Scientist: Do We Really Know?

[jc456]

Can't answer to the physicists eh? Why?

You know some physicists who think the atmosphere doesn't radiate?

my error, meant re-radiate.

You know some physicists who think the atmosphere absorbs and doesn't re-radiate?

I don't know them, I know of them. Yes, there is a really good exchange on a Climate Etc website by Judith Curry. Judith isn't one of them. But she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis. I've been reading for over three days and I'm still only one third of the way down the comment section. Entertaining as heck.

she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis.

I've seen some of his stuff. He's a moron.

So he's your source for the claim that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate?

It was just the door and I read the comment section. Again, as I stated entertaining.

 

[jc456]

Can't answer to the physicists eh? Why?

You know some physicists who think the atmosphere doesn't radiate?

my error, meant re-radiate.

You know some physicists who think the atmosphere absorbs and doesn't re-radiate?

I don't know them, I know of them. Yes, there is a really good exchange on a Climate Etc website by Judith Curry. Judith isn't one of them. But she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis. I've been reading for over three days and I'm still only one third of the way down the comment section. Entertaining as heck.

Harold | January 31, 2011 at 5:35 pm |


I guess you didn’t get it. I’m a trained Physicist, now retired. I was pretty sure I just said something about the greenhouse effect, and particularly pointed how a simple thought experiment shows how wrong your theory is. I don’t intend to try to convince you, but my thought experiment should convince almost any reasonable idiot your theory is wrong.

I don’t use different standards for either side of AGW. I have fairly rigorous standards,, which you have failed, and most ot the AGW papers also fail my standards. Sloppy work on the AGW’s crowd’s part doesn’t excuse sloppy work on the anti-AGW’s side. As for dragging Tyndall into the discussion and how the physics hasn’t been looked at, try reading some of Dr. Earl W. McDaniel’s and others’ books from decades ago on details of atmospheric excitation and radiation.

Dr. Curry – FYI, Dr. McDaniel taught Physics at Georgia Tech, and had a great sense of humor.

Claes should have quit after this smack down.

again, was only the door. Slaying the Dragon. The comments section is special.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know some physicists who think the atmosphere doesn't radiate?

my error, meant re-radiate.

You know some physicists who think the atmosphere absorbs and doesn't re-radiate?

I don't know them, I know of them. Yes, there is a really good exchange on a Climate Etc website by Judith Curry. Judith isn't one of them. But she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis. I've been reading for over three days and I'm still only one third of the way down the comment section. Entertaining as heck.

she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis.

I've seen some of his stuff. He's a moron.

So he's your source for the claim that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate?

It was just the door and I read the comment section. Again, as I stated entertaining.

Yes, watching Claes try, and fail, to defend his idiocy is entertaining.
Like watching you and SSDD dance around.

 

[jc456]

my error, meant re-radiate.

You know some physicists who think the atmosphere absorbs and doesn't re-radiate?

I don't know them, I know of them. Yes, there is a really good exchange on a Climate Etc website by Judith Curry. Judith isn't one of them. But she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis. I've been reading for over three days and I'm still only one third of the way down the comment section. Entertaining as heck.

she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis.

I've seen some of his stuff. He's a moron.

So he's your source for the claim that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate?

It was just the door and I read the comment section. Again, as I stated entertaining.

Yes, watching Claes try, and fail, to defend his idiocy is entertaining.
Like watching you and SSDD dance around.

He wasn't the interesting one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know some physicists who think the atmosphere absorbs and doesn't re-radiate?

I don't know them, I know of them. Yes, there is a really good exchange on a Climate Etc website by Judith Curry. Judith isn't one of them. But she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis. I've been reading for over three days and I'm still only one third of the way down the comment section. Entertaining as heck.

she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis.

I've seen some of his stuff. He's a moron.

So he's your source for the claim that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate?

It was just the door and I read the comment section. Again, as I stated entertaining.

Yes, watching Claes try, and fail, to defend his idiocy is entertaining.
Like watching you and SSDD dance around.

He wasn't the interesting one.

Well, he's the one you're apparently using as a source/agreeing with.

I agree, his/your type of idiocy isn't interesting for long.

 

[jc456]

I don't know them, I know of them. Yes, there is a really good exchange on a Climate Etc website by Judith Curry. Judith isn't one of them. But she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis. I've been reading for over three days and I'm still only one third of the way down the comment section. Entertaining as heck.

she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis.

I've seen some of his stuff. He's a moron.

So he's your source for the claim that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate?

It was just the door and I read the comment section. Again, as I stated entertaining.

Yes, watching Claes try, and fail, to defend his idiocy is entertaining.
Like watching you and SSDD dance around.

He wasn't the interesting one.

Well, he's the one you're apparently using as a source/agreeing with.

I agree, his/your type of idiocy isn't interesting for long.

and you still can't reply with what I state and misrepresent me. Nice going, you really have some integrity, not. Keep making up shit, again, is no skin off my neck, just represent what I say and not what you want it to say to make you seem funny. You're just incorrect.

But, you are what you are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

she opened up her forum back in 2011 for Claes Johnson for his hypothesis.

I've seen some of his stuff. He's a moron.

So he's your source for the claim that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate?

It was just the door and I read the comment section. Again, as I stated entertaining.

Yes, watching Claes try, and fail, to defend his idiocy is entertaining.
Like watching you and SSDD dance around.

He wasn't the interesting one.

Well, he's the one you're apparently using as a source/agreeing with.

I agree, his/your type of idiocy isn't interesting for long.

and you still can't reply with what I state and misrepresent me. Nice going, you really have some integrity, not. Keep making up shit, again, is no skin off my neck, just represent what I say and not what you want it to say to make you seem funny. You're just incorrect.

But, you are what you are.

Keep making up shit, again

I made up your belief that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate? Are you sure?

 

[jc456]

It was just the door and I read the comment section. Again, as I stated entertaining.

Yes, watching Claes try, and fail, to defend his idiocy is entertaining.
Like watching you and SSDD dance around.

He wasn't the interesting one.

Well, he's the one you're apparently using as a source/agreeing with.

I agree, his/your type of idiocy isn't interesting for long.

and you still can't reply with what I state and misrepresent me. Nice going, you really have some integrity, not. Keep making up shit, again, is no skin off my neck, just represent what I say and not what you want it to say to make you seem funny. You're just incorrect.

But, you are what you are.

Keep making up shit, again

I made up your belief that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate? Are you sure?

and more made up stuff.

 

[jc456]

It was just the door and I read the comment section. Again, as I stated entertaining.

Yes, watching Claes try, and fail, to defend his idiocy is entertaining.
Like watching you and SSDD dance around.

He wasn't the interesting one.

Well, he's the one you're apparently using as a source/agreeing with.

I agree, his/your type of idiocy isn't interesting for long.

and you still can't reply with what I state and misrepresent me. Nice going, you really have some integrity, not. Keep making up shit, again, is no skin off my neck, just represent what I say and not what you want it to say to make you seem funny. You're just incorrect.

But, you are what you are.

Keep making up shit, again

I made up your belief that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate? Are you sure?

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

BTW, SSDD was spot on. Venus is your denier

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, watching Claes try, and fail, to defend his idiocy is entertaining.
Like watching you and SSDD dance around.

He wasn't the interesting one.

Well, he's the one you're apparently using as a source/agreeing with.

I agree, his/your type of idiocy isn't interesting for long.

and you still can't reply with what I state and misrepresent me. Nice going, you really have some integrity, not. Keep making up shit, again, is no skin off my neck, just represent what I say and not what you want it to say to make you seem funny. You're just incorrect.

But, you are what you are.

Keep making up shit, again

I made up your belief that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate? Are you sure?

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

BTW, SSDD was spot on. Venus is your denier

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates. Derp.

You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked.

Yeah, you, Claes and SSDD debunked SB. DERP!

Venus is your denier

I'd ask what the hell you mean, but I've already exceeded my RDA of your idiocy.

 

[jc456]

He wasn't the interesting one.

Well, he's the one you're apparently using as a source/agreeing with.

I agree, his/your type of idiocy isn't interesting for long.

and you still can't reply with what I state and misrepresent me. Nice going, you really have some integrity, not. Keep making up shit, again, is no skin off my neck, just represent what I say and not what you want it to say to make you seem funny. You're just incorrect.

But, you are what you are.

Keep making up shit, again

I made up your belief that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate? Are you sure?

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

BTW, SSDD was spot on. Venus is your denier

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates. Derp.

You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked.

Yeah, you, Claes and SSDD debunked SB. DERP!

Venus is your denier

I'd ask what the hell you mean, but I've already exceeded my RDA of your idiocy.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates:

Correct the sun is why we are warm. CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere to save us from becoming a sun.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun. And Venus is still your denier. BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, he's the one you're apparently using as a source/agreeing with.

I agree, his/your type of idiocy isn't interesting for long.

and you still can't reply with what I state and misrepresent me. Nice going, you really have some integrity, not. Keep making up shit, again, is no skin off my neck, just represent what I say and not what you want it to say to make you seem funny. You're just incorrect.

But, you are what you are.

Keep making up shit, again

I made up your belief that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate? Are you sure?

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

BTW, SSDD was spot on. Venus is your denier

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates. Derp.

You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked.

Yeah, you, Claes and SSDD debunked SB. DERP!

Venus is your denier

I'd ask what the hell you mean, but I've already exceeded my RDA of your idiocy.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates:

Correct the sun is why we are warm. CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere to save us from becoming a sun.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun. And Venus is still your denier. BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface?

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

 

[jc456]

and you still can't reply with what I state and misrepresent me. Nice going, you really have some integrity, not. Keep making up shit, again, is no skin off my neck, just represent what I say and not what you want it to say to make you seem funny. You're just incorrect.

But, you are what you are.

Keep making up shit, again

I made up your belief that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate? Are you sure?

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

BTW, SSDD was spot on. Venus is your denier

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates. Derp.

You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked.

Yeah, you, Claes and SSDD debunked SB. DERP!

Venus is your denier

I'd ask what the hell you mean, but I've already exceeded my RDA of your idiocy.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates:

Correct the sun is why we are warm. CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere to save us from becoming a sun.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun. And Venus is still your denier. BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface?

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

Why do they have to radiate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keep making up shit, again

I made up your belief that the atmosphere absorbs but doesn't re-radiate? Are you sure?

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

BTW, SSDD was spot on. Venus is your denier

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates. Derp.

You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked.

Yeah, you, Claes and SSDD debunked SB. DERP!

Venus is your denier

I'd ask what the hell you mean, but I've already exceeded my RDA of your idiocy.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates:

Correct the sun is why we are warm. CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere to save us from becoming a sun.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun. And Venus is still your denier. BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface?

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

Why do they have to radiate?

How else would they cool?

 

[jc456]

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try. hahahaahahahahahahahahaha. Yeppers, it's why you never post any to put me away. you can't it doesn't exist. You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked. the equations are wrong. ooops...

BTW, SSDD was spot on. Venus is your denier

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates. Derp.

You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked.

Yeah, you, Claes and SSDD debunked SB. DERP!

Venus is your denier

I'd ask what the hell you mean, but I've already exceeded my RDA of your idiocy.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates:

Correct the sun is why we are warm. CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere to save us from becoming a sun.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun. And Venus is still your denier. BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface?

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

Why do they have to radiate?

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

oh and you still can't prove re-radiation no matter how hard you try.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates. Derp.

You keep putting up some lame scientific nonsense that is currently being debunked.

Yeah, you, Claes and SSDD debunked SB. DERP!

Venus is your denier

I'd ask what the hell you mean, but I've already exceeded my RDA of your idiocy.

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates:

Correct the sun is why we are warm. CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere to save us from becoming a sun.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun. And Venus is still your denier. BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface?

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

Why do they have to radiate?

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

 

[jc456]

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates:

Correct the sun is why we are warm. CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere to save us from becoming a sun.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun. And Venus is still your denier. BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface?

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

Why do they have to radiate?

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

Nope co moving up the atmosphere and out

BTW, look up Bohr's theory

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

Why do they have to radiate?

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

Nope co moving up the atmosphere and out

BTW, look up Bohr's theory

CO2 absorbs heat and leaves our atmosphere....the CO2 heads into outer space?
Neat.
Any other gas decide it doesn't want to stick around?

 

[Crick]

This is just too good. Keep going jc. Give it to him good. I can NOT wait.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's why our atmosphere is hot as the Sun, it never re-radiates:

Correct the sun is why we are warm. CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere to save us from becoming a sun.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun. And Venus is still your denier. BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface?

CO2 and H2O cooling our atmosphere

They'd have to radiate to do that.

If we reradiated, we would be a sun.

Things cooler than the sun can re-radiate, without being a sun.

BTW how much sunlight makes it to Venus' surface

Based on the thickness of Venus's atmosphere, it's probably all absorbed before it hits the surface.
Does that disprove SB somehow? I'm breathless with anticipation of your answer.

Why do they have to radiate?

How else would they cool?

Absorbing and going out to space

Absorbing doesn't mean going out to space.
You must be missing something.

LOL. jc is surely missing something. Many bricks shy of a load.

There are many here that have no concept of physics at all. SSDD, jc, Frankie Boi, ect. Obviously they have not even taken a physics course in high school. For those of us that have taken and passed the physics required for a degree in one of the scientific disciplines, their nonsense is astounding in it's lack of logic. The absorption and radiation of photons by matter is one of the basic lessons in physics and chemistry. Without an understanding of the fundamentals of how matter does that, most of the communications that we use could not be created.