Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[jc456]

What was given was evidence that Ian can easily be fooled by instrumentation...pyrogeometers operate via a thermopile and a mathematical model based on a radiator emitting into a vacuum at 0 degrees K....they aren't measuring back radiation...

You wanted observed measured evidence. When you were given evidence you say people can be fooled by it. Go figure.

you never gave any evidence. That is just a lie.

 

[jc456]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

 

[jc456]

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

Based on what? There are no historical proxies that provide enough resolution for you to say that during this 50 or 100 year period we should be cooling...there is simply no basis for such a claim other than simple baseless belief.

Hence why it's my theory.

However, if there is natural global cooling along with man made global warming, what do you have?

People come on here and say things like "well we're not getting as hot as we should be, therefore there's no man made global warming", well, what if there's natural cooling going on with man made warming?

well the fact is that if back radiation were a real thing, the fact that less LWIR is in the atmosphere means there would be less to absorb and less to emit back to the surface which would mean no warming. But since there is no back radiation, the fact is the earth is cooling. It's why there was a pause. hmmmmmmm, even IPCC agreed with the little to no warming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

 

[IanC]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

Hahahaha

What is the difference between racism and reverse racism?


Bonus points for inserting political affiliation into the explanations of both back radiation and reverse racism.

Hahahaha

 

[SSDD]

What was given was evidence that Ian can easily be fooled by instrumentation...pyrogeometers operate via a thermopile and a mathematical model based on a radiator emitting into a vacuum at 0 degrees K....they aren't measuring back radiation...

You wanted observed measured evidence. When you were given evidence you say people can be fooled by it. Go figure.

All I was given evidence of was that people who want to believe can easily be fooled by instrumentation...Like I said, you guys have provided all sorts of evidence for something...just not in support of the A in AGW.

 

[jc456]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

 

[jc456]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

it still matters.

All matter above 0K radiates, in all directions.
Warmer just emits more than colder

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.

Great. We agree the ground emits. We agree the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy emitted from the ground and then emits.

And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

The atmosphere doesn't emit? Why not?
Or do you mean it emits, but not toward the ground?
So why doesn't it emit toward the ground?

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

You think the atmosphere doesn't emit toward the instrument until the instant it is cooled below a certain temp?
How does it know the temp of the instrument? Is the GHG smart? Does it have a thermometer?
Or is that the job of the photon?

 

[jc456]

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

it still matters.

All matter above 0K radiates, in all directions.
Warmer just emits more than colder

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.

Great. We agree the ground emits. We agree the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy emitted from the ground and then emits.

And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

The atmosphere doesn't emit? Why not?
Or do you mean it emits, but not toward the ground?
So why doesn't it emit toward the ground?

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

You think the atmosphere doesn't emit toward the instrument until the instant it is cooled below a certain temp?
How does it know the temp of the instrument? Is the GHG smart? Does it have a thermometer?
Or is that the job of the photon?

Warmer just emits more than colder

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting? do you know it takes an action to cause that right? And what if that action doesn't happen? Can you prove vibration and that IR is emitted? Nope.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know? the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading. Why does it take the instrument to be cooled down to read something?

Where is your evidence of back radiation? You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine. Funny how that kinda shit works in this forum.

 

[jc456]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

Hahahaha

What is the difference between racism and reverse racism?


Bonus points for inserting political affiliation into the explanations of both back radiation and reverse racism.

Hahahaha

you know that doesn't prove anything with regard to the discussion of back radiation right?

 

[IanC]

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

 

[IanC]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

Hahahaha

What is the difference between racism and reverse racism?


Bonus points for inserting political affiliation into the explanations of both back radiation and reverse racism.

Hahahaha

you know that doesn't prove anything with regard to the discussion of back radiation right?

I was pointing out how racism is racism no matter which direction it is going. Adding 'reverse' makes it obvious in which direction. The caricature liberal position says it cannot happen in that direction.

Radiation is radiation, no matter which direction. Adding 'back' makes it obvious which direction. The caricature conservative position is that cannot happen in that direction.

Obviously, at least to me, radiation and racism can both go in all directions. I was making a statement on how politics can cloud the understanding of the issues. I thought it was a witty comparison but perhaps my sense of humour doesn't appeal to everyone.

 

[jc456]

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?

 

[jc456]

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

that doesn't prove back radiation. It proves radiation, but not back. So try again.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

Hahahaha

What is the difference between racism and reverse racism?


Bonus points for inserting political affiliation into the explanations of both back radiation and reverse racism.

Hahahaha

you know that doesn't prove anything with regard to the discussion of back radiation right?

I was pointing out how racism is racism no matter which direction it is going. Adding 'reverse' makes it obvious in which direction. The caricature liberal position says it cannot happen in that direction.

Radiation is radiation, no matter which direction. Adding 'back' makes it obvious which direction. The caricature conservative position is that cannot happen in that direction.

Obviously, at least to me, radiation and racism can both go in all directions. I was making a statement on how politics can cloud the understanding of the issues. I thought it was a witty comparison but perhaps my sense of humour doesn't appeal to everyone.

racism, well, that term is well associated with white people. Reverse racism would be someone of a minority group be racist toward a white. It does have direction like do warm to cold movements.

Radiation is radiation, no matter which direction. Adding 'back' makes it obvious which direction. The caricature conservative position is that cannot happen in that direction

if radiation is radiation why are the wavelengths different? how do you know if a reading is back? what stands out from the reading?

 

[IanC]

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?

Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature.

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

 

[jc456]

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?

Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature.

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

so why isn't there back radiation happening under the blue curve? And, why isn't there scattering under them?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

it still matters.

All matter above 0K radiates, in all directions.
Warmer just emits more than colder

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.

Great. We agree the ground emits. We agree the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy emitted from the ground and then emits.

And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

The atmosphere doesn't emit? Why not?
Or do you mean it emits, but not toward the ground?
So why doesn't it emit toward the ground?

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

You think the atmosphere doesn't emit toward the instrument until the instant it is cooled below a certain temp?
How does it know the temp of the instrument? Is the GHG smart? Does it have a thermometer?
Or is that the job of the photon?

Warmer just emits more than colder

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting? do you know it takes an action to cause that right? And what if that action doesn't happen? Can you prove vibration and that IR is emitted? Nope.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know? the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading. Why does it take the instrument to be cooled down to read something?

Where is your evidence of back radiation? You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine. Funny how that kinda shit works in this forum.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know?

Because it can't, doesn't and it doesn't matter what temperature the instrument is at as far as the photon is concerned.

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?

Are they above 0K? If they are, they're emitting.

the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.

It's reading the radiation emitted by the atmosphere down toward the ground. Back radiation.

Where is your evidence of back radiation?

Readings from sky facing instruments. Basic physics.

You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.

Did you ever explain how a photon emitted by CO2 or water vapor refuses to travel toward the ground?
I know you've said before that it can travel down but never reaches the ground. Can you explain why not?

In a way that makes sense I mean.

 

[jc456]

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none. Especially if cooling is necessary to read it. so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now. We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.

well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.

cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm

We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

it still matters.

All matter above 0K radiates, in all directions.
Warmer just emits more than colder

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.

Great. We agree the ground emits. We agree the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy emitted from the ground and then emits.

And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

The atmosphere doesn't emit? Why not?
Or do you mean it emits, but not toward the ground?
So why doesn't it emit toward the ground?

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

You think the atmosphere doesn't emit toward the instrument until the instant it is cooled below a certain temp?
How does it know the temp of the instrument? Is the GHG smart? Does it have a thermometer?
Or is that the job of the photon?

Warmer just emits more than colder

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting? do you know it takes an action to cause that right? And what if that action doesn't happen? Can you prove vibration and that IR is emitted? Nope.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know? the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading. Why does it take the instrument to be cooled down to read something?

Where is your evidence of back radiation? You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine. Funny how that kinda shit works in this forum.

How does it know the temp of the instrument

How would I know?

Because it can't, doesn't and it doesn't matter what temperature the instrument is at as far as the photon is concerned.

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?

Are they above 0K? If they are, they're emitting.

the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.

It's reading the radiation emitted by the atmosphere down toward the ground. Back radiation.

Where is your evidence of back radiation?

Readings from sky facing instruments. Basic physics.

You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.

Did you ever explain how a photon emitted by CO2 or water vapor refuses to travel toward the ground?
I know you've said before that it can travel down but never reaches the ground. Can you explain why not?

In a way that makes sense I mean.

See there you go, LOL. Yeah fair exchange bubba.