays...I cant stay here and wait for your k*( (T1)^4 - (T2)^4) number set any longer where You said You showed that Spencer is right.

He is not right, he is wrong, you are wrong, SSD is right, I don`t know what wirebender wrote about this radiation "cancelling" stuff

How often do I have to point out that there is a huge difference if the Stefan Boltzmann law is applied to a radiating body that has a constant heat supply from another radiating body,....the sun..
And then apply the same equation as if an internal to boot electric heater is the heat source which supplies heat via heat CONDUCTION.

Once you do that you have no business to proceed the way Roy does invoking the Stefan-Bolzmann law or Max Planck`s.
But hey, I`m not stingy and "moaning over minor details" I`ll let Roy & you get away with that little cheat..
But I can`t let you, all the other Virginias and Roy get away from using the Stefan Boltzmann equation the wrong way around.
q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac

It is complete nonsense to apply the Stefan Boltzmann law without regard in which direction the net energy flux is oriented.
Q yields only a positive value for the energy flux from a hotter object to colder surrounding.
It does not matter if the surrounding is warm but not warmer than the warmer object the flux direction will remain at a positive Q value from hotter to cooler.
Any attempt to apply the Stefan Boltzmann law in an attempt to show that there is a positive flux direction from cooler to hotter is a gross violation of this law
if it is applied without regard which of the 2 T`s inside the Temperature Brackets represents the body that is the active radiator (T1) and which T represents the passive receiver (T2).
The only valid way to apply this law is to adhere to this law and place what is now supposed to be the active radiator in front of the - sign and what is also now supposed to be the passive receiver which is at a higher temperature behind the - sign to obtain the proper heat radiation flux rate and direction.

So don`t smart mouth me as You did when You asked if I have a problem with "directionality"


Placing the assigned T^4 values where they belong yields a negative Q value and none of the thermodynamic laws have been violated as they are by all those who apply the Stefan Boltzmann law when they switch the role of the cooler, the passive receiver to the role of the active radiator without switching the T^4 value they assigned to cooler radiator to the proper side of the minus sign
inside the bracket.
There is no way heat flows from cold to hot, not by conduction, radiation or any other way.
The only way a cooler body can affect the rate of radiative energy transfer is to drop the magnitude of Q which is the rate at which Q looses heat, the rate at which it can cool off. I told you over and over and even demonstrated it to you in a video

At best it can make Q=0 when both are at the same temperature and only so if the body that is supposed to have a Q of zero is completely surrounded by another body, which is being kept at the same temperature by an external energy source that makes up for the heat which the SURROUNDING body, the insulator looses on the OUTSIDE.
"Climatology" however has it the other way around. They try tell you that they conform to the Stefan Boltzmann law, while they use it the wrong way around and at the same time maintain the wrong "thought experiment body", the surrounded body with a constant heat source the sun just like Spencer`s internal heater .


But as you keep saying, when an engineer "moans over details"... it does not matter it`s just a "simple thought experiment".....to which I reply, taking the liberty to extend this statement with: .... that "climate science" is based on.

Now I`ve got to get going...
Happy Holidays
have a merry Christmas & a happy new year


I`m still waiting for the last passenger to arrive for our holiday trip so I hav the time to add this question..:
How on earth can You possibly get a positive feed back with a negative Q energy transfer rate

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Even the dumbest know that insulation reduces heat CONDUCTION loss and that an object that totally blocks all light has nothing to do with CO2 that is transparent at all other wavelength expect the few & very narrow absorption bands. I gave you credit for some measure of intelligence which was clearly premature.

Actually blankets do not block out all radiation.


The CO2 works exactly like a blanket in the bands in which it absorbs.

Take your medication.

No thanks I don`t smoke "medical marihuana". Reading what you just wrote in here they must have stopped prosecuting all the dope smoking crack heads already.

Actually blankets do not block out all radiation.

So what...how much radiation is that ?
Even the cheapest heat blanket they sell today at any Walmart can hide you from all but the very best night vision sensors as those in the latest Apache attack helicopter nose cone.

It would be transparent to X-ray and gamma-ray radiation, and probably microwave and radio bands as well.

Now I understand why they place the exhaust manifold so close to the "back-radiating" engine block, so they can make each other hotter with
the extra back radiation heat energy and melt the rubber caps on the spark plugs.

The exhaust manifold is made of metal. Its not a good blanket.

After that if you still think think that a few Spencer back radiation photons can make that manifold hotter than the exhaust

There's no such thing as a "Spencer back radiation photon". They just regular photons. If you don't understand basic absorption and emission then there's nothing I can teach you. Hell you don't even understand how a ******* blanket works.


Do you know how those shiny emergency blankets work? In your words, they work by "Spencer back radiation photons" ! They DON'T have to be warmer than your body, either.

 

[IanC]

wirebender before, and SSDD presently have denied that a cooler object can radiate towards a warmer object. wirebender said it was 'EM fields' cancelling out and SSDD says it is the second law but the mechanism is unknown.
that segues into Spencer's thought experiment ....the heater inbedded in the first plate......

with electrical wires connected to both in the illustration

why is this distinction important? because a thought experiment is supposed to give us relevent insight into some problem. i

there is no difference between an IR photon from a 10C source or a 100C source. if a body can emit it, then that same body can absorb it.

Okay I`m up already, it`s past 0600 and we are getting ready to leave for the holidays...I cant stay here and wait for your k*( (T1)^4 - (T2)^4) number set any longer where You said You showed that Spencer is right.

He is not right, he is wrong, you are wrong, SSD is right, I don`t know what wirebender wrote about this radiation "cancelling" stuff

How often do I have to point out that there is a huge difference if the Stefan Boltzmann law is applied to a radiating body that has a constant heat supply from another radiating body,....the sun..
And then apply the same equation as if an internal to boot electric heater is the heat source which supplies heat via heat CONDUCTION.

Once you do that you have no business to proceed the way Roy does invoking the Stefan-Bolzmann law or Max Planck`s.
But hey, I`m not stingy and "moaning over minor details" I`ll let Roy & you get away with that little cheat..
But I can`t let you, all the other Virginias and Roy get away from using the Stefan Boltzmann equation the wrong way around.
q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac

It is complete nonsense to apply the Stefan Boltzmann law without regard in which direction the net energy flux is oriented.
Q yields only a positive value for the energy flux from a hotter object to colder surrounding.
It does not matter if the surrounding is warm but not warmer than the warmer object the flux direction will remain at a positive Q value from hotter to cooler.
Any attempt to apply the Stefan Boltzmann law in an attempt to show that there is a positive flux direction from cooler to hotter is a gross violation of this law
if it is applied without regard which of the 2 T`s inside the Temperature Brackets represents the body that is the active radiator (T1) and which T represents the passive receiver (T2).
The only valid way to apply this law is to adhere to this law and place what is now supposed to be the active radiator in front of the - sign and what is also now supposed to be the passive receiver which is at a higher temperature behind the - sign to obtain the proper heat radiation flux rate and direction.

So don`t smart mouth me as You did when You asked if I have a problem with "directionality"


Placing the assigned T^4 values where they belong yields a negative Q value and none of the thermodynamic laws have been violated as they are by all those who apply the Stefan Boltzmann law when they switch the role of the cooler, the passive receiver to the role of the active radiator without switching the T^4 value they assigned to cooler radiator to the proper side of the minus sign
inside the bracket.
There is no way heat flows from cold to hot, not by conduction, radiation or any other way.
The only way a cooler body can affect the rate of radiative energy transfer is to drop the magnitude of Q which is the rate at which Q looses heat, the rate at which it can cool off. I told you over and over and even demonstrated it to you in a video

At best it can make Q=0 when both are at the same temperature and only so if the body that is supposed to have a Q of zero is completely surrounded by another body, which is being kept at the same temperature by an external energy source that makes up for the heat which the SURROUNDING body, the insulator looses on the OUTSIDE.
"Climatology" however has it the other way around. They try tell you that they conform to the Stefan Boltzmann law, while they use it the wrong way around and at the same time maintain the wrong "thought experiment body", the surrounded body with a constant heat source the sun just like Spencer`s internal heater .


But as you keep saying, when an engineer "moans over details"... it does not matter it`s just a "simple thought experiment".....to which I reply, taking the liberty to extend this statement with: .... that "climate science" is based on.

Now I`ve got to get going...
Happy Holidays
have a merry Christmas & a happy new year

it make no difference which T^4 is first in the equation. if it results in a negative number then the net radiation is simply in the other direction.

wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.


edit- I see you have accused me of saying heat flows from cold to warm, yet again. care to dig up the quote? of course not, it is easier just to make an unsubstantiated strawman to knock down. I have never said heat flows against the temperature gradient and you know it.

 

[SSDD]

wirebender said it was 'corrupt' to multiply each T^4 by the constant before subtracting one from the other as well. both you and wirebender are wrong mathematically.

I am not sure what the root of this particular point is, but if you are referencing the SB equation it would be wrong mathematically to apply the constant to each T4. Not only wrong mathematically, but just plain bad math. What sort of math requires that you unnecessarily complicate an equation by applying the distributive property when that application is not necessary? Isn't the goal to get the equation down to its most elegant form? If so, applying the distruibutive property is completely unnecessary and just wrong.