Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[SSDD]

SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.

Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...not net...it's nice that you have a chart where you can visualize your imagination..and have one more way to fool yourself.....unfortunately a chart is all you will ever have....net energy transfer has never been observed in the history of the universe.

Gross means tallying up all the individual components. Net means the surplus and final direction.

You haven't explained how your smart photons or their smart emitters acquire their information. Or the discrepancy in entropy that would ensue. Care to take a stab at it? Of course not. Hahahaha

I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.

You said "we remain clueless". What you mean is that you remain clueless. So being clueless, you make up stuff that every scientist knows is wrong.

No I include you as well...but feel free to prove me wrong by describing the underlying mechanism for gravity....or the underlying mechanism that drives energy exchange.....or any of the underlying mechanisms that drive any of the natural laws....but feel free to start with gravity since it is around us everywhere and easily observable...surely you can tell us about the unknown mechanism that causes gravity.

 

[Wuwei]

Again..refer to the second law of thermodynamics...radiation is energy and energy does not move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...your sources are in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics...sorry, but they must be wrong..

We have gone through all that last December. I will copy it here.

Post 383 in this thread.
Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:

This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.

 

[Wuwei]

No I include you as well...but feel free to prove me wrong by describing the underlying mechanism for gravity....or the underlying mechanism that drives energy exchange.....or any of the underlying mechanisms that drive any of the natural laws....but feel free to start with gravity since it is around us everywhere and easily observable...surely you can tell us about the unknown mechanism that causes gravity.

That is a total digression and distraction. These things are understood. Just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean physicists don't.

OK gravity is explained by the fact that space is warped by mass and that gravitational influence is simply light and matter traveling along geodesics. That explains all sorts of phenomena such as the bending of light around gravitational objects and the deviation of the planet Mercury's perihelion, and the compensation that must go into GPS satellites.

The underlying nature of radiation exchange is all derived from quantum electrodynamics which explains the radiation and atomic interaction as photons being the quantized medium of the electromagnetic forces. Look up Feynmann diagrams. This understanding has been measured and quantified, by many different repeatable experiments that shows a correlation between theory and experiment to one part per billion to one part per trillion.

 

[jc456]

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

 

[jc456]

Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night..

Venus is almost as hot on the night side as the day side during its two-month-long nights. That's because of the greenhouse effect holding in the heat, and the constant high winds circling the planet, always bringing heat from the day side to the night side.

That is, Billy was totally clueless, again. This time, it was an especially stupid screw up. CO2 freezes out at -57C at 1 atmosphere partial pressure. It would freeze out at a higher temperature under the much higher partial pressure of Venus. Billy, can you show us the frozen CO2 on the night side of Venus?

This is where now, instead of admitting to a screwup, Billy completely melts down. Prepare for the hilarity of it. (One guess, he was quoting cloud top temperatures, which have little to do with surface temperatures.)

That's because of the greenhouse effect holding in the heat, and the constant high winds circling the planet, always bringing heat from the day side to the night side.

It doesn't get any funnier than this right here. Dude/ dudette, that is simply an amazing statement. Perhaps you should reread it and then understand convection systems better. Wow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

Photons don't need a purpose.

 

[jc456]

CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere.

Spectrum of greenhouse radiation by direct observation. Evans 2006

The system itself has not responded to increased CO2 levels and what they expected to see.

The empirical evidence suggests that CO2 is a follower of temp by about 200-800 years not a driver of it. What we are seeing today is simply the response of warming over 200 years ago as we exited the LIA and not man caused anything.

Shakun et al 2014

so if all matter emits, why does some matter emit differently? This should be amazing.

 

[jc456]

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

Photons don't need a purpose.

ah, but they do in here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

Photons don't need a purpose.

ah, but they do in here.

Feel free to share their purpose.

I mean besides making you look stupid(er).

 

[jc456]

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

Photons don't need a purpose.

ah, but they do in here.

Feel free to share their purpose.

I mean besides making you look stupid(er).

I've been waiting for all you photon moving folks to demonstrate the purpose. why can't you? If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere than there has to be a hot spot. no other way around it given all of your explanations. And yet zippo!! funny stuff gene.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

Photons don't need a purpose.

ah, but they do in here.

Feel free to share their purpose.

I mean besides making you look stupid(er).

I've been waiting for all you photon moving folks to demonstrate the purpose. why can't you? If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere than there has to be a hot spot. no other way around it given all of your explanations. And yet zippo!! funny stuff gene.

Why do you feel photons need a purpose? Or a thermometer?

If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere

You feel the atmosphere doesn't absorb and re-emit energy? Just wow!

 

[jc456]

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

Photons don't need a purpose.

ah, but they do in here.

Feel free to share their purpose.

I mean besides making you look stupid(er).

I've been waiting for all you photon moving folks to demonstrate the purpose. why can't you? If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere than there has to be a hot spot. no other way around it given all of your explanations. And yet zippo!! funny stuff gene.

Why do you feel photons need a purpose? Or a thermometer?

If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere

You feel the atmosphere doesn't absorb and re-emit energy? Just wow!

yeah, I posted it earlier for you. Right? or are you going to act like I didn't so that you can ask me to show that post #. That would be typical of the exchange. You certainly do have memory issues as the days go by. Senior moments perhaps i guess. not sure.

BTW, you even asked me what changed my mind. Funny.

 

[SSDD]

Again..refer to the second law of thermodynamics...radiation is energy and energy does not move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...your sources are in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics...sorry, but they must be wrong..

We have gone through all that last December. I will copy it here.

Post 383 in this thread.
Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:

This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.

Sorry guy...false SB equation...the actual SB equation looks like this

..now if you would like to explain why the distributive property was applied to an equation that was already reduced...and what you think adding the distributive property does in the physical world which is being described by the actual SB equation...

The actual SB equation describes a one way energy transfer of which the power is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of the surroundings......adding the distributive property to that equation does not alter what is actually happening and applying the distributive property to the actual SB equation is just bad math..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons don't need a purpose.

ah, but they do in here.

Feel free to share their purpose.

I mean besides making you look stupid(er).

I've been waiting for all you photon moving folks to demonstrate the purpose. why can't you? If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere than there has to be a hot spot. no other way around it given all of your explanations. And yet zippo!! funny stuff gene.

Why do you feel photons need a purpose? Or a thermometer?

If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere

You feel the atmosphere doesn't absorb and re-emit energy? Just wow!

yeah, I posted it earlier for you. Right? or are you going to act like I didn't so that you can ask me to show that post #. That would be typical of the exchange. You certainly do have memory issues as the days go by. Senior moments perhaps i guess. not sure.

BTW, you even asked me what changed my mind. Funny.

yeah, I posted it earlier for you.

Yes, your stupid statements still amaze me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again..refer to the second law of thermodynamics...radiation is energy and energy does not move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...your sources are in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics...sorry, but they must be wrong..

We have gone through all that last December. I will copy it here.

Post 383 in this thread.
Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:

This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.

Sorry guy...false SB equation...the actual SB equation looks like this

..now if you would like to explain why the distributive property was applied to an equation that was already reduced...and what you think adding the distributive property does in the physical world which is being described by the actual SB equation...

The actual SB equation describes a one way energy transfer of which the power is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of the surroundings......adding the distributive property to that equation does not alter what is actually happening and applying the distributive property to the actual SB equation is just bad math..

The actual SB equation describes a one way energy transfer of which the power is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of the surroundings

Because....smart photons. Derp!

 

[SSDD]

No I include you as well...but feel free to prove me wrong by describing the underlying mechanism for gravity....or the underlying mechanism that drives energy exchange.....or any of the underlying mechanisms that drive any of the natural laws....but feel free to start with gravity since it is around us everywhere and easily observable...surely you can tell us about the unknown mechanism that causes gravity.

That is a total digression and distraction. These things are understood. Just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean physicists don't.

OK gravity is explained by the fact that space is warped by mass and that gravitational influence is simply light and matter traveling along geodesics. That explains all sorts of phenomena such as the bending of light around gravitational objects and the deviation of the planet Mercury's perihelion, and the compensation that must go into GPS satellites.

The underlying nature of radiation exchange is all derived from quantum electrodynamics which explains the radiation and atomic interaction as photons being the quantized medium of the electromagnetic forces. Look up Feynmann diagrams. This understanding has been measured and quantified, by many different repeatable experiments that shows a correlation between theory and experiment to one part per billion to one part per trillion.

And as suspected, you describe what gravity is, but don't even touch on the underlying mechanism, which still remains a mystery....as does the underlying mechanism for energy transfer as well...the underlying mechanism of gravity is not even a true hypothesis...gravitons are suggested but can't even be modeled in any meaningful way... there remains a great deal that science doesn't know..and in fact, what they don't know is so much larger than what they do know that at this point, science has little clue as to what it doesn't know...

what you believe you and science know at this point is little more than stories you tell.....place holders that make a feeble attempt to explain things that happen for reasons that remain far beyond our ability to understand...

Hell...maybe you don't even know what the words underlying mechanism mean when used together...

 

[jc456]

Again..refer to the second law of thermodynamics...radiation is energy and energy does not move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...your sources are in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics...sorry, but they must be wrong..

We have gone through all that last December. I will copy it here.

Post 383 in this thread.
Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:

This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.

Sorry guy...false SB equation...the actual SB equation looks like this

..now if you would like to explain why the distributive property was applied to an equation that was already reduced...and what you think adding the distributive property does in the physical world which is being described by the actual SB equation...

The actual SB equation describes a one way energy transfer of which the power is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of the surroundings......adding the distributive property to that equation does not alter what is actually happening and applying the distributive property to the actual SB equation is just bad math..

The actual SB equation describes a one way energy transfer of which the power is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of the surroundings

Because....smart photons. Derp!

more nothing I see.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...false SB equation...the actual SB equation looks like this

..now if you would like to explain why the distributive property was applied to an equation that was already reduced...and what you think adding the distributive property does in the physical world which is being described by the actual SB equation...

The actual SB equation describes a one way energy transfer of which the power is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of the surroundings......adding the distributive property to that equation does not alter what is actually happening and applying the distributive property to the actual SB equation is just bad math..

The expression of SB's law as a subtraction is just a computational convenience when the object temperature and background temperature are known. It means nothing else.

When both temperatures are equal you are interpreting that form to mean there is no radiation between the two objects, and that is just ludicrous. They both radiate equally toward each other at the same temperature according to the SB equation.

The equation means there is a two-way radiation exchange, but a one-way net energy flow from the hotter to the colder. The subtracted form gives a net flow, not a one-way flow of energy.

 

[Wuwei]

And as suspected, you describe what gravity is, but don't even touch on the underlying mechanism, which still remains a mystery....as does the underlying mechanism for energy transfer as well...the underlying mechanism of gravity is not even a true hypothesis...gravitons are suggested but can't even be modeled in any meaningful way... there remains a great deal that science doesn't know..and in fact, what they don't know is so much larger than what they do know that at this point, science has little clue as to what it doesn't know...

The underlying mechanism of the forces in nature are all in the equations and interpretations of curved space and Feynman diagrams. That is all that physics ever was and will be. If you want anything more you will have to ask your God.

The equations and underlying interpretations are what is needed to explain any laws that are used to handle climate science. Your failure to understand the mechanisms is immaterial to a scientists understanding.

what you believe you and science know at this point is little more than stories you tell.....place holders that make a feeble attempt to explain things that happen for reasons that remain far beyond our ability to understand...

Hell...maybe you don't even know what the words underlying mechanism mean when used together...

Underlying mechanism of EM theory are understood. It is obvious that your inability to accept that comes from your anti-science stance. It is rather hypocritical for you, who is anti-science and spreads your own breed of gut-feeling stories about thermodynamics, to talk about what scientists don't understand. The equations are all that is needed. Nothing more will help in understanding how to apply them.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course
Source: Politico







The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company's application to build a sea wall.

By Ben Schreckinger

05/23/16 05:35 AM EDT

A permit application for a sea wall around one of Donald Trump's golf courses explicitly names global warming as a reason to build the wall. | AP Photo


Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.”

But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”

The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.

A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.

The zoning application raises further questions about how the billionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the realities of running a business with seaside assets in the 21st century...........................

Read more: Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course

Read more: Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course