No Evidence

[jc456]

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

me too. got one?

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee? hmmmm

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee?

BTW, the hotter coffee emits more, so it cools and the ice warms.
Even as they both emit, both absorb.

What’s the coffee absorbing? You said it doesn’t get warmer.

 

[jc456]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. Warms the surface to almost two times that of the sun's incoming radiation. And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

me too. got one?

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee? hmmmm

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee?

BTW, the hotter coffee emits more, so it cools and the ice warms.
Even as they both emit, both absorb.

What’s the coffee absorbing? You said it doesn’t get warmer.

What’s the coffee absorbing?

Radiation that hits it.

You said it doesn’t get warmer.

Because it emits more at the ice than it absorbs from the ice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. Warms the surface to almost two times that of the sun's incoming radiation. And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

Of course not. Net power is from the coffee to the ice.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

No one believes you're on the right side of the bell curve.

 

[jc456]

me too. got one?

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee? hmmmm

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee?

BTW, the hotter coffee emits more, so it cools and the ice warms.
Even as they both emit, both absorb.

What’s the coffee absorbing? You said it doesn’t get warmer.

What’s the coffee absorbing?

Radiation that hits it.

You said it doesn’t get warmer.

Because it emits more at the ice than it absorbs from the ice.

So if it is absorbing the ice radiation, then it should slow it's rate of cooling, and it doesn't.

 

[jc456]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. Warms the surface to almost two times that of the sun's incoming radiation. And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

Of course not. Net power is from the coffee to the ice.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

No one believes you're on the right side of the bell curve.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

Sure you all do, you call it back radiation. Something that you can't prove.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee? hmmmm

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee?

BTW, the hotter coffee emits more, so it cools and the ice warms.
Even as they both emit, both absorb.

What’s the coffee absorbing? You said it doesn’t get warmer.

What’s the coffee absorbing?

Radiation that hits it.

You said it doesn’t get warmer.

Because it emits more at the ice than it absorbs from the ice.

So if it is absorbing the ice radiation, then it should slow it's rate of cooling, and it doesn't.

So if it is absorbing the ice radiation, then it should slow it's rate of cooling

The coffee cools more slowly exchanging radiation with the ice than it would exchanging radiation with the vacuum of space.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. Warms the surface to almost two times that of the sun's incoming radiation. And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

Of course not. Net power is from the coffee to the ice.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

No one believes you're on the right side of the bell curve.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

Sure you all do, you call it back radiation. Something that you can't prove.

Sure you all do

No one does.

you call it back radiation

The atmosphere radiates in all directions, even toward the warmer ground.

Something that you can't prove.

I can't prove the atmosphere radiates? LOL!

 

[jc456]

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee? hmmmm

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee?

BTW, the hotter coffee emits more, so it cools and the ice warms.
Even as they both emit, both absorb.

What’s the coffee absorbing? You said it doesn’t get warmer.

What’s the coffee absorbing?

Radiation that hits it.

You said it doesn’t get warmer.

Because it emits more at the ice than it absorbs from the ice.

So if it is absorbing the ice radiation, then it should slow it's rate of cooling, and it doesn't.

So if it is absorbing the ice radiation, then it should slow it's rate of cooling

The coffee cools more slowly exchanging radiation with the ice than it would exchanging radiation with the vacuum of space.

well than good thing I'm not in the vacuum of space, I'd never drink hot coffee. good thing we have an atmosphere of water molecules to hold in the heat.

 

[jc456]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. Warms the surface to almost two times that of the sun's incoming radiation. And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

Of course not. Net power is from the coffee to the ice.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

No one believes you're on the right side of the bell curve.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

Sure you all do, you call it back radiation. Something that you can't prove.

Sure you all do

No one does.

you call it back radiation

The atmosphere radiates in all directions, even toward the warmer ground.

Something that you can't prove.

I can't prove the atmosphere radiates? LOL!

to the surface? nope.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. Warms the surface to almost two times that of the sun's incoming radiation. And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

Of course not. Net power is from the coffee to the ice.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

No one believes you're on the right side of the bell curve.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

Sure you all do, you call it back radiation. Something that you can't prove.

Sure you all do

No one does.

you call it back radiation

The atmosphere radiates in all directions, even toward the warmer ground.

Something that you can't prove.

I can't prove the atmosphere radiates? LOL!

to the surface? nope.

Link?

 

[jc456]

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface. Warms the surface to almost two times that of the sun's incoming radiation. And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

Of course not. Net power is from the coffee to the ice.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

No one believes you're on the right side of the bell curve.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

Sure you all do, you call it back radiation. Something that you can't prove.

Sure you all do

No one does.

you call it back radiation

The atmosphere radiates in all directions, even toward the warmer ground.

Something that you can't prove.

I can't prove the atmosphere radiates? LOL!

to the surface? nope.

Link?

again, what I've been looking for from you all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so sure, let's go there, so will the ice warm the coffee? Nope.

Of course not. Net power is from the coffee to the ice.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

And you think I'm on the right side of the stupid IQ meter.

No one believes you're on the right side of the bell curve.

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

Sure you all do, you call it back radiation. Something that you can't prove.

Sure you all do

No one does.

you call it back radiation

The atmosphere radiates in all directions, even toward the warmer ground.

Something that you can't prove.

I can't prove the atmosphere radiates? LOL!

to the surface? nope.

Link?

again, what I've been looking for from you all.

I told you, several times, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

Apparently neither do you.

 

[jc456]

And yet you believe the colder atmosphere warms the hot surface.

No one believes that.

Sure you all do, you call it back radiation. Something that you can't prove.

Sure you all do

No one does.

you call it back radiation

The atmosphere radiates in all directions, even toward the warmer ground.

Something that you can't prove.

I can't prove the atmosphere radiates? LOL!

to the surface? nope.

Link?

again, what I've been looking for from you all.

I told you, several times, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

Apparently neither do you.

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim. and you admit you can't prove it. great!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure you all do

No one does.

you call it back radiation

The atmosphere radiates in all directions, even toward the warmer ground.

Something that you can't prove.

I can't prove the atmosphere radiates? LOL!

to the surface? nope.

Link?

again, what I've been looking for from you all.

I told you, several times, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

Apparently neither do you.

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim. and you admit you can't prove it. great!!

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim.

All matter above 0K radiates in all directions.
You're claiming it only radiates toward space?

 

[jc456]

to the surface? nope.

Link?

again, what I've been looking for from you all.

I told you, several times, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

Apparently neither do you.

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim. and you admit you can't prove it. great!!

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim.

All matter above 0K radiates in all directions.
You're claiming it only radiates toward space?

can you prove it radiates to the surface? you said you can't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Link?

again, what I've been looking for from you all.

I told you, several times, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

Apparently neither do you.

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim. and you admit you can't prove it. great!!

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim.

All matter above 0K radiates in all directions.
You're claiming it only radiates toward space?

can you prove it radiates to the surface? you said you can't.

can you prove it radiates to the surface?

Yes.

you said you can't.

I said I couldn't prove your erroneous claims. Neither can you.

 

[jc456]

again, what I've been looking for from you all.

I told you, several times, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

Apparently neither do you.

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim. and you admit you can't prove it. great!!

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim.

All matter above 0K radiates in all directions.
You're claiming it only radiates toward space?

can you prove it radiates to the surface? you said you can't.

can you prove it radiates to the surface?

Yes.

you said you can't.

I said I couldn't prove your erroneous claims. Neither can you.

Prove it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I told you, several times, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

Apparently neither do you.

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim. and you admit you can't prove it. great!!

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim.

All matter above 0K radiates in all directions.
You're claiming it only radiates toward space?

can you prove it radiates to the surface? you said you can't.

can you prove it radiates to the surface?

Yes.

you said you can't.

I said I couldn't prove your erroneous claims. Neither can you.

Prove it

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

 

[jc456]

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim. and you admit you can't prove it. great!!

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim.

All matter above 0K radiates in all directions.
You're claiming it only radiates toward space?

can you prove it radiates to the surface? you said you can't.

can you prove it radiates to the surface?

Yes.

you said you can't.

I said I couldn't prove your erroneous claims. Neither can you.

Prove it

View attachment 233394

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't.