Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

Then you should read this entire thread ... point a flashlight at the Sun, does the flashlight still produce light? ... the answer is "yes" ...

Irradiation is proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power ... point the flashlight at a black wall ... we have to raise the light power output of the flashlight A LOT to raise temperatures just a little ... and 1ºC is tiny ...

Yes, and it would also produce light if pointed away from the sun. How exactly is that relevant to the radiative forcing phenomenon of GHG's?

 

[ding]

As opposed to matter only radiating towards warmer matter?

Where did I say only?

Where did you offer any other possibility? It's the point I made about the inaccuracy of Crick's statement but that must have flown over your head. He didn't describe the full picture and neither did you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where did you offer any other possibility? It's the point I made about the inaccuracy of Crick's statement but that must have flown over your head. He didn't describe the full picture and neither did you.

Where did you offer any other possibility?

You said warmer radiated toward cooler, I asked if cooler radiated toward warmer.

 

[ding]

Where did you offer any other possibility?

You said warmer radiated toward cooler, I asked if cooler radiated toward warmer.

This is boring AF.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes, and it would also produce light if pointed away from the sun. How exactly is that relevant to the radiative forcing phenomenon of GHG's?

I'm asking you ...

It's the first time I've heard anyone argue matter radiates IR toward warmer matter.

This is how the Webb Telescope is designed ... even at -225ºC, it's still warmer than the things it's observing ... with light ...

 

[ding]

I'm asking you ...



This is how the Webb Telescope is designed ... even at -225ºC, it's still warmer than the things it's observing ... with light ...

Still not seeing any connection to GHG.

 

[ReinyDays]

Still not seeing any connection to GHG.

I'm asking you ...

 

[ding]

I'm asking you ...

And I just told you.

 

[Crick]

Yes. The way you said that is asinine and wrong. An object that is warmer than its surroundings will radiate heat in all directions.

All matter always radiates in all directions and in a manner solely dependent on its own temperature. The temperature of its surroundings has absolutely NO impact on its radiation.

 

[jc456]

All matter always radiates in all directions.

does the radiation from a colder object make a warmer object warmer?

 

[Crick]

does the radiation from a colder object make a warmer object warmer?

Are you being rhetorical or extraordinarily ignorant?

 

[jc456]

Are you being rhetorical or extraordinarily ignorant?

I asked a question, why are you afraid to answer?

 

[ding]

All matter always radiates in all directions and in a manner solely dependent on its own temperature. The temperature of its surroundings has absolutely NO impact on its radiation.

The net effect certainly does matter what the surrounding temperature is. If an object at 20C is immersed in fluid that is 40C does the object at 20C still radiate heat into the 40C fluid?

But just to be clear, it doesn't only radiate to warmer objects as your wording implied.

 

[Crick]

The net effect certainly does matter what the surrounding temperature is. If an object at 20C is immersed in fluid that is 40C does the object at 20C still radiate heat into the 40C fluid?

But just to be clear, it doesn't only radiate to warmer objects as your wording implied.

I said this:

Is anyone here rejecting the greenhouse effect?

Is anyone here rejecting the SB equation?

Is anyone here arguing that matter will not radiate IR towards warmer matter?

Is anyone here rejecting the accepted spectra of incoming solar, outgoing longwave or the absorption spectra of CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

If no one answers any of those in the affirmative, I would suggest that the need for this sticky thread has passed and it could be unstuck and allowed to scroll away.

and this:

All matter always radiates in all directions and in a manner solely dependent on its own temperature. The temperature of its surroundings has absolutely NO impact on its radiation.

I did NOT state or imply that matter only radiates towards warmer objects. The list of questions in that first quote were all sourced from the mistaken poster beliefs that justified FlaCalTenn creating this sticky thread. It may be before your time, but there were a few posters here, primarily SSDD, who steadfastly argued that matter would NOT radiate towards warmer matter. Unless we've been confused by your non-answers, you seem to be advocating something similar. You were correct to note the net radiative transfer.

 

[jc456]

I did NOT state or imply that matter only radiates towards warmer objects. The list of questions in that first quote were all the mistaken beliefs that justified FlaCalTenn creating this sticky thread. It may be before your time, but there were a few posters here, primarily SSDD, who steadfastly argued that matter would NOT radiate towards warmer matter. Unless we've been confused by your non-answers, you seem to be advocating something similar.

all matter radiates, can the colder object warm the warmer object and you skipped the answer. why? Doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[ding]

I said this:



and this:



I did NOT state or imply that matter only radiates towards warmer objects. The list of questions in that first quote were all sourced from the mistaken poster beliefs that justified FlaCalTenn creating this sticky thread. It may be before your time, but there were a few posters here, primarily SSDD, who steadfastly argued that matter would NOT radiate towards warmer matter. Unless we've been confused by your non-answers, you seem to be advocating something similar. You were correct to note the net radiative transfer.

So glad you acknowledged that objects radiate heat in all directions. In the future please refrain from saying that in an ass backwards and confusing way.

 

[Crick]

So glad you acknowledged that objects radiate heat in all directions. In the future please refrain from saying that in an ass backwards and confusing way.

As far as I can tell, you're the only one that was confused.

The net effect certainly does matter what the surrounding temperature is. If an object at 20C is immersed in fluid that is 40C does the object at 20C still radiate heat into the 40C fluid?

But just to be clear, it doesn't only radiate to warmer objects as your wording implied.

The question is do you believe that the radiation of a piece of matter is affected by the temperature of adjacent matter? This question only concerns radiative transfer so let us keep conducton and convection out of this discussion for now.

 

[ding]

As far as I can tell, you're the only one that was confused.

The question is do you believe that the radiation of a piece of matter is affected by the temperature of adjacent matter? This question only concerns radiative transfer so let us keep conducton and convection out of this discussion for now.

I wasn't confused by your ass backwards way of saying heat radiates in all directions because I knew how you said it was incorrect.

 

[Crick]

I wasn't confused by your ass backwards way of saying heat radiates in all directions because I knew how you said it was incorrect.

Another Ding non-answer. And, I asked a question, I did not make a claim. So, another Ding lie.

 

[ding]

Another Ding non-answer. And, I asked a question, I did not make a claim. So, another Ding lie.

So you don't believe heat radiates in all directions is a more accurate way of saying it than saying heat radiates towards warmer objects like you originally claimed?