Dear President-Elect Trump: Climate change is not a hoax. Please consider this: It’s raining near the North Pole.

By Tom Yulsman | November 9, 2016 1:19 pm

A postcard to the incoming president

Postcard to President-Elect Trump

Heavy rain and little snow has been the story for weeks in the town of Longyearbyen on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard. The local church was evacuated yesterday (Nov. 8, 2016) because heavy rainfall had raised the risk of landslides. It should be cold and snowing this time of year in a town located just 800 miles from the North Pole.  (Photo: Courtesy Leif Magne Helgesen)

Dear President-Elect Trump:

You’ve said publicly that climate change is a “hoax,” and that the concept “was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” During the presidential campaign, you also said that you would zero out all federal funding related to climate change.

With that in mind, I wanted to send you this ‘postcard’ from the Arctic, a region I love dearly.

For the people who live in the Arctic, climate change is no hoax. They have been living with its effects for quite some time now. The region is warming twice as fast as any other on Earth. So in this postcard, I wanted to share with you just one small piece of that very large story.

Some of what follows comes from Leif Magne Helgesen, the pastor of the planet’s northernmost church. He tends to the spiritual needs of the residents of Longyearbyen on the archipelago of Svalbard, which is located a scant 800 miles from the North Pole.

Postcard to President-Elect Trump

Leif Magne Helgesen, pastor of the world’s northernmost church, in Longyearbyen, Svalbard. (Photo: Leif Jone Ølberg)

On the day that you won the presidency, Mr. Trump, the church, as well as other parts of the town, were evacuated because of the risk of landslides due to near-record rainfall. This is in winter, not far from the North Pole. As you might imagine, it should be cold and snowing there now, not warm and raining.

A total of 259 people in the town of 2,144 people were forced to evacuate from residences, dorms and guest lodging on Monday and Tuesday.

This is not just a one-off. During October, when temperatures should have been plummeting, and snow should have been flying, temperatures were running nearly 15 degrees F above normal. For several days in October, in fact, Longyearbyen was the warmest place in Norway — warmer than Oslo, 1,269 miles to the south, pastor Helgesen writes.

Record rainfall at that time triggered several landslides around town, including one on the hillside above Longyearbyen’s cemetery. “Luckily they turned away and left the graveyard alone,” Helgesen reports.

Postcard to President-Elect Trump

A landslide near Longyearbyen’s church nearly took out the town’s historic cemetary. Photo: Courtesy Leif Magne Helgesen

The photograph above, taken by the pastor, shows that landslide. If you look closely, you can see a cluster of white crosses just adjancent to it.

The warmth is not just a geographic fluke targeting a tiny area. It is shockingly warm across large swaths of the Arctic. Temperatures in some locations have lately been running 27 degrees F above normal, as this graphic shows:

Postcard to President-Elect Trump

You are looking down on the entire Arctic region, from above the North Pole — located at the center, where the straight lines intersect. The outer part of the circle is at 60 degrees north latitude, just a little south of the Arctic Circle. Svalbard is the cluster of islands just above where the lines meet, and slightly to the left. The number ‘9’ sits on top of it, indicating temperatures that are 9 degrees C above normal for the period Nov. 2nd through the 7th.

Trump

A meadow buttercup sprouted near Longyearbyen’s church in August. (Photo: Courtesy Leif Magne Helgesen)

This warmth is part of a longer-term trend that has been having significant ecological effects. Pastor Helgesen saw evidence of this in August, when he found a tall, beautiful meadow buttercup flowering near his church. You can see it in the photo at right.

As Helgesen puts it:

Never before have I seen such a flower in the archipelago. There are no trees or tall flowers on Svalbard. A week after I posted the image online, the flower was removed by the Governor. It was an unwanted species that belonged to the mainland and not the Arctic landscape in the north. The danger is that new species in the Arctic will displace existing species and alter local ecosystems.

Of course, one town’s experience in and of itself is not proof that climate change is real. I simply offer these anecdotes as examples of what the people who live in the high north have been experiencing for years now.

And I’m hoping and praying, Mr. Trump, that the personal experiences of a pastor and his flock will help you grasp the undeniable reality of climate change.

Sincerely,

Tom Yulsman

ADVERTISEMENT
  • OWilson

    Right now Northern Asia (Russia, Siberia and China) are experiencing record cold temperatures.

    This frigid weather is normally generally centered on the North Pole, but has been pushed South.

    The frigid cold is not missing, it is just temporarily displaced.

    And, of course, the rate of global warming remains at o.011 per decade, according to the entire satellite record of the last 37 years.

    Some are even predicting a cooling in the nest 30 years.

    So, I would respectfully say, President Trump may choose to prioritize the wasted lives of our inner cities, bringing real education there, creating jobs for Americans, and securing the borders, That sort of thing :)

    So I would hope, whatever your politics, you will join me in wishing him the best in his new job!

    After all, as Obama, in his soaring statesmanlike rhetoric, plainly said on his own election:

    “We won!”

    “Elections have consequences”

    “They (the GOP) can come along for the ride, but they’re gonna have to sit in back of the bus!”

    Perhaps “Global Warming” as the Greatest Threat To Mankind that Humanity Faces, might be riding the back of the bus for a while :)

    • Tom Yulsman

      During the past 50 years, the Arctic has been warming more than any other region: https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images//arctic-amplification-1960-2011-hires.gif Have a nice day.

      • Off_Track

        Why do the ice melt even the temperature is not even rise 2 degrees Celcius?
        Do ice melt at -25 but not at -27?

        • CB

          “Why do the ice melt even the temperature is not even rise 2 degrees Celcius?”

          Ice will melt at any temperature above 0°C! Did you really not know that?

          psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

      • BBQman

        50 years is not much of a time scale to teach us anything about climate drivers, we should be comparing the last 2,000 years if we want to learn anything.

      • RealOldOne2

        1) Your image is when the actual measured station data is “smoothed”/smeared 1200km away from the actually stations.
        Here is what it looks like when the data is “smoothed”/smeared only 250km away from the stations. (“Note: Gray areas signify missing data”) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_250km_Trnd1212_1960_2011_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps.png
        There would be even more gray area without the 250km “smoothing”/smearing, which spreads the individual station data up to 250km/150mi radius around the actual temperature measurement.

        2) Antarctica cooled, consistent with the natural bi-polar seasaw: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL042793.pdf

        3) The recent Arctic warming is nothing new. A similar natural warming occurred in the early 1900s.

        “The huge warming in the Arctic which started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century.” – Bengtsson et.al., (2004) ‘The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Artcic’

        4) There is no empirical science/papers which show anthropogenic causation of the recent Arctic warming.

        Have a nice day.

      • OWilson

        But the local weather in one part of the world, is not affecting the steady, bur slight gradual warming Globally.

        Your deliberately provocative headlines are comment producing, and we love that here, but your Raindrops are Falling on the North Pole (near) is a stretch.

        Svalbard is not “a scant 800 miles” from the North Pole, it is not much nearer to the North Pole, than Anchorage Alaska, a major city, where it frequently rains too.

    • Donjerue
  • Winnipeg Boy

    For less than $1 billion dollars we could plant a world class weather station every 200sq miilse on the entire planet’s land mass. If this is really the biggest problem every surely we can spend that and check back in 20 years without adjusting and guessing at temperatures.

    • Off_Track

      No one want that, they even change the time of the day the reading is taken to make it fit into their hoax.

      • OWilson

        Imagine!

        The wonder of it all.

        On your computer home page, the time, the weather and the daily average temperature and a widget to select the time frame 10, 50, 100 years.

        $Trillions saved and alarmists and commies off the government teat, looking for a real job!

    • OWilson

      What and put thousands of investigators, modelers, interpreters, analysts, animators, mappers and prognosticators out of business?

      Imagine if it took all these folks to tell us the correct time?

      Or, like who will win the Presidency next week?

      Oh, wait a minute…….!

  • Off_Track

    Humans CO2 emission cause climate change is a HOAX!

    You don’t understand it can be climate change without human beings?
    Soon as something happen on the earth, nature, universe or galaxy it have to be done by humans?

    Have you notise any temperature differences between overcast or clear sky at night? Do You think co2 have a fraction of the effect that watermist have?

    • Paul Hutchinson

      A hoax all the climate scientists across the planet are fooled by… That’s an impressive hoax.

  • BBQman

    What is happening with the climate today, has happened many other times in the past, our climate is as normal as it has ever been even before the Industrial Revolution.

    Here are some other dates when Global temperatures were higher than today, 1125ad, 75bc,1350bc, 1675bc, 2250bc, 3010bc, 3230bc, 3682bc, 4012bc, 4836bc, 5722bc, 6823bc, and 7268bc. Per the 2004 Greenland GISP ice core data.

    The funny thing about these times frames is that man was not spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, must have been because of our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt which is influenced by magnetism, solar cycles, volcanic activity, our oceans conveyance, jet stream and our very own moon….it’s pretty cool when you think of all the real climate drivers, CO2 not being one of them, because CO2 changes alway lag temperature changes up to 409 years or so.

    • Wes

      This chart may help you see why now is different.

      https://xkcd.com/1732/

    • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

      The GISP2 ice core data is from a single location in Greenland. A single ice core cannot be used as a proxy for global temperatures.

      One of the more recent global paleoclimate reconstructions of global temperatures going back 2000 years is from the PAGES 2K consortium. Their paper is below. Table 1 lists the varied proxies used, including ice cores. Figure 4b is their reconstruction.

      http://climatehistory.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PAGES_2k_Consortium_NatGeo_2013.pdf

      If you want a recent paper for the entire Holocene, it is here:

      https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf

      Of course it is not only temperature magnitude, but rate of change that is critical. That is why the shape of PAGES 2K reconstruction, as you get to modern times is important.

      Of course CO2 is a climate driver. Basic physics tells us this – physics that relies on thermodynamics and quantum mechanics that has applications in areas far beyond climate science.

      During the initiation of glacial/interglacial transitions, temperature leads CO2 because warming temperatures have to drive CO2 out of solution and into the atmosphere.

      But once there, we understand how they operate to produce back radiation. These are two different physical processes. You should not confuse them.

      • BBQman

        No, I’m afraid that CO2 is not our primary climate driver, it only accounts for 0.04% of all atmospheric gases. Every year the quantity of atmospheric CO2 grows by 1.78 ppm, if man stopped using fossil fuels, CO2 would still increase by 1.70 ppm, also after 345 ppm, CO2 becomes saturated and will only absorb another 5% max of the solar energy.

        Also, if you would study the mechanics of the jet stream and Hadley cell, it should become evident that much of the energy absorbed by CO2 dissipates starting at 3,500 meters ASL up to 13.5 km where temperatures routinely reach -110 Fahrenheit, we have never had a laboratory replicate our atmosphere to enough of a degree to account for all the various atmospheric conditions, no source and sink, no extreme low temperatures that degrade the CO2, and no convection that could successfully blend and bounce the Hadley cell off of the rest of the jet stream.

        And I never implied that the ice cores gave global results, only regional, as in only the northern hemisphere.

        The other glaring problem is that we have no way today, to know what our average global temperature or atmospheric CO2 levels are, much less what they may have been in 1880, 1850 or 1750.

        The theory that CO2 is somehow a global climate driver after 345 ppm has never been proven, never has.

        • evenminded

          How is CO2 “degraded” at low temperature?

          • BBQman

            It turns into a solid.

          • evenminded

            You think that CO2 in the upper atmosphere turns into a solid?

            Do you know what the partial pressure is of CO2 in the upper atmosphere?

          • BBQman

            The colder upper atmosphere wicks off the excess solar energy, this is why Mother Nature made CO2 turn to ice at -108.4 Fahrenheit and the atmosphere as low as -110 Fahrenheit, they is a reason those are so close together, it’s natures atmosphere temperature regulator.

            And please remember, 97.37% of all earth generated CO2 is organic and those ppm changes always lag temperature changes by up to 400 years, CO2 is primarily a byproduct of solar energys effect on earth’s vegetation, is not a climate driver.

          • evenminded

            This really is a keeper.

            Do you need some help BBQ?

            The partial pressure of CO2 in air at sea level is about 0.0004 atm. At this pressure CO2 is a gas down to ~-140C, which is -220F.

            You need to educate yourself on the frost point. CO2 does not turn to a solid in the upper atmosphere at -110F.

            This is entertaining. Would you care to display some more of your scientific illiteracy for us tonight?

          • BBQman

            So you agree that 97.37% of the CO2 changes always lag temperature changes by up to 400 years!

            Now that you understand that, you should start studying the actual climate drivers and put the CO2 boogerman away, it’s not real.

            Remember, CO2 always lags temperature.

          • evenminded

            LOL – nice attempt at misdirection grade school graduate.

            CO2 is leading temperature at present due to human emissions.

            Do tell us some more about how you think CO2 will turn to a solid in the upper atmosphere.

            Do you also think that air at -10C can hold no water vapor?

            Seriously, you and reality need to have a pow wow some time.

          • BBQman

            No, I am on topic, on this thread, my post is at the top, in that post, I call out the fact that CO2 always lags temperature changes, among other things, so you evenminded are the one who needs to get back on topic.

          • evenminded

            You have your facts wrong once again.

            CO2 is leading temperature at present due to human emissions.

            Do tell us some more about how you think CO2 will turn to a solid in the upper atmosphere.

            Do you also think that air at -10C can hold no water vapor?

            Seriously, you need to finish your high school education.

          • BBQman

            The LAG, we are about the CO2 lag?

          • evenminded

            We are talking about all of your incorrect statements.

            CO2 is currently leading.

            CO2 does not solidify in the upper atmosphere at -110F.

            Your scientific illiteracy is amusing.

          • BBQman

            You can’t make the CO2 lag just disappear down one of your rat holes evenminded, please stay on topic.

          • evenminded

            CO2 lag does not disappear. Presently CO2 is leading temperature. If we continue to increase the temperature then eventually the oceans will no longer be a sink for CO2 and begin to be a source. Hence the source of CO2 coming from the oceans will be lagging. Presently the source of CO2 from human emissions is leading.

            Your scientific illiteracy knows no bounds.

          • BBQman

            No proof of your theory exists, you can not make up facts to suit your argument, CO2 is a byproduct of a lush healthy earth, CO2 does not produce heat or absorb any past 345 ppm.

          • evenminded

            That you continue to talk about “proof” further demonstrates your scientific illiteracy.

            This is the physics of the system. That you do not comprehend it is not a surprise. That you are unable to refute it is obvious.

          • BBQman

            That you hide from proof or facts demonstrates your lack of common sense sweetie, grow up.

          • evenminded

            So far I am the only one that has provided any facts. You on the other hand have provided fact-free non-scientific blather like your claim that CO2 will solidify in the upper atmosphere at -110F.

            You’re a joke. Go finish high school.

          • BBQman

            You have failed to prove that CO2 is a precursor to temperature, you failed, CO2 is not a climate driver.

          • evenminded

            Your fact-free irrational dismissal of the evidence is duly noted.

          • BBQman

            You have presented no evidence on to this thread thus far, keep trying.

          • evenminded

            Yes, I have presented the evidence above and you are unable to refute it.

          • BBQman

            Nope! You presented garbage.

          • evenminded

            Facts are facts, and you are unable to refute them.

            It is interesting to see that you have shied away from your claims that CO2 will solidify in the upper atmosphere at -110F.

            Physics is just not your thing BBQ.

          • RealOldOne2

            “CO2 is leading temperature at present due to human emissions.”
            That’s a baseless, empirical-evidence free claim.
            On a short term basis as well as a long term basis, CO2 lags temperature change. As can be seen from this graph, the temperature changes first, then the CO2 level changes, both up and down. The cause can’t happen after the effect. You have it backwards, as usual.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f48db4df5cbc38ca843c756622008703ecc4ac880193230512800128199d8c0e.png

          • evenminded

            LOL

            So, you think that historically CO2 lagged temperature change by 400 years, but today it’s lagging by a year or two?

            Understanding physical mechanisms is not your bag is it ROO2?

          • RealOldOne2

            You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, as you missed: “On a short term basis as well as a long term basis”.

            Are you really ignorant of the fact that there are both short term and long term physical processes involved in weather and climate? Astounding.

            “Understanding physical mechanisms is not your bag is it ROO2?”
            I am not ROO2. ROO2 is my serial impersonator, as documented here: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302527-study-co2-levels-will-stay-above-key-measure-for-generations#comment-2973196862

            I do understand physical mechanisms. You are the one who doesn’t, as you believe in MAGIC IR energy, that is absorbed by an object but magically doesn’t increase the internal energy of the object.

          • evenminded

            You ignoring the fact that the mechanism for CO2 leading temperature now is well-understood and established, while you are not providing any mechanism for CO2 leading temperature by a year and you are attempting to claim.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You ignoring the fact that the mechanism for CO2 leading temperature now is well-understood and established.”
            You are once again making a baseless, evidence-free allegation. Your alleged “well-understood” mechanism of more CO2 in the atmosphere causing more DWIR from the atmosphere, and less LWIR from the surface which causes the temperature to rise has failed the real world test.

            In the last ~19 years humans have added 600 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is 40% of all the human CO2 ever produced on the planet, and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere to increase.

            And that additional CO2 hasn’t caused the DownWelling IR to increase as your CO2 hypothesis says it should. The real world data shows that DWIR has decreased during the 21st century while CO2 increased: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/dwlwir.png

            And that additional CO2 hasn’t caused the LongWave IR from the surface to decrease as your CO2 hypothesis says it should. The real world data shows that LWIR from the surface has increased during the 21st century while CO2 increased: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/ceres-net-sfc-lw-absolutt1.png

            Thus, your CO2 hypothesis has failed the real world test.

            “while you are not providing any mechanism for CO2 leading temperature by a year and you are attempting to claim.”
            You are totally incoherent now. I have never claimed that CO2 is leading temperature by a year. I showed you a plot which showed that CO2 changes lagged temperature changes.

            And the physical mechanism for temperature changes leading/causing CO2 changes is Henry’s Law and ocean outgassing.

            “Because of the cold sea surface water, most subarctic seas, such as the Greenland Sea, Norwegian Sea, Bering Sea and Labrador Sea, act as net annual sinks for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). However, in some locations and during part of the year, vertical mixing and upwelling of subsurface water play major roles as controls of the CO2 system, resulting in CO2 supersaturation in the surface water relative to the atmospheric CO2 level and subsequent CO2 outgassing to the atmosphere.” – Fransson et al., ‘Increased net CO2 outgassing in the upwelling region of the southern Bering Sea in a period of variable marine climate between 1995 and 2001’

            You wrongly criticized me for claiming that CO2 lags temperature change on both a long term and short term basis. I was correct, as is shown in peer reviewed science:

            “Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millenium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface temperature data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. …
            A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply relflects the gradual warming of the oceans as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011). …
            As the rate of net CO2 outgassing from the ocean then is affected by reduced solubility, this offers a simple physical explanation of the observed time lag. …
            Conclusions
            There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower tropospheric temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.
            (1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
            (2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
            (3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9.5-10 months behind changes in global surface air temperature.
            (4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
            (5) Changes in ocean temperature appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
            (6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
            (7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
            (8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.” – Humlum et al., (2013), ‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’

            The following graph of global Sea Surface Temperature and CO2 levels show that SST leads CO2 changes in both up and down directions, per the absorption and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. The cause must happen before the effect, thus the SST change is the cause and the CO2 level changes is the effect. You have the cause and effect reversed.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b567a1366f5275a87214374ea62561e19a82dc649f9b56f54717befcb5b5bc3c.png

            I continue to try to educate you on empirical science. Sadly you fail to comprehend.

          • evenminded

            It’s good to see that you acknowledge that DWLWR exists. Another breakthrough for you.

            CO2 increases have lead temperature increases. Here is the data.

            http://es.earthednet.org/wr-images/Climate-Calib1_figs/c_Temp1Kyr.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            “It’s good to see that you acknowledge that DWLWR exists. Another breakthrough for you.”
            So sad that you find it necessary to tell such blatant lies. I have never denied the existence of DWLWR. I merely point out that because it is at a lower temperature than the surface of the Earth it can’t transfer any heat/energy to the surface of the Earth, as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics dictates. So sad that you deny the 2nd Law. And so sad that you deny all the peer reviewed empirical science that I presented above which shows that CO2 follows temperature. And so sad that you have been duped by hokey-stick pseudoscience and by biased, cherry picked mixed CO2 measurement method.
            You are behaving exactly like an ideologically blinded cult member. You have been shown wrong, but your ideology causes you to stubbornly refuse to admit it.

          • evenminded

            You think that DWLWR cannot transfer energy to the surface?

            So, what happens to a photon of LWR as it approaches the surface? How does the surface know if the photon has been emitted by the atmosphere versus the sun?

          • RealOldOne2

            “You think that DWLWR cannot transfer energy to the surface?”
            It can only if the temperature of object emitting the DWLWR is hotter than the surface. 2nd Law.

            “what happens to a photon…”
            It’s explained here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            “How does the surface know …”
            The old “knowing” ruse/obfuscation. It’s not about “knowing”, it’s about forces/radiation pressure. Energy flows only in one direction, from the higher radiation pressure/force to the lower radiation pressure/force.

            Wolfram Research says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation.” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            “The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow.” – India Institute of Technology,
            http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html

            Just as current in a wire flows in only one direction based on the voltage potential at each end of the wire and just as the fluid in a pipe flows in only one direction based on the pressure at each end, so too the energy in a radiation field or any two objects which are in thermal contact flows in only one direction, from the higher radiation pressure to the lower radiation pressure.

            This is such basic science it is astounding that you are unable to comprehend it.

          • evenminded

            What happens to the photon?

            There are only 3 options.

            a) It is absorbed
            b) It is reflected
            c) It is transmitted

            Which is it? a, b, or c?

          • RealOldOne2

            FYI, you are trying to educate someone who thinks the the cold atmosphere is the primary energy/heat source that transfers energy/heat to the surface of the earth. Yes, he denies the 2nd Law because he claims that heat is transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.

          • evenminded

            Ah, the two liars have found one another.

            No RealOldOne2, we both know that the heat, which is the net energy transfer, is going from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere.

            Do I have to remind you that you have only just recently realized that heat transfer is the net energy transfer, i.e. the net result of all of those multi-directional microscopic energy transfers?

          • RealOldOne2

            “we both know that the heat, which is the net energy transfer, is going from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere.”
            The only transfer of energy is in the direction from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere, as the 2nd Law dictates. There is no bidirectional energy transfer, because that would mean that energy/heat is being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. The real world fact that you can’t collect any of the your alleged energy from the colder atmosphere being transferred to the warmer surface of the Earth proves that you are wrong.
            Here is the science that shows your bidirectional IR energy, which must manifest itself as heat, is wrong: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            “you have only just recently realized that heat transfer, i.e. the net result of all those multi-directional microscopic energy transfers”
            You are misrepresenting me and lying again. That was Maxwell discussing molecular collisions during conduction, having nothing to do with radiative heat transfer. And Maxwell never said that energy/heat flowed from colder objects to warmer objects as you claim the cold atmosphere transfers energy to the warmer surface of the Earth.

            Maxwell dismissed your silly 2nd Law denying claim of bidirectional energy transfer when he stated:

            “the loss of temperature of the hot body is not generally equal to the gain of the temperature of the cold body, but is manifest that the two simultaneous phenomenon are due to one cause, and this cause may be described as the passage of Heat from the hot body to the cold body.” – Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’

            Get that? One cause, the one-directional flow of energy/heat from the hot body to the cold body. Not two causes, some energy/heat transferring from the cold body to the hot body but more heat transferring from the hot body to the cold body. Maxwell wasn’t stupid, and he wasn’t a 2nd Law denier.

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ , online Physics textbook

            Get that? “The transfer of energy ceases“. Not the net transfer of energy ceases, but when the temperature of the two objects reach the same temperature (thermal equilibrium), “The transfer of energy ceases“.
            When are you going to stop ignorantly denying the 2nd Law?

          • evenminded

            No, the second law makes no restrictions on the microscopic mechanisms of energy transfer.

            Photons are emitted and absorbed by both objects regardless of their temperatures.

          • RealOldOne2

            You poor pathetic 2nd Law denier. Live in your ignorance and stupidity. I don’t care.

          • evenminded

            I’ve already proven that you don’t understand the microscopic energy transfer mechanisms of elastic collisions and photon emission and absorption.

            There is really nothing left for me to do but laugh at you.

          • RealOldOne2

            You have proven nothing except that you deny reality, deny peer reviewed empirical science, and are an ideologically blinded climate cult zealot.
            I’m presenting peer reviewed empirical science that supports my statements. You are merely making baseless, evidence-free claims.
            You are a total joke!

            ps. Got your ‘backradiation’ heat collector working yet? Hahaha

          • evenminded

            I’ve proven to you that a slow moving molecule can transfer all of its energy to a faster moving molecule in an elastic collision.

            I’ve also proven to you that two EM pulses traveling in opposite directions can never cancel out both the electrical and magnetic fields, nor the energy that they carry. They simply pass right through one another unaffected.

            My proof of these statements is based on solutions to Newton’s laws of mechanics for elastic collisions and on solutions to Maxwell’s equations. I’m sure each was far over your head, but the proof was given none the less.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I’ve proven…”
            LOL. You’ve proven nothing except that you are scientifically illiterate.
            Once again, your molecular collisions are relative to conduction not radiation and are merely obfuscation to deny that energy/heat always flows from hotter objects to colder objects, in radiation, convection and conduction. You are flim-flamming again.

            “I’ve also proven to you that two EM pulses traveling in opposite directions can never cancel out both the electrical and magnetic fields, nor the energy that they carry.”
            You are lying again. You’ve never proven any such thing. All you’ve done is make that baseless, evidence-free claim.
            Two exactly equal but opposing EM waves/poynting vectors ( http://physics.info/em-waves/poynting.svg
            ) totally cancel out both the electrical and magnetic fields.

            Your mistaken claim is a result of your sophomoric error of taking a single snapshot in time, rather than considering that both waves are traveling. Quite the blunder. Two opposing radiating objects which have exactly the same temperature and EM frequency do cancel out both the electrical and magnetic fields and create a standing wave, which is the energy that is transferred, which is ZERO, as this graphic shows: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/1d_wave_equation_animation.gif?w=640&h=480

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of one wave cancelling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            The blue standing wave in the above animated graphic shows the only energy flow, and when two exactly equal EM waves are opposing as is the case when the two objects have exactly the same temperature, “energy flow CEASES”, just as this physics textbook states:

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ , online Physics textbook

            The blue standing wave shows that no energy is transferred in either direction. That is because “The energy flow in a radiant heat transfer is continuous, simultaneous and instantaneous, the radiation field through which the heat is transferred is completely integrated and indivisible.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/

            Your claim of bidirectional energy transfer violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics as shown in detail here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            Encyclopedia Britannica says the same thing:
            “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all. … out-of-phase yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – Encyclopedia Britannica, http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/scienc/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            This is consistent with Maxwell: “The distinguishing characteristic of radiant heat is, that it travels in rays like light, whence the name radiant. These rays have all the physical properties of rays of light, and are capable of reflexion, refraction, interference, and polarization.” – Maxwell, ‘Theory of Heat’, 1902

            “but the proof was given none the less.”
            The only proof you gave was of your ignorance of thermodynamics and heat/energy transfer.

            Go ahead, deny away. It’s what you do best.

          • evenminded

            Here are the facts that I have proven.

            1) In elastic collisions it is possible for slowly moving molecules to transfer energy to fast molecules. Hence energy transfers at the individual collision level can and do occur such that energy flows from low energy to high energy. This fact is irrefutable.

            2) EM pulses act as follows:
            The Poynting vector S of an EM wave is E x H, where E is the electric field vector and H is the magnetic field vector. S is then perpendicular to each of this and is in the direction of propagation of the EM wave. As such, for an EM pulse S travels at the speed of light.

            Now, let’s consider an EM wave pulse travelling to the right, i.e. in the positive x-direction. This means that S is in the positive x-direction. Let’s also call the direction of the electric field the positive y-direction for this pulse, so E is in the positive y-direction. This means that since S = E x H then the magnetic field must be in the positive z-direction.

            Next, let’s send a wave-pulse in the opposite direction in an attempt to cancel out the wave-pulse travelling in the positive x-direction. This pulse then has S in the negative x-direction. If we try to cancel the electrical field of the original wave-pulse then the direction of E must be in the negative y-direction. If this is the case then when the pulses meet up the electrical fields of the two pulses will cancel one another out. But what happens to the magnetic fields? For this second pulse since S = E x H then the magnetic field of this second pulse must be in the positive z-direction. The magnetic field of the second pulse is in the same direction as the magnetic field of the first pulse. So, when the two pulses meet up and their electrical fields cancel one another out, their magnetic fields sum togehter to create a net doubling of that field quantitiy. It is not possible for two opposing EM waves to cancel one another out in both the electric and magnetic fields. This should not be surprising to anyone that understands the basic physical priciple that energy cannot be destroyed.

            The fact that you are unable to understand any of this is no surprise. You are scientifically illiterate.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Here are the facts that I have proven.”
            Sorry, but haven’t proven anything except that you are scientifically illiterate.

            Here is what I have proven: You don’t know WTH you are talking about and you are a total freaking joke.

            “1) In elastic collisions …”
            Irrelevant to radiative heat transfer. Fail.

            “2) EM pulses act as follows…”
            Wrong you are just making stuff up and exposing your ignorance. You didn’t refute a single bit of the science that I showed you which shows that two opposing equal EM waves create a standing wave and cancel. Open this animation in another tab/window and stare at it for a few decades. Perhaps you can raise your IQ into double digits.

            All you are doing is making stuff up that is ludicrous, such as a resulting EM wave which has no electric field and a double magnetic field.That’s a fantasy and impossible in the real world. You are just exposing your ignorance of vector math. Fail.

            Once again, you can refute none of the science that I showed which proves you wrong. All you can do is expose your scientific illiteracy. So sad. But so typical of ideologically blinded fools.

          • evenminded

            You claim that bidirectional energy transfer violates the second law, yet the example of elastic collisions is such an example and does not violate the second law. You are wrong.

            EM pulses act as I wrote and you are too stupid to understand it. I did refute the science that you posted. It claimed that photons stop. Read that again. It claimed that photons can travel at speeds less than the speed of light. Your link is written by an imbecile.

            Apparently solutions to Maxwell’s equations are too advanced for you.

          • RealOldOne2

            Yep, you got nothing.

          • evenminded

            What I have are solutions to Maxwell’s equations that you do not comprehend and are unable to refute.

          • BBQman

            She also runs away from the facts that CO2 lags behind temperature changes, they always attempt to go off thread when faced with a question that the answer will crack their utopia world view, or they are to ignorant to understand the actual environment they live in.

          • evenminded

            Facts and reality BBQman, you really need to have a meeting sometime.

            Would you like me to make the introductions?

          • BBQman

            We are discussing the CO2 lag right now, if you are not going to contribute, buzz off.

          • evenminded

            Yes, it’s been explained to you that historically CO2 lags temperature and this is expected based on the physical behavior of the environment. It has also been explained to you that presently CO2 is leading temperature due to human emissions.

            It has also been explained to you that your claim that CO2 solidifies in the atmosphere at -110F is false.

            Your scientific illiteracy is on full display.

          • BBQman

            No, you can not avoid the fact that the solar energy creates the plant growth which produces the CO2, it’s not perpetual motion, and as much as you want it to be perpetual motion, it won’t work evenminded, CO2 always lags temperature….next.

          • evenminded

            WTF are you talking about?

            Humans have caused an increase in CO2 by about 100 ppm which has caused the recent temperature increase. CO2 is leading temperature and this has nothing to do with being a perpetual motion machine.

            Your scientific illiteracy is astounding.

          • BBQman

            Impossible, man only adds 0.011% CO2 to the CO2 created by earth, your %s are incorrect.

          • evenminded

            Prior to man’s emissions CO2 was stable at ~280ppm. It’s currently ~400 ppm.

            That addition is due to human activity. Facts are not your forte BBQ.

          • BBQman

            You have zero proof that the CO2 levels were 280ppm around 1750 or 1880.

          • evenminded

            In science there is no proof. There is of course observational and experimental evidence. Which of course we do have.

            The facts are not on your side grade school graduate.

          • BBQman

            Problem is, you don’t have proof or facts, we don’t need to make global decisions based on your sides assumptions, that would be retarded.

          • evenminded

            Of course there are facts. Again, “proof” is for mathematics, not science.

            Here are the facts.

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UatUDnFmNTY/maxresdefault.jpg

          • BBQman

            That is not a fact, it is some ink on a chart with zero input data, get real.

          • evenminded

            The citations for the data are included in the plot. Your lack of a rational refutation of these facts is duly noted.

            Go finish your high school education.

          • BBQman

            Show me the input data or you have nothing more then the results of a toy etch-a-Sketch, facts, proof.

          • evenminded

            The citations are on the plot. The data is shown. Your inability to refute it is duly noted.

          • BBQman

            You are being repetitive now, buzz off.

          • evenminded

            You are being an idiot. The data refutes your claims.

          • BBQman

            Buzz off, go find some proof of fossil fuel generated global warming.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3a323a16a689e1d4a870a6a287e803de71dd408e7eee46c9e5d0a7488576a5fc.jpg

          • evenminded

            Aww, are you frustrated that you are unable to refute the facts?

            Poor BBQman.

          • BBQman

            What facts?

          • evenminded

            The fact that CO2 does not solidify in the upper atmosphere at -110F.

            The fact that CO2 was at 280ppm prior to the industrial revolution.

            And the fact that CO2 increases lead the recent temperature increases, shown here.

            http://es.earthednet.org/wr-images/Climate-Calib1_figs/c_Temp1Kyr.jpg

          • BBQman

            We are on the topic of CO2 lagging temperature, I’m still waiting on you to prove otherwise, please catch up when you can.

          • evenminded

            The plot above shows that CO2 increases lead the recent temperature increases.

            Why are you so dense?

          • BBQman

            CO2 is not a climate driver, no proof exists.

          • evenminded

            Again, “proof” does not exist in science. Evidence does and I have provided the evidence. I have also refuted your scientifically illiterate claims that CO2 will solidify in the upper atmosphere at -110F, that there is no evidence that preindustrial CO2 levels were 280ppm, and that there is no evidence that CO2 lead the recent temperature increase.

            You’ve been proven wrong.

          • BBQman

            You have provided no credible evidence, or proof that CO2 is a climate driver, buzz off.

          • evenminded

            Of course I have. You have provided no refutation of the evidence that has been provided.

            You are a scientifically illiterate imbecile that is unable to accept reality and facts.

          • BBQman

            Stop lying, buzz off.

          • evenminded

            The only one here lying is you.

            You do have a problem admitting when you are wrong.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Prior to man’s emissions CO2 was stable at ~280ppm.”
            Sure it was, stable like this?
            http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/old_root/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

          • evenminded
          • RealOldOne2

            “Not talking about time scales over ice ages.”
            The flaws in your argument are:
            1) You admit that you are cherry picking a short time period and ignoring the longer record of CO2 changes which show that there is nothing whatsoever unprecedented about the recent CO2 levels.

            2) You are splicing two different measuring methods; centuries old ice core data and direct atmospheric measurements.
            3) Those CO2 levels are nothing unusual. There are thousands of direct chemical empirical measurements with an accuracy of 3% of atmospheric CO2 levels above 280ppm, even over 400ppm in the peer reviewed literature. Beck(2007) documents them from 180 peer reviewed papers written between 1812 and 1961. Here is how they compare to the ice core CO2 levels: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb47bebd2236fe9c7f5e8ba043d8ae54e78a4a6d3ba11af6e8ec085286d5ca27.png

            And Fig.1 from Fonselius(1956) ‘Carbon Dioxide Variations in the Atmosphere’ shows how Callendar cherry picked low values consistent with the ice core data and ignored many, many direct atmospheric measured data that disagreed with his CO2 hypothesis. Here is Fig.1 from that peer reviewed paper: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05ddd31685ebd76cf05a2acb5c6854dcaa7cf286a072e7389ea84f52baad78fb.png

          • evenminded

            The only flaws that I am dealing with are the ones in your brain.

            The argument is quite simple. Recently CO2 levels were stable for the last 1000 years prior to human emissions. That is an observed fact.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Recently CO2 levels were stable for the last 1000 years prior to human emissions. That is an observed fact.”
            No, as the peer reviewed papers that I cited show, that is not an observed fact.

            Your denial of reality and peer reviewed science merely exposes you as an ideologically blinded, reality-denying cultist.

          • evenminded

            Yes, it is an observed fact. Here are those observations.

            http://es.earthednet.org/wr-images/Climate-Calib1_figs/c_Temp1Kyr.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            Wow you are dense and gullible. Sorry hokey-stick pseudoscience doesn’t count. Neither does mixing CO2 measuring method. you can post your pseudoscience graph until the cows come home, but that will never refute the peer reviewed science showing actual atmospheric measurements that prove your graph is bogus: http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb47bebd2236fe9c7f5e8ba043d8ae54e78a4a6d3ba11af6e8ec085286d5ca27.png?w=600&h=233

            Your cherry picked graph is pseudoscience. This shows Callendar’s cherry picking: http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05ddd31685ebd76cf05a2acb5c6854dcaa7cf286a072e7389ea84f52baad78fb.png?w=600&h=252

          • evenminded

            Sorry ROO2 but the facts show that about 200 years ago CO2 started increasing at a significant rate. Temperatures declined for 50 years or so and then started to increase rapidly. Hence CO2 increases lead the temperature increase.

            The facts are straightforward.

          • RealOldOne2

            Your denial of reality is so sad.

          • evenminded

            Everything that I have stated is shown right there in the graph.

            The only one denying reality here is you.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. You ideologically blinded ignorant fool, as I’ve explained to you, your graph is bogus.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Sorry ROO2”
            I’m not ROO2. I am RealOldOne2. ROO2 is another Disqus user who is my dishonest serial impersonator, documented here: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302527-study-co2-levels-will-stay-above-key-measure-for-generations#comment-2973196862 .

            “The facts are straightforward.”
            Yes, they are, and I showed them to you, specifically that there are thousands of empirically measured atmospheric CO2 levels above 400ppm during the past 2 centuries. Nothing we are experiencing is out of normal climate variability.

          • evenminded

            Sorry ROO2, but you are wrong. You really do have problems accepting the facts on CO2 levels.

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UatUDnFmNTY/maxresdefault.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            “Sorry ROO2”
            I’m not ROO2. I am RealOldOne2. ROO2 is another Disqus user who is my dishonest serial impersonator, documented here: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302527-study-co2-levels-will-stay-above-key-measure-for-generations#comment-2973196862 .

            “You really do have problems accepting the facts on CO2 levels.”
            You really are good at projection.
            You are the one who is denying the thousands of direct chemical empirical measurements with an accuracy of 3% of atmospheric CO2 levels above 280ppm, even over 400ppm in the peer reviewed literature, Beck(2007), which documents them from 180 peer reviewed papers written between 1812 and 1961. Here is how they compare to the ice core CO2 levels: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb47bebd2236fe9c7f5e8ba043d8ae54e78a4a6d3ba11af6e8ec085286d5ca27.png

            And you the one denying all the direct atmospheric measurements of up to 550ppm from Fig.1 from Fonselius(1956) ‘Carbon Dioxide Variations in the Atmosphere’ which also shows how Callendar cherry picked low values consistent with the ice core data https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05ddd31685ebd76cf05a2acb5c6854dcaa7cf286a072e7389ea84f52baad78fb.png

            Thanks for yet another demonstration of your ideological blindness.

          • evenminded

            You need to learn to accept facts.

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UatUDnFmNTY/maxresdefault.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            “You need to learn to accept facts.”
            You are projecting again.
            Your chart of CO2 levels derived from ice cores in Antarctica is not a factually accurate representation of the levels of atmospheric CO2.
            I showed you direct empirical measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere of over 400ppm that came from 180 peer reviewed papers written from 1812-1961. I showed you peer reviewed science which showed how your chart was an exercise in cherry picking which ignored those actual measurements in the atmosphere. You are just burying your head and pretending that that real world data doesn’t exist.

            You need to take your ideological blinders off and stop living in your la-la land of unreality, because the real empirical measurements in the atmosphere show you are denying reality.

          • evenminded

            Yes, Antarctica is a good representation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The top of volcanoes is not.

            CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Take a look for yourself.

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142

          • RealOldOne2

            You poor ideologically blinded fool, it’s a proxy. The actual direct atmospheric measurements of CO2 TRUMP (just like our president-elect) proxy measurements.

          • evenminded

            What I just showed you are satellite measurements that verify the direct measurements taken from surface stations.

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142

            “Beck has re-interpreted various 19th and early 20th century chemical CO2 measurements, and derived very far-reaching conclusions. His work, however, contains major flaws, such that the conclusions are completely wrong, as they are based on poor understanding of the atmosphere.

            The concentration of CO2 as measured close to the earth’s surface is fully governed by atmospheric mixing, and lack thereof. The two main effects are:
            (1) The general build-up of an inversion layer during the night, causing the lowest parts of the atmosphere (some nights lower than 100 meters) to be isolated from the large free troposphere. The normal nocturnal production of CO2 by soil and vegetation mixes only into this small layer, and this leads to highly elevated concentrations of CO2. During the day, the contact between the lower layer and the free troposphere is gradually restored, causing the CO2 concentration to sink towards the free troposphere background concentration. The lowest concentrations of CO2 are generally reached in the local afternoon, when the mixing between lower layer and free troposphere is near to completion. Yet, close to ground level, a distinct difference in concentration will remain, its size depending on weather conditions. At an elevation of only 2 meters, one will never observe background concentration (unless in vast, completely source/sink free areas such as deserts or polar ice caps), but at higher elevations (say >40 meters) one can get close. Still, also at those elevations, one measures a CO2 concentration signal that is far from “Mauna Loa-like”. If one uses the daily period between 2- 4 PM, however, one gets a reasonable average CO2 concentration and seasonal cycle. At much lower elevations, such as all the measurements used in the article, however, this is doomed to fail.
            (2) The difference in atmospheric behaviour in summer and winter. Generally, the process of nocturnal inversion and lack of daily mixing is stronger in winter than in summer. This is the reason why CO2 take-up through photosynthesis is much harder to observe than CO2 production through organic material decay and respiration: During the day in summer the atmosphere tends to be well-mixed, and the CO2 loss to photo-synthesis is diluted in the total atmosphere, whereas during night in winter the decay and respiration only mix into a thin layer of atmosphere and are thus clearly visible as considerable increase of the CO2 concentration.
            The effects are respectively called the “diurnal” and the “seasonal” rectifier in the literature. Like a diode, namely, they rectify the observation of the CO2 flux: Sources are well visible, but sinks are much harder to observe. “Simple” pictures like figure 1 in Beck’s paper are therefore misleading: In reality the source and sinks effects indicated there are not well visible in the atmosphere, since they are obscured by the variability of the mixing processes.
            The characteristics above are common knowledge among the scientists monitoring and modelling atmospheric CO2. Apparently, however, it is totally unknown to the author and his supporting group. (Compare for example the clear example of the diurnal rectifier in figure 8 with the author’s comment in the caption).
            I suspect they never studied modern real-time continental CO2 registrations. This is a pity, because only a short look at measurements at different altitudes from continental towers such as the Wisconsin tower (NOAA, available on-line), the Hungarian Hegyhatsal tower, the Dutch Cabauw and Lutjewad towers, or even the on-line registrations made by Dutch secondary schools (available, soon in completion, on http://www.rug.nl/fwn/school-CO2-net), would have shown that the measurements presented in the paper are indeed useless for the purpose the author wants to use them, certainly in the way the author interprets them. If anything, a measurement place close to the sea would be the best try (since nocturnal inversion is much weaker over water), and then selecting only those measurements between 2 pm and 4 pm with wind from the direction of the sea. However, based on the information given in the paper, it is not possible to tell if such potentially useful measurement series do exist. The necessary data to judge, namely measurement height, consecutive length of a record and especially temporal resolution, are lacking in table 2.
            In the light of the above, the whole “Discussion and Conclusion” section is invalid, including figures 11-14.
            In summary, the paper lacks the very basic knowledge necessary to treat atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements properly. The author even accuses the pioneers Callendar and Keeling of selective data use, errors or even something close to data manipulation, but contrary to the author, Callendar and Keeling took the above into account.
            It is shocking that this paper has been able to pass the journal’s referee system. “Energy and Environment” apparently has been unable to organise a proper peer review process for this paper, thereby discrediting the journal. ”

          • Mensch59

            Thanks for this post.
            Very informative and concise analysis.
            Kudos.

          • evenminded

            Not my analysis. It’s an analysis from the real experts.

          • Mensch59

            Thanks for the correction.
            Your understanding of the real experts and making that available to those of us who are not professionally trained scientists, might make your post a meta-analysis.
            Less wrong?

          • evenminded

            I wouldn’t call it a meta-analysis. It’s simply the response of that actual climate experts to the paper that appeared in Energy and Environment. Energy and Environment is one of the, if not the, most debunked journals in existence. Journal of Modern Physics is another.

          • RealOldOne2

            Now you’re flimflamming, playing move the pea shell con game, as you are switching timeframes.

            I’ve never denied that CO2 has increased since 1958. I have been pointing out from 180 peer reviewed papers that direct atmospheric measurements of CO2 show that the ice core data is not representative of the actual atmospheric concentrations prior to 1958 as represented in your previous graphs because direct atmospheric CO2 measurements show that they were higher than the ice core record indicates.

            And I will point out that the increase in CO2 that you show wasn’t the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. More solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was, as Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014) showed that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m^2 to 6.8W/m^2 during the late 20th century warming, while the increase in CO2 forcing was only ~0.5W/m^2.

          • evenminded

            No, what I am doing is refuting your nonsense.

            You’re an idiot that does not possess any fundamental understanding of science.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot that does not possess any fundamental understanding of science.”
            You’re projecting again.
            Everyone (except you ideologically blinded dupes) can see that I do understand science and you don’t because I post science that supports my understanding and you don’t. You merely make baseless, evidence-free claims.

          • evenminded

            You don’t post science, you post websites that claim that photons can stop before being absorbed by matter.

            You’re a fool that cannot refute the science that demonstrates microscopic energy transfers from low to high energy. You are an idiot that does not understand solutions to Maxwell’s equations.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You don’t post science…”
            Reality proves you to be a liar. I posted all this wealth of science which supports my position and refutes yours. You have never been able to refute any of it:

            • “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155

            • “Transfer of Energy from the Ocean to the Atmosphere. – Heat moves in predictable ways, flowing from warmer objects to cooler ones, until both reach the same temperature.” – http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            • “Heat energy is transferred as a result of a temperature difference. Energy as heat passes FROM a warm body with higher temperature TO a cold body with lower temperature. The transfer of energy as a result of temperature difference alone is referred to as HEAT FLOW.” – http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-work-energy-d_292.html

            • “Heat does not flow from a cooler to warmer body.” – Clark2010 ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ , peer reviewed science

            • “if the temperature of one object is higher than that of the other object, there will be a transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder object until both objects reach the same temperature.” – http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/differ.html , NASA & California Institute of Technology

            • “When you put a hot object in contact with a cold one, heat will flow FROM the warmer TO the cooler. As a result, the warmer one will usually cool down and the cooler one will usually warm up. Eventually they will reach the same temperature and heat flow will stop.” – http://hop.concord.org/h1/phys/h1pf.html , Hands on Physics – Heat and Temperature

            • “Heat flows from hot to cold – The first statement of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics – heat flows spontaneously FROM a hot TO a cold body” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “Whenever there is a temperature difference between two objects in contact, heat energy will flow FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object until they reach the same temperature.” – http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/HeatFlow.html , Western Washington Univ , Heat Flow

            • “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            • “In the process of reaching thermodynamic equilibrium, heat is transferred FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object. At thermodynamic equilibrium heat transfer is ZERO.” – http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/heat.gif , NASA – Heat Transfer

            • “the laws of thermodynamics lay the framework for the science of heat transfer. … The second law requires that heat be transferred in the DIRECTION OF DECREASING TEMPERATURE. It is analogous to the electric current flowing in the direction of decreasing voltage or the fluid flowing in the direction of decreasing pressure.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150610140851/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.2.html , India Institute of Technology (the MIT/Stanford of India)

            • “Heat transfer is energy in transit due to temperature difference. Whenever there exists a temperature difference in a medium or between media, heat transfer must occur. The basic requirement for heat transfer is the presence of temperature difference. There can be NO net heat transfer between two mediums that are at the same temperature. The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html , India Institute of Technology

            • Lecture on 2nd Law & Perpetual Motion Machines of the 2nd Kind – http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu

            • “When you bring two objects of different temperature together, energy will ALWAYS be transferred FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. The objects will exchange thermal energy until thermal equilibrium is reached, ie., until their temperatures are equal. We say heat flows FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. Heat is energy on the move. … Without an external agent doing work, heat will ALWAYS flow from a hotter to a cooler object.” – http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH7/Heat%20Flow.htm , Univ of Tenn Physics

            • “heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object. … Just as in the case of the cooling coffee mug, energy is being transferred from the higher temperature objects to the lower temperature object. Once more, this is known as heat – the transfer of energy from the higher temperature object to a lower temperature object.” – http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat , Physics Classroom

            • “If there is a temperature difference in a system, heat will naturally move from high to low temperatures. The place you find the higher temperature is the heat source. The area where the temperature is lower is the heat sink.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_transfer.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “We’re going to talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. … Heat flows from hot areas to cold, NOT the other way.” , http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_law2.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “Heat moves from one system because of differences of temperature in the systems. If you have two identical systems with equal temperatures, there will be NO flow of energy. When you have two systems with different temperatures, the energy will start to flow. … Areas of high temperature give off energy TO areas of lower temperature.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_intro.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “When two things are in thermal contact but NO thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the SAME temperature.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            • “Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html


            “Stefan-Boltzmann for Two Blackbodies consider a blackbody B1 of temperature T1 in radiative contact with another blackbody B2 of temperature T2 with T2 > T1 … Q₁₂ = σ(T₂⁴ – T₁⁴) with T₂>T₁. which expresses Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law for the radiative heat transfer from one body in radiative contact with a body of lower temperature. … Notice the requirement in (14.3) that T₂>T₁. In the literature one finds the law without this requirement in the form Q₁₂ = σT₂⁴ – σT₁⁴ , Q₂₁ = σT₁⁴ – σT₂^⁴ = -Q₁₂ (14.5) where Q₂₁ is the heat transfer from B₁ to B₂ as the negative of Q₂₁ .

            This form has led to the misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law as expressing heat transfer from B2 to B1 of size σT₂^⁴ balanced by a transfer of -σT₁⁴ from B₁ to B₂, as if two opposing transfers of heat energy is taking place between the two bodies with their difference determining the net flow. Such a misinterpretation was anticipated an countered in Stefan’s original article [42][Ueber die Beziehung zwischen der Warmestrahlung und der Temperatur (Concerning the relationship between the Thermal radiation and the Temperature)] from 1879:

            ” • The absolute value the heat energy emission from a radiating body cannot be determined by experiment. An experiment can only determine the surplus of emission over absorption, with the absorption determined by the emission from the environment of the body.

            • However, if one has a formula for the emission as a function of temperature (like Stefan-Boltzmann Law), then the absolute value of the emission can be determined, but such a formula has only a hypothetical meaning.”

            Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law (14.3) thus requires T₂>T₁ and does not contain two-way opposing heat transfer, only one-way heat transfer from warm to cold. Unfortunately the misinterpretation has led to a fictitious non-physical “backradiation” underlying CO2 global warming alarmism.” – Johnson2012

            • Promoters of CAGW-by-CO2’s misunderstanding of S-B is also explained here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/okulaer-on-why-atmospheric-radiative.html

            • Further explanation of the errors of CAGW-by-CO2 alarmists’ understanding of thermodynamics: http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

            Then study this:
            Any object above zero has a radiation force/power field, and has the potential to transfer heat energy, but can only do so if the other object is at a lower energy state, ie., a lower temperature, than the first object.

            This shows that a surface has an “emissive power” that has an “upper limit”. That upper limit is only reached if the 2nd object is at absolute zero, as the equation shows. If the other object is at the same temperature, the emissive powers cancel and there is NO heat transfer, as my multiple sources state. – http://web.archive.org/web/20150510195517/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.4.3.html

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            Heat energy spontaneously flows only in one direction, from higher energy states to lower energy states. To do otherwise would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

            The fact that emissive powers of two objects which are at exactly the same temperature cancel is evident because heat flow goes to ZERO. That means the emissive power transfers NO heat energy from either object to the other object when the temperature of the two objects is exactly the same. That is effectively cancelling the emissive power of one surface by an equal but opposite emissive power of the other surface.

            “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            Waves can cancel or reflect back. “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            Look at the electromagnetic wave vector slide, http://physics.info/em-waves/poynting.svg . You see the poynting vectors that AlecM describes. Two facing surfaces at equal temperatures have equal frequency and equal amplitude electric, magnetic, and poynting vectors, but in opposite directions. All the vectors cancel out, and there is no heat energy flow/transfer.

            The entire reference of that slide is here: http://physics.info/em-waves/ Go to the end where it talks about radiation pressure, similar to the WolframResource reference that I cited, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html . Equal but opposite radiation pressure results in no heat energy flow. Equal but opposite radiation force results in no heat energy flow.

            • “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            • “But the internal energy of a system is still proportional to its temperature. We can therefore monitor changes in the internal energy of a system by watching what happens to the temperature of the system. Whenever the temperature of the system increases we can conclude that the internal energy of the system has also increased.” – Purdue Univ., http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php

            Some 2nd Law deniers admit that heat doesn’t flow from colder objects to warmer objects, but that energy does. This is nonsense, since heat is energy in transit:

            • “Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.” – Georgia State Univ. Physics & Astronomy, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html

          • evenminded

            None of these posts refute the fact that energy via microscopic mechanisms can be and is transferred from cold to hot. They are all talking about heat, which is the net transfer of energy.

            The actual science that you do post you don’t even understand.

          • RealOldOne2

            “None of these posts refute the fact that energy can be and is transferred from cold to hot.”
            You are denying reality again. Heat is “energy-in-transit”. If heat isn’t transferred then there is no energy being transferred. And heat transfer results in an increase in temperature. And you yourself admitted in your hilarious failure to explain how a ‘backradiation’ collector works, that ‘backradiation’ didn’t raise the temperature of the ‘backradiation’ collector.

            “The actual science that you do post you don’t even understand.”
            Ah, now you’re admitting that you lied when you claimed “You don’t post science”.
            And now you are making yet another baseless, evidence-free claim, as you haven’t shown that a single one of those dozens of science sources which support my position is wrong.

            Every time you attempt to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodyanamics you end up hopelessly swirling down the crapper as I expose your scientific illiteracy and ignorance. You are a glutton for punishment!

          • evenminded

            The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not govern microscopic energy transfers.

            None of the links you provide, aside from the one that does not understand Maxwell’s laws and is obviously wrong, refute that fact.

            You can’t refute that fact because you do not understand science.

          • Marco Gagetti

            Jesus, are we fucked or are we not? Someone give me a simple answer.

          • evenminded

            There are no simple answers. It also depends on who “we” is. Depending on your age you might not have anything to worry about and “we” can kick the problems down to “our” progeny.

          • BBQman

            The climate today, is as normal as it has been for the last 65,000 thousand years, but the next 30 years are going to be colder, like a repeat of a portion of the little ice age around 1770.

          • Bart_R

            You just elected a New York landlord PotUS.

            You better invest in Tic Tacs and lube.

            Simple enough for you?

            Oh, you mean the science stuff?

            Scientists tend to give the opinion of least drama. They see five degrees of temperature rise per doubling of CO2, they say three degrees, because then it doesn’t sound so bad to their minds because they argue from consequences inside their heads, and at three degrees the consequences won’t affect them in their lifetime.

            But they said these things thirty years ago, and they’re still saying them, and they’re already affected, other than the ones who’ve died in the last 30 years.

            They say it takes thousands of years to melt the entire Antarctic, so sea level rise won’t be very fast, because the consequence of fast sea level rise is costly and terrifying. But they know it only takes thirty to seventy years for thermal expansion to affect the oceans, and the Antarctic is just an ocean of ice, with polar amplification it’ll expand faster and more than the seas, so much of the sea level rise will be ten to a hundred times faster than scientists have been saying.

            Don’t ask scientists, if you want to know all the bad news. They won’t tell you. They’re trained not to.

            If you want to know all the bad news, you need to ask someone with actual money on the line. China’s been investing fifty times as much on renewable power than the rest of the world combined for a decade, and they don’t even like the people who live on their coasts very much.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Evenminded: In reality, the issue isn’t really scientific literacy or illiteracy. It is about the scientization of politics by people who can never come to terms with the basic physics and scientific observations of climate change — because doing so would put them in fundamental conflict with their own core sociopolitical values and their tribal affiliations. As humans, those affiliations are far more impactful, at least in the short run, than something like climate change. So trying to have a debate with them on the basis of science is futile. I’m sure you’ve experienced it: These debates never lead anywhere other than deep and abiding frustration.

          • evenminded

            Agreed. I do it when I am bored for entertainment.

          • OWilson

            I agree, in part.

            See see my post above, Myths Die Hard!

          • RealOldOne2

            “not perpetual motion”
            Yes, evenminded believes in perpetual motion machines of the 2nd kind, where two objects continuously transfer energy back and forth at the same rate as if the the other object was at absolute zero, with perfect, lossless, 100% efficient heat transfer with no increase in entropy during the heat transfer process.

            This lecture explains why this can’t happen in the real world: http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu

          • evenminded

            No, the energy exchanges between the atmosphere and the surface are no more a perpetual motion machine than the energy exchanges between any two objects.

          • RealOldOne2

            You are doing your typical handwaving clown dance of obfuscation. Sad.

          • evenminded

            Just refuting your baseless straw men.

          • RealOldOne2

            Got your ‘backradiation’ heat collector working yet? Hahaha.

          • evenminded

            I’ve explained to you what a black cardboard square will do during the day as well as at night. During the day the cardboard absorbs more energy than it emits, thus is is collecting energy, and during the night it emits more energy than it absorbs, thus it is transferring energy.

            This is not rocket science. Even a child can understand it. Why can’t you?

          • RealOldOne2

            OK, you haven’t got it working. Got it.
            That proves you wrong!

          • evenminded

            The BRHC is your straw man. I’ve never claimed that such a heat collector exists. I have explained how your proposed heat collector would work.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I’ve never claimed that such a heat collector exists>”
            Then you are admitting that the cold atmosphere transfers no IR energy to the surface because if it did, it must manifest itself as heat.
            Thanks for finally admitting that you were wrong.

          • evenminded

            I’ve explained to you how your BRHC works during the day and during the night.

            Do you need me to explain it to you again?

          • RealOldOne2

            It is just stupid to claim like you do that the Earth is warmed primarily by the cold atmosphere which according to you transfers 28 megajoules of energy/heat to every square meter in a 24 hour period, while the Sun only transfers 14.5 megajoules of energy/heat to every square meter in a 24 hour period.

            And save your denial of that reality, because that is exactly what you are claiming, per to the false energy budget diagram, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html that you accept.

            Here is the real energy budget diagram from Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Earth’s Climate Sstem’ that shows the only energy flows: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            It correctly shows no energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warm surface. That is why you can’t collect any of your alleged 324W/m^2 of ‘backradiation’ energy/heat.

            Now study this science which shows why your fantasy pseudoscience is wrong:
            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/
            and: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/how-the-ipcc-turn-calculated-numbers-into-heat/
            and: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598
            and: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-great-magical-greenhouse-effect-self-amplifying-loop/
            and: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/how-agw-isnt-happening-in-the-real-earth-system/
            and: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/

          • evenminded

            You really don’t understand your own BRHC do you?

            OK, so are you ready for your education?

            1. So, we have a black cardboard square.

            2. Let’s simplify things and say that it acts as an ideal blackbody and is 1 m^2.

            3. Let’s also say that there is a water bath circulating at a constant temperature of 25 C below it such that the temperature of the cardboard remains constant. In other words, any net energy that is absorbed or emitted by the cardboard is done so at a fixed 25C temperature and that energy is taken from or transferred to the circulating water. If you would like to discuss some other set-up then we can. This set-up simplifies the discussion.

            4. Let’s take a day that has 12 hours of sunlight and has a peak level of solar radiation of 800 W/m^2.

            5. Let’s assume that the intensity of the solar radiation can be approximated as a sine wave from 0 at sunrise, to 800 at midday, and back to zero at sunset.

            6. (5) implies that the total energy absorbed by the cardboard from the sun is approximately 11 MJ of energy (i.e. 11 x 10^6 J).

            7. Let’s assume that the backradiation from the atmosphere is fixed at 300 W/m^2 (it does vary about this level over the day, but let’s neglect that detail for now, we can add it if necessary).

            8. (7) implies that over the 12 hour period that the sun is shining, the cardboard also absorbs approximately 13 MJ of energy from the atmosphere.

            9. Now, since the cardboard is a blackbody at 25C it emits radiation in accordance with the SB law in the amount of 447 W/m^2. It emits this amount of energy constantly.

            10. (9) implies that over the 12 hour period that the sun is shining the cardboard emits approximately 19 MJ of energy.

            11. (6), (8), and (10) then imply that during the 12 hours that the sun is shining the cardboard absorbs 24 MJ of energy and emits 19 MJ of energy for a sum total of 5 MJ of energy that is ultimately transferred to the circulating water bath.

            12. So, during the day energy is in fact collected by this system in the amount of 5 MJ.

            Now, lets look at what happens at night.

            13. At night, the cardboard no longer absorbs any energy from the sun since the sun is no longer shining.

            14. The backradiation is still present in the amount of 300 W/m^2, and during the 12 hours that the sun is not shining the cardboard will absorb 13 MJ of energy from the atmosphere.

            15. The cardboard is still at 25C due to the circulating water bath and so it is still emitting energy out at a constant 447 W/m^2, and during the 12 hours that the sun is not shining the cardboard will emit 19 MJ of energy.

            16. (14) and (15) then imply that the net energy flux is from the cardboard out of the system in the amount of 6 MJ.

            17. So during the 12 hours that the sun is not shining this “heat collector” is actually a net loser of energy to its surroundings even though it is always absorbing energy from the atmosphere. The heat transfer is from the warmer “collector” to the cooler atmosphere.

            So, your contention that it should be possible to “collect” backradiation with such a device is simply false. Hence the reason why it is a straw man.

            You are welcome for the bit of education that you just received.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. You assumed what you wanted to prove.
            Total FAIL by the petitio principii logical failure because you just assumed the energy transfer from backradiation to the surface!
            In 14, 15, 16 you totally failed to demonstrate any transfer of energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface during the 12 hours of night as there was no increase in temperature above ambient, and you confirmed that the only energy transfer was from the surface to the colder atmosphere.

            Thanks for yet another display of your scientific illiteracy and for confirming that I was correct and that you were wrong.

          • evenminded

            I didn’t assume anything.

            I explained exactly how this system works. You apparently are to stupid to understand basic science.

          • ROO2

            Talking of basic science:

            An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics

            http://home.basu.ac.ir/~psu/Books/Thermodynamics%20&%20Statistical%20Mechanics%20%20by%20Stowe.pdf

            Page 443:

            “As an object radiates energy into its environment, it also receives energy from its environment….Because an object in equilibrium with a photon gas must absorb exactly as it emits at all energies and because that which is not absorbed is reflected, we have the following measures of absorptivity and reflectivity:”

            Poor RealOdlOne2, he still has not made it to the introductory thermodynamic textbooks, he’s still getting his information from Fizziks4kids it seems.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Poor RealOldOne2”
            The only poor RealOldOne2 is the fake RealOldOne2 you created in one of your many serial attempts to impersonate me (because you were so envious of my scientific knowledge and because you got so hopping mad that I continually exposed your scientific illiteracy and ignorance).

            Your sordid, dishonest serial impersonations are documented here: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302527-study-co2-levels-will-stay-above-key-measure-for-generations#comment-2973196862

            You have yet to experimentally demonstrate your fantasy physics of the non-real ‘backradiation’-energy/heat-transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
            Your astoundingly stupid claim that the Earth is heated primarily by 28Mjoules/m^2 per day from the cold atmosphere rather than the 14Mjoules/m^2 per day from the Sun exposes just how scientifically illiterate you are.

          • ROO2

            The only thing fake here is your apparent inability to understand an introductory thermodynamics text, either that or you really are as thick as you make out?

            Your astoundingly stupid claim that the Earth is heated primarily by 28Mjoules/m^2 per day from the cold atmosphere rather than the 14Mjoules/m^2 per day from the Sun exposes just how scientifically illiterate you are.

            How so? You think it is not scientifically possible to have more energy retained by insulation than the energy generated from a heat source? That’s just utter tosh on your part and demonstrates a complete lack of any ability for logical thinking.

          • RealOldOne2

            Poor scientifically illiterate serial impersonator ( http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302527-study-co2-levels-will-stay-above-key-measure-for-generations#comment-2973196862 ) ROO2, still ignorantly thinks a blanket (insulation) which is colder than your body warms you by transferring heat back to your warmer body, in violation of the 2nd Law.

            Yet another demonstration by my serial impersonator of his scientific illiteracy and buffoonery.

          • ROO2

            still ignorantly thinks a blanket (insulation) which is colder than your body warms you by transferring heat back to your warmer body, in violation of the 2nd Law.

            Still having to lie when your position is shown to be untenable I see. Poor, poor RealOldOne2. Perhaps once you’ve read the introductory thermodynamics text and realise that energy transfer is bi-directional and heat is defined as the net transfer, you will start to grasp some basics. No wonder you cannot fathom the basics of my question, “You think it is not scientifically possible to have more energy retained by insulation than the energy generated from a heat source? “

            Still unable to comprehend how a foil space blanket prevents hypothermia I see.

          • RealOldOne2

            “realise that energy transfer is bi-directional”
            It’s not: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            “Still unable to comprehend how a foil space blanket prevents hypothermia I see.”
            Still having to lie when your position is untenable I see. Any kind of blanket acts as a thermal shield and slows the loss of energy/heat from your body, which allows the internally generated energy to accumulate and raise your body temperature.

            Your body temperature does not rise because of additional heat being transferred to it from the colder blanket. That would violate the 1st Law of thermodynamics as it would be creating energy out of thin air, in addition to violating the 2nd Law because it would involve the transfer of energy from a colder object to a hotter object.

            Read all about why your ‘bi-directional’ energy flow is impossible in the real world: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

          • ROO2

            violating the 2nd Law because it would involve the transfer of energy from a colder object to a hotter object.

            Again try:

            An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics

            “”As an object radiates energy into its environment, it also receives energy from its environment”

            Who to rely on though eh? The author of the above who is a professor of physics at California Polytechnic State University and has worked there for 32 years.

            Or your pseudoscience blog link from a seif proclaimed non-expert?

            Tough call…

          • RealOldOne2

            Still denying the 2nd Law. How scientifically illiterate.
            But I see that you have accepted that I correctly understand how a blanket keeps you warm, and you don’t.

          • ROO2

            But I see that you have accepted that I correctly understand how a blanket keeps you warm

            Incorrect. You claimed a space blanket reflects IR that “cancels” the IR radiated from your body in violation of the 1st law.

            Amusing, yes. Correct, no.

          • RealOldOne2

            “in violation of the 1st law.”
            Nope, my understanding that the blanket reduces the heat loss doesn’t violate the 1st law whatsoever.
            But your incorrect explanation that a blanket causes your body to increase its temperature by transferring additional heat from the colder blanket back to your body does violate the 1st Law because it claims that the body temperature rises because of more heat being added to it, rather than heat accumulating from the only source of Qin, the body’s metabolism.

            The increase in temperature results solely from accumulating internal energy from the body’s metabolism because the heat it generates can’t be transferred away as fast as it is being generated. This results in an increase in body temperature until a new equilibrium can be reached.

            Once again, you expose your scientific illiteracy and ignorance. So sad.

          • ROO2

            Nope, my understanding that the blanket reduces the heat loss doesn’t violate the 1st law whatsoever.

            Really?

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/study_co2_levels_will_stay_above_key_measure_for_039generations039/#comment-2975329801

            “This reflected electromagnetic wave cancels much of the energy of electromagnetic wave leaving your body, and the result is a much reduced one-directional heat flow from your body to the blanket via radiation, which is what causes your body temperature to increase.”

            You certainly seem to be explaining energy cancellation, or does this process create new matter?

          • RealOldOne2

            Yep, my understanding is correct because it doesn’t destroy or create any energy.
            The blanket merely reduces the energy out from your body. That energy isn’t destroyed, it accumulates in your body until a new equilibrium is reached. It doesn’t create any energy because the only energy in to your body remains the internal energy from your body’s metabolism.

            Your understanding is wrong and violates the 1st Law because it creates energy, new energy in from the blanket to your body, which means that the body has more energy in than it had before, and new energy from more energy out too.

            And electromagnetic wave cancellation doesn’t create or destroy any energy, it conserves energy according to the 1st Law. For example in the case of two objects which are at the same temperature as described in these science sources:

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            The equal but opposing EM waves cancel out the energy flow from the other EM wave and a standing wave is created, but that cancellation doesn’t destroy (or create) any energy, because when “the transfer of energy ceases” that energy remains in the two objects and energy is conserved.

            This is so elementary.

          • ROO2

            my understanding is correct because it doesn’t destroy or create any energy.

            Good grief, when you stated:

            This reflected electromagnetic wave cancels much of the energy of electromagnetic wave leaving your body

            You are suggesting that shining a torch into a mirror makes the torch considerably dimmer.

            This is just unscientific nonsense.

            You are suggesting that a reflected photon has no energy.

            Again this is just unscientific nonsense. Do try learning some quantum mechanics.

            You are claiming that the reflected EM wave prohibits the emission of the EM from the warm body, but provide zero evidence for the mechanism for this. What you do claim is that the warm body has already cooled by emitting EM for there to be a bidirectional energy flow to allow a standing wave to occur.

            The equal but opposing EM waves cancel out the energy flow from the other EM wave and a standing wave is created

            No they don’t. There are multiple nodes and anti-nodes past the point of interaction. Energy flows in both directions beyond the first point of interaction. It has to to be able to create a standing wave:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic73oZoqr70

            when “the transfer of energy ceases” that energy remains in the two objects and energy is conserved.

            If there is an EM wave that energy has already left the object emitting. This seems to be a point you are struggling with.

            But now you suggest that, at equilibrium, neither object emits any energy whatsoever but both objects are aware of each other and the respective temperature of each so as not to emit any energy. These objects could be very close or indeed many light years apart, travelling in different vectors. What physical process is it RealOldOne2 that allows a body to pre-determine the location of another body in space and time so as not to emit a photon of energy in its direction? How does it calculate what the physical temperature of that body will be at the time when the photon arrives to decide whether to emit it or not?

            You keep walking away from the cosmic microwave background question that was previously put to you. We can detect now the cosmic microwave background from 300,000 years after the big bang. Given that this comes from matter around 4K, you dispute that such matter would have radiated any energy at the Earth as the Earth is considerably warmer than 4K.

            Please can you explain the physical mechanism that would have prevented the radiation of energy from the cosmic microwave background over 13 billion years ago in the direction of planet Earth that was yet to be formed in order not to violate you dimwitted understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

            Perhaps your misunderstanding can be resolved by considering this simple example

            Nope. The energy is transferred to deformation of the bodies and molecular heating.

            You do not understand science, or math. Your pseudoscience is based on sentient and clairvoyant atoms and molecules.

            Still, it’s good for a laugh, which is the only reason why you are here. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            Your 2nd Law denial is so pathetic, but it is amusing to watch you humuliate and make a total fool out of yourself as you fabricate strawmen, as you make stuff up like that I believe in clairvoyance of atoms and molecules, as you make blanant and obviously false claims like I don’t understand science or math, as you peddle your rubbish pseudoscience like perpetual motion machines of the 2nd kind, and as you deny reality and dozens of science references that prove me right and prove you wrong ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-2997105738 ).

            You won’t admit it, but you know that you just envy my scientific knowledge, which is why you serially impersonate me (documented here: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302527-study-co2-levels-will-stay-above-key-measure-for-generations#comment-2973196862 ) and have changed your current Disqus username to the nickname, ROO2, which I have used and people have referred to me with for years. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Thank you for honoring my scientific prowess.

            So have you got your ‘backradiation’ heat collector working yet that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as it does during the daytime? No? Gee, why not, since you think there is twice as much energy/heat, 28 megajoules being transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth every 24 hours to every square meter on the surface of the Earth, than there is being transferred from the Sun, 14 megajoules. Should be a piece of cake to collect that energy/heat.
            Why can’t you collect any of those 28 megajoules?
            Answer: It’s not a real energy/heat flux/flow
            , just as Figure 5a from Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’, a peer reviewed paper written explicity from the perspective of the 2nd Law shows, http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg . The legend for figure 5 states: “Energy and entropy budgets for the Earth. (a) Global-mean (surface-area mean) energy flux components (i.e., shortwave radiation, longwave radiation,vertical turbulent heat transport), in Wm⁻².” That Figure 5 shows that I am correct that your alleged 324W/m² of ‘backraidation’ energy/heat flow is not real, because there is no longwave radiation component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth. That is because there can’t be because it would be energy/heat flowing from a colder object to a warmer object, which would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and no paper written from the perspective of the 2nd Law would dare make such an egregious error.

            Most people don’t enjoy exposing their scientific illiteracy and making a total fool out of themselves. You are obvioulsy an exception because you do it so frequently. You either are just so incensed and stark raving mad that I have endlessly exposed your ignorance and scientific illiteracy that you are obsessed with me or you get paid to humuliate yourself.
            So do you get paid to make your ignorant comments?
            Or do you expose your scientific illiteracy for free?

            There is one other possibility that would explain your irrational and incoherent obsession with me, and that is you are Gilman Reno Ouellette Jr., aka StAverti.
            StAverti was a disgraced YouTube commenter who outed himself from his own statements and hubris. He begged me numerous times to reveal his real name, so I did. He slunk away in shame after he outed himself.
            Here are the facts that show you fit StAverti:
            StAverti and was serially dishonest just like you, when he claimed to have a MS & PhD and be a professor and a climate scientist.
            StAverti was an impersonator just like you, when he claimed to be Dr. Lee Floria from Ball State Univ.
            StAverti was scientifically illiterate just like you, when he made 140+ false statements such as “It is very much a real possibility that the oceans will boil.”
            StAverti stubbornly clung to his mistakes just like you do, refusing to admit to a single mistake.
            StAverti would ignore any science that I posted which showed he was wrong, just like you do.
            StAverti’s style was to use emoticons, just like you do.
            When my posting of science that he couldn’t refute, he would project his own ignorance of science onto me, and make statements like “You do not understand science”, just like you do.
            StAverti was hopping mad at me for exposing his ignorance and scientific illiteracy and was obsessed with me, following me around constantly making false accusations and bogus claims about me, just like you do.

            So tell us, is the reason that you are obsessed with me to the point that you serially impersonate me because you are Gilman Reno Ouellette Jr.?

          • ROO2

            So, in summary, you could offer nothing of scientific substance to rebut anything?

            This is your bag RealOldOne2. This is the physical Universe in which you think you live.

            “Please can you explain the physical mechanism that would have prevented the radiation of energy from the cosmic microwave background over 13 billion years ago in the direction of planet Earth that was yet to be formed in order not to violate your dimwitted understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?”

            It seems you are running on empty to offer and physical explanation, for if you did you would have a paper overturning the fundamental scientific understanding of our Universe.

            All you have is toilet paper…again.

            So have you got your ‘backradiation’ heat collector working yet

            What does Ozawa show for the net IR direction with which I agree? What exactly do you plan to collect from that?

            All you have is soiled toilet paper…again.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I didn’t assume anything”
            Wrong. You assumed that ‘backradiation’ was a real energy flow, but you showed no evidence that it was real because you admitted that it couldn’t raise the temperature of the ‘backradiation’ collector above ambient, ie., it couldn’t collect any of the energy that you claim it was receiving. If it was a real energy flow, it would have raised the temperature of the collector above ambient, just like a solar collector does.

            “You apparently are to[sic] stupid to understand this basic science.”
            You are projecting again.

          • evenminded

            Backradiation is a real energy flow. Why are you back to stating that DWLWR does not exist?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Backradiation is a real energy flow.”
            No it’s not, proven by the fact that you can’t collect any of it.

            “Why are you back to stating that DWLWR does not exist.”
            Why are you lying and misrepresenting me again? I stated no such thing. I merely stated that DWLWR is not a real energy flow, ie., it doesn’t transfer any energy/heat to the warmer surface of the Earth. That’s because it is merely a potential energy source. Your 324W/m^2 is only a real energy flow to a sink at absolute zero. The S-B equation shows it: q=σ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). Only if Tc=0 does it equal 324W/m^2. But the surface of the Earth is not at absolute zero, it is warmer than the cold atmosphere where the ‘backradiation’ exists, thus the heat/energy flow is in only one direction, from the warmer surface of the Earth to the colder sky, just as the S-B equation shows. Simple 2nd Law. You know, the one that you deny.

          • ROO2

            Why not try some introductory thermodynamics:

            “”As an object radiates energy into its environment, it also receives energy from its environment.”

          • evenminded

            You are contradicting yourself. If DWLWR exists, then it is real, and it is a flow of energy in the downward direction towards the surface.

            When it reaches the surface it does one of 3 things, (a) it is absorbed, (b) it is reflected, or (c) it is transmitted.

            Logic just isn’t your thing.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You are contradicting yourself.”
            Nope, I’ve not contradicted myself anywhere.

            “If DWLR exists, then it is real, and it is a flow of energy in the downward direction towards the surface.”
            It does exist and it is real, but it is not a real flow of energy to the surface, because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, and energy never flows uphill in the real world. As I showed you from the S-B equation, it is a potential flow of energy, but only to an object that is at a lower temperature. 2nd Law.

            You are claiming that it transfers just as much energy to a warmer object as it does to absolute zero. That’s just ludicrous.

          • evenminded

            If DWLWR exists, then when it reaches the surface it does one of 3 things, (a) it is absorbed, (b) it is reflected, or (c) it is transmitted.

            Which is it, a, b, or c?

          • RealOldOne2

            You are hopelessly tangled in your mental model and your inability to distinguish between a real energy/heat transfer and a potential energy/heat transfer.
            In the real world that we live in, “But radiation in itself does not universally does not constitute a thermodynamic ‘energy transfer’. For instance, a cool object can not and will not transfer any of its energy via radiation to a warmer object. This should go without saying, since this would be a direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Recall that a thermodynamic ‘energy transfer’ is always unidirectional, and always comes in the form of either ‘heat’ [Q] or ‘work’ [W], and always changes the ‘internal energy’ [U] (and therefore, normally, the temperature of the two objects/regions involved in the transfer. The confusion simply arises from the inability to distinguish between a potential ‘energy transfer’ and an actual ‘energy transfer’.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            Read it and study it. It explains in great detail why your alleged ‘bidirectional’ energy/heat transfer can’t happen in the real world.

          • evenminded

            You’re back to your site that claims that photons can stop.

            You don’t understand physics. The question is simple. Photons do one of 3 things in their interactions with matter. They are absorbed, reflected, or transmitted.

            What happens to LWR photons when they interact with the matter at the surface of the earth?

          • RealOldOne2

            You haven’t read it. It explains your misunderstanding of photons:

          • evenminded

            I have read it. How else would I know that it claims that photons can stop prior to being absorbed by matter?

            That site is a joke.

            Let me know when you are able to accept the science that low energy particles can and do transfer energy to high energy particles.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I have read it.”
            Then you haven’t understood it, because it explains why you are wrong. Read it again: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            “That site is a joke.”
            No, your comments have revealed that you are the joke. You are merely making yet another baseless, evidence-free allegation, as you always do. Sad.

          • evenminded

            Did you miss the part where it states that photons can stop?

            That is a violation of Maxwell’s laws. The site is wrong.

          • RealOldOne2

            Did you miss the refutation of ‘bi-directional’ energy transfer. Can’t happen. It is fully explained here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598
            Try comprehending it this time.

          • evenminded

            Did you miss the fact that the author of the site does not understand Maxwell’s laws?

            The site is wrong.

          • ROO2

            I love the way that RealOldOne2 thinks that each molecule has more supercomputing power than all of the computers on Earth and is able to ensure that its emitted photon in not scattered in the atmosphere and ends up arriving at a “warmer” molecule.

            That along with the ability to create a radiation pressure on another object by emitting no radiation.

            The quality of his Derp is certainly getting better.

          • ROO2

            Here is the real energy budget diagram from Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Earth’s Climate Sstem’

            Which shows the net IR flows. The net flows derived in part from the downward terrestrial longwave taken from Ohmura & Gilgen (1993) in Table 2, being 350 Wm^-2.

            This has been pointed out to you before. It’s seems that you do not have the ability to understand the reference, and the references it sources it data from. Given that you fail to comprehend the content of an introductory thermodynamics text, I’m not at all surprised.

            Your misinterpretation of Ozawa would suggest that the surface of the planet only radiates 40 Wm^-2 of energy. Given that the atmospheric window is 40 Wm^-2, you are stating that all energy radiated by the surface of the planet travels unimpeded to space.

            Your are suggesting that the planet has no IR active gases in the atmosphere and that planet Earth contains no clouds.

            Your buffoonery and pseudoscience is stuff of internet legend though. Bring on the clown dance…..

          • RealOldOne2

            “Your buffoonery and pseudoscience is stuff of internet legend though. Bring on the clown dance….”
            You are projecting again.

            “Which show the net IR flows.”
            No, http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg?w=600&h=265 shows the only real energy flows. The net radiation pressures result in a unidirectional flow of energy/heat from the surface of the Earth to the colder atmosphere.
            The Ozawa(2003) diagram explicitly states that is is showing “Global-mean (surface-area mean) energy flux components”, and it shows no component of energy flowing from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth, because that would be a violation of the 2nd Law, and the paper was written from the perspective of the 2nd Law as the title shows, ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Earth’s Climate System’.

            “Your misrepresentation of Ozawa…”
            You are lying. I didn’t misrepresent Ozawa. Everything I said about it was 100% accurate.

            “Your[sic] suggesting that the planet has no IR active gases in the atmosphere and that planet contains no clouds.”
            You are lying again. I suggested no such thing. I have explicitly stated that CO2 is an IR active gas. But according to the 2nd Law that IR active gas can only transfer energy/heat to a colder object, like outer space.
            And I have explicitly stated that the Earth contains clouds, for the reduction of those clouds was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, because that reduction allowed 2.7W/m^2 to 6.8W/m^2 more solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface, which is ~10 times more than the ~0.5W/m^2 of increase in CO2 forcing during that timeframe.

            Yet another display of dishonesty, scientific illiteracy and buffoonery by my serial impersonator.

          • ROO2

            You are lying. I didn’t misrepresent Ozawa.

            Clearly you did. The data used in Ozawa was taken from the reference cited that shows the 350 Wm^-2 downwelling energy along with many other papers many that link back to the Global Energy Balance Archive.

            it shows no component of energy flowing from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth

            It seems you have issues with reading comprehension: “The energy gain at the surface is transported to the atmosphere by… net longwave radiation (Flong(0) = 40 W m−2).”

            Do you not know what the word net means in this context? It seem not.

            The net radiation pressures result in a unidirectional flow of energy/heat

            If they are unidirectional would did you use the plural pressures?

            Because to make your pseudoscience work you need a claimed radiation pressure on the surface of the planet to prevent it from radiating at 400 Wm^-2. [Not that I agree that a radiation pressure prohibits any molecule or atom from emitting EM, it doesn’t]

            The only way for your sky to inhibit radiation from the surface to your claimed 40 Wm^-2 is for there to be an energy flux of EM radiation from the sky to the surface to create such a pressure.

            It’s a blissfully moronic argument that you make, full fo self-contradictory gibberish. I know you had another clown dance in you.

            “Your[sic] suggesting that the planet has no IR active gases in the atmosphere and that planet contains no clouds.”
            You are lying again. I suggested no such thing.

            I am pointing out that your claimed 40 Wm-2 emitted from the surface is the same size of the energy flux that goes through the atmospheric window. You are claiming that nothing in the IR spectrum emitted from the surface is inhibited by anything in the atmosphere.

            But yet again it seems that you cannot comprehend the self-contradictory gibberish that you write.

            Funny that.

          • RealOldOne2

            More buffonery. So sad that you continue to deny reality that Ozawa shows that there is no flow/flux of energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth, for that would violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Your misunderstanding results from not understanding that energy/heat transfer is unidirectional, not bi-directional and that radiation in and of itself is not an energy transfer.
            Study harder: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

          • ROO2

            EM now carries no energy? Oh my.

            And your pseudoscience link is absolute gibberish too.

            Once the standing wave pattern is up, there is no further transfer of energy between the two sources.

            Brilliant a perpetual motion machine. A standing wave crated from zero energy input.

            You certainly are not very bright, that’s for sure.

          • RealOldOne2

            “And your pseudoscience link is absolute gibberish too. Once the standing wave pattern is set up, there is no further transfer of energy between the two sources.”
            It’s only gibberish to scientifically illiterate people who have been duped into believing the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 dogma and deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            To people who accept who accept science, it is correct.

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            “Brilliant perpetual motion machine. A standing wave crated[sic] from zero energy input.”
            That’s not what I said. Another excellent example of your buffoonery and inability to understand science.

            You are the one who believes in the perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, as you believe that two objects which are at the same temperature are each continuously and indefinitely part of a 100% efficient, lossless, energy transfer back and forth at the rate as if the other object were at absolute zero temperature with no increase in entropy. That is the perpetual motion machine which violates the 2nd Law relative to entropy. That can’t happen in the real world that we live in as explained by this lecture on the 2nd Law and Perpetual Motion machines: http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu

            “You certainly are not very bright, that’s for sure.”
            As we’ve just seen, you are projecting again.

          • ROO2

            I’m certainly not projecting. You are as thick as pig poo.

            To people who accept who accept science [medication time], it is correct.

            Yet you cannot find a single climate scientist that supports your gibberish. I wonder why? Even the sceptical publishing scientists won’t go near such crap. Have you ever thought why?

            You know nothing of thermodynamics, or science, as has been shown.

            So that leaves you with misinterpretations of childrens teaching texts, and still not being bale to understand that a standing wave is created by a bi-directional energy flow.

            you believe that two objects which are at the same temperature are each continuously and indefinitely part of a 100% efficient, lossless, energy transfer back and forth

            You mean like two gases in thermal equilibrium without considering the wider environs?

            “Cold” atoms adding energy to “hot” atoms and vice versa, all lossless energy transfers.

            Let me give you a present RealOldOne2, I have a 15 micron IR photon to give you. Now, can you tell me the temperature of the atom or molecule that emitted it?

          • RealOldOne2

            Yep, you got nothing.

          • ROO2

            Yep, you got nothing.

            Well it seems I do. A question that you are unable to answer.

            “Let me give you a present RealOldOne2, I have a 15 micron IR photon to give you. Now, can you tell me the temperature of the atom or molecule that emitted it?”

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL!

          • ROO2

            I dodged nothing. You posed no question. Your claim of dodging was an attempt to distract from your untenable position because of your inability to answer the question put to you;

            “Let me give you a present RealOldOne2, I have a 15 micron IR photon to give you. Now, can you tell me the temperature of the atom or molecule that emitted it?”

            It seems you are yet to work it out. The answer is elementary to any science undergraduate. Hence, I can see why you needed to evade responding.

            Poor RealOldOne2.

            It’s not a real energy flow/flux. as Ozawa(2003) shows:

            No. What Ozawa shows is the net flow as is clearly shown in the text that you have shown.

            His downward energy flux is 350 Joules per second per metre squared, which he has referenced in his paper and taken from Ohmura & Gilgen (1993), Table 2.

            ftp://iacftp.ethz.ch/pub_read/aroesch/mikro/G_Ohmura.DOC.pdf

            Therefore he is stating that the surface radiates 390 Joules per second per metre squared. All sensible physics, and a net figure that is in agreement from surface to the atmosphere.

            Your continued posting of the same image from the paper that you do not understand, with no regard to the references where they have obtained the net longwave from suggests your level of comprehension really is as low as others mock you for.

            OK, two final questions on the 2nd Law as you understand it. This should be easy for you to explain because you know the 2nd Law better than all of the worlds scientists.

            Our Sun forms 4.6 Billion years ago. It radiates light (energy) in all directions. It has been radiating light at a cold hydrogen cloud at a temperature of 4K, some 4.6 Billion light years away since its formation.

            That gas cloud has now collapsed under gravity to form a new, and hotter, Star than our Sun.

            There are huge amounts of energy travelling through space from out colder Sun towards this newly formed star.

            Energy travelling from colder to hotter. What happens to that energy?

            Two same temperature stars in proximity in Space at equilibrium. Are they dark on the face shining at the other star, given you claim they radiate no energy at each other?

          • RealOldOne2

            Poor 2nd Law denier, still proven wrong by the fact that you can’t collect any of your fantasy ‘backradiation’-energy/heat-flow, which is why you keep dodging the question:
            Why can’t you collect any of your alleged 324W/m² of ‘backradiation’ energy/heat?
            Answer: It’s not a real energy flow/flux.
            as Ozawa(2003) shows: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg

          • ROO2

            What is wrong with you?

            Why can you not even comprehend that there is net outgoing IR as your reference correctly states. We’d have been burnt to a crisp if this were not the case.

            You had some questions that you dodged though:

            “Our Sun forms 4.6 Billion years ago. It radiates light (energy) in all directions. It has been radiating light at a cold hydrogen cloud at a temperature of 4K, some 4.6 Billion light years away since its formation.

            That gas cloud has now collapsed under gravity to form a new, and hotter, Star than our Sun.

            There are huge amounts of energy travelling through space from out colder Sun towards this newly formed star.

            Energy travelling from colder to hotter. What happens to that energy?

            Two same temperature stars in proximity in Space at equilibrium. Are they dark on the face shining at the other star, given you claim they radiate no energy at each other?”

          • ROO2

            It seems you have no answer to justify your pseudoscience.

            Thank you for the frank admission.

          • ROO2

            still proven wrong by the fact that you can’t collect any of your fantasy ‘backradiation’-energy/heat-flow

            It seems that your tiny brain is unable to compute the fact that I agree with Ozawa and the papers and empirical evidence on which it is based.

            I agree that the net longwave from the surface to the atmosphere is 40 Wm^-2. I agree with his cited reference that the empirically measured downwelling longwave is 350 Wm^-2.

            Yet here you are again making the same moronic claims about collecting energy when the net energy flow is from the surface to the atmosphere. Even a child could grasp such simple science, but for some reason it is totally beyond you.

            You yet again evade some simple questions, I’ll just leave them here for you to think about and provide a response:

            “Let me give you a present RealOldOne2, I have a 15 micron IR photon to give you. Now, can you tell me the temperature of the atom or molecule that emitted it?”

            Our Sun forms 4.6 Billion years ago. It radiates light (energy) in all directions. It has been radiating light at a cold hydrogen cloud at a temperature of 4K, some 4.6 Billion light years away since its formation.

            That gas cloud has now collapsed under gravity to form a new, and hotter, Star than our Sun.

            There are huge amounts of energy travelling through space from out colder Sun towards this newly formed star.

            Energy travelling from colder to hotter. What happens to that energy?

            Two same temperature stars in proximity in Space at equilibrium. Are they dark on the face shining at the other star, given you claim they radiate no energy at each other?

          • RealOldOne2

            You can dodge, distract, ask endless rabbit trail questions and insult me all you like, but until you can experimentally demonstrate your claim that the colder atmosphere transfers 324W/m² of energy/heat to the Earth’s surface it is all irrelevant obfuscation.

            “I agree that the net longwave from the surface to the atmosphere is 40 Wm^-2.”
            Then you have conceded that there is no energy/heat flow from the cold atmosphere to the surface because both the surface and atmosphere radiative emittances(which are only potential energy flows) result from the temperature of those areas and there is only one energy/heat flow q according to S-B, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴), and that is in the direction from the hotter temperature to the colder temperature. The only energy/heat flow is the net difference of the differences based on the differences in T⁴s, not the net differences in two opposing heat flows, because heat can’t flow from a colder object to to a hotter object, 2nd Law.

            “The energy exchange in a radiative heat transfer is a continuous, simultaneous and instantaneous, the radiation field through which the heat is transferred completely integrated and indivisible. Which means that there is no way you could detect any surface effect of separate emittances, separate waves of radiation (or ‘photons’ if you will) moving around the field. ONLY THE HEAT, the spontaneously occurring vector (net) sum of them all, moving through the field in one direction – from hot to cold – is a real transfer of energy, directly detectable and sensible. It is equivalent to a waterfall, wind or an electric current, all moving spontaneously from high to low potential.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/

            “I agree with his cited reference that the empirically measured downwelling longwave is 350 Wm^-2.”
            It’s irrelevant if you agree with it, because Ozawa never mentions the 350 W/m² or shows it in his diagram because it is not a component of the Earth’s real energy flux. It is merely a potential energy flux/flow that is used to determine the real energy flux/flow between the surface and the atmosphere which Ozawa shows in his diagram. The 350W/m² would be a real energy flux/flow if and only if the sink it is in thermal contact with is at absolute zero, as the S-B equation above clearly shows, when Tc=0. In this case it is in thermal contact with the Earth’s surface so Tc is not 0, it is about 289K. And thus the 289K of the surfae is Th because it is warmer than the atmosphere, and the atmosphere temperature becomes Tc which means that the only energy/heat flow q is from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere, per the S-B equation.

            The 350W/m² that you mention was measured by a pyrgeometer, which measures a voltage from a thermopile which is based on the difference in radiant emittances (potential energy flows) between the temperature of the pyrgeometer and the sky it is pointed at. As one pyrgeometer manufactures says: “The detector output can be either positive or negative. For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky, and the output is negative. In order to calculate the incoming or outgoing FIR it is necessary to know the temperature of the instrument housing close to the detector and the data must be recorded simultaneously with the detector signal.” – Kipp and Zonen, emphasis mine.
            Knowing the instrument temperature and therefore the radiant emittance of the instrument, it then calculates the radiant emittance of object it is pointed at based on the voltage output of the detector. If the voltage output of the detector is zero, the radiant emittance of the object pointed out is equal to the radiant emittance (temperature) of the pyrgeometer and the energy/heat flow is zero. If the voltage of the pyrgeometer is positive there is an inward flow of energy to the instrument. If the voltage of the pyrgeometer is negative the flow of energy is outward from the instrument, just as the manufacturer stated. Thus the 350W/m² is a calculated number of the radiant emittance (potential energy flow) not a real energy flow. The impossibility of bidirectional radiation energy flow is explained in more detail here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            Your fundamental misunderstanding is your thinking that a potential energy/heat flow is a real energy/heat flow.
            There is no bidirectional radiation energy/heat flow just as there is no bidirectional current flow in a wire that has a different positive potential at each end. Each end has a potential flow if the other end was at zero potential, but since the other end is not at zero potential, there is one continuous, simultaneous and instantaneous current flow from the high potential end to the low potential end based on the difference in potential flows, not the difference in two real opposing current flows.

            Likewise in a system where a pipe is connecting two tanks with different positive water levels there is no bidirectional flow of water between the tanks. Each end of the pipe has a potential flow based on its water level/head/pressure if the other end of the pipe had a zero water level/head/pressure, but since for each tank the other end is not at zero water level/head/pressure there is one continuous, simultaneous and instantaneous water flow from the high potential flow tank to the low potential flow tank based on the difference in potential water flows determined by the difference in levels/heads/pressures, not the difference in two real opposing water flows. “Heat transfer is energy in transit due to temperature difference. … The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow, and pressure is the driving force for fluid flow.” – India Institute of Technology (the MIT/Stanford of India engineering schools) No heat transfer, no energy-in-transit/flow.

            Until you can experimentally demonstrate your hypothesis that there is real energy being transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth, the real world shows that the 324W/m of radiant emittance from the cold atmosphere is just a potential and not a real energy flow. That is why I continually ask you if you have your experimental ‘backradiation’ energy/heat collector working yet that collects twice as much energy as a solar collector (168W/m^2) and collects just as much energy/heat at night as it does during the daytime. You can’t, which proves that your understanding is wrong.

          • ROO2

            You can dodge, distract, ask endless rabbit trail questions and insult me all you like

            I’ve dodged nothing. I’ve explained my position on the Ozawa paper with which I agree, and the reference that they have used to derive the net longwave, being 350 Wm^-2 of downwelling IR.

            The net longwave being the difference between the incoming and outgoing IR energies.

            Then you have conceded that there is no energy/heat flow from the cold atmosphere to the surface

            On the contrary, I agree with the reference you cite that relies on 350 Wm^-2 of downwelling energy from the atmosphere from published peer review science. I agree with the Royal Meteorological Society, and every other scientific institution who collectively agree with basic physics:

            https://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/energy-and-climate-dr-kevin-e-trenberth

            You on the other hand have a pseudoscience blog site, your own misinterpretations of published papers [as seen above] and your childlike interpretations of childrens science websites – many of which themselves are contrary to your own bizarre claims. It’s certainly very funny for any onlooker, but you have zero credibility.

            because both the surface and atmosphere radiative emittances(which are only potential energy flows) result from the temperature of those areas and there is only one energy/heat flow q according to S-B, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴)

            Perhaps you need to consult “An Introduction to Thermodyanmics given that you have not previously been introduced.

            Page 445:

            http://home.basu.ac.ir/~psu/Books/Thermodynamics%20&%20Statistical%20Mechanics%20%20by%20Stowe.pdf

            “An object (temperature T0) both radiates energy into its environment (temperature Te) and receives energy from its environment, so the net flux of energy from a body is given by (equation 21.13)

            Jnet = eσ(T0⁴-Te⁴)”

            There’s a basic coverage on the greenhouse effect starting on page 446, I guessing it will be well above your level of comprehension though. As they rightly state:

            “energy is radiated in proportion to the fourth power of
            the temperature”

            Perhaps the author who is professor of physics at California Polytechnic State University and worked there for 32 years has got it wrong? But then all other scientific and thermodynamic teaching texts say the same thing.

            The 350W/m² that you mention was measured by a pyrgeometer

            Not all. Some are measured by semiconductors which are tuned to only provide a signal to solely incoming IR being absorbed to promote an electron. An impossibility according to your childlike grasp of physics, yet they all give the same measurement of actual energy flow from the atmosphere to the surface.

            which is based on the difference in radiant emittances (potential energy flows) between the temperature of the pyrgeometer and the sky it is pointed at.

            The radiant emittance (or radiant exitance) is defined as the radiant flux emitted by a surface per unit area. Outgoing energy, exitance. No two ways about it.

            Nowhere in science is this defined as a potential energy flow, nowhere. You are stuck with your blog science again.

            I see you are really struggling and have been unable to offer any response to a single thought experiment posted above. It’s more than clear why.

          • RealOldOne2

            So you can’t experimentally demonstrate that you can collect those 324W/m of backradiation energy/heat that you claim is being transferred to the Earth’s surface.
            That settles it. You are wrong. It’s not a real energy/heat flow.

          • ROO2

            Collect?

            Perhaps you need to again consult “An Introduction to Thermodyanmics” as it seems your are yet to understand the content.

            Page 443

            http://home.basu.ac.ir/~psu/Books/Thermodynamics%20&%20Statistical%20Mechanics%20%20by%20Stowe.pdf

            “As an object radiates energy into its environment, it also receives energy from its environment.”

            According to your reference Ozawa and the references which detail the energy flows on which he relies, he has 350 Wm^-2 incoming from the atmosphere and 390 Wm^-2 radiated by the surface, giving a net energy flux from the surface to the atmosphere.

            That net energy flux defines the heat transfer – heat going from the surface to the atmosphere.

            Yet you make some claim about “collecting” something? It appears that your ability to understand basic thermodynamics evades you, permanently.

          • RealOldOne2

            You are still peddling climate pseudoscience that contradicts the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy/heat doesn’t transfer from colder objects to warmer objects. Not in the real world that we live in.

            There is no denying that you are claiming that the primary source of energy/heat for the Earth is the cold atmosphere and not the Sun. A Watt is one Joule/sec. You are claiming that the input sources of energy/heat to the Earth’s surface averaged over 24 hours are 350W/m² from backradiation from the cold atmosphere and 168W/m² from solar radiaton. That means you are claiming that in 24 hour period each square meter of the surface of the Earth receives 30 megajoules of energy/heat from backradiation from the cold atmosphere, and only 14.5 megajoules of energy from solar radiation.
            There is no getting around that is what you are saying and that is pseudoscience, proven by the fact that you can’t collect any of your alleged backradiation energy/heat flow, but it is easy to collect that solar energy/heat flow.

            You are peddling reverse/anti-thermodynamic pseudoscience. I exposed it here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3001759495 and you have been unable to refute a bit of what I said. All you do is repeat your nonsense pseudoscience. Sad.

            “According to your reference Ozawa and the references which detail the energy flows on which he relies, he has 350 Wm
            And no, Ozawa(2003) does not have 350W/m² of incoming energy flow from the atmosphere, Ozawa has zero energy incoming from the atmosphere to the surface as his diagram showing all the energy flux components clearly shows: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg You are delusional, as there is no 350W/m² shown anywhere. You are exhibiting your dishonesty again. Sad.

            And your silly pseudoscience says that the net heat is going from the surface to the Sun, as there is 168W/m² incoming and 390W/m² outgoing, resulting in a net outflow of heat from the surface to the Sun. Pure pseudoscience.

            “It appears that your ability to understand basic thermodynamics evades you, permanently.”
            And we have seen hundreds and hundreds of times, you are projecting. You are the one who doesn’t understand basic thermodynamics.

          • ROO2

            You are still peddling climate pseudoscience that contradicts the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy/heat doesn’t transfer from colder objects to warmer objects. Not in the real world that we live in.

            You really are getting most boring RealOldOne2. I think it is the lack of critical thinking, well just thinking, that you exhibit coupled with an inability to understanding the English language and a woeful understanding of scientific principles.

            You claim that all scientists have got it wrong, all teaching texts are incorrect all as a result of your inability to understand what the word net means, and wrapped up in some unscientific gibberish which you yourself are completely unable to put into writing to justify your untenable position, hence your tumbleweed response to the questions put to you.

            You claim that any object that has a lower temperature than that of another radiates zero energy, nothing, zilch, towards the hotter body, no electromagetic radiation as that carries energy, so nothing whatsoever.

            Yet the warmer body will radiate a different amount of energy depending upon the temperature of the cooler body. The warmer body just “knows” the temperature of the cooler body and therefore through no mechanism that you have yet explained modulates the amount of energy that it emits.

            Back in the real world though things are very different. In the real world people realise that what you suggest is preposterous unless the recipient is somewhat simple.

            In the real world we are able to measure the electromagnetic radiation from the very cold cosmic microwave background from the warm surface of planet Earth. We are able to observe electromagnetic radiation travelling in all directions through diffuse light.

            For some reason you are quite happy for electromagnetic radiation in the form of visible light to reflect from a mirror resulting in a bidirectional energy flow, but tweak the wavelength so that it falls into the infra red and you start making claims about it breaking the 2nd law all because it does not fit with your political ideology about global warming.

            Poor, poor, poor, RealOldOne2. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            Poor ROO2, still misrepresenting me because of your ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer and radiation.

            So sad that you still deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and claim that energy/heat is transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.

            So sad that you deny the 1st Law of Thermodyanmics because you create energy out of nothing in fabricating additional Qin (energy/heat) to the Earth’s surface in addition to the only real heat source that heats the Earth.

            So sad that you deny the S-B equation as you claim that the same amount of energy/heat is transferred from the hot object regardless of what the temperature of the cold object is.
            q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴), as you claim that the same amount of energy/heat is transferred from the hot object to the cold object regardless of what the temperature of the cold object is.

            So sad that you believe that the primary energy/heat source of the Earth is the cold atmosphere, not the hot Sun, as you claim that real energy/heat Qin to the surface is 350W/m² from the cold atmosphere + 168W/m² from the Sun.

            So sad that you can’t collect that 350W/m² of ‘backradiaion’ alleged energy/heat flow, which should be easy if it was a real energy/heat flow/flux/transfer.

            So sad that you stubbornly refuse to answer the question: Why can’t you collect that 350W/m² of ‘backradiation’ energy/heat if it is a real energy/heat flux/flow/transfer?

            You are one sad individual ROO2, and quite the denier too. But then, so are most ideologically blinded, duped, scientifically illiterate doomsday cult fanatics.

          • ROO2

            So sad that you still deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and claim that energy/heat is transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.

            Poor, poor, poor, hard of understanding RealOldOne2 still does not understand that the 2nd law is a statistical concept and NOT a mathematical truth. A the great physicist Maxwell correctly states:

            “The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body. “

            The very fact, as it has been empirically shown, that the 2nd Law is continually violated would not be demonstrable if there were not energy transfer from cold to hot.

            Even a child could grasp such a concept, clearly it is beyond you.

            So sad that you deny the 1st Law of Thermodyanmics because you create energy out of nothing in fabricating additional Qin (energy/heat) to the Earth’s surface in addition to the only real heat source that heats the Earth.

            Create energy out of nothing? Where do you get such utter nonsense?

            Take the example of wearing a space blanket with a very low absorptivity whereby a high percentage of the incident EM energy is reflected back to the wearer.

            You would claim that is a violation of the 1st Law. That’s why even children point and laugh at you.

            So sad that you believe that the primary energy/heat source of the Earth is the cold atmosphere, not the hot Sun

            Good grief you are thick. Nowhere have I claimed this. Almost all the energy in the system originates from the Sun, the atmosphere is directly heated by the Sun too. It seems to have to turn to lies to try and defend your untenable position.

            So sad that you deny the S-B equation

            No, that would be you. I fully agree with the SB law which states:

            “the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance or radiant exitance), is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature”

            The amount of energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. That’s it. Nothing about reduced energy radiated owing to the neighbouring environment.

            Your claims that an object of the same temperature can magically alter its own energy radiated, from receiving zero energy from its surrounding is not even pseudoscience. It’s just BS.

            Furthermore determining the emissivity of an object would be impossible:

            http://www.tnp-instruments.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/emissivity_how_to_check.pdf

            Back in the real world it is perfectly possible.

            So sad that you stubbornly refuse to answer the question:

            Are you on drugs? It seems you have not read the relevant papers by the authors of Ozawa yet. Do take the time, you are making an idiot of yourself for not doing so.

            “According to your reference Ozawa and the references which detail the energy flows on which he relies, he has 350 Wm^-2 incoming from the atmosphere and 390 Wm^-2 radiated by the surface, giving a net energy flux from the surface to the atmosphere.

            That net energy flux defines the heat transfer – heat going from the surface to the atmosphere.

            Yet you make some claim about “collecting” something? It appears that your ability to understand basic thermodynamics evades you, permanently.”

          • RealOldOne2

            Gee, all that and still no experimental demonstration of a working backradiaition collector that collects twice a much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much energy/heat at night as it does during the daytime. That proves that you are wrong and that there is no real energy/heat flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer Earth surface. And still no answer to the question that you stubbornly refuse to answer: Why can’t you collect that 350W/m² of ‘backradiation’ energy/heat if it is a real energy/heat flux/flow/transfer?

            “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. … It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

            You can’t experimentally demonstrate that your alleged 350W/m backradiation is a real energy flow/flux/transfer, and THAT proves you are wrong.

            Is such a shame that you deny such fundamental science such as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, the fact that solar radiation is the primary source of energy/heat that transfers energy/heat to the Earth’s surface. But that’s what happens when you believe in the pseudoscience of your climate cult religion. So sad.

            Your desperate ramblings denying the 2nd Law are so pathetic.
            “The truth of the 2nd Law is … a statistical not a mathematical truth”
            Your silly argument is like arguing that a stationary object is really traveling near the speed of light because the electrons are moving that fast. Pure silly desperation.

            “Create energy out of nothing”
            Yes, that’s what your misunderstanding does. A blanket (thermal shield) example shows it. Consider a system of a person at a body & skin temperature T₁=37C without clothes is encased in a perfect insulator to the sides and below, and there are also perfectly insulating walls of the same shape of the body up to the ceiling, which is also exactly the same shape of the body, so the area of the body and the area of the massive non-insulated ceiling is equal, and the temperature of ceiling is T₂=23C. Simplifying assumption that the only heat transfer is by radiation, and no conduction, convection or evaporation. Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for the body, the blanket (radiation shield) and the walls; the area of the person’s surface(skin) and the the corresponding area of the ceiling that is in thermal contact =1m². The only Qin (energy in) in our system is the internal metabolism of the person which generates 88.5 watts of energy/heat. The system is at equilibrium so the energy/heat transfer away from the body, Qout = 88.5W/m² which exactly equals the internal energy/heat Qin of 88.5W, so the body temperature remains constant at 37C.

            Now we put a 1 m² blanket(thermal shield) between the body and the ceiling. Since the blanket has an equal emissivity to the body, the initial blanket temperature will be 30.25C, defined by T₃(blanket)=0.5(T₁(body)⁴-T₂(walls)⁴) per Eq.8-43, Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ 2nd ed, p.240. Now the S-B equation shows that the body is now only transferring Qout=44.25W/m². Since the body continues to generate Qin=88.5W, the internal energy from metabolism begins to accumulate and body temperature rises until a new equilibrium is reached.

            When the new equilibrium is reached, the blanket heats up to a temperature of 37C so the Qout from the blanket = Qin from the body metabolism. Since at the new equilibrium the energy/heat loss from the body-to-blanket must equal the energy/heat loss from the blanket to the surroundings and must equal the energy/heat generated by the body, 88.5W/m², the S-B equation allows us to calculate the new body/skin temperature of 49.3C.

            Here is the pertinent section from Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’.

            “8-8 Radiation Shields One way of reducing radiant heat transfer between two particular surfaces is to use materials which are highly reflective. An alternative method is to use radiation shields between the heat exchange surfaces. These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. … Now consider the same two planes, but with a radiation shield placed between them as in Fig. 8-28b. The heat transfer will be calculated for this latter case and will be compared with the heat transfer without the shield. Since the shield does deliver or remove heat from the system, the heat transfer between plate 1 and the shield must be precisely the same as that between the shield and plate 2, and this is the overall heat transfer.
            Thus (q/A=σ(T₁⁴-T₃⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) =
            σ(T₃⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₃+1/ϵ₂-1) (8-42)
            The only unknown in Eq.(8-42) is the temperature of hte shield T₃. Once this temperature is obtained, the heat transfer is easily calculated. If the emissivities of of all three surfaces are equal, that is, ϵ₁=ϵ₂=ϵ₃ , we obtain the simple relation T₃⁴=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴) (8-43) and the heat transfer is
            q/A=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) But since ϵ₃=ϵ₂ , we observe that the this heat flow is just one-half of that which would be experienced if there were no shield present.”

            My correct understanding is that the increase in body temperature is solely due to the accumulation of the only Qin energy in existence, the Qin to the body of 88.5W of internal body metabolism. That internal energy accumulated because the initial heat transfer away from the body was decreased, until a new equilibrium was reached. Thus the 1st Law is satisfied, no energy created or lost. The only Qin in the system remains 88.5W.

            Your incorrect understanding is that the body increases it temperature due to an additional 88.5W/m² of energy allegedly being transferred from the 37C blanket to the body. (Difference between radiation of the 23C walls initial, 436.15W/m², and radiation of the 37C blanket final, 524.65W/m²). Thus you have violated the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy, since you now have created a new 88.5W/m² energy which did not exist in our original system.

            And your incorrect understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has that newly created Qin energy being transferred from a colder object(37Cblanket) to a warmer object(49.3C body).
            Irrefutable evidence that your understanding is wrong. And recall that you previously exposed your ignorance of the effects of a thermal shield/blanket when you were totally ignorant of why the emissivity of the blanket was important! A later 10th edition of Holman’s ‘Heat Transfer’ says in the same 8-8 section that I quoted from says: “the higher the reflectivity of the shield (i.e., the smaller its emissivity), the greater the surfaces resistances

            Sadly, your jihadist-like devotion to your doomsday CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion will prevent you from accepting science which proves you wrong, so you will once again insert your head where the Sun doesn’t shine and deny reality. But no amount of additional gumflapping on your part can change that reality that you are wrong.

          • ROO2

            Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for the body, the blanket (radiation shield)

            A radiation shield that reflects absolutely zero of the incident radiation?

            It’s as bizarre are your pseudoscience gibberish.

            Try aluminium foil which has an emissivity of around 0.04, and reflects 96% of the incident energy back in the opposite direction.

            Oh no! The 2nd law, bi-directional energy flows!

            Pwhahahahahaha. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            First, thanks for your reply which shows you can’t refute the science that I presented proves that you misunderstand the 2nd Law, since your understanding violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You were unable to find anything wrong with my science.

            “A radiation shield that reflects absolutely zero of the incident radiation? It’s as bizarre are your pseudoscience gibberish.”
            No, it’s not bizarre at all. A wool blanket has an emissivity of ~0.8 and makes a fine thermal shield that keeps you warm, by reducing energy flow away from your body, not by increasing it like you ignorantly claim.

            “Try aluminum foil which has an emissivity of around 0.04, and reflects 96% of the incident energy back in the opposite direction.”
            Congratulations, my student, as you are learning how a blanket works from me. Although you are a very slow learner, which is understandable since you have been severely brainwashed, and it will take some time for you to be completely deprogrammed from your cult dogmas. You are welcome for the free education. Only a few weeks ago you were totally ignorant of why the emissivity of a blanket was important, when you said:

            ROO2: “I’m sorry? How does the emissivity of an object have any bearing whatsoever.”

            Your reply indicates that you probably didn’t even know what emissivity was. Now you are repeating exactly what I told you that the most efficient blanket is one with the lowest emissivity. That’s progress. Here is where you said it: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f84f3577be9338808dde1bc6413663ef46bea619b28b87f2ba8d3c291c5a479c.png

            Now for a continuation of your lesson. The reason that the most efficient blanket is one with the lowest emissivity is that it provides the greatest resistance to energy/heat flow away from the hotter object. Even a 10 year old knows that when you have a greater resistance to energy/heat flow you get less of it. A blanket with an emissivity of 0.04 between you and the colder surroundings retards/reduces energy/heat flow by a factor of 25, yet you ignorantly claim that it causes your body to transfer MORE energy/heat away from your body. That is all we need to see the extent of your ignorance of science. You call the things that you don’t understand “pseudoscience gibberish”, as you did emissivity of a blanket. Since you are so ignorant of science, you merely parrot the pseudoscience of your climate cult dogmas.

            So now we have proof that I am right and you are wrong from heat transfer calculations and thermodynamics that:
            1) you deny the 1st Law because your wrong understanding creates energy where none existed before
            2) you deny the 2nd Law because you wrongly claim that the colder atmosphere transfers heat to the warmer surface of the Earth
            3) you claim that the cold atmosphere is the primary source of energy/heat transferred to the Earth’s surface, 350W/m², than the Sun does, 168W/m².
            4) you can’t experimentally demonstrate your ludicrous claims with a working ‘backradiation’ collector which collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as it does during the daytime.

            Your pseudoscience is toast. You are just too ignorant to know it and in too great of idealogical blindness and denial of reality to accept it. Sad.

          • ROO2

            First, thanks for your reply which shows you can’t refute the science that I presented

            Alas, my dimwitted friend, there is no science in your post and it completely does refute it even with your attempted quote mine of what I had stated. More of that later.

            “A radiation shield that reflects absolutely zero of the incident radiation? It’s as bizarre are your pseudoscience gibberish.”

            No, it’s not bizarre at all.

            Sure. A radiation shield that absorbs all of the incident radiation. Only something as derptastic as that could materialise in your thought experiment.

            A wool blanket has an emissivity of ~0.8 and makes a fine thermal shield

            No it does not, as your thought experiment solely considers radiative heat transfer.

            “Try aluminum foil which has an emissivity of around 0.04, and reflects 96% of the incident energy back in the opposite direction.”
            Congratulations, my student, as you are learning how a blanket works from me.

            No, you titantic johnson, you refute that the foil blanket reflects any incident energy as you claim that violates the 2nd law.

            You really do have comprehension issues it seems. But let’s see the full content of my post that you curtailed above:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/study_co2_levels_will_stay_above_key_measure_for_039generations039/#comment-2975026292

            “In your world of pseudoscience the colder space blanket cannot radiate any energy back towards the warmer body. It also cannot reflect any energy back towards the warmer body as that also would results in a bidirectional energy flow [cue up your 1st law wave cancelling denying energy claims – which themselves do not conform with the laws of physics].

            You see, there really is no difference if a photon is relflected, scattered, or absorbed and then re-emitted. I doubt you will be able to comprehend as this is way above your level of understanding.”

            The idiotic pseudoscience of RealOldOne2; a space blanket will neither radiate not reflect any energy back to the wearer if the temperature of the foil is lower than body temperature.

            There concludes your dimwitted BS. Yet again, thanks for the amusement of allowing others to see your freakshow.

          • RealOldOne2

            “there is no science in your post”
            LOL. QED.
            Everyone who reads my comment, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007464175 ,
            sees that I won and you lost. Do you get a kick out of making a total jacka$$ out of yourself? You must since you do it so frequently.

            And what a sore loser you are, with all your projection: “my dimwitted friend … you titanic johnson … your freakshow”
            In addition to seeing your mental health professional for help with your denial of reality issues, enroll in an anger management class too! Hahaha

          • ROO2

            Well, it’s nice to see that you accept there is a bi-directional energy flux that does not violate the 2nd law.

            “Try aluminum foil which has an emissivity of around 0.04, and reflects 96% of the incident energy back in the opposite direction.”
            Congratulations, my student, as you are learning how a blanket works from me.

            You could at least concede defeat more graciously. Happy to assist with your ongoing education in matters of science. 😉

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.”

          • RealOldOne2

            “it’s nice to see that you accept there is a bi-directional energy flux that does not violate the 2nd law.”
            Wow, you continue to be a sore loser by demonstrating that you refuse to accept reality and continue to tell lies.
            It’s so sad that there is no end to your dishonesty, as you know that I have never accepted your pseudoscience of bi-directional energy flow.

            – I specifically stated that you hadn’t yet been fully deprogrammed from your false cult dogmas.

            – I specifically stated the part you did learn about how a blanket works that you got right was that the lowest emissivity blanket, foil w/0.04 emissivity, is the most effective because it has the highest resistance to energy/heat flow, which retards/reduces energy/heat flow, and that did learn that emissivity was relevant to how a blanket works, which before you were totally ignorant of as demonstrated in your comment,

            ROO2: “I’m sorry? How does the emissivity of an object have any bearing whatsoever.”
            And don’t bother denying that reality because it is documented here: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f84f3577be9338808dde1bc6413663ef46bea619b28b87f2ba8d3c291c5a479c.png

            – The science that I presented (which you deny was even science) shows that your wrong view that includes additional energy/heat being transferred from the blanket to the body, (bidirectional energy flow) violates the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy as it created 88.5W/m² of energy that didn’t exist before the blanket was added.

            So you can give your delusional denial of the reality that I totally pwned you as I exposed your scientific illiterate denial of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

            Sadly your continued dishonesty is nothing new, as everyone has observed that from your dishonest serial impersonation of me. You have been so envious of my scientific knowledge and so angry that I have exposed your scientific illiteracy, and the lack of empirical evidence supporting your cherished false pseudoscience CO2 climate alarmism, that you began serially impersonating me, as first as Real0ld0ne2 (numeral 0 instead of letter O), next as RealOldOne3, then ROO2 a nick that many people still call me, and to top off your dishonesty you tried stealing my identity using my exact same RealOldOne2 name except with only a few dozen comments.

            Here is the documented evidence of your long, sordid, dishonest impersonations of me. This isn’t a personal attack. It’s just documentation of your comments and behavior on these comment boards.

            I would catch you climate alarmists making blatantly false statements and errors and would point them out. When you began stubbornly refusing to admit to your errors, which turned them into lies, I began compiling lists of your errors/mistakes, 140 for StAverti, 132 for AanthanurDC, 31 for Dan, 35 for
            HandOfGod137, 8 for Hermit, 29 for evenminded, 15 for Robert, 4 for dwrice, 3 for MrMojo, 4 for Siloch, 8 for Soosoos, 32 for Bart_R, etc.

            This angered you so much that you created a spoof name Real0ld0ne2 with numeral 0s instead of letter Os. pretending to be me.

            After that impersonation attempt was foiled by your being blocked, you tried your second impersonation of me as RealOldOne3. Here is a screen capture of that comment, claiming the resurrection of RealOldOne2 with the words “The phoenix has risen from the flames” : http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3591/2275/original.jpg

            I reported that impersonation to the Telegraph and your RealOldOne3 account was blocked and all your comments removed, as evidenced in this screen capture with the common HOG137 comment below it: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3591/3197/original.jpg?w=800&h Note the June 11, 2015 date.

            You admitted, Dan, that it was you who created the RealOldOne3 account when after being blocked with that username you told HandOfGod137 “My ‘joke’ resurrection of he who shall not be named backfired somewhat. Oh well. ;-)” That admission is evidenced by this screen capture: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3591/2277/original.jpg

            Indeed it did backfire because your original Dan account was blocked but you evidently had another (non Disqus?) account where you posted as Dan for a short time. When I reported that you (Dan) had admitted to being the RealOldOne3 and that you were still posting under Dan, that account was blocked too, as evidenced in this screen capture http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3591/5800/original.jpg

            This screen capture documents MrMojo’s recognition that your Dan account had been blocked and your comment as Dan admitting that you had created the RealOldOne3 account creation to HOG137 has been removed. Note also that MrMojo referred to me as ROO2, as I often signed my comments with that shortened tag, and others referred to me with than name, as MrMojo did.

            The repeated blockings of your attempted impersonations of me and MrMojo’s referring to me as ROO2, led you to shortly thereafter create your present ROO2 Disqus account. Note that account was created just a couple weeks after you were blocked as Dan and Real0ld0ne2 and RealOldOne3 at the Telegraph. Here is the screen capture with that evidence: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3591/3174/original.jpg

            But creating and posting as ROO2 wasn’t sufficient. Because I continued to expose your ignorance of science, in early 2016 you attempted to steal my identity, creating an identical RealOldOne2 Disqus account, which you used to make inflammatory, derisive, slanderous comments hoping that people would believe that they came from me. Here is a screen capture of the profile of your fake RealOldOne2 account that you created in early 2016: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3592/4261/original.jpg?w=800&h

            And the evidence that it was you who created the fake RealOldOne2 account is that when you opened the profile for the fake RealOldOne2 account your ROO2 profile came up! A major blunder there! Enough of a blunder for that latest identity theft account to be blocked AGAIN!

            Here is a screen capture of one of your fake RealOldOne2 comments where you replied to OneOtherPersonIsTyping… , pretending to be me. http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3592/3789/original.jpg?w=800&h
            That screen capture shows that it was not me, because that fake RealOldOne2 had only 64 comments

            There’s the irrefutable evidence of your obsession with me, repeatedly trying to impersonate me, creating spoof and even identical usernames. One might ask what would lead you to be so obsessed with me? In addition to my repeatedly exposing your scientific illiteracy, I suspect it goes back years further, where I interacted in YouTube comments. There was a user there named StAverti. He was just as scientifically illiterate as you. He was just as stubborn as you
            in refusing to admit to a single error. He also was dishonest as you, spinning lie after lie each to cover the previous lie. He was a poseur claiming to be a climate scientist and professor at Ball State Univ., when in fact his own comments revealed his real name and that he was merely a WKU Ogden grad student who studied Barbados speleotherms, ie., he was an itinerant cave dweller! Perhaps he’s still mad at me.

            Identity theft and impersonation is a common dishonest practice of you fanatical climate alarmists, following in the footsteps of Peter Gleick who admitted impersonating a Heartland board member, obtained Heartland private documents and then passed on fabricated, fake documents portending to be official Heartland documents.

            It’s noble cause corruption, because these delusional foolish zealots really think they are saving the planet by fighting a holy jihad war against CO2.

          • ROO2

            “it’s nice to see that you accept there is a bi-directional energy flux that does not violate the 2nd law.”
            Wow, you continue to be a sore loser by demonstrating that you refuse to accept reality and continue to tell lies.

            “Try aluminum foil which has an emissivity of around 0.04, and reflects 96% of the incident energy back in the opposite direction.”
            Congratulations, my student, as you are learning how a blanket works from me.

            The strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, with lashing of Dunning Kruger thrown in for good measure.

            Great to see you are still so butthurt after evenminded dismantled your pseudoscience resulting in you having a frothing rage of abuse that resulted in you getting banned from the Telegraph.

            I’m sure evenminded will fell a great feeling of warmth and satisfaction from causing your to meltdown as you did, “our lying and stupid friend”.

          • RealOldOne2

            Yes, you are Jekyll & Hyde.
            Yes, you are Dunning Kruger
            Yes, you are the butthurt troll.
            Yes, you are the dishonest serial impersonator.
            Yes, you are in the frothing rage.
            Yes, you got banned from the Telegraph.
            Yes, both you and tiltminded have totally melted down.

            Perfect projection there, because you can’t face the reality that once again I have exposed your scientific illiteracy. This time using the science of heat transfer to expose that your ignorant 2nd Law denying claim that more heat transfers from the cold atmosphere to the Earth’s surface than the Sun transfers to the surface is wrong, because it creates energy out where there was none, which violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

          • ROO2

            Well it really does seem that you have no functional brain RealOldOne2, given the whole basis of any response of yours is to repeat parrot fashion.

            Yes, you got banned from the Telegraph.

            No, I did not. I continued posting there for quite some time thereafter. I did not get banned by the newspaper for aggressive hate filled posts, you earned that honour after your pseudoscience gibberish was highlighted and you had an online meltdown.

            Still unable to understand why your tinfoil hat keeps you warm I see.

            Pwhahahahahahaha. 😉

          • evenminded

            LOL. Good times.

          • RealOldOne2

            It’s fun watching ROO2 have a full tilt meltdown, dishonestly clinging to his ignorant 1st & 2nd Law denying claim that the cold atmosphere is the primary source of energy that is transferred to the Earth’s surface. It doesn’t get much more stupid that that. Even 10 year old kiddies know that, but poor ROO2 and evenminded don’t.

          • evenminded

            LOL, you remember getting banned for going on a receptive nonsensical rant don’t you RealOldOne2? You know, that time when all of your posts were deleted.

            Have fun playing with your straw men.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Have fun playing with your straw men.”
            Why do you tell such blatant lies which are so easy to expose? No straw men by me. I totally exposed your 1st & 2nd Law denial here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3012061945

          • evenminded

            No one has ever claimed that the cold atmosphere is the source of energy for the earth. That is your straw man. The source of energy for the earth is the sun.

            Every school child knows this.

            Why don’t you?

          • RealOldOne2

            “No one has ever claimed that the cold atmosphere is the source of energy for the Earth. That is your strawman.”
            Wrong, you claim that it is because you claim that 324W/m² of energy/heat is being transferred to the Earth’s surface where it is absorbed, while there is only 168W/m² of energy/heat being transferred to the Earth’s surface where it is absorbed.
            324 is greater than 168, so ARE claiming that the primary source of energy being transferred to and absorbed by the Earth’s surface is from the cold atmosphere. Deny it all you want, but that is exactly what you are claiming if you claim that the 324W/m² is a real energy/heat transfer.

            “Every school child knows this.”
            Yes, they know that ignorant fools who claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more energy/heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does, like you do, is making a moronic and idiotic claim.

          • evenminded

            Here, educate yourself.

            This is for the surface.

            Energy absorbed from the sun = ~160 W/m^2

            Energy absorbed from DLR =~330 W/m^2 (original source from the sun after being absorbed by the surface and re-emitted to the atmosphere)

            Energy emitted as ULR = ~395 W/m^2 (original source from the sun)

            Energy lost via latent and sensible heat = ~95 W/m^2 (original source from the sun)

            Why don’t you know this?

            This is for the entire system.

            https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            So you believe that the Sun has a net COOLING effect on the Earth’s surface, as it transfers 168W/m² heat TO the surface, but the surface transfers 395W/m² away from the surface, leaving a net COOLING effect of 227W/m². Got it . That stupid fits your IQ!

            Here, educate yourself: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211

            “You’re an idiot.”
            You’re STILL projecting! Hahaha

          • evenminded

            Are you having fun playing with your straw man,

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot”
            LOL. I’ve got you on FULL TILT! Hahahaha

          • evenminded

            Yes, you are on full tilt. You’re an idiot playing with straw men.

          • evenminded

            There are no lies on my part. You got banned for going on a repetitive fact free rant?

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot.”
            LOL. You’re projecting AGAIN! Hahaha

          • evenminded

            I’m letting everyone know that you are a scientifically illiterate idiot that doesn’t understand the first thing about basic math or science.

            You’re a moron.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you are a scientifically illiterate idiot that doesn’t understand the first thing about basic math or science. You’re a moron.”
            LOL. There you go with your projection again.
            Hey dupe, I’m not the one denying the fundamental 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics. You are, as proven by my comment shows that your claim creates energy out where there was none, violating the 1st Law, and your false understanding also denies the 2nd Law since you claim that energy/heat transfers from cold objects to warm objects.

          • evenminded

            You don’t understand the first thing about the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

            You’ve already admitted that you were wrong about energy transfers from cold to hot by acknowledging that low energy molecules can transfer their energy to high energy molecules.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ the poor tiltminded one who is now on FULL TILT! Hilarious!

          • evenminded

            If by full tilt you mean that I have demonstrated that you are a scientifically illiterate moron that does not understand the first thing about thermodynamics then yes I’m on full tilt.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2
          • evenminded

            There’s nothing to refute. You’ve done a beautiful job of outlining your scientific illiteracy and lack of understanding of climate science and thermodynamics. Good job.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “There’s nothing to refute.”
            LOL @ your denial of reality.
            Sorry dupe, THIS is to refute because it shows that your stupid claim that the cold atmosphere transfers heat to the warmer surface denies the 1st Law because it creates energy out where there was none, which violates Conservation of Energy:

            Your misunderstanding does violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as it creates energy in a system that previously didn’t exist.
            A blanket (thermal shield) example shows it. Consider a system of a person at a body & skin temperature T₁=37C without clothes is encased in a perfect insulator to the sides and below, and there are also perfectly insulating walls of the same shape of the body up to the ceiling, which is also exactly the same shape of the body, so the area of the body and the area of the massive non-insulated ceiling is equal, and the temperature of ceiling is T₂=23C. Simplifying assumption that the only heat transfer is by radiation, and no conduction, convection or evaporation. Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for the body, the blanket (radiation shield) and the walls; the area of the person’s surface(skin) and the the corresponding area of the ceiling that is in thermal contact =1m². The only Qin (energy in) in our system is the internal metabolism of the person which generates 88.5 watts of energy/heat. The system is at equilibrium so the energy/heat transfer away from the body, Qout = 88.5W/m² which exactly equals the internal energy/heat Qin of 88.5W, so the body temperature remains constant at 37C.

            Now we put a 1 m² blanket(thermal shield) between the body and the ceiling. Since the blanket has an equal emissivity to the body, the initial blanket temperature will be 30.25C, defined by T₃(blanket)=0.5(T₁(body)⁴-T₂(walls)⁴) per Eq.8-43, Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ 2nd ed, p.240. Now the S-B equation shows that the body is now only transferring Qout=44.25W/m². Since the body continues to generate Qin=88.5W, the internal energy from metabolism begins to accumulate and body temperature rises until a new equilibrium is reached.

            When the new equilibrium is reached, the blanket heats up to a temperature of 37C so the Qout from the blanket = Qin from the body metabolism. Since at the new equilibrium the energy/heat loss from the body-to-blanket must equal the energy/heat loss from the blanket to the surroundings and must equal the energy/heat generated by the body, 88.5W/m², the S-B equation allows us to calculate the new body/skin temperature of 49.3C.

            Here is the pertinent section from Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’.

            “8-8 Radiation Shields One way of reducing radiant heat transfer between two particular surfaces is to use materials which are highly reflective. An alternative method is to use radiation shields between the heat exchange surfaces. These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. … Now consider the same two planes, but with a radiation shield placed between them as in Fig. 8-28b. The heat transfer will be calculated for this latter case and will be compared with the heat transfer without the shield. Since the shield does deliver or remove heat from the system, the heat transfer between plate 1 and the shield must be precisely the same as that between the shield and plate 2, and this is the overall heat transfer.
            Thus (q/A=σ(T₁⁴-T₃⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) =
            σ(T₃⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₃+1/ϵ₂-1) (8-42)
            The only unknown in Eq.(8-42) is the temperature of the shield T₃. Once this temperature is obtained, the heat transfer is easily calculated. If the emissivities of of all three surfaces are equal, that is, ϵ₁=ϵ₂=ϵ₃ , we obtain the simple relation T₃⁴=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴) (8-43) and the heat transfer is
            q/A=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) But since ϵ₃=ϵ₂ , we observe that the this heat flow is just one-half of that which would be experienced if there were no shield present.” – ‘Heat Transfer’ textbook, J.P.Holman, 2nd ed, pp.239-240

            My correct understanding is that the increase in body temperature is solely due to the accumulation of the only Qin energy in existence, the Qin to the body of 88.5W of internal body metabolism. That internal energy accumulated because the initial heat transfer away from the body was decreased, until a new equilibrium was reached. Thus the 1st Law is satisfied, no energy created or lost. The only Qin in the system remains 88.5W.

            Your incorrect understanding is that the body increases it temperature due to an additional 88.5W/m² of energy allegedly being transferred from the 37C blanket to the body. (Difference between radiation of the 23C walls initial, 436.15W/m², and radiation of the 37C blanket final, 524.65W/m²). Thus you have violated the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy, since you now have created a new 88.5W/m² energy which did not exist in our original system.

            And your incorrect understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has that newly created Qin energy being transferred from a colder object(37Cblanket) to a warmer object(49.3C body).
            Irrefutable evidence that your understanding is wrong.

            GAME OVER! You lose, 1st & 2nd Law denier.

          • evenminded

            Energy is conserved idiot. Here are all of the energy flows.

            https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            “Energy is conserved idiot.”
            LOL! You’re PROJECTING again!
            No, you are just making stuff up.; That 333W/m²

            is not a real energy/heat flow, as shown in my above comment. It is pure fantasy bull$hit because it violates the 1st Law and is energy created out of nothing!

            How can you be so stupid? Ah, you’re a climate cult fanatic. Got it.

            Here is the correct energy balance from peer reviewed science, Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’ written explicitly from the perspective: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            There is no energy flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth. The 2nd Law forbids it! Only peddlers of rubbish climate cult pseudoscience are so stupid to claim that the primary energy source to the Earth’s surface is the COLD atmosphere! Hahaha

          • evenminded
          • RealOldOne2

            “These are fluxes.”
            No dupe, they are NOT! You are posting pseudoscientific RUBBISH!
            Here is the correct energy balance from peer reviewed science, Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’ written explicitly from the perspective: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            There is no energy flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth. The 2nd Law forbids it! Only peddlers of rubbish climate cult pseudoscience are so stupid to claim that the primary energy source to the Earth’s surface is the COLD atmosphere! Hahaha

            The 333W/m is not a real energy/heat flux, as proven by the fact that you can’t collect it like you can the REAL solar radiation flux.

            So have you got your ‘backradiation’ energy/heat collector working yet that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as it does during the daytime? No! You haven’t, because it’s not a real energy/heat flow.

            Your claim violates the 1st law as shown here:

            Your misunderstanding does violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as it creates energy in a system that previously didn’t exist.
            A blanket (thermal shield) example shows it. Consider a system of a person at a body & skin temperature T₁=37C without clothes is encased in a perfect insulator to the sides and below, and there are also perfectly insulating walls of the same shape of the body up to the ceiling, which is also exactly the same shape of the body, so the area of the body and the area of the massive non-insulated ceiling is equal, and the temperature of ceiling is T₂=23C. Simplifying assumption that the only heat transfer is by radiation, and no conduction, convection or evaporation. Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for the body, the blanket (radiation shield) and the walls; the area of the person’s surface(skin) and the the corresponding area of the ceiling that is in thermal contact =1m². The only Qin (energy in) in our system is the internal metabolism of the person which generates 88.5 watts of energy/heat. The system is at equilibrium so the energy/heat transfer away from the body, Qout = 88.5W/m² which exactly equals the internal energy/heat Qin of 88.5W, so the body temperature remains constant at 37C.

            Now we put a 1 m² blanket(thermal shield) between the body and the ceiling. Since the blanket has an equal emissivity to the body, the initial blanket temperature will be 30.25C, defined by T₃(blanket)=0.5(T₁(body)⁴-T₂(walls)⁴) per Eq.8-43, Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ 2nd ed, p.240. Now the S-B equation shows that the body is now only transferring Qout=44.25W/m². Since the body continues to generate Qin=88.5W, the internal energy from metabolism begins to accumulate and body temperature rises until a new equilibrium is reached.

            When the new equilibrium is reached, the blanket heats up to a temperature of 37C so the Qout from the blanket = Qin from the body metabolism. Since at the new equilibrium the energy/heat loss from the body-to-blanket must equal the energy/heat loss from the blanket to the surroundings and must equal the energy/heat generated by the body, 88.5W/m², the S-B equation allows us to calculate the new body/skin temperature of 49.3C.

            Here is the pertinent section from Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’.

            “8-8 Radiation Shields One way of reducing radiant heat transfer between two particular surfaces is to use materials which are highly reflective. An alternative method is to use radiation shields between the heat exchange surfaces. These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. … Now consider the same two planes, but with a radiation shield placed between them as in Fig. 8-28b. The heat transfer will be calculated for this latter case and will be compared with the heat transfer without the shield. Since the shield does deliver or remove heat from the system, the heat transfer between plate 1 and the shield must be precisely the same as that between the shield and plate 2, and this is the overall heat transfer.
            Thus (q/A=σ(T₁⁴-T₃⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) =
            σ(T₃⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₃+1/ϵ₂-1) (8-42)
            The only unknown in Eq.(8-42) is the temperature of the shield T₃. Once this temperature is obtained, the heat transfer is easily calculated. If the emissivities of of all three surfaces are equal, that is, ϵ₁=ϵ₂=ϵ₃ , we obtain the simple relation T₃⁴=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴) (8-43) and the heat transfer is
            q/A=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) But since ϵ₃=ϵ₂ , we observe that the this heat flow is just one-half of that which would be experienced if there were no shield present.” – ‘Heat Transfer’ textbook, J.P.Holman, 2nd ed, pp.239-240

            My correct understanding is that the increase in body temperature is solely due to the accumulation of the only Qin energy in existence, the Qin to the body of 88.5W of internal body metabolism. That internal energy accumulated because the initial heat transfer away from the body was decreased, until a new equilibrium was reached. Thus the 1st Law is satisfied, no energy created or lost. The only Qin in the system remains 88.5W.

            Your incorrect understanding is that the body increases it temperature due to an additional 88.5W/m² of energy allegedly being transferred from the 37C blanket to the body. (Difference between radiation of the 23C walls initial, 436.15W/m², and radiation of the 37C blanket final, 524.65W/m²). Thus you have violated the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy, since you now have created a new 88.5W/m² energy which did not exist in our original system.

            And your incorrect understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has that newly created Qin energy being transferred from a colder object(37Cblanket) to a warmer object(49.3C body).
            Irrefutable evidence that your understanding is wrong.

            GAME OVER! You lose, 1st & 2nd Law denier.

          • evenminded

            Yes, they are fluxes you scientifically illiterate idiot.

            Net LWR is ULR-DLR. Why are you such a moron?

            https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            “you scientifically illiterate idiot. … Why are you such a moron?”
            ROTFLOL! You’re projecting again dupe! Hahaha

            The 333W/m² is not a REAL energy flux/flow. If it was you could collect it like you can the 161W/m² of solar radiation. Unless you got your backradiation collector working that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much energy/heat at night as it does during the daytime? So got it working yet? Hahahahahaha

            Why can’t you collect those 333W/m² of backradiation if it is a real energy/heat flow/flux?
            THAT is the question you can’t answer and THAT is what proves you wrong.
            Well in addition to the fact that your claim violates the 1st Law as it creates energy where there was none, violating the Conservation of Energy law as I showed in my previous comment which you ignore.

            These articles explain in great detail your stupidity, ignorance of thermodynamics, heat transfer and radiation:
            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598
            & https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/
            & https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-great-magical-greenhouse-effect-self-amplifying-loop/
            & https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/how-the-ipcc-turn-calculated-numbers-into-heat/

          • evenminded

            Yes, DLR is a real energy flow as is ULR.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Yes, DLR is a real energy flow as is ULR.”
            Sorry, no matter how many times you chant your climate cult dogma, that will never make it true.
            The fact that it is not a real energy flow is proven by the fact that you can’t collect it like you can the 161W/m² of real solar radiation.
            Question: Why can’t you collect that DLR backradiation if it is a real energy flow?
            Answer: It’s not a real energy flow, it’s a radiant emittance, which is a potential energy flow, but only at 333W/m² if and only if the temperature of the other object is at absolute zero, as the S-B equation shows: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). Only if Tc=0K does the energy flow equal 333W/m². And the Earth’s surface is not at absolute zero, it is at 289K, which is warmer than the cold atmosphere, therefore, just as the S-B equation dictates, the only real energy flow is from the surface to the atmosphere, just as Ozawa’s Fig.5a shows.

            “You’re an idiot.”
            So sad that all you can do is call names and throw a tantrum like a spoiled little tyke. Grow up child.
            So sad that you can’t present any science to back up your ignorant claim that energy/heat flows from colder objects to hotter objects.

            The only way to show that you are correct is to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector, and collects just as much energy/heat at night as it does during the daytime. Why can’t you do that? Because it’s not a real energy flow, and energy never spontaneously flows uphill in the real world. It does only in the rubbish pseudosciecne of your false climate cult religion.

            “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. … It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

          • evenminded

            You can continue to look like an idiot by claiming that DLR is not real energy if you like. I don’t really care what you think and neither does the rest of the scientifically literate world.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You can continue to look like an idiot by claiming that DLR is not real energy if you like>”
            Now you’re lying again. I’ve never said it is not a real energy. I’ve merely correctly stated that it is not a real energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. It’s merely a potential energy flow, but only to objects which are at lower temperature/energy levels, 2nd Law!

            So sad that since you can’t refute my irrefutable evidence that you are wrong, you resort to dishonestly misrepresenting me. Thanks for yet more evidence that you are a member of a cult and are peddling rubbish pseudoscience which you can’t experimentally demonstrate in the real world, which is the proof that you are wrong.
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy if it is a real energy flow?

            Poor tiltminded has no answer so he will continue be on FULL TILT and to throw his tantrum. Sad.

          • evenminded

            So you concede that DLR is a real energy. But you are too ignorant to realize that the D stands for downwelling. That means it is energy that is moving downward from the atmosphere to the surface. That is what a flow is you unbelievable moron.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “But you are still too ignorant to realize that the D stands for downwelling. That means the energy that is moving downward from the atmosphere to the surface.”
            No, you are still to ignorant to realize that just means that there is a downward radiation pressure, but since there is a larger upward radiation pressure from the surface the only transfer(movement) of energy is upward, from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere,

            It’s no different than when you apply two opposing forces on the surface of a block from opposite sides. Both forces/pressures are real, and are potential sources of motion, but there is not a simultaneous bidirectional motion, there is only a single motion in the single direction from the higher force/pressure to the lower force/pressure. If both opposing forces are equal, there is no motion, because the opposing forces/pressures cancel each other out. The forces/pressures aren’t destroyed, they both still exist as potential causes of motion. This is so elementary that it is incredible that you can’t get it. It just shows what a powerful force ideological blindness is, causing pathetic denial of reality.

            Another example is water flow in a pipe connecting two tanks. There is not a simultaneous bidirectional fluid flow in both directions, there is a single, one-directional flow if there is a pressure/head difference, and that direction is always and only in the direction of the higher pressure/head to the lower pressure/head. No pressure difference, no flow, just like this diagram shows: http://www.noshockzone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Water-Tanks-No-Flow-300×247.jpg

            “The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html , India Institute of Technology

            Get that? “certain direction”, NOT both/bidirections.

            Simple science. So sad that your ideological blindness prevents you from accepting reality.

          • ROO2

            you are still to ignorant to realize that just means that there is a downward radiation pressure

            For there or be a radiation pressure acting on the surface there would need to be photons striking the surface to impart their momentum.

            The photons energy is disctated by itse wavelength.

            You have just stated that there is an energy flow from the atmosphere to the surface.

            Given that we know that absorptivity of the surface too, you have also explain the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface.

            Finally you start making some sense. 😉

          • evenminded

            You don’t understand the first thing about Maxwell’s laws.

            EM pulses pass right through one another without changing their energy or momentum. Photons do not stop until they are absorbed by matter. Photons travel at the speed of light.

            The fact that you think otherwise proves that you are an idiot.

          • ROO2

            I’ve never said it is not a real energy. I’ve merely correctly stated that it is not a real energy flow

            Wow, slow photons.

            *Guffaw*

          • evenminded

            Something around here is slow.

          • ROO2

            LOL, in the middle of an open plan office. :-0

          • ROO2

            Still see posts from Soosoos and egriff at:

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change

            Even had paasingby turn up there under a different name not too long ago. Easy spot though, it was the historic australian newspaper articles that gave it away.

            Their standards are far more scientific than the Telegraph though. There’d be no room for 1st and 2nd law deniers like RealOldOne2 there. His account would be deleted far faster than that at the Telegraph, which wasn’t long.

            I post there under a different handle.

            You do not get the real lunatics like RealOldOne2 there though, or his friends like Maltow who claims the moon landings are faked, or Lincoln Rhyme with his “heated perfectly insulated water tank that never warmed” though experiment. They have special places.

          • RealOldOne2

            “There’d be no room for 1st and 2nd law deniers like RealOldOne2 there.”
            ROTFLOL!
            Sorry dupe, I proved that you are the 1st & 2nd Law denier here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211

            You have been unable to refute a bit of the science that I posted there that proves me right and proves you wrong! Hahaha

          • ROO2

            All that you have proved is that you do not comprehend what the word net means.

            It’s clearly a tricky one for you, too many letters I reckon.

            As the author or the paper you linked to points out in Figure 1:

            ftp://iacftp.ethz.ch/pub_read/aroesch/mikro/G_Ohmura.DOC.pdf

            345 Wm^-w downwelling and 385 W^m-2 upwelling longwave, it’s a very long short but do you think you can compute the net energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere?

          • RealOldOne2

            I fully comprehend what the word net means, and I fully comprehend the fact that energy/heat never spontaneously flows uphill from a lower energy/temperature level like the cold atmosphere to a higher energy level like the surface of the Earth. I proved that I understand it and you don’t it in this comment, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211 , where I showed your claim violates the 1st Law Conservation of Energy.

            When I showed you how a blanket works by working through the science of heat transfer, I showed that the increase in body temperature when a blanket is added is 100% due to the accumulation of the body’s only Energy-in, 88.5W/M² of internal metabolism. That is the only Energy-in in the system. And the heat transfer equations show that the only energy/heat transfer is 100% always and only in one direction from the warmer body to the colder blanket all through the process of reaching a new equilibrium temperature. This is the only way that energy is conserved.

            I showed that your view that the body temperature increased as a result of the colder blanket transferring energy/heat back to the warmer body is wrong because it results in creation of 88.5W/m² of energy that did not exist before the blanket was added. Your wrong view claims that when the blanket is added, your body now has two energy/heat inputs, 88.5W/m² from internal metabolism plus a new, never before existing 88.5W/m² from the colder blanket. That is creation of energy that did not exist, and thus violates the Conservation of Energy, the 1st Law.

            The root of your ignorance is not accepting the fact that the radiant emittances that you mention are not in and of themselves an energy transfer to another object, they are only potential energy transfers. They only transfer energy to another object if and only if that object is at a lower energy/temperature level. That’s the real world that we live in. That is proven by the fact that you can’t collect that alleged 345W/m² of backradiation energy flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, because it’s not a real energy/heat flow. It’s a potential energy/flow, but since the surface is warmer than the cold atmosphere, the only energy/heat flow is from the surface to the atmosphere, just as Ozawa(2003) Figure 5a shows: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg

            The real world proves you wrong, and you have no answer to the question that I’ve asked you dozens and dozens of times, but you refuse to answer, because you have no answer, but you are too stubborn and ideologically blinded to accept that reality.

            Why can’t you collect that 345W/m² of backradiation if it is a real energy/heat flow?

            So have you got your ‘backradiation’ energy/heat collector working that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much energy/heat at night as it does during the daytime? Nope, you’re foiled again by the 2nd Law! Hahahaha You’rer such a JOKE!

            I’ve shown you the science before, but you continually ignore it. Here it is again.

            EM waves cancel just like light waves and sound waves, just like Maxwell said:

            “The distinguishing characteristic of radiant heat is, that it travels in rays like light, whence the name radiant. These rays have all the physical properties of rays of light, and are capable of reflexion, refraction, and INTERFERENCE and polarization.” – Maxwell, Theory of Heat, 1902

            Total interference cancels energy/heat flow. And no, it doesn’t destroy energy just as active noise cancellation doesn’t destroy sound energy. And just like a pipe connecting two water tanks with equal water levels doesn’t destroy any energy even though the flow between the two tanks is zero. You ignorantly claim that the water is simultaneously flowing from each tank to the other tank as if there wasn’t any water in the other tank. That’s just stupid. No energy was destroyed because both tanks still have potential energy, but that maximum potential energy is only realized if the water level in the other tank is zero. And just like a wire with equal voltage potential at each end has zero current flowing in it, no energy is destroyed, as the potential energy is still conserved, but the maximum potential current flow is only realized if the voltage/potential at the other end of the wire is zero. You ignorantly claim that there is simultaneous bidirectional current flow as if the other ends were at zero voltage/potential. That’s just stupid.

            “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            The radiation pressure of the warmer surface is greater than the radiation pressure of the colder atmosphere, so the energy/heat flow is in only one direction, from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere.

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel OR CARRY ENERGY, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            Any object above zero has a radiation force/power field, and has the potential to transfer energy/heat, but can only do so if the other object is at a lower energy state, ie., a lower temperature, than the first object.

            This reference shows that a surface has an “emissive power” that has an “upper limit”. That upper limit is only reached if the 2nd object is at absolute zero, as the S-B equation clearly shows. http://web.archive.org/web/20150510195517/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.4.3.html

            If the other object is at the same temperature, the emissive powers cancel and there is no energy/heat flow just as there is no water flow in a pipe between two tanks with the same water level, http://www.noshockzone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Water-Tanks-No-Flow-300×247.jpg . If there is no temperature difference, there is no energy/heat flow.

            “Heat moves from one system because of differences of temperature in the systems. If you have two identical systems with equal temperatures, there will be NO flow of energy. When you have two systems with different temperatures, the energy will start to flow. … Areas of high temperature give off energy TO areas of lower temperature.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_intro.html , Physics 4 Kids

            Sadly you can’t even understand science that is dumbed down for kids.

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and CEASES once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            Study harder, this article exposes your stupidity on bidirectional energy flow: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            More sources that prove you wrong, and that you can’t refute any of the science included in them:
            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-great-magical-greenhouse-effect-self-amplifying-loop/
            & https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/how-the-ipcc-turn-calculated-numbers-into-heat/
            & https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/

          • ROO2

            I fully comprehend what the word net means

            Then you would be able to answer the question from the figures that are referenced in your citation:

            345 Wm^-w downwelling and 385 W^m-2 upwelling longwave, it’s a very long short but do you think you can compute the net energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere?

            It is quite tricky to work out the net energy transfer, have a first stab, you can ask an grownup if you get stuck.

          • RealOldOne2
          • ROO2

            345 Wm^-w downwelling and 385 W^m-2 upwelling longwave, it’s a very long short but do you think you can compute the net energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere?

            Answer: Basic arithmetic is too tricky for RealOldOne2.

          • RealOldOne2

            So sad that you still don’t understand that energy only flows ‘downhill’ in the real world that we live in.
            That is why you can’t collect any of that 345W/m² of backradiation energy.
            Question: Why can’t you collect that 345W/m² of backradiation?”
            Answer: Because it’s not a real energy
            flow, it is merely a potential energy flow if and only if the other object is at 0K, as the S-B equation clearly shows: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). Only if Tc=0K does q=345W/m².

            But the Earth’s surface is not at 0K, it is at 289K, so the only energy transfer, q, is a single upward flow from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere, simple 2nd Law that you deny bites you again.

          • ROO2

            So sad that you still don’t understand that energy only flows ‘downhill’ in the real world that we live in.

            Yet you state in your link that the atmosphere radiates photons that impact a radiation pressure on the surface of the planet:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3013134673

            “For there or be a radiation pressure acting on the surface there would need to be photons striking the surface to impart their momentum.

            The photons energy is dictated by its wavelength.

            You have just stated that there is an energy flow from the atmosphere to the surface.

            Given that we know that absorptivity of the surface too, you have also explain the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface.”

            Question: Why can’t you collect that 345W/m² of backradiation?”

            Perhaps is you deduce the net energy flow and the direction of that flow you just might be able to answer your question?

            Only if Tc=0K does q=345W/m².

            This is more pseudoscience gibberish. It would be physically impossible to measure the emissivity of a body if that were the case. It isn’t the case. The emissivity would also be a function of the surrounding environment and referenced as such, it isn’t.

          • ROO2

            I proved

            That all you have is a misinterpreted paper which you do not understand the content of, nor what the term net means, nor the content of the paper or the source that they cited to arrive at that net figure.

            You have been unable to refute a bit of the science

            All of it I’m afraid. That’s why you cannot discuss anything in any detail and have to resort to cut and paste gibberish and misinterpreted links to childrens websites.

            OK one last try, let’s see if you can provide a rational answer or have to resort to your usual cut and past gibberish:

            Two molecules of CO2 at the same attitude in the atmosphere one at -20C the other at 300C having come out the back of jet engine.

            Both radiate an identical photon at 15 micron at the surface which is at 10C.

            What physical mechanism means that one is absorbed and the other energy is not?”

          • RealOldOne2

            So sad that you are such a pathetic liar.
            But then we know that because you stubbornly cling to your stupid, ignorant, 1st Law denying, 2nd Law denying climate that energy/heat is transferred from the cold atmosphere, to the warmer surface of the Earth as I proved was wrong here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211

            You got banned for your aggressive, hate filled posts as well as your serial impersonation of me. So sad that you continue to lie and deny reality. But then, that’s what scientificallly illiterate fanatical doomsday cult zealots defending their religion with jihadist zeal do.

          • ROO2

            Blimey, it seems you are semi-lucid at the moment given your timely response.

            Then allow me to jump in with a question before they ring the bell for your medication time:

            You agreed that in a vacuum around 96% of the incident IR energy on a foil thermal blanket is reflected – as per your “thought experiment” – where a body with an emissivity of 1 was radiating energy towards that foil. Given that with the same emissivity the emitting body will also absorb all incident energy that is reflected from the foil, your 2nd Law claims are moot.

            T^4 – Learn some math.

          • RealOldOne2

            I exposed you as a 1st & 2nd Law denier here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007464175

            You are just making up lies now. So sad.

          • ROO2

            I just love the way your own thought experiment has come back to bite you, and you cannot explain your way out of it because [drumroll] you have never studied science.

            “You agreed that in a vacuum around 96% of the incident IR energy on a foil thermal blanket is reflected – as per your “thought experiment” – where a body with an emissivity of 1 was radiating energy towards that foil. Given that with the same emissivity the emitting body will also absorb all incident energy that is reflected from the foil, your 2nd Law claims are moot.”

          • RealOldOne2

            “I just love the way your own thought experiment has come back to bite you, and you cannot explain your way out of it because [drumroll] you have never studied science.”
            I just love how you lie and deny reality. Nothing has come back to bite me.
            You were the ignorant one, totally oblivious as to why emissivity was important in considering how a blanket worked: http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f84f3577be9338808dde1bc6413663ef46bea619b28b87f2ba8d3c291c5a479c.png?w=600&h=245

            “in your thought experiment …”
            You are so serially dishonest, my example had all emissivities =1. Read my comment where I exposed your stupidity and ignorance again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211

            You lost. You were exposed as a 1st & 2nd Law denier in my comment because your claim that the colder blanket actually transferred energy back to the body violated the 1st Law because it created energy where none existed before.
            You ignorantly claim that adding a 25 times greater resistance to energy/heat flow from a warmer to a colder object actually increases energy/heat flow from the hotter object to the colder object.
            That is just plain STUPID! Hahaha

          • ROO2

            Blimey, it seems my own posts have been elevated to the realm of peer reviewed science by RealOldOne2.

            It is an honour and privileged to have my own disqus posts misquoted alongside that of peer reviewed publications in order for you to attempt to portray your pseudoscientific gibberish.

            But hey, you do not disappoint.

            Let’s have a look at that quote in full shall we, as it relates to your take on pseudoscience, a question that you are still yet to answer it seems:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/study_co2_levels_will_stay_above_key_measure_for_039generations039/#comment-2975026292

            Your ignorance of how a blanket works is exposed by the fact that the most effective blanket is a space blanket, which is made using the lowest possible emissivity material, polished foil. If emitting and transferring heat from the blanket to you[sic] body was really how a blanket keeps you warm, the most effective blanket would be made from the highest emissivity material.

            I’m sorry? How does the emissivity of an object have any bearing whatsoever? This is your pseudoscience gibberish that we are talking about here.

            In your world of pseudoscience the colder space blanket cannot radiate any energy back towards the warmer body. It also cannot reflect any energy back towards the warmer body as that also would results in a bidirectional energy flow [cue up your 1st law wave cancelling denying energy claims – which themselves do not conform with the laws of physics].

            You see, there really is no difference if a photon is reflected, scattered, or absorbed and then re-emitted. I doubt you will be able to comprehend as this is way above your level of understanding.

            You lost.

            Sure buddy. I’ve got the whole of science on my side. Even the climate skeptical atmospheric scientists.

            You’ve got nobody of any credibility, hence your continued reference to a blog site written by a non scientist and non specialist.

            You were exposed as a 1st & 2nd Law denier in my comment because your claim that the colder blanket actually transferred energy back to the body violated the 1st Law because it created energy where none existed before.

            Do you really have zero understanding of reflected energy? Is it really true that you can not see your reflection in a mirror? Does your mirror have to be warmer tat your body temperature to be able to see your reflection?

            Why are you so thick?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. Sorry, all your ignorant blathering and handwaving clown dancing doesn’t change the fact that your claim that cold objects transfer energy/heat back to warmer objects violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics because it creates energy where none existed before as I showed here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211 You are sooooooo ignorant of thermodynamics and heat transfer!

            Pay close attention now you frothing, raging, ranting and raving tyke, time for another education, and exposure of your ignorance and stupidity!

            “In your world of pseudoscience the colder space blanket cannot radiate any energy back to the warmer body.”
            You are lying, projecting and exposing your scientific illiteracy yet again. My world of real science says that when an object has an emissivity of 0.04, it only radiates 1/25th as much as if its emissivity was 1.0. You claim that a blanket warms by emitting and transferring heat back from a colder object to a hotter object. If that were true, then the highest emissivity blanket would keep you the warmest, but now after I taught you that emissivity was relevant, you admit that I was correct that it is the lowest emissivity blanket is the most effective, thus you have refuted your own claim! Nice OWN GOAL, oh thick one! Hahaha

            “would results[sic] in bidirectional energy flow”
            No, not at all as I have shown you dozens and dozens of times, but you have been unable to understand.

            “The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html , India Institute of Technology

            Get that? “certain direction”, NOT both/bidirections.
            Just as a wire that has a different voltage potential at each end doesn’t have simultaneous current flowing in both directions and just as a pipe connecting two tanks with different water levels doesn’t have simultaneous water flow in both directions, two objects that have different temperatures don’t have simultaneous energy/heat flow in both directions. As I showed you in my comment linked to above, that would violate both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics because it would create energy where none existed before, violating Conservation of Energy(1st Law) and violating the 2nd Law because it would involve energy/heat flowing from a colder object to a hotter object, which can’t happen in the real world that we live in.

            “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            “Heat does not flow from a cooler to warmer body.” – Clark2010 ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ , peer reviewed science

            “I’ve got the whole of science on my side.”
            LOL! Which is why you can’t cite a SINGLE science reference to support your stupid, ignorant pseudoscience rubbish, but I CAN cite dozens and dozens of science references to support my correct understanding! You’re such a JOKE! Hahahaha

            “Do you really have zero understanding of reflected energy?”
            Hahaha. Just a few short weeks ago you were saying that my claim of reflected IR energy was “bizarre pseudoscience gibberish” & “Pwahahaha”, now you’re citing it! You’re welcome AGAIN for the education. Sadly it still hasn’t elevated your science IQ above single digits.

            Yes, EM waves cancel just like light waves and sound waves. And now you are denying Maxwell,

            “The distinguishing characteristic of radiant heat is, that it travels in rays like light, whence the name radiant. These rays have all the physical properties of rays of light, and are capable of reflexion, refraction, and INTERFERENCE and polarization.” – Maxwell, Theory of Heat, 1902

            Total interference cancels energy/heat flow. And no, it doesn’t destroy energy just as active noise cancellation doesn’t destroy sound energy. And just like a pipe connecting two water tanks with equal water levels doesn’t destroy any energy even though the flow between the two tanks is zero. You ignorantly claim that the water is simultaneously flowing from each tank to the other tank as if there wasn’t any water in the other tank. That’s just stupid. No energy was destroyed because both tanks still have potential energy, but that maximum potential energy is only realized if the water level in the other tank is zero. And just like a wire with equal voltage potential at each end has zero current flowing in it, no energy is destroyed, as the potential energy is still conserved, but the maximum potential current flow is only realized if the voltage/potential at the other end of the wire is zero. You ignorantly claim that there is simultaneous bidirectional current flow as if the other ends were at zero voltage/potential. That’s just stupid.

            So tell us oh wise one in your own mind, what happens to those sound waves when you turn on the ANC? The noise/sound is gone. Is that energy destroyed? No, the waves destructively interfere causing a standing wave with zero intensity.

            “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            The radiation pressure of the warmer surface is greater than the radiation pressure of the colder atmosphere, so the energy/heat flow is in only one direction, from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere.

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel OR CARRY ENERGY, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            Any object above zero has a radiation force/power field, and has the potential to transfer energy/heat, but can only do so if the other object is at a lower energy state, ie., a lower temperature, than the first object.

            This reference shows that a surface has an “emissive power” that has an “upper limit”. That upper limit is only reached if the 2nd object is at absolute zero, as the S-B equation clearly shows. http://web.archive.org/web/20150510195517/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.4.3.html

            If the other object is at the same temperature, the emissive powers cancel and there is no energy/heat flow just as there is no water flow in a pipe between two tanks with the same water level, http://www.noshockzone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Water-Tanks-No-Flow-300×247.jpg . If there is no temperature difference, there is no energy/heat flow.

            “Heat moves from one system because of differences of temperature in the systems. If you have two identical systems with equal temperatures, there will be NO flow of energy. When you have two systems with different temperatures, the energy will start to flow. … Areas of high temperature give off energy TO areas of lower temperature.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_intro.html , Physics 4 Kids

            Sadly you can’t even understand science that is dumbed down for kids.

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and CEASES once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            Study harder, this article exposes your stupidity on bidirectional energy flow: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            OK, let’s expose your ignorance on reflected energy by applying your pseudoscience and changing the emissivity from ϵ =1 (my blanket) to your ϵ =0.04(your space blanket).
            According to you, when the blanket is added it reflects back 96% of that energy which you claim is completely absorbed by the ϵ =1 body. Then according to you, the body continues to transfer away 88.5W/m² because its temperature hasn’t changed yet plus the reflected energy must be transferred away, which means in the second go around a total of 88.5+84.96 W/m² is transferred to the foil space blanket, which then reflects back 96% of that, 166.52W/m² back to the body which is completely absorbed, and then the body transfers away 88.5+166.52 or 255 W/m² to the foil blanket, which then reflects back 96% or 244.8 W/m² to the body which completely absorbs it and then must now transfer 333.2W/m² away from the body to the foil space blanket, which then reflects 96% of that, 320W/m² back to the body which completely absorbs it and then must transfer away 405.5W/m² , and on and on in an endless loop of heat heating itself and then that more heat heating itself again and again in a self-amplyfying loop until SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION! Hahahahaha Yes your pseudoscience is stupid to the infinite power! Quite fitting for you! Hahahaha

            Here you go, study harder to see why your self-amplifying loop is pseudoscience: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-great-magical-greenhouse-effect-self-amplifying-loop/

            Once AGAIN, poor ROO2 is exposed as a scientifically illiterate climate cult fanatic. Hilarious! Hahahaha

          • ROO2

            My world of real science says that when an object has an emissivity of 0.04, it only radiates 1/25th as much as if its emissivity was 1.0. You claim that a blanket warms by emitting and transferring heat back from a colder object to a hotter object.

            It reflects 96% of the incident energy , dimwit. Some of it back at the original emitter which you defined having an emissivity of 1, therefore all reflected energy that interacts with the original emitter is absorbed by it. Its heat content is therefore greater than it would have been in the absence of the object with an 0.04 emissivity, consequently it is warmer that it would otherwise have been. Of course you claim that no EM can be reflected as that would result in a bi-directional energy flow, the energy in your pseudoscience is magically destroyed!

            “In your world of pseudoscience the colder space blanket cannot radiate any energy back to the warmer body.”
            You are lying, projecting and exposing your scientific illiteracy yet again. My world of real science says that when an object has an emissivity of 0.04, it only radiates 1/25th as much as if its emissivity was 1.0.

            Hurrah! Big steps in understanding science RealOldOne2. Your admission that the space blanket radiates and reflects energy back to the warmer body is a large step for you. Hopefully that will result in a cessation of your 2nd law misinterpretations.

            It seems that you are really struggling to understand the concept of energy flows and how the resultant energy flow net dictates the flow of heat. Let me help to explain this basic scientific concept that is clearly beyond your grasp. The net flow of energy is the difference between the two opposing energy transfers. Take a gas and a solid at the same temperature. Both will contain molecules that will have a range of energies as defined by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Consequently the higher energy molecules may transfer energy to lower energy molecules in both directions. Although both the solid and gas are at thermal equilibrium there is a flow of energy in both directions.

            You would claim that violates the 2nd Law. It doesn’t. The net energy transfer is zero as the energy exchange is equal in both directions. Children can grasp this concept, can you?

            So tell us oh wise one in your own mind, what happens to those sound waves when you turn on the ANC? The noise/sound is gone. Is that energy destroyed? No, the waves destructively interfere causing a standing wave with zero intensity.

            The energy from the original source and that used to power the ANC is lost to the air as heat.

            The same as two electromagnetic waves that interact in the vacuum in space, the energy is not destroyed and both waves continue in the direction of their original propagation.

            http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/destructive.pdf

            The radiation pressure of the warmer surface is greater than the radiation pressure of the colder atmosphere, so the energy/heat flow is in only one direction, from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere.

            Ah, so the atmosphere does radiate photons at the surface of the planet, giving rise to a radiation pressure. Glad to see that you now agree that energy flows from the atmosphere to the surface, there would be no radiation pressure from the colder atmosphere if it were not radiating photons (energy) at the surface. I’m glad you have come round to stating that energy is transferred from the atmosphere to the surface though, your bizarre claims that this was not the case were getting tiresome.

            If the other object is at the same temperature, the emissive powers cancel and there is no energy/heat flow just as there is no water flow in a pipe between two tanks with the same water level

            You cannot cancel an emissive power. You need to read some very basic introductory science like Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation where radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium occurs. You are missing the fundamentals, hence why all of your references are for childrens science websites. You had to dumb yourself down far enough to find something that you can use to misinterpret your pseudoscience gibberish.

            In addition there is constant energy exchange between the two water tanks in your example. Add a different coloured drop of dye to each and the colour will flow from those tanks to the opposite tanks.

            Sadly you can’t even understand science that is dumbed down for kids.

            This is your link from above:

            http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/transferring-heat-through-radiation/

            Perhaps you might like to get a grown-up to read it aloud to you? Or perhaps you can find somebody with a double digit IQ to explain the content of the post that you posted?

            “You radiate heat in all directions all the time, and everything in your environment radiates heat back to you. When you have the same temperature as your surroundings, you radiate as fast and as much to your environment as it does to you. When two things are in thermal contact but no thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the same temperature.

            If your environment didn’t radiate heat back to you, you’d freeze, which is why space is considered so “cold.” There’s nothing cold to touch in space, and you don’t lose heat through conduction or convection. Rather, the environment doesn’t radiate back at you, which means that the heat you radiate away is lost. You can freeze very fast from the lost heat.”

            Then according to you, the body continues to transfer away 88.5W/m² because its temperature hasn’t changed yet plus the reflected energy must be transferred away, which means in the second go around a total of 88.5+84.96 W/m² is transferred to the foil space blanket

            Ah, now we see the problem. It’s your chidlike grasp of science and complete lack of understanding of scientific units.

            The reflected heat is absorbed by the emitter. Depending upon the cross-section of the emitter, its mass, and the specific heat capacity will determine the new temperature and therefore how much energy is radiated.

            This is basic fundamental stuff RealOldOne2. Your mangled attempts just demonstrate your scientific illiteracy, So thanks for your open admission.

            Furthermore, in a system where losses are solely by radiation and the majority of energy is reflected, there is indeed a feedback from the energy of metabolism created by the emitter if they are human, for example. This is balanced by the energy that is radiated by the foil in both directions, one serving to cool by radiating heat away and the other also cumulatively adding to the energy reflected.

            That’s exactly why space suits used for spacewalks and on the moon require heat exchangers to dump the astronaut’s self generated metabolism heat and that produced by the
            life support kit to space.

            http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-2111/

            They would overheat and die otherwise.

            Thanks for highlighting your idiocy so plainly. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            ROTLFMAO @ youir delusional SHOUTING rant which refuted nothing of which I posted!
            You must have put on a space blanket and SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTED!
            Hahahahaha

          • ROO2

            The only person shouting here is you RealOldOne2, with your random use of capitals.

            refuted nothing of which I posted

            Did I say thanks for your demonstrated inability to undertake a basic heat transfer calculation? If not, thanks again. 😉

            Thanks for highlighting your idiocy so plainly. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            I’m so enjoying your meltdown, as you are in a frothing rage that I have exposed your scientific illiteracy here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211

            “Did I say thanks for your demonstrated inability to undertake a basic heat transfer calculation?”
            You’re projecting. You are unable to show a single thing wrong with my heat transfer calculations.

            “Thanks for highlighting your idiocy so plainly”
            You are good at projection!

          • ROO2

            I have exposed your scientific illiteracy here:

            Alas that is the same cut and paste misinterpretation of Ozawa that I shown to be such many times. Your continued use of it just suggests that you are too thick to understand where the authors of the paper get their information from to determine the net energy flow, even though I have provided that reference to you in full, even with a nice coloured in figure too.

            345 Wm^-w downwelling and 385 W^m-2 upwelling longwave, it’s a very long short but do you think you can compute the net energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere?

            I’m thinking that is too difficult and we will have to just resort to getting out your crayons again instead.

            You are unable to show a single thing wrong with my heat transfer calculations.

            I already have. Can you not read with comprehension?

            It certainly seems to be your sticking point.

          • evenminded

            I’m about to be banned.

          • ROO2

            Banned for stating the truth too often?

          • Mensch59

            Too bad. You can bet that the climate science deniers will be allowed to stay.

          • Two Americas

            At a science website today I challenged a notorious lying huckster spouting “CO2 is plant food!” and “the warmists are claiming that CO2 is a pollutant! How absurd!” My remarks got deleted, his stand. And no, I didn’t cuss, I didn’t make any personal attacks, although he kept claiming that I had and no doubt recruited a gang to “flag” my posts.

            The Disqus insanity that we have seen on the “channels” over the last few months is now spreading everywhere.

          • Mensch59

            Add fake news and uncensored reports via social media coming from the front lines (e.g. Standing Rock) to bad moderation and threads which exclude in context comments and you have a recipe for the government policing these internet chat rooms.
            I’m thoroughly disgusted.

          • Two Americas

            I think the government that would ever police the Internet will collapse before that will happen. The government as it is developing right now is going to thrive on the chaos and fake news. we have passed the point of no return on that.

          • Mensch59

            Good points. I keep assuming that government is good. Quite the mad folly to believe that assumption.

          • RealOldOne2

            Perhaps if you would have behaved like an adult and actually had rational discussions instead of incessantly calling everyone you interacted with and idiot and/or a moron, you wouldn’t be banned.

          • evenminded

            Well, you are the expert at getting banned. You don’t know the first thing about rational discussions.

            Perhaps if you weren’t such a mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate moron, then I wouldn’t have to call you an idiot.

            But, since you are, I have no choice.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Perhaps if you weren’t such a mathematically incompentent, scientifically illiterate moron, then I wouldn’t have to call you an idiot. But since you are, I have no choice. You’re an idiot.”

            You just can’t help yourself, can you?
            It’s apparent that you have some serious issues with facing reality as well as anger management. I feel sorry for you.

            Please point out any mathematical errors or science errors in my radiative heat transfer example of a a person with and without a blanket. Here you go, have at it:

            You and ROO@ claim that putting on a blanket (thermal shield) warms you up by the colder blanket transferring energy back to your warmer body. This is wrong, because as I will show from the science of heat transfer, your claim violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as it creates new energy in a system that previously didn’t exist before.

            Consider a system of a person at a body & skin temperature T₁=37C without clothes is encased in a perfect insulator to the sides and below, and there are also perfectly insulating walls of the same shape of the body up to the ceiling, which is also exactly the same shape of the body, so the area of the body and the area of the massive non-insulated ceiling is equal, and the temperature of ceiling is T₂=23C. Simplifying assumption that the only heat transfer is by radiation, and no conduction, convection or evaporation. Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for the body, the blanket (radiation shield) and the ceiling; the area of the person’s surface(skin) and the the corresponding area of the ceiling that is in thermal contact =1m². The only Qin (energy in) in our system is the internal metabolism of the person which generates 88.5 watts of energy/heat. The system is at equilibrium so the energy/heat transfer away from the body, Qout = 88.5W/m² which exactly equals the internal energy/heat Qin of 88.5W, so the body temperature remains constant at 37C.

            Now we put a 1 m² blanket(thermal shield) between the body and the ceiling. Since the blanket has an equal emissivity to the body, the initial blanket temperature will be 30.25C, defined by T₃(blanket)=0.5(T₁(body)⁴-T₂(ceiling)⁴) per Eq.8-43, Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ 2nd ed, p.240. Now the S-B equation shows that the body is now only transferring Qout=(5.67x10⁻⁸)x(310.15⁴-303.4⁴)=44.2W/m². Since the body continues to generate Qin=88.5W, the internal energy from metabolism begins to accumulate and body temperature rises until a new equilibrium is reached.

            When the new equilibrium is reached, the blanket heats up to a temperature of 37C so the Qout from the blanket = Qin from the body metabolism. Since at the new equilibrium the energy/heat loss from the body-to-blanket must equal the energy/heat loss from the blanket to the surroundings and must equal the energy/heat generated by the body, 88.5W/m², the S-B equation allows us to calculate the new body/skin temperature, q=σ(T₁⁴-T₃⁴)=88.5=(5.67x10⁻⁸)x(T₁⁴-310.15⁴) –> T₁=322.47K=49.3C.

            Here is the pertinent section from Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’.

            “8-8 Radiation Shields One way of reducing radiant heat transfer between two particular surfaces is to use materials which are highly reflective. An alternative method is to use radiation shields between the heat exchange surfaces. These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. … Now consider the same two planes, but with a radiation shield placed between them as in Fig. 8-28b. The heat transfer will be calculated for this latter case and will be compared with the heat transfer without the shield. Since the shield does deliver or remove heat from the system, the heat transfer between plate 1 and the shield must be precisely the same as that between the shield and plate 2, and this is the overall heat transfer.
            Thus (q/A=σ(T₁⁴-T₃⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) =
            σ(T₃⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₃+1/ϵ₂-1) (8-42)
            The only unknown in Eq.(8-42) is the temperature of the shield T₃. Once this temperature is obtained, the heat transfer is easily calculated. If the emissivities of of all three surfaces are equal, that is, ϵ₁=ϵ₂=ϵ₃ , we obtain the simple relation T₃⁴=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴) (8-43) and the heat transfer is
            q/A=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) But since ϵ₃=ϵ₂ , we observe that the this heat flow is just one-half of that which would be experienced if there were no shield present.” – ‘Heat Transfer’ textbook, J.P.Holman, 2nd ed, pp.239-240

            My correct understanding is that the increase in body temperature is solely due to the accumulation of the only Qin energy in existence in our example, the Qin to the body of 88.5W of internal body metabolism. That internal energy accumulated because the initial heat transfer away from the body was decreased, until a new equilibrium was reached. Thus the 1st Law is satisfied, no energy created or lost. The only Qin in the system remains 88.5W.

            Your incorrect understanding is that the body increases it temperature due to an additional 88.5W/m² of energy allegedly being transferred from the 37C blanket to the 49.3C body. (Difference between radiation of the 23C ceiling initial, 436.15W/m², and radiation of the 37C blanket final, 524.65W/m²). Thus you have violated the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy, since you now have created a new 88.5W/m² energy which did not exist in our original system.

            And your incorrect understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has that newly created Qin energy being transferred from a colder object(37Cblanket) to a warmer object(49.3C body).

            This is irrefutable evidence that your claim that a body warms when a blanket is added because of a transfer of energy from the colder blanket back to the warmer body, is wrong.

            The correct understanding from the science of heat transfer is that the body warms solely from the accumulation of the body’s internally generated heat, and the energy/heat transfer is always and only in one direction from the hotter body to the cooler surroundings, first to the 23C ceiling, and later to the 37C blanket. QED.

            This is clearly the work of a competent scientist who understands mathematics, thermodynamics and heat transfer, not of “a mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate moron” or “an idiot” as you claim I am.
            Sadly because it goes against your ideology and climate alarmist beliefs, you are almost certain to deny it. But one thing that you can’t do is point out any errors in mathematics or heat transfer or thermodynamics.

          • evenminded

            No, I can’t help myself. I’ve already proven your statements wrong on several occasions and yet you continue to make them.

            I’ve proven that for both conduction, with solutions to Newton’s laws for collisions, and radiation, with solutions to Maxwell’s equations, that energy can be transferred from low to high energy sources. Yet, you continue to make contrary statements.

            I’ve proven how a black cardboard square acts during the day and during the night both absorbing and emitting radiation, yet you continue with your ignorant straw men about back radiation heat collectors.

            I could very easily demonstrate how your latest straw man is incorrect as well, but it would not matter because you don’t understand science.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot”
            Yes, just as I predicted, you were unable to refute a single bit of the science that I posted, so you resorted to your lie that you have done so. Pathetic.
            But thanks for confirming the everything that I said was 100% correct and for confirming that you couldn’t refute the science that I presented which proves your bi-directional energy flow is wrong because it violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws.

          • evenminded

            Again, I certainly can refute it, but you will not understand it. You’ve created yet another straw man that is incorrect.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Again, I certainly can refute it, but you will not understand it.”
            Yet another lie. You can’t or you would have.

            “You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged.

          • evenminded

            Of course I can, but it won’t matter because you are too scientifically illiterate to understand it.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Of course I can, but it won’t matter because you are too scientifically illiterate to understand it.”
            You’re still lying. Of course you can’t, or you would have. Try me. Post where I was mathematically and/or scientifically wrong. If you can, you will prove your claim that I am scientifically illiterate. But you can’t. You are just blowing smoke because you can’t face the reality that the science proves you wrong.

            At least you stopped your adolescent name calling. Afraid of being banned I see.

          • evenminded

            You’re an idiot. Here it is all with bidirectional energy flow. You don’t understand it because you are a scientifically illiterate imbecile.

            Case 1: Energy balance with ceiling maintained at 23C

            A) Energy generated by body: 88.51

            B) Energy emitted by body and absorbed by ceiling: 524.65

            C) Energy emitted by ceiling and absorbed by body: 436.14

            Energy balance for the body: A – B + C = 0

            Case 2: Energy balance with ceiling maintained at 23C and intervening heat shield denoted (s) and body denoted (b)

            D) Energy generated by body: 88.51

            E) Energy emitted by ceiling and absorbed by shield: 436.14

            F) Energy emitted by sheild and absorbed by ceiling: 5.67×10^-8 Ts^4

            G) Energy emitted by sheild and absorbed by body: 5.67×10^-8 Ts^4

            H) Energy emitted by body and absorbed by sheild: 5.67×10^-8 Tb^4

            Energy balance for shield: E + H = G + F -> 436.14 + 5.67×10^-8 Tb^4 = 2 x 5.67×10^-8 Ts^4

            Energy balance for body: D + G = H -> 88.51 + 5.67×10^-8 Ts^4 = 5.67×10^-8 Tb^4

            Solve: 5.67×10^-8 Ts^4 = 436.14 + 88.51 -> Ts = 37C

            and then 5.67×10^-8 Tb^4 = 88.51 + 5.67×10^-8 Ts^4 -> Tb = 49.48C

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged!

            LOL! Thanks for proving that your reverse/anti-thermodynamic pseudoscience DOES violate the 1st Law, because it creates energy where it didn’t exist before!

            You deceptively left out your actual energy flows, and only showed an irrelevant energy balance. Here is what you left out:
            F = 524.65W/m²
            G = 524.65W/m²
            H = 614.33W/m²

            Thus according to your wrong view, initially the Energy-in the system was 88.5W/m² (internal energy generated body metabolism) + 436.14W/m² (energy from the colder ceiling which violates the 2nd Law) = 524.65W/m²
            and Energy-out from the body was 524.65W/m².

            And after the blanket was added you have Energy-in = 88.5W/m² (internal energy generated body metabolism) + 524.65W/m² (from the colder blanket, which violates the 2nd Law) = 614.33W/m² and Energypout from the body as 614.33W/m².

            Thus your wrong view CREATED 88.7W/m of energy that DIDN’T EXIST BEFORE, (614.33 after blanket – 524.65 before blanket), thus violating the Conservation of Energy, 1st Law, creating energy that didn’t exist before!

            In my correct view, the energy leaving the body never exceeds the amount of the only Energy-in to the system, the 88.5W of internal body metabolism. An object can never transfer away more energy than the total amount of energy that is transferred into it, which in this case is 88.5W/m².

            Nice OWN GOAL! Hahaha

          • evenminded

            Flag away crybaby. You’re an idiot.

            As I stated you are too scientifically illiterate to understand it. I proved that your statements on bidirectional energy flows were wrong. You’re a moron.

            I didn’t leave anything out. Every individual flux is shown quantitatively. The net energy flux between any of the components is from hot to cold in accord with the second law.

            No energy has been created or destroyed. There is energy generated by the body and there is energy input/output at the ceiling in order to maintain it at 23C.

            You’re an absolute idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot. … You’re a moron. … You’re an absolute idiot.”
            Flagged!

            “No energy has been created”

            Wrong. You created 88.5W/m² of energy that didn’t exist before the blanket was put on. Unless you think 614.33=524.65. Yeah, that’s it, and you call me mathematically incompentent! Hahaha

          • evenminded

            Flag away crybaby. Go call your moddy to save you from the big bad man that just proved you are a moron.

            No energy was created. As I stated you would not understand it. All of the energy balances are shown.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you are a moron. … You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged! You’re begging to get blocked, probably to save yourself from further embarrassment as being exposed as scientifically illiterate.

            “No energy ws created.”
            So you’re confirming that 614.33=524.65. Got it.
            You obviously haven’t started your meds yet to deal with your denial of reality issues.

          • evenminded

            Flag away crybaby. Go call your moddy to save you from the big bad man that just proved you are a moron.

            You do like playing with your straw men. You do so every time that I kick your a$$.

            The energy balance for the body is as follows:

            Energy generated = +88.5
            Energy emitted = -613.2
            Energy absorbed = +524.7
            Net total energy at equilibrium = 0

            No energy is being created.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you are a moron. … You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged!

          • evenminded

            Flag away crybaby. Go call your moddy to save you from the big bad man that just proved you are a moron.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you are a moron. You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged.

          • evenminded

            Go call your moddy to save you from the big bad man that just proved you are a moron.

            You’re an idiot.

            As I predicted you would not be able to understand the analysis because you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you are a moron. You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged again.

            “As I predicted you would not be able to understand the analysis because you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus.”
            I understood perfectly well that your 2nd Law denying view that energy/heat flows from colder objects to warmer objects violates the 1st Law because it creates energy where none existed before, thus violating Conservation of Energy, 1st Law.

            The only energy entering the system, q is the 88.5W/m² being generated by the body’s metabolism.

            In my correct view of uni-directional heat transfer, at equilibrium both with and without the blanket the Energy-out, Qout equals that 88.5W/m².

            In your incorrect view where energy flows from colder objects to hotter objects, at equilibrium without the blanket you have 524.7W/m² of energy leaving the body, and with the blanket you have 613.2W/m² of energy leaving the body, so yes your view DOES create energy where none existed before.

            Your view is ludicrous on its face, claiming that when you add a thermal shield, a blanket, energy flow away from your body actually increases</b, not decreases, which turns reality on its head. That shows that you were projecting on the "scientifically illiterate ignoramus" thing.

            You lose. You're such a sore loser, it causes you to throw a tantrum and call names. So sad.

          • evenminded

            Flag away buddy. It does not change the fact that you’re an idiot.

            Why can’t you understand the analysis?

            All energies are balanced so there is no violation of the 1st law, and all net energy transfers go from hot to cold so there is no violation of the second law.

            You’ve been proven wrong yet again. You are scientifically illiterate.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Flag away buddy. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re an idiot.”
            I did and will continue to do so when you continue your childish name calling.
            Flagged.

            “You’ve been proven wrong yet again. You are scientifically illiterate
            You’re projecting again.
            You are the one who has been proven wrong, since your 2nd Law denying view that energy/heat is transferred from colder objects like the blanket to warmer objects like the body creates energy that didn’t exist before. When you add the blanket, which is not a heat source, you have an additional 88.5W/m²
            of energy flying back and forth between the blanket and body that didn’t exist without the blanket. Creation of energy out of nothing. 1st Law violation. My correct view doesn’t contain such stupidity.

            You have failed to show a single thing wrong with my calculations. All you did was introduce your own 1st & 2nd Law denying pseudoscience.
            My calculations agree with the S-B equation, while your claimed energy transfers are not consistent, as there is no S-B calculation that shows energy flowing from the colder blanket to the warmer body.
            You have no real world empirical evidence whatsoever of a hot object receiving energy from a colder object, because that violates the 2nd Law. It’s a theoretical construct that doesn’t exist in the real world, because “the energy exchange in a radiant heat transfer is continuous, simultaneous and instantaneous, the radiation field through which the heat is transferred is completely integrated and indivisible. Which means that there is no way that you could ever detect any surface effect of separate emittances, separate waves of radiation (or ‘photons’ if you will moving around the field. ONLY THE HEAT, the spontaneously occurring vector (net) sum of them all, moving through the field in one direction – from hot to cold – is a real transfer of energy, directly detectable and sensible.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/

            Your misunderstanding is shown wrong because it creates energy where none existed, which is a violation of Conservation of Energy, 1st Law. Period, end of story.

            You are devoid of valid arguments. You have been exposed as utter and totally dishonest fraud. You lost. You were pwned. So sad that you can’t face reality.

            And I see that ROO2 is egging you on with his upvotes. I guess he wants you to be blocked too, so you won’t continue to be such an embarrassment to your CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion.

          • evenminded

            There is no additional energy moron.

            There is nothing wrong with my calculation and I never claimed that there was anything wrong with the calculation that you lifted from a textbook. What is wrong is your interpretation of the physics.

            You’re a scientifically illiterate moron.

            If the two calculations arrive at the same result then both are correct.

            What is incorrect is your claim that a hotter object does not emit more radiation than a cooler object. That’s something that your textbook never states. Only an idiot like you would state that.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re a scientifically illiterate moron … You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged.

          • evenminded

            Flag away moron. Go cry to your moddy.

            It doesn’t change the fact that you are a scientifically incompetent idiot that does not even understand the scientific calculation that he lifted from a textbook.

            Only an idiot like you would state that a hotter object will not emit more energy than if it were colder.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Flag away moron. … you are a scientifically incompetent idiot … Only an idiot like you … You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged!

          • evenminded

            Flag away moron. Go cry to your moddy.

            Only an idiot like you would state that a hotter object will not emit more energy than if it were colder.

            You’re an idiot.

          • ROO2

            What we need is for RealOldOne2 to video a demonstration for youtube of him aiming an electric bar fire at the 5700 K hot Sun surface and using his fingers to demonstrate that there is no energy radiated by the bar of the fire.

            There’s a wealth of post-truth reality TV out there to be exploited.

          • ROO2

            “the energy exchange in a radiant heat transfer is continuous”

            Well it’s nice to see RealOldOne2 posting statements that there is an energy exchange between objects, contrary to his previous statements that there could be no radiant exchange as it would breach the 2nd law.

            Or am I too hopeful that had not read with comprehension that which he has posted?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. You and the tiltminded name caller are such sore losers. You got pwned.

          • ROO2

            Indeed you won, you dismantled your own argument perfectly by demonstrating an energy flow to the surface from the atmosphere all by yourself.

            Well done.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you dismantled your own argument perfectly by demonstrating an energy flow to the surface from the atmosphere all by yourself.”
            No, I did not. You only think so because you don’t understand thermodynamics and heat transfer.

            Science says my understanding is correct and yours is wrong.

            “Compare it with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG! That’s all there is to it.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

            Every single observation from every single backradiation collector experiment agrees with me that energy/heat flow is UNI-directional from the warmer surface of the Earth to the colder atmsophere.
            Every single observation from every single backradiation collector experiment disagrees with your claim that it is a real energy flow to the Earth’s surface.

            That proves that I’m right and you’re wrong. Period. End of story.
            Unless you’ve got your experimental ‘backradiation’ collector that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects as much energy/heat at night as a solar collector does during the day working.
            How’s it coming? LOL

          • ROO2

            No, I did not. You only think so because you don’t understand thermodynamics

            Would people put their money on you, somebody with clearly no credible scientific education or:

            Keith Stowe, a professor of physics at California Polytechnic State University for 32 years but also studied at the University of Washington, Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Michigan. Who’s understanding of the physics is in agreement with the worlds scientific community across the sciences, and all relevant scientific institutions and societies.

            In his book:

            An Introduction to Thermodyanmics” page 443:

            http://home.basu.ac.ir/~psu/Books/Thermodynamics%20&%20Statistical%20Mechanics%20%20by%20Stowe.pdf

            “As an object radiates energy into its environment, it also receives energy from its environment.”

            You claim that is impossible as it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

            Pwhahahahahahaha!

            Why don’t you drop Keith an e-mail and tell him he has been teaching the wrong physics throughout his career? And the people that taught him. And all other University science staff throughout the world.

            ROFLMAO.

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.”

          • RealOldOne2

            Oh, did Stowe get his ‘backradiation’ energy/heat collector working that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much energy/heat at night as a solar collector does during the daytime? Gee, I didn’t see the news that he got a Nobel prize for being the first person in the history of the planet to falsify the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! Hahahahahaha

            Oh, and I see that you got caught impersonating me again! So dishonest. You really are pissed that I have expsosed you as a totally scientifically illiterate DUPE! Hahahahahaha

          • ROO2

            Oh, did Stowe get his ‘backradiation’ energy/heat collector working

            I’m sure the professor of physics would realise that the net flow of energy (what we scientist refer to as heat transfer) is from the surface to the atmosphere. Only a moron would suggest that such heat loss could be “collected”, and that moron is you.

            I didn’t see the news that he got a Nobel prize for being the first person in the history of the planet to falsify the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

            The empirical evidence showing that the 2nd can be broken was not undertaken by Stowe.

            http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.050601

            In addition such research would not be worthy of the award of a Noble Prize, given that it was hypothesised and full expected that the second law is being constantly broken. Indeed Maxwell stated in 1878:

            “The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body. “

            This is all well known within the scientific community, which is why you were completely unaware.

            What the empirical evidence also confirms is that there is a energy transfer from cold to hot. Your gibberish childlike grasp of science that claims even at the molecular scale such things cannot happen is shown to be wrong. Demonstrating the violation of the 2nd law can only occur is such energy transfer happens.

            It doesn’t matter what mental model of radiation Stowe has. What matters is how things work in the real world, and in the real world, there has never been an experimental demonstration of energy/heat flowing from a colder object to a hotter object, and that is what proves him wrong.

            Oh my. I see you have now set the Dunning Kruger to warp factor 11. Even the esteemed professor of physics is wrong, are you sure it is not your child like grasp of science that is in error?

            Let’s see:

            “Astronomers studying the gaseous matter in interstellar space find that it comes in many different varieties. They call these structures “clouds”. Unlike the clouds on Earth, however, many of the forms of interstellar clouds are completely invisible to the human eye. We need telescopes which span the entire electromagnetic spectrum in order to study these giant clouds of gas. Radio telescopes, like these in the Sub-Millimeter Array on Mauna Kea, are especially useful. Why the radio? Well, much of the interstellar medium is cold. Really cold. The gas in some giant molecular clouds has a temperature of only 20 or 30 Kelvin.”

            http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/ism_gas/ism_gas.html

            Ground based radio-telescopes on the warm surface of the Earth receiving EM radiation from gas clouds at 20 to 30 Kelvin in temperature. That’s around -253 to -243 degrees centigrade to a non-scientist like you.

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.” 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            So you admit that Stowe hasn’t got his ‘backradiation’ collector working, just like you haven’t. Got it. That proves both of you wrong, since you can’t experimentally demonstrate your mental model of radiation.

            The real world experimental evidence shows that the only flow of energy is uni-directional determined by the net difference in radiation pressures/radiant emittances, determined by the the differences in T⁴, just as the S-B equation shows, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴).

            There has never been an experimental demonstration of energy/heat flowing from a colder object to a warmer object. Your mental model construct is proven wrong by real world experiment. All your gumflapping does not change that reality. Get over it. You are peddling pseudoscience.

            And I notice that you are silent about being caught once again serially impersonating me! Slinking off in shame with your tail between your legs, yet again refusing to face reality. You’re pathetic, as all doomsday cult fanatics are.

          • ROO2

            So you admit that Stowe hasn’t got his ‘backradiation’ collector working, just like you haven’t. Got it.

            I’m sure the professor of physics would realise that the net flow of energy (what we scientist refer to as heat transfer) is from the surface to the atmosphere. Only a moron would suggest that such heat loss could be “collected”, and that moron is you.

            The real world experimental evidence shows that the only flow of energy is uni-directional

            Let’s just momentarily step into the Derptastic world of RealOldOne2.

            Bless his tin foil hat reflects no energy back to him.
            He is unable to see his reflection in a mirror.
            Lazer rangefinding is the work of the devil.
            Radar detection is witchcraft.

            Meanwhile in the real world:

            “Astronomers studying the gaseous matter in interstellar space find that it comes in many different varieties. They call these structures “clouds”. Unlike the clouds on Earth, however, many of the forms of interstellar clouds are completely invisible to the human eye. We need telescopes which span the entire electromagnetic spectrum in order to study these giant clouds of gas. Radio telescopes, like these in the Sub-Millimeter Array on Mauna Kea, are especially useful. Why the radio? Well, much of the interstellar medium is cold. Really cold. The gas in some giant molecular clouds has a temperature of only 20 or 30 Kelvin.”

            http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/ism_gas/ism_gas.html

            Ground based radio-telescopes on the warm surface of the Earth receiving EM radiation from gas clouds at 20 to 30 Kelvin in temperature. That’s around -253 to -243 degrees centigrade to a non-scientist like you.

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.” 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. Sorry, but your mindless gumflapping Gish gallop of repeating your debunked lies, misrepresentations and strawmen can’t change the fact that the real world proves your 2nd Law denying pseudoscience claim that the colder atmosphere transfers more energy the the Earth’s surface than the Sun, is rubbish!

            And you still fail to acknowledge your latest exposure as my serial impersonator, demonstrating your pathetic denial of reality. But it’s hilarious that it’s got you so pissed off that it causes you to continue to post inane, stupid comments that merely exposes your scientific illiteracy.

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.” That’s exactly what YOU are doing! Hahahaha

          • ROO2

            Let’s just momentarily step into the Derptastic world of RealOldOne2.

            Bless his tin foil hat reflects no energy back to him;
            He is unable to see his reflection in a mirror;
            Lazer range-finding is the work of the devil;
            Radar detection is witchcraft;
            Radio telescopes are voodoo science;
            The cosmic background microwave horn antenna is powered by fairies;

            Not only that, every practicing scientist in the world is wrong.

            Thank the Lord that RealOldOne2 and his non-expert pseudoscience blog reference have overturned physics. It’s just taking a while to get out there because no reputable Journal will go anywhere near this stuff, or indeed anyone with half a brain.

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.”

            You’d better run along, it’s medication time!

          • evenminded

            Do you think he is okulaer, or just a moronic disciple?

          • ROO2

            They are both morons. RealOldOne2 is most definitely a disciple, given his inability to think or articulate. Hence the relentless cut and pasted spam, over and over again.

          • RealOldOne2

            Hahaha. Still Gish galloping. Hilarious!

            My poor dishonest serial impersonator, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3011348524 , still pretending that the real world doesn’t exist.

            Reality continues to bite you in the rear, as you can’t experimentally demonstrate your absurd claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more energy/heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does. One of these days you will wake up from your delusional stupor, stop clinging to your mistaken denial of the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and realize that you can’t fool Mother Nature and violate her 2nd Law.

            Until then, it’s hilarious to watch you melt down in your frothing rage and thrash and flail as time after time you exposes your scientific illiteracy as you fail to falsify the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            And I see that you haven’t taken my advice to seek help from a mental health professional to prescribe meds for your denial of reality issues, as you continue to deny the reality of being caught in your latest impersonation of me, dishonestly posting as RealOldOne2.

          • ROO2

            Let’s just momentarily step into the Derptastic and delusional world of RealOldOne2.

            Bless his tin foil hat reflects no energy back to him;
            He is unable to see his reflection in a mirror;
            Lazer range-finding is the work of the devil;
            Radar detection is witchcraft;
            Radio telescopes are voodoo science;
            The cosmic background microwave horn antenna is powered by fairies;

            Not only that, every practicing scientist in the world is wrong.

            Thank the Lord that RealOldOne2 and his non-expert pseudoscience blog reference have overturned physics. It’s just taking a while to get out there because no reputable Journal will go anywhere near this stuff, or indeed anyone with half a brain.

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.”

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL! Still on FULL TILT spamming repeated debunked Gish gallop misrepresentations, lies, and strawman stupidity! Hilarious.

            And still denying the reality of your latest exposure of being caught serial impersonating me again. THAT is probably what set off your present Joe Rommian brain explosion! I’m munching on the popcorn now, watching the meltdown show that you are displaying. It’s a HOOT!

            Instead of continuing to waste your time displaying your ignorance of science, thermodynamics and heat transfer, why don’t you work on your ‘backradiation’ enegy/heat collector that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector does, and collects just as much energy/heat at night as a solar collector does. Time’s a wastin’, and your Nobel prize for being the 1st person in history to falsify the 2nd Law awaits! Hahahahahaha!!!

          • ROO2

            Learn what a gish gallop is. That’s another learning point to add to your considerable lack of education. The content is pertinent to your claims that EM energy cannot flow in opposing directions as it would violate the 2 law. That is what you claim.

            So, let’s just momentarily step into the Derptastic and delusional world of RealOldOne2.

            Bless his tin foil hat reflects no energy back to him;
            He is unable to see his reflection in a mirror;
            Lazer range-finding is the work of the devil;
            Radar detection is witchcraft;
            Radio telescopes are voodoo science;
            The cosmic background microwave horn antenna is powered by fairies;

            Not only that, every practicing scientist in the world is wrong.

            Thank the Lord that RealOldOne2 and his non-expert pseudoscience blog reference have overturned physics. It’s just taking a while to get out there because no reputable Journal will go anywhere near this stuff, or indeed anyone with half a brain.

            your Nobel prize for being the 1st person in history to falsify the 2nd Law awaits!

            The empirical evidence showing that the 2nd can be broken was shown some time ago you moron. This has been provided to you before. Are we to really just accept that you have serious learning difficulties, as that seems to be the only logical explanation.

            http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.050601

            Indeed as Maxwell stated in 1878:

            “The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body. “

            This is all well known within the scientific community, which is why you were completely unaware.

            What the empirical evidence also confirms is that there is a energy transfer from cold to hot. Your gibberish childlike grasp of science that claims even at the molecular scale such things cannot happen is shown to be wrong. Demonstrating the violation of the 2nd law can only occur if such energy transfer from cold to hot actually happens.

            Let me guess. You are way too thick to comprehend?

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.”

          • RealOldOne2

            Since this is a science blog, I’m trying to teach you science, but you just ignore it and continue your epic meltdown show, as you desperately thrash, flail, rant your Gish gallop of misrepresentations, lies and strawmen, all caused by my latest exposure of your serial impersonation of me, which has caused you to go into a frothing rage, as you STILL stubbornly refuse to admit to your latest serial impersonation of me.

            Although I am enjoying watching your epic meltdown as I haven’t run out of popcorn yet, (when I do, I’ll stop pulling your puppet strings and making you dance like a marionette clown), you really ought to spend your time learning some fundamental science that a 2nd year college student is able to grasp.

            So take my advice and stop wasting your time exposing your scientific illiteracy and ignorance of thermodynamics, heat transfer and the 2nd Law. Get to work on your ‘backradiation’ energy/heat collector! That Nobel prize awaits. Time’s a wastin’! ROTFLOL!

            And study all this science which shows that your ignorant claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more energy to the warmer surface of the Earth than the Sun does violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws, so work on your ‘backradiation’ collector will be a futile waste of your time. But then you have demonstrated that wasting time exposing your ignorance of science is something you enjoy doing. Is that because you get paid to make your stupid, inane comments? Or do you expose your scientific illiteracy for free?

            Here is the heat Transfer science that shows that your understanding violates the 1st Law as well as the 2nd Law:

            Your misunderstanding does violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as it creates energy in a system that previously didn’t exist.
            A blanket (thermal shield) example shows it. Consider a system of a person at a body & skin temperature T₁=37C without clothes is encased in a perfect insulator to the sides and below, and there are also perfectly insulating walls of the same shape of the body up to the ceiling, which is also exactly the same shape of the body, so the area of the body and the area of the massive non-insulated ceiling is equal, and the temperature of ceiling is T₂=23C. Simplifying assumption that the only heat transfer is by radiation, and no conduction, convection or evaporation. Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for the body, the blanket (radiation shield) and the walls; the area of the person’s surface(skin) and the the corresponding area of the ceiling that is in thermal contact =1m². The only Qin (energy in) in our system is the internal metabolism of the person which generates 88.5 watts of energy/heat. The system is at equilibrium so the energy/heat transfer away from the body, Qout = 88.5W/m² which exactly equals the internal energy/heat Qin of 88.5W, so the body temperature remains constant at 37C.

            Now we put a 1 m² blanket(thermal shield) between the body and the ceiling. Since the blanket has an equal emissivity to the body, the initial blanket temperature will be 30.25C, defined by T₃(blanket)=0.5(T₁(body)⁴-T₂(walls)⁴) per Eq.8-43, Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ 2nd ed, p.240. Now the S-B equation shows that the body is now only transferring Qout=44.25W/m². Since the body continues to generate Qin=88.5W, the internal energy from metabolism begins to accumulate and body temperature rises until a new equilibrium is reached.

            When the new equilibrium is reached, the blanket heats up to a temperature of 37C so the Qout from the blanket = Qin from the body metabolism. Since at the new equilibrium the energy/heat loss from the body-to-blanket must equal the energy/heat loss from the blanket to the surroundings and must equal the energy/heat generated by the body, 88.5W/m², the S-B equation allows us to calculate the new body/skin temperature of 49.3C.

            Here is the pertinent section from Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’.

            “8-8 Radiation Shields One way of reducing radiant heat transfer between two particular surfaces is to use materials which are highly reflective. An alternative method is to use radiation shields between the heat exchange surfaces. These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. … Now consider the same two planes, but with a radiation shield placed between them as in Fig. 8-28b. The heat transfer will be calculated for this latter case and will be compared with the heat transfer without the shield. Since the shield does deliver or remove heat from the system, the heat transfer between plate 1 and the shield must be precisely the same as that between the shield and plate 2, and this is the overall heat transfer.
            Thus (q/A=σ(T₁⁴-T₃⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) =
            σ(T₃⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₃+1/ϵ₂-1) (8-42)
            The only unknown in Eq.(8-42) is the temperature of hte shield T₃. Once this temperature is obtained, the heat transfer is easily calculated. If the emissivities of of all three surfaces are equal, that is, ϵ₁=ϵ₂=ϵ₃ , we obtain the simple relation T₃⁴=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴) (8-43) and the heat transfer is
            q/A=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) But since ϵ₃=ϵ₂ , we observe that the this heat flow is just one-half of that which would be experienced if there were no shield present.” – ‘Heat Transfer’ textbook, J.P.Holman, 2nd ed, pp.239-240

            My correct understanding is that the increase in body temperature is solely due to the accumulation of the only Qin energy in existence, the Qin to the body of 88.5W of internal body metabolism. That internal energy accumulated because the initial heat transfer away from the body was decreased, until a new equilibrium was reached. Thus the 1st Law is satisfied, no energy created or lost. The only Qin in the system remains 88.5W.

            Your incorrect understanding is that the body increases it temperature due to an additional 88.5W/m² of energy allegedly being transferred from the 37C blanket to the body. (Difference between radiation of the 23C walls initial, 436.15W/m², and radiation of the 37C blanket final, 524.65W/m²). Thus you have violated the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy, since you now have created a new 88.5W/m² energy which did not exist in our original system.

            And your incorrect understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has the increase in internal energy which increases the body temperature caused by the colder blanket transferring your newly created 88.5W/m of heat to the warmer body. There is no way of denying that is a net transfer of heat from a colder object to a warmer object, which is a blatant violation of the 2nd Law.
            That is irrefutable evidence that your understanding is wrong. And recall that you previously exposed your ignorance of the effects of a thermal shield/blanket when you were totally ignorant of why the emissivity of the blanket was important! A later 10th edition of Holman’s ‘Heat Transfer’ says in the section on Radiation Shields that I quoted from says: “the higher the reflectivity of the shield (i.e., the smaller its emissivity), the greater the surfaces resistances.” The resistor network diagram shows that this retards heat transfer even more than a blanket with an emissivity of 1 which is the best emitter of energy. I previously explained that your mistaken claim that a blanket worked by transferring energy/heat by emitting it back to you, was exposed as being false by the fact that the most effective blanket has the lowest emissivity which means that it is the least effective radiator of energy.

            ********************
            Now here are the dozens of 2nd Law references which show that I am correct and show that energy/heat only transfers from hotter objects to colder objects:
            • “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155

            • “Transfer of Energy from the Ocean to the Atmosphere. – Heat moves in predictable ways, flowing from warmer objects to cooler ones, until both reach the same temperature.” – http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            • “Heat energy is transferred as a result of a temperature difference. Energy as heat passes FROM a warm body with higher temperature TO a cold body with lower temperature. The transfer of energy as a result of temperature difference alone is referred to as HEAT FLOW.” – http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-work-energy-d_292.html

            • “Heat does not flow from a cooler to warmer body.” – Clark2010 ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ , peer reviewed science

            • “if the temperature of one object is higher than that of the other object, there will be a transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder object until both objects reach the same temperature.” – http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/differ.html , NASA & California Institute of Technology

            • “When you put a hot object in contact with a cold one, heat will flow FROM the warmer TO the cooler. As a result, the warmer one will usually cool down and the cooler one will usually warm up. Eventually they will reach the same temperature and heat flow will stop.” – http://hop.concord.org/h1/phys/h1pf.html , Hands on Physics – Heat and Temperature

            • “Heat flows from hot to cold – The first statement of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics – heat flows spontaneously FROM a hot TO a cold body” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “Whenever there is a temperature difference between two objects in contact, heat energy will flow FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object until they reach the same temperature.” – http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/HeatFlow.html , Western Washington Univ , Heat Flow

            • “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            • “In the process of reaching thermodynamic equilibrium, heat is transferred FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object. At thermodynamic equilibrium heat transfer is ZERO.” – http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/heat.gif , NASA – Heat Transfer

            • “the laws of thermodynamics lay the framework for the science of heat transfer. … The second law requires that heat be transferred in the DIRECTION OF DECREASING TEMPERATURE. It is analogous to the electric current flowing in the direction of decreasing voltage or the fluid flowing in the direction of decreasing pressure.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150610140851/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.2.html , India Institute of Technology (the MIT/Stanford of India)

            • “Heat transfer is energy in transit due to temperature difference. Whenever there exists a temperature difference in a medium or between media, heat transfer must occur. The basic requirement for heat transfer is the presence of temperature difference. There can be NO net heat transfer between two mediums that are at the same temperature. The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html , India Institute of Technology

            • Lecture on 2nd Law & Perpetual Motion Machines of the 2nd Kind – http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu

            • “When you bring two objects of different temperature together, energy will ALWAYS be transferred FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. The objects will exchange thermal energy until thermal equilibrium is reached, ie., until their temperatures are equal. We say heat flows FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. Heat is energy on the move. … Without an external agent doing work, heat will ALWAYS flow from a hotter to a cooler object.” – http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH7/Heat%20Flow.htm , Univ of Tenn Physics

            • “heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object. … Just as in the case of the cooling coffee mug, energy is being transferred from the higher temperature objects to the lower temperature object. Once more, this is known as heat – the transfer of energy from the higher temperature object to a lower temperature object.” – http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat , Physics Classroom

            • “If there is a temperature difference in a system, heat will naturally move from high to low temperatures. The place you find the higher temperature is the heat source. The area where the temperature is lower is the heat sink.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_transfer.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “We’re going to talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. … Heat flows from hot areas to cold, NOT the other way.” , http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_law2.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “Heat moves from one system because of differences of temperature in the systems. If you have two identical systems with equal temperatures, there will be NO flow of energy. When you have two systems with different temperatures, the energy will start to flow. … Areas of high temperature give off energy TO areas of lower temperature.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_intro.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “When two things are in thermal contact but NO thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the SAME temperature.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            • “Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html


            “Stefan-Boltzmann for Two Blackbodies consider a blackbody B1 of temperature T1 in radiative contact with another blackbody B2 of temperature T2 with T2 > T1 … Q₁₂ = σ(T₂⁴ – T₁⁴) with T₂>T₁. which expresses Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law for the radiative heat transfer from one body in radiative contact with a body of lower temperature. … Notice the requirement in (14.3) that T₂>T₁. In the literature one finds the law without this requirement in the form Q₁₂ = σT₂⁴ – σT₁⁴ , Q₂₁ = σT₁⁴ – σT₂^⁴ = -Q₁₂ (14.5) where Q₂₁ is the heat transfer from B₁ to B₂ as the negative of Q₂₁ .

            This form has led to the misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law as expressing heat transfer from B2 to B1 of size σT₂^⁴ balanced by a transfer of -σT₁⁴ from B₁ to B₂, as if two opposing transfers of heat energy is taking place between the two bodies with their difference determining the net flow. Such a misinterpretation was anticipated an countered in Stefan’s original article [42][Ueber die Beziehung zwischen der Warmestrahlung und der Temperatur (Concerning the relationship between the Thermal radiation and the Temperature)] from 1879:

            ” • The absolute value the heat energy emission from a radiating body cannot be determined by experiment. An experiment can only determine the surplus of emission over absorption, with the absorption determined by the emission from the environment of the body.

            • However, if one has a formula for the emission as a function of temperature (like Stefan-Boltzmann Law), then the absolute value of the emission can be determined, but such a formula has only a hypothetical meaning.”

            Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law (14.3) thus requires T₂>T₁ and does not contain two-way opposing heat transfer, only one-way heat transfer from warm to cold. Unfortunately the misinterpretation has led to a fictitious non-physical “backradiation” underlying CO2 global warming alarmism.” – Johnson2012

            • Promoters of CAGW-by-CO2’s misunderstanding of S-B is also explained here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/okulaer-on-why-atmospheric-radiative.html

            • Further explanation of the errors of CAGW-by-CO2 alarmists’ understanding of thermodynamics: http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

            Then study this:
            Any object above zero has a radiation force/power field, and has the potential to transfer heat energy, but can only do so if the other object is at a lower energy state, ie., a lower temperature, than the first object.

            This shows that a surface has an “emissive power” that has an “upper limit”. That upper limit is only reached if the 2nd object is at absolute zero, as the equation shows. If the other object is at the same temperature, the emissive powers cancel and there is NO heat transfer, as my multiple sources state. – http://web.archive.org/web/20150510195517/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.4.3.html

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            Heat energy spontaneously flows only in one direction, from higher energy states to lower energy states. To do otherwise would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

            The fact that emissive powers of two objects which are at exactly the same temperature cancel is evident because heat flow goes to ZERO. That means the emissive power transfers NO heat energy from either object to the other object when the temperature of the two objects is exactly the same. That is effectively cancelling the emissive power of one surface by an equal but opposite emissive power of the other surface.

            “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            Waves can cancel or reflect back. “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            Look at the electromagnetic wave vector slide, http://physics.info/em-waves/poynting.svg . You see the poynting vectors that AlecM describes. Two facing surfaces at equal temperatures have equal frequency and equal amplitude electric, magnetic, and poynting vectors, but in opposite directions. All the vectors cancel out, and there is no heat energy flow/transfer.

            The entire reference of that slide is here: http://physics.info/em-waves/ Go to the end where it talks about radiation pressure, similar to the WolframResource reference that I cited, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html . Equal but opposite radiation pressure results in no heat energy flow. Equal but opposite radiation force results in no heat energy flow.

            • “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            • “But the internal energy of a system is still proportional to its temperature. We can therefore monitor changes in the internal energy of a system by watching what happens to the temperature of the system. Whenever the temperature of the system increases we can conclude that the internal energy of the system has also increased.” – Purdue Univ., http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php

            Some 2nd Law deniers admit that heat doesn’t flow from colder objects to warmer objects, but that energy does. This is nonsense, since heat is energy in transit:

            • “Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.” – Georgia State Univ. Physics & Astronomy, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html

          • ROO2

            Since this is a science blog, I’m trying to teach you science

            My scientific education far surpasses yours, that is self-evident. I’ve been completely open about my background and education. You have not. My commenting history is open to anyone, yours is not. You are either a fraud or a dimwit, my money is on both.

            you STILL stubbornly refuse to admit to your latest serial impersonation of me

            Is somebody impersonating you? Rest assured that it would not be possible if you had any credible grasp on science, and you could defend your position. Perhaps if you check online for recent global lobotomy’s you might be able to track this fiend down. It could be Trump, but then he has a far better understanding of science than you do. Who knows?

            So, what have you got to offer that is new? Nothing.

            You still have your radiation “shield” that absorbs all incident energy.

            *Guffaw*

            ” Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for…the blanket (radiation shield)”

            and some crap pseudoscience that eveminded bothered taking the time to pull to shreds.

            Then you are back to your childrens websites.

            I think it is time for you to come clean and confess to being an internet paedo-scientist.

            Your mind is not focused on the science in the links that you provide, this is your link:

            http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/transferring-heat-through-radiation/

            “You radiate heat in all directions all the time, and everything in your environment radiates heat back to you. When you have the same temperature as your surroundings, you radiate as fast and as much to your environment as it does to you. When two things are in thermal contact but no thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the same temperature.

            If your environment didn’t radiate heat back to you, you’d freeze, which is why space is considered so “cold.” There’s nothing cold to touch in space, and you don’t lose heat through conduction or convection. Rather, the environment doesn’t radiate back at you, which means that the heat you radiate away is lost. You can freeze very fast from the lost heat.”

            That’s just sad. Why are you posting stuff that contradicts your own position? Is this a cry for help? Are you mentally unstable?

            So, let’s just momentarily step into the Derptastic and delusional world of RealOldOne2.

            Bless his tin foil hat reflects no energy back to him;
            He is unable to see his reflection in a mirror;
            Lazer range-finding is the work of the devil;
            Radar detection is witchcraft;
            Radio telescopes are voodoo science;
            The cosmic background microwave horn antenna is powered by fairies;

            Not only that, every practicing scientist in the world is wrong.

            Thank the Lord that RealOldOne2 and his non-expert pseudoscience blog reference have overturned physics. It’s just taking a while to get out there because no reputable Journal will go anywhere near this stuff, or indeed anyone with half a brain.

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.” BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL!
            Well, since it appears you were still unable to grasp the science that I showed you, and I ran out of popcorn, and your clown dancing show is getting boring, and it appears that when I danced you in front of a mirror, that heat from you blowing your stack began its endless self-amplifying loop ( https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-great-magical-greenhouse-effect-self-amplifying-loop/ ) until it caused your head to spontaneously combust which caused you to go “BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM , so I’ll put my little scientifically illiterate marionette away on the shelf labeled DUMMIES right next to my tiltminded dummy.

            When I’m ready for another clown show, I’ll fix that hole in your head from today’s Joe Rommian brain explosion, and dust off one of my dummies, knock on their wodden head to make sure it’s still empty, and then begin pulling his strings to get him to do another hilarious clown dance. Bye for now! You did a fine job responding to every string I pulled, that is until you spontaneously combusted from being exposed to too much science in my last comment. I do so enjoy playing with my dummies.
            ROTFLMAO!

            ps. For those wanting to see why the ROOster is in such a frothing rage today, read down in the comments section here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/ and see where he was once again exposed for impersonating me. He is pissed off that he yet AGAIN got caught impersonating me. Unfortunately for the ROOster, his previous comments have demonstrated that he is incapable of learning, so no matter how many times he impersonates me because he is so envious of my scientific knowledge, he will sadly never be able to come up to my level of scientific expertise and knowledge.

            And all you readers don’t forget forget to read the science in the main blog article either, it exposes why the ROOster’s absurdly stupid claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun is wrong. Yes, know that even a 10 year old isn’t that ignorant, but the article goes into adult level explanations of why the ROOster is wrong.

            Have a nice Thanksgiving ROOster. And take a few chill pills along with your turkey, so next time you aren’t in such a frothing rage.
            And if you don’t have to work at your regular job, as if you really did any real work at work other than clown dance on the internet all day, why don’t you spend some time working on your ‘backradiation’ energy/heat collector. That Nobel prize is waiting! Time’s a wastin’.

          • ROO2

            Well, since it appears you were still unable to grasp the science that I showed you

            It seems that is a global scientific problem, with all publishing scientists, teaching staff and students none the wiser.

            Yet remarkably, you spend all your time on the internet pasting repeated internet links to childrens websites claiming that scientists have got it all wrong.

            Even a single cell amoeba would be able to fathom the flaw in your position.

            Not you though. Skin as thick as a rhino and the IQ of cress.

            For those wanting to see why the ROOster is in such a frothing rage today, read down in the comments section here:

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/

            Oh my. Now that is hilarious. Kudos to the person that posted this.

            The best bit is your absolute hissy fit stamping your feet for the content to be removed, and that being refusing.

            Now I know why you have been so grumpy today.

            Anyway, let’s just momentarily step into the Derptastic and delusional world of RealOldOne2.

            Bless his tin foil hat reflects no energy back to him;
            He is unable to see his reflection in a mirror;
            Lazer range-finding is the work of the devil;
            Radar detection is witchcraft;
            Radio telescopes are voodoo science;
            The cosmic background microwave horn antenna is powered by fairies;

            Not only that, every practicing scientist in the world is wrong.

            Thank the Lord that RealOldOne2 and his non-expert pseudoscience blog reference [who won’t delete his imposters comments] have overturned physics. It’s just taking a while to get out there because no reputable Journal will go anywhere near this stuff, or indeed anyone with half a brain.

            “Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.” BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!

          • evenminded

            No moron, no energy is created. Energy is generated by the body and there is energy input/output at the ceiling in order to maintain it at 23C.

            All energies are balanced so there is no violation of the 1st law, and all net energy transfers go from hot to cold so there is no violation of the second law.

            At equilibrium the net energy flow from the body is 88.5 W/m^2 as it must be at equilibrium. The net energy flow has neither increased nor decreased. The amount of energy emitted by the body is dependent upon its temperature. That is fundamental physics. If its temperature increases then it emits more radiation. Even a child can understand this. Why can’t you?

            You’ve been proven wrong yet again. You are scientifically illiterate.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “No, moron”
            Flagged.
            “All energies are balanced …”
            Irrelevant, because you have an additional 88.5W/m² of energy that didn’t exist before flying back and forth between the blanket and the body, which violates Conservation of Energy, 1st Law.

          • evenminded

            No, there is no additional energy moron. All energies are balanced.

            All energies are balanced so there is no violation of the 1st law, and all net energy transfers go from hot to cold so there is no violation of the second law.

            The amount of energy emitted by the body is dependent upon its temperature. That is fundamental physics. If its temperature increases then it emits more radiation. Even a child can understand this. Why can’t you?

            You’ve been proven wrong yet again. You are scientifically illiterate.

            You’re an idiot.

          • ROO2

            You and ROO@ claim that putting on a blanket (thermal shield) warms you up by the colder blanket transferring energy back to your warmer body. This is wrong

            B’jesus, RealOldOne2 still isn’t able to comprehend what happens to the energy reflected by his shiny tin foil hat.

            This is clearly the work of a incompetent scientist

            I’d have to agree.

          • evenminded

            Oh good FSM, now you’ve gone full on thermodynamic illiteracy.

            No, backradiation does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, and no, backradiation does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

            You don’t understand the first thing about thermodynamics or backradiation.

          • RealOldOne2

            you’ve gone full on thermodynamic illiteracy”
            No, that would be you, claiming that the cold atmosphere transfers energy/heat to the warmer surface of the Earth, because that violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws, as I showed here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007464175 .

            “backradiation does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, and no, backradiation does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
            Strawman. I never said it did. Backradiation is merely a resistance to one-directional heat transfer from warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. What does violate the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is your scientifically illiterate claim that the colder atmosphere actually transfers energy/heat to the warmer surface. That is what I proved from the science of heat transfer violates the 1st & 2nd Laws.
            So sad that you & my serial i impersonator ROO2 are so ignorant of thermodynamics.

            “You don’t understand the first thing about thermodynamics or backradiation.”
            You are projecting again. You are the one who is ignorant of thermodynamics, heat transfer and backradiation, proven by the fact that you cant’ refute a bit of the science that I presented in my above linked comment which proves both of you science deniers wrong.

          • evenminded

            Backradiation is the energy that is transfered from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface you moron, and it does not violate the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Backradiation is the energy that is transferred from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface you moron, and it does not violate the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics.”
            You are projecting again on that “moron” thing. Here you go. Irrefutable science of heat transfer that shows your claim that a colder object transfers energy/heat back to a warmer object does violate both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics because it creates energy where none existed before:

            Here is the real science that my understanding is based on, first the science of heat transfer which exposes that your misguided and ignorant claim that the cold atmosphere transfers energy/heat to the warmer surface of the Earth violates the 1st Law, followed by the dozens of science references that support my understanding of the 2nd Law and refute your misunderstanding. You have been unable to cite a single valid science reference that says heat can be transferred from a colder object to a hotter object on a macro basis, which is what we are talking about in the transfer of heat from the colder global atmosphere to the global surface of the Earth.

            **********************
            Heat Transfer science that shows that your understanding violates the 1st Law:

            Your misunderstanding does violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as it creates energy in a system that previously didn’t exist.
            A blanket (thermal shield) example shows it. Consider a system of a person at a body & skin temperature T₁=37C without clothes is encased in a perfect insulator to the sides and below, and there are also perfectly insulating walls of the same shape of the body up to the ceiling, which is also exactly the same shape of the body, so the area of the body and the area of the massive non-insulated ceiling is equal, and the temperature of ceiling is T₂=23C. Simplifying assumption that the only heat transfer is by radiation, and no conduction, convection or evaporation. Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for the body, the blanket (radiation shield) and the walls; the area of the person’s surface(skin) and the the corresponding area of the ceiling that is in thermal contact =1m². The only Qin (energy in) in our system is the internal metabolism of the person which generates 88.5 watts of energy/heat. The system is at equilibrium so the energy/heat transfer away from the body, Qout = 88.5W/m² which exactly equals the internal energy/heat Qin of 88.5W, so the body temperature remains constant at 37C.

            Now we put a 1 m² blanket(thermal shield) between the body and the ceiling. Since the blanket has an equal emissivity to the body, the initial blanket temperature will be 30.25C, defined by T₃(blanket)=0.5(T₁(body)⁴-T₂(walls)⁴) per Eq.8-43, Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ 2nd ed, p.240. Now the S-B equation shows that the body is now only transferring Qout=44.25W/m². Since the body continues to generate Qin=88.5W, the internal energy from metabolism begins to accumulate and body temperature rises until a new equilibrium is reached.

            When the new equilibrium is reached, the blanket heats up to a temperature of 37C so the Qout from the blanket = Qin from the body metabolism. Since at the new equilibrium the energy/heat loss from the body-to-blanket must equal the energy/heat loss from the blanket to the surroundings and must equal the energy/heat generated by the body, 88.5W/m², the S-B equation allows us to calculate the new body/skin temperature of 49.3C.

            Here is the pertinent section from Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’.

            “8-8 Radiation Shields One way of reducing radiant heat transfer between two particular surfaces is to use materials which are highly reflective. An alternative method is to use radiation shields between the heat exchange surfaces. These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. … Now consider the same two planes, but with a radiation shield placed between them as in Fig. 8-28b. The heat transfer will be calculated for this latter case and will be compared with the heat transfer without the shield. Since the shield does deliver or remove heat from the system, the heat transfer between plate 1 and the shield must be precisely the same as that between the shield and plate 2, and this is the overall heat transfer.
            Thus (q/A=σ(T₁⁴-T₃⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) =
            σ(T₃⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₃+1/ϵ₂-1) (8-42)
            The only unknown in Eq.(8-42) is the temperature of hte shield T₃. Once this temperature is obtained, the heat transfer is easily calculated. If the emissivities of of all three surfaces are equal, that is, ϵ₁=ϵ₂=ϵ₃ , we obtain the simple relation T₃⁴=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴) (8-43) and the heat transfer is
            q/A=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) But since ϵ₃=ϵ₂ , we observe that the this heat flow is just one-half of that which would be experienced if there were no shield present.” – ‘Heat Transfer’ textbook, J.P.Holman, 2nd ed, pp.239-240

            My correct understanding is that the increase in body temperature is solely due to the accumulation of the only Qin energy in existence, the Qin to the body of 88.5W of internal body metabolism. That internal energy accumulated because the initial heat transfer away from the body was decreased, until a new equilibrium was reached. Thus the 1st Law is satisfied, no energy created or lost. The only Qin in the system remains 88.5W.

            Your incorrect understanding is that the body increases it temperature due to an additional 88.5W/m² of energy allegedly being transferred from the 37C blanket to the body. (Difference between radiation of the 23C walls initial, 436.15W/m², and radiation of the 37C blanket final, 524.65W/m²). Thus you have violated the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy, since you now have created a new 88.5W/m² energy which did not exist in our original system.

            And your incorrect understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has that newly created Qin energy being transferred from a colder object(37Cblanket) to a warmer object(49.3C body).
            Irrefutable evidence that your understanding is wrong. And recall that you previously exposed your ignorance of the effects of a thermal shield/blanket when you were totally ignorant of why the emissivity of the blanket was important! A later 10th edition of Holman’s ‘Heat Transfer’ says in the section on Radiation Shields that I quoted from says: “the higher the reflectivity of the shield (i.e., the smaller its emissivity), the greater the surfaces resistances.” The resistor network diagram shows that this retards heat transfer even more than a blanket with an emissivity of 1 which is the best emitter of energy. I previously explained that your mistaken claim that a blanket worked by transferring energy/heat by emitting it back to you, was exposed as being false by the fact that the most effective blanket has the lowest emissivity which means that it is the least effective radiator of energy.

            ********************
            Here are the dozens of 2nd Law references which show that I am correct and show that energy/heat only transfers from hotter objects to colder objects:
            • “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155

            • “Transfer of Energy from the Ocean to the Atmosphere. – Heat moves in predictable ways, flowing from warmer objects to cooler ones, until both reach the same temperature.” – http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            • “Heat energy is transferred as a result of a temperature difference. Energy as heat passes FROM a warm body with higher temperature TO a cold body with lower temperature. The transfer of energy as a result of temperature difference alone is referred to as HEAT FLOW.” – http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-work-energy-d_292.html

            • “Heat does not flow from a cooler to warmer body.” – Clark2010 ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ , peer reviewed science

            • “if the temperature of one object is higher than that of the other object, there will be a transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder object until both objects reach the same temperature.” – http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/differ.html , NASA & California Institute of Technology

            • “When you put a hot object in contact with a cold one, heat will flow FROM the warmer TO the cooler. As a result, the warmer one will usually cool down and the cooler one will usually warm up. Eventually they will reach the same temperature and heat flow will stop.” – http://hop.concord.org/h1/phys/h1pf.html , Hands on Physics – Heat and Temperature

            • “Heat flows from hot to cold – The first statement of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics – heat flows spontaneously FROM a hot TO a cold body” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “Whenever there is a temperature difference between two objects in contact, heat energy will flow FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object until they reach the same temperature.” – http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/HeatFlow.html , Western Washington Univ , Heat Flow

            • “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            • “In the process of reaching thermodynamic equilibrium, heat is transferred FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object. At thermodynamic equilibrium heat transfer is ZERO.” – http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/heat.gif , NASA – Heat Transfer

            • “the laws of thermodynamics lay the framework for the science of heat transfer. … The second law requires that heat be transferred in the DIRECTION OF DECREASING TEMPERATURE. It is analogous to the electric current flowing in the direction of decreasing voltage or the fluid flowing in the direction of decreasing pressure.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150610140851/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.2.html , India Institute of Technology (the MIT/Stanford of India)

            • “Heat transfer is energy in transit due to temperature difference. Whenever there exists a temperature difference in a medium or between media, heat transfer must occur. The basic requirement for heat transfer is the presence of temperature difference. There can be NO net heat transfer between two mediums that are at the same temperature. The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html , India Institute of Technology

            • Lecture on 2nd Law & Perpetual Motion Machines of the 2nd Kind – http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu

            • “When you bring two objects of different temperature together, energy will ALWAYS be transferred FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. The objects will exchange thermal energy until thermal equilibrium is reached, ie., until their temperatures are equal. We say heat flows FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. Heat is energy on the move. … Without an external agent doing work, heat will ALWAYS flow from a hotter to a cooler object.” – http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH7/Heat%20Flow.htm , Univ of Tenn Physics

            • “heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object. … Just as in the case of the cooling coffee mug, energy is being transferred from the higher temperature objects to the lower temperature object. Once more, this is known as heat – the transfer of energy from the higher temperature object to a lower temperature object.” – http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat , Physics Classroom

            • “If there is a temperature difference in a system, heat will naturally move from high to low temperatures. The place you find the higher temperature is the heat source. The area where the temperature is lower is the heat sink.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_transfer.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “We’re going to talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. … Heat flows from hot areas to cold, NOT the other way.” , http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_law2.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “Heat moves from one system because of differences of temperature in the systems. If you have two identical systems with equal temperatures, there will be NO flow of energy. When you have two systems with different temperatures, the energy will start to flow. … Areas of high temperature give off energy TO areas of lower temperature.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_intro.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “When two things are in thermal contact but NO thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the SAME temperature.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            • “Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html


            “Stefan-Boltzmann for Two Blackbodies consider a blackbody B1 of temperature T1 in radiative contact with another blackbody B2 of temperature T2 with T2 > T1 … Q₁₂ = σ(T₂⁴ – T₁⁴) with T₂>T₁. which expresses Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law for the radiative heat transfer from one body in radiative contact with a body of lower temperature. … Notice the requirement in (14.3) that T₂>T₁. In the literature one finds the law without this requirement in the form Q₁₂ = σT₂⁴ – σT₁⁴ , Q₂₁ = σT₁⁴ – σT₂^⁴ = -Q₁₂ (14.5) where Q₂₁ is the heat transfer from B₁ to B₂ as the negative of Q₂₁ .

            This form has led to the misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law as expressing heat transfer from B2 to B1 of size σT₂^⁴ balanced by a transfer of -σT₁⁴ from B₁ to B₂, as if two opposing transfers of heat energy is taking place between the two bodies with their difference determining the net flow. Such a misinterpretation was anticipated an countered in Stefan’s original article [42][Ueber die Beziehung zwischen der Warmestrahlung und der Temperatur (Concerning the relationship between the Thermal radiation and the Temperature)] from 1879:

            ” • The absolute value the heat energy emission from a radiating body cannot be determined by experiment. An experiment can only determine the surplus of emission over absorption, with the absorption determined by the emission from the environment of the body.

            • However, if one has a formula for the emission as a function of temperature (like Stefan-Boltzmann Law), then the absolute value of the emission can be determined, but such a formula has only a hypothetical meaning.”

            Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law (14.3) thus requires T₂>T₁ and does not contain two-way opposing heat transfer, only one-way heat transfer from warm to cold. Unfortunately the misinterpretation has led to a fictitious non-physical “backradiation” underlying CO2 global warming alarmism.” – Johnson2012

            • Promoters of CAGW-by-CO2’s misunderstanding of S-B is also explained here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/okulaer-on-why-atmospheric-radiative.html

            • Further explanation of the errors of CAGW-by-CO2 alarmists’ understanding of thermodynamics: http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

            Then study this:
            Any object above zero has a radiation force/power field, and has the potential to transfer heat energy, but can only do so if the other object is at a lower energy state, ie., a lower temperature, than the first object.

            This shows that a surface has an “emissive power” that has an “upper limit”. That upper limit is only reached if the 2nd object is at absolute zero, as the equation shows. If the other object is at the same temperature, the emissive powers cancel and there is NO heat transfer, as my multiple sources state. – http://web.archive.org/web/20150510195517/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.4.3.html

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            Heat energy spontaneously flows only in one direction, from higher energy states to lower energy states. To do otherwise would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

            The fact that emissive powers of two objects which are at exactly the same temperature cancel is evident because heat flow goes to ZERO. That means the emissive power transfers NO heat energy from either object to the other object when the temperature of the two objects is exactly the same. That is effectively cancelling the emissive power of one surface by an equal but opposite emissive power of the other surface.

            “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            Waves can cancel or reflect back. “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            Look at the electromagnetic wave vector slide, http://physics.info/em-waves/poynting.svg . You see the poynting vectors that AlecM describes. Two facing surfaces at equal temperatures have equal frequency and equal amplitude electric, magnetic, and poynting vectors, but in opposite directions. All the vectors cancel out, and there is no heat energy flow/transfer.

            The entire reference of that slide is here: http://physics.info/em-waves/ Go to the end where it talks about radiation pressure, similar to the WolframResource reference that I cited, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html . Equal but opposite radiation pressure results in no heat energy flow. Equal but opposite radiation force results in no heat energy flow.

            • “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            • “But the internal energy of a system is still proportional to its temperature. We can therefore monitor changes in the internal energy of a system by watching what happens to the temperature of the system. Whenever the temperature of the system increases we can conclude that the internal energy of the system has also increased.” – Purdue Univ., http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php

            Some 2nd Law deniers admit that heat doesn’t flow from colder objects to warmer objects, but that energy does. This is nonsense, since heat is energy in transit:

            • “Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.” – Georgia State Univ. Physics & Astronomy, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html

          • evenminded

            your claim that a colder object transfers energy/heat back to a warmer object does violate both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics because it creates energy where none existed before

            There is no science that states that a cold object cannot transfer energy to a hotter object because this occurs all around us, all of the time.

            Here, from your own link:

            “You radiate heat in all directions all the time, and everything in your environment radiates heat back to you.”

            You’re a moron.

          • RealOldOne2

            “There is no science that states that a cold object cannot transfer energy to a hotter object because this occurs all around us all the time.”
            LOL. Denying reality again. I just gave you dozens of science references that stated that a colder object can’t transfer energy/heat to a warmer object. Get your head out of your backside and read those references. Hahaha

            “You radiate…”
            LOL. I’m sorry that you are so ignorant that you don’t understand that radiation is only a potential energy transfer. No temperature difference NO energy transfer/flow.

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            Your comment shows that you are totally ignorant of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , which shows that the maximum potential energy flow is only realized when the cold temperature is absolute zero! Just as the physics textbook above states when the temperatures are the same “the transfer of energy CEASES”
            The real world proves you wrong too, as you can’t collect your alleged backradiation energy flow from the cold atmospehre to the warmer surface because it is not a real energy flow, it is only a potential energy flow that is realized if and only if the temperature of the surface would be at absolute zero, but it’s not, its at 289K, which is warmer than the atmosphere, so the only energy/heat flow is from the surface to the colder atmosphere.

            “You’re a moron.”
            LOL. You’ve projecting again, as I have just shown! Hahaha

          • evenminded

            You gave references on macroscopic heat transfer. Macroscopic heat transfer is the net effect of many many multidirectional microscopic energy transfers. Microscopic energy transfers are not governed by the 2nd law.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You gave references on macroscopic heat transfer”
            Earth to tiltminded: Your delusional 2nd Law denying claim that the global cold atmosphere transfers heat to the global surface of the Earth IS a macro problem.

            “You’re an idiot.”
            LOL. You’re projecting AGAIN! Hahahaha

            Refute: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211
            It shows that your claim denies both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

          • evenminded

            Yes, heat transfer is a macro problem, that does not change the fact that the macro heat transfer is the sum of all of those multi-directional microscopic energy transfers. The atmosphere transfers energy to the surface, the net heat transfer is from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. When you start lying about what climate science claims then you have lost the argument.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL.
            I’ve thoroughly exposed you as a scientifically illiterate 1st & 2nd Law denying cult fanatic here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3007543211 .

            I get you to go on FULL TILT every time you stupidly deny the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. Hahaha

            Bye.

          • evenminded

            You haven’t exposed anything but your own scientific illiteracy.

            Run along now child.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2
          • evenminded

            You exposed the fact that you are an idiot that does not understand climate science or thermodynamics.

            https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            Thanks for the evidence that you DO think that the primary source of energy/heat to the Earth’s surface is the cold atmosphere which you claim transfers 333W/m² of energy/heat, while the Sun only transfers 161W/m². And that makes the Sun a net COOLER of the surface as there is only 161W/m² of energy in, and 390W/m² of energy outfrom the surface. Stupid to the extreme, very fitting for you! hahaha

            Here is the correct energy balance from peer reviewed science, Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’ written explicitly from the perspective: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            There is no energy flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth. The 2nd Law forbids it! Only peddlers of rubbish climate cult pseudoscience are so stupid to claim that the primary energy source to the Earth’s surface is the COLD atmosphere! Hahaha

          • evenminded

            You continue to demonstrate that you’re an idiot. All energy originates from the sun.

            https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            You are posting pseudoscientific RUBBISH!
            Here is the correct energy balance from peer reviewed science, Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’ written explicitly from the perspective: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            There is no energy flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth. The 2nd Law forbids it! Only peddlers of rubbish climate cult pseudoscience are so stupid to claim that the primary energy source to the Earth’s surface is the COLD atmosphere! Hahaha

          • evenminded
          • RealOldOne2

            “Net”

            Yes, your stupidity has the NET solar energy as COOLING, 161W/m² in to the surface and 390W/m² out! That’s just STUPID! Hahahaha

            The fact that you can’t collect any of that 333W/m^2 shows that it is not a real energy flux/flow/transfer.

            Unless you’ve got your ‘backradiation’ collector that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much energy/heat at night as it does during the daytime. So how’s it coming? Hahahahahahaha

            Here is the REAL energy flow: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg?w=600&h=265
            NO energy flux from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.

          • evenminded

            Yes, net you idiot.

            The net longwave radiation flux from the oceans to the atmosphere is equal to the DLR minus the ULR.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Yes, net you idiot. … You’re an idiot.”
            LOL. You’re STILL projecting! I’m a scientist. Your comments show that you’re an ideologically blinded fanatical climate cult zealot who is acting like a spoiled little tyke throwing a tantrum. Grow up child.

            The net longwave radiation flux from the oceans to the atmosphere is equal to the DLR minus the ULR.”
            And since the 2nd Law says that energy/heat can’t spontaneously transfer from colder objects to hotter objects, the resulting one-directional energy flow is from the warmer ocean surface to the colder atmosphere, just as the S-B equation shows: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). There is no energy/heat flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, as the 2nd Law forbids it. The S-B equation results in one energy/heat flow, q, which results in the net difference of (Th⁴-Tc⁴).
            There is no bidirectional energy flow, as proven in the real world by the fact that you can’t collect that ‘backradiation’ energy which you claim is twice as large the solar radiation energy, which brings the question that you warmists can’t answer: Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy if it is a real energy flow?

            Further explaintion of your wrong understanding:

            “Stefan-Boltzmann for Two Blackbodies consider a blackbody B1 of temperature T1 in radiative contact with another blackbody B2 of temperature T2 with T2 > T1 … Q₁₂ = σ(T₂⁴ – T₁⁴) with T₂>T₁. which expresses Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law for the radiative heat transfer from one body in radiative contact with a body of lower temperature. … Notice the requirement in (14.3) that T₂>T₁. In the literature one finds the law without this requirement in the form Q₁₂ = σT₂⁴ – σT₁⁴ , Q₂₁ = σT₁⁴ – σT₂^⁴ = -Q₁₂ (14.5) where Q₂₁ is the heat transfer from B₁ to B₂ as the negative of Q₂₁ .

            This form has led to the misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law as expressing heat transfer from B2 to B1 of size σT₂^⁴ balanced by a transfer of -σT₁⁴ from B₁ to B₂, as if two opposing transfers of heat energy is taking place between the two bodies with their difference determining the net flow. Such a misinterpretation was anticipated an countered in Stefan’s original article [42][Ueber die Beziehung zwischen der Warmestrahlung und der Temperatur (Concerning the relationship between the Thermal radiation and the Temperature)] from 1879:

            ” • The absolute value the heat energy emission from a radiating body cannot be determined by experiment. An experiment can only determine the surplus of emission over absorption, with the absorption determined by the emission from the environment of the body.

            • However, if one has a formula for the emission as a function of temperature (like Stefan-Boltzmann Law), then the absolute value of the emission can be determined, but such a formula has only a hypothetical meaning.”

            Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law (14.3) thus requires T₂>T₁ and does not contain two-way opposing heat transfer, only one-way heat transfer from warm to cold. Unfortunately the misinterpretation has led to a fictitious non-physical “backradiation” underlying CO2 global warming alarmism.” – Johnson2012

          • evenminded

            If you’d stop making idiotic claims then I’ll stop calling you an idiot.

            Learn some science moron.

          • evenminded

            No moron, energy transfer from cold to hot occurs all around us.

            The fact that there is pressure on the warmest wall in the room you are sitting from is due to molecules colliding with it, transferring their energy from the colder parts of the room to it, the hottest part of the room.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “No moron, energy transfer from cold to hot occurs all around us”
            LOL. You’re projecting again on that moron thing!

            No, it doesn’t, as those references that you ignore show. So sad that you are so ignorant of thermodynamics and heat transfer that you deny the 1st Law, that you deny the 2nd Law, that you claim that the primary source of energy/heat that is transferred to the Earth’s surface is the cold atmosphere, not the Sun! It does’t get any more moronic that that!

          • evenminded

            You’re an idiot.

            Do I need to show you again how a low energy particle can transfer all of its energy to a high energy particle?

            Seriously, you’re a moron.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot. … Seriously, you’re a moron.”
            Hahaha DOUBLE projection! Hilarious!

            And save exposing your stupidity claiming that radiation across a vacuum means that particles on the Sun collide with particles on the Earth. No one is that stupid … except ROO2 and your other scientifically illiterate climate cult zealots who defend your CO2 religion with jihadist zeal!

          • evenminded

            You don’t understand radiation or conduction.

            Both are cases were energy is transferred from cold to hot.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You don’t understand radiation or conduction.”
            LOL. Sorry dupe, you are projecting again!

            “You’re an idiot.”
            You’re projecting AGAIN!, Hahaha

          • evenminded

            The fact is that you don’t understand that the earth emits photons that are absorbed by the sun.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2
          • evenminded

            You exposed your lack of understanding of climate science and thermodynamics.

            You’re an idiot.

            https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            FULL TILT alert! Hahahaha
            Thanks for the evidence that you DO think that the primary source of energy/heat to the Earth’s surface is the cold atmosphere which you claim transfers 333W/m² of energy/heat, while the Sun only transfers 161W/m². And that makes the Sun a net COOLER of the surface as there is only 161W/m² of energy in, and 390W/m² of energy outfrom the surface. Stupid to the extreme, very fitting for you! hahaha

            Here is the correct energy balance from peer reviewed science, Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’ written explicitly from the perspective: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            There is no energy flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth. The 2nd Law forbids it! Only peddlers of rubbish climate cult pseudoscience are so stupid to claim that the primary energy source to the Earth’s surface is the COLD atmosphere! Hahaha

          • evenminded

            Look again. All of the energy originates from the sun. You’re an idiot.

            https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            “Look again. All of the energy originates from the Sun>”
            No, dupe, the you have the surface receiving 333W/m from the COLD ATMOSPHERE! That’s just STUPID! Hahaahaha

            Here is the correct energy balance from peer reviewed science, Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’ written explicitly from the perspective: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            There is no energy flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth. The 2nd Law forbids it! Only peddlers of rubbish climate cult pseudoscience are so stupid to claim that the primary energy source to the Earth’s surface is the COLD atmosphere! Hahaha

          • evenminded
          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot.”
            LOL! You’re PROJECTING again! Hahaha
            No matter how many times you post your pseudoscience cartoon, it will never make it true.
            Why can’t you collect those 333W/m² of backradiation if it is a real energy/heat flow/flux?
            THAT is the question you can’t answer and THAT is what proves that the 333W/m² is not a real energy/heat flux/flow.
            Well in addition to the fact that your claim violates the 1st Law as it creates energy where there was none, violating the Conservation of Energy law as I showed in my previous comment which you ignore.

            These articles explain in great detail your stupidity, ignorance of thermodynamics, heat transfer and radiation:
            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598
            & https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/
            & https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-great-magical-greenhouse-effect-self-amplifying-loop/
            & https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/how-the-ipcc-turn-calculated-numbers-into-heat/

          • evenminded

            The surface absorbs that 333 W/m^2 of DLR.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “The surface absorbs that 333 W/m^2 of DLR.”
            No, it doesn’t, or you would be able to collect it just like you can collect the 161W/m² of solar radiation.
            You failed to answer my question:
            Why can’t you collect those 333W/m² of backradiation energyif it is a real energy/heat flow/flux?

            “You’re an idiot.”
            You continue to project. I’m a scientist. Your comments show that you are an ideologically blinded fanatical climate cult zealot who is acting like a spoiled little tyke throwing a tantrum. Grow up child.

          • evenminded

            Yes, the surface does absorb the LWR that is emitted by the atmosphere. This is basic and fundamental physics, which is why you do not understand it.

            You’re an idiot.

          • ROO2

            And no, Ozawa(2003) does not have 350W/m² of incoming energy flow from the atmosphere

            This has been pointed out to you before, yet you still misrepresent the solitary scientific paper that your think supports your case, but it does not.

            “The energy gain at the surface is transported to the atmosphere by… net longwave radiation (Flong(0) = 40 W m−2)”

            Go and look up what “net” means for starters.

            So, where did they get the data from?

            “The values in the brackets represent the global-mean energy fluxes (W m−2) based on global surface radiation measurements [Ohmura and Gilgen, 1993]…”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002RG000113/full

            So, the Ozawa et al paper relies on the information published by Ohmura and Gilgen 1993. What is more, Ohmura is a co-author of the Ozawa et al paper. He is relying on his previously published data of global surface radiation measurements.

            There is another nice paper by Ohmura, co-author of the Ozawa et al paper here, in which he summarises the downwelling IR from various sources including his own Ohmura and Gilgen 1993 as given in Table 2:

            Global mean terrestrial (longwave) atmospheric radiation 350 Wm^-2.

            ftp://iacftp.ethz.ch/pub_read/aroesch/mikro/G_Ohmura.DOC.pdf

            Climate science denier not realising that the author of the paper he cites refutes his own position, priceless. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            “yet you still misrepresent the solitary scientific paper that you think supports your case, but it does not.”
            No, I am not misrepresenting Ozawa(2003). And it is a peer reviewed paper that does support my understanding of the 2nd Law. You are the one who is misrepresenting Ozawa(2003). My statement “Ozawa(2003) does not have 350W/m² of incoming energy flow from the atmosphere” is 100% correct and is not misrepresenting Ozawa whatsoever, as Figure 5a from his paper clearly shows: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg Study Figure 5a closely. There is no 350W/m² of energy flux/flow/transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth. No matter how many times you delusionally claim there is, it isn’t there.

            And your argument that Ozawa accepted 350W/m² as a real energy/heat flux from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface is fatally flawed and just exposes your inability to read and comprehend science. Ozawa does not say that he got a 350W/m² energy flux/flow/transfer from the atmosphere to the surface from Ohmura. He says that he used “radiation measurements”, which are radiant emittances, from Ohmura and satellites. As I’ve explained to you numerous times, a radiant emittance by itself is not an energy flux/flow/transfer. The 350W/m² is only a potential energy flow/transfer if and only if the temperature of the other object in thermal contact is at absolute zero, as is clearly shown by the S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). Only if Tc=0 does q=350W/m². But the temperature of the Earth’s surface is not 0K, it is 289K, which is higher than the temperature of the atmosphere, so Ozawa correctly determines and shows in Figure 5a that the only real energy flux/flow/transfer is 40W/m² from the surface to the atmosphere. He doesn’t show 350W/m² because it is not a real energy flow/flux/transfer.

            You are now not only denying the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, you are now denying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, as you claim that the same amount of energy/heat q (350W/m in this example) transfers from a hot object to a cool object regardless of what the cold object’s temperature is.

            And I see that in all your gumflapping, you totally avoid the fact that you ignorantly claim that the primary energy source that transfers energy to the Earth’s surface is the cold atmosphere, and not the hot Sun. You can’t deny that fact, because you claim that the real Qin energy flow to the surface 350W/m² from the cold atmosphere + 168W/m² from the Sun. 350 is greater than 168 no matter how you cut it.

            Btw, have you got your ‘backradiation’ heat collector that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as it does during the daytime working yet? Answer: No you haven’t and neither has anyone else in the history of the planet.

            Which brings us to the question that you continually refuse to answer: Why can’t you collect any of those 350W/m of backradiation energy/heat if it is a real energy/heat flow? That should be easy since you claim that there is 30 megajoules of energy being transferred to each square meter of the Earth’s surface every day, while there is only 14.5 megajoules of energy being transferred to the Earth’s surface by the Sun.

            ROO2, 2nd Law denier and dishonest serial impersonator ( http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302527-study-co2-levels-will-stay-above-key-measure-for-generations#comment-2973196862 ) still not realizing that he is once again exposing his ignorance of thermodynamics, his ignorance of heat transfer and his lack of critical thinking. Priceless!

          • ROO2

            No, I am not misrepresenting Ozawa(2003).

            Yes, you clearly are.

            The data used for the net radiation comes from the reference cited in the paper, which is from one of the co-authors of Ozawa et. al 2003.

            Your paper explicitly cites a downwelling energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface of 350 Joules per second per m^2.

            This is used to calculate the net energy radiated from the surface – you know the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated as detailed in the elementary thermodynamics text that you seem incapable or understanding?

            As I’ve explained to you numerous times, a radiant emittance by itself is not an energy flux/flow/transfer.

            Clown dancing? Impressive!

            “radiant exitance or radiant emittance is the radiant flux emitted by a surface per unit area. The radiant flux is the radiant energy emitted, reflected, transmitted or received, per unit time”

            Copying the format of my responses now? My, my. That is why you could not answer a single question about how the Universe would work in terms of your bizarre pseudoscience gibberish. You are a parrot, unable to think for yourself.

            Poor, poor, poor, RealOldOne2.

            Climate science denier not realising that the physical units of the quantity he cites refutes his own position, priceless. 😉

          • Robert

            I wonder what hs physics textbook was used in RealOldOne2”s education.

          • ROO2

            There is no evidence yet presented that suggests any level of scientific education. 😉

          • Robert

            I’m starting to think most of their ‘information’ is coming from Facebook likes or the 001.9 section at the public library rather than the Q section of the uni library shelves .

          • RealOldOne2

            Everyone who reads this entire comment can see that I do understand the science of thermodynamics and heat transfer and that you don’t.

            For your own good, I suggest that you see a mental health professional about your delusional denial of reality. Study Figure 5a again, there is NO heat flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth shown in Ozawa(2003): http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg

            No matter how many times you delusionally deny reality, and pretend that there is a 350W/m² energy flux/flow/transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth there, Ozawa(2003)’s Figure 5a will never show a 350W/m² energy/heat transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth, because energy/heat can’t flow/transfer from a colder object to a hotter object as the 2nd Law dictates, and Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’ was written specifically from the perspective of the 2nd Law and would never make the egregious blunder of showing energy/heat transferring from a cold object like the atmosphere to a warmer object like the Earth’s surface.

            And in the image of Ozawa(2003) you can see that he says: “We can see that 40% of the solar radiation (Fshort(TOA)=240Wm⁻²) is absorbed in the atmosphere (98Wm⁻²), and the rest is absorbed at the surface (Fshort(0)=142Wm⁻²) The energy gain at the surface is transferred to the atmosphere The only “energy gain at the surface” is the 142Wm⁻² that Ozawa mentions and shows in his Figure 5a. The only energy “transferred to the atmosphere” from the “energy gain at the surface” is the 102Wm⁻² from convective energy/heat transfer and the 40Wm⁻² from radiative energy/heat transfer. Ozawa wouldn’t dare make the egregious error of showing your alleged 390Wm⁻² of energy transferring from the surface because that would violate the S-B equation, because it would be assuming that the atmosphere was at absolute zero, which it is not. You are just ideologically blinded to real thermodynamics and heat transfer because of your devotion to your belief in your climate cult dogma.

            And gee, yet another silly reality-denying reply from you without your ability to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector which collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much energy/heat at night as it does during the daytime, which proves that your climate cult pseudoscience is wrong.

            “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. … It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

            And gee, yet another silly reality-denying reply from you which continues to avoid answering the question that proves you wrong: “Why can’t you collect that 350W/m² of backradiation energy that you claim is being transferred to the Earth’s surface. Come on silly science denier, that is 30 megajoules of energy you claim is being transferred to the surface, which is twice as much energy as the 14.5 megajoules being transferred to the Earth’s surface of the Earth by the 168W/m² of solar energy, and yet you can’t collect it! Oh yeah, I forgot, you believe that the Sun has a net cooling effect on the Earth, since the net effect of the Sun is 168W/m² of energy in from the Sun and 390W/m² of energy out from the surface.
            Your 2nd Law denying bi-directional energy flow is shown wrong here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            “your bizarre pseudoscience gibberish. …You are a parrot, unable to think for yourself.”
            There you go with your projection again. My understanding is based on science. Yours is based on pseudoscience 2nd Law denying, 1st Law denying, S-B equation denying, solar energy heating the Earth denying gibberish, as you parrot the rubbish pseudoscience dogma from your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism religion.

            Here is the real science that my understanding is based on, first the science of heat transfer which exposes that your misguided and ignorant misunderstanding violates the 1st Law, followed by the dozens of science references that support my understanding of the 2nd Law and refute your misunderstanding. You have been unable to cite a single valid science reference that says heat can be transferred from a colder object to a hotter object on a macro basis, which is what we are talking about in the transfer of heat from the colder global atmosphere to the global surface of the Earth.

            **********************
            Heat Transfer science that shows that your understanding violates the 1st Law:

            Your misunderstanding does violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as it creates energy in a system that previously didn’t exist.
            A blanket (thermal shield) example shows it. Consider a system of a person at a body & skin temperature T₁=37C without clothes is encased in a perfect insulator to the sides and below, and there are also perfectly insulating walls of the same shape of the body up to the ceiling, which is also exactly the same shape of the body, so the area of the body and the area of the massive non-insulated ceiling is equal, and the temperature of ceiling is T₂=23C. Simplifying assumption that the only heat transfer is by radiation, and no conduction, convection or evaporation. Other assumptions are emissivity, ϵ =1 for the body, the blanket (radiation shield) and the walls; the area of the person’s surface(skin) and the the corresponding area of the ceiling that is in thermal contact =1m². The only Qin (energy in) in our system is the internal metabolism of the person which generates 88.5 watts of energy/heat. The system is at equilibrium so the energy/heat transfer away from the body, Qout = 88.5W/m² which exactly equals the internal energy/heat Qin of 88.5W, so the body temperature remains constant at 37C.

            Now we put a 1 m² blanket(thermal shield) between the body and the ceiling. Since the blanket has an equal emissivity to the body, the initial blanket temperature will be 30.25C, defined by T₃(blanket)=0.5(T₁(body)⁴-T₂(walls)⁴) per Eq.8-43, Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ 2nd ed, p.240. Now the S-B equation shows that the body is now only transferring Qout=44.25W/m². Since the body continues to generate Qin=88.5W, the internal energy from metabolism begins to accumulate and body temperature rises until a new equilibrium is reached.

            When the new equilibrium is reached, the blanket heats up to a temperature of 37C so the Qout from the blanket = Qin from the body metabolism. Since at the new equilibrium the energy/heat loss from the body-to-blanket must equal the energy/heat loss from the blanket to the surroundings and must equal the energy/heat generated by the body, 88.5W/m², the S-B equation allows us to calculate the new body/skin temperature of 49.3C.

            Here is the pertinent section from Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’.

            “8-8 Radiation Shields One way of reducing radiant heat transfer between two particular surfaces is to use materials which are highly reflective. An alternative method is to use radiation shields between the heat exchange surfaces. These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. … Now consider the same two planes, but with a radiation shield placed between them as in Fig. 8-28b. The heat transfer will be calculated for this latter case and will be compared with the heat transfer without the shield. Since the shield does deliver or remove heat from the system, the heat transfer between plate 1 and the shield must be precisely the same as that between the shield and plate 2, and this is the overall heat transfer.
            Thus (q/A=σ(T₁⁴-T₃⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) =
            σ(T₃⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₃+1/ϵ₂-1) (8-42)
            The only unknown in Eq.(8-42) is the temperature of hte shield T₃. Once this temperature is obtained, the heat transfer is easily calculated. If the emissivities of of all three surfaces are equal, that is, ϵ₁=ϵ₂=ϵ₃ , we obtain the simple relation T₃⁴=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴) (8-43) and the heat transfer is
            q/A=1/2σ(T₁⁴-T₂⁴)/(1/ϵ₁+1/ϵ₃-1) But since ϵ₃=ϵ₂ , we observe that the this heat flow is just one-half of that which would be experienced if there were no shield present.” – ‘Heat Transfer’ textbook, J.P.Holman, 2nd ed, pp.239-240

            My correct understanding is that the increase in body temperature is solely due to the accumulation of the only Qin energy in existence, the Qin to the body of 88.5W of internal body metabolism. That internal energy accumulated because the initial heat transfer away from the body was decreased, until a new equilibrium was reached. Thus the 1st Law is satisfied, no energy created or lost. The only Qin in the system remains 88.5W.

            Your incorrect understanding is that the body increases it temperature due to an additional 88.5W/m² of energy allegedly being transferred from the 37C blanket to the body. (Difference between radiation of the 23C walls initial, 436.15W/m², and radiation of the 37C blanket final, 524.65W/m²). Thus you have violated the 1st Law of Conservation of Energy, since you now have created a new 88.5W/m² energy which did not exist in our original system.

            And your incorrect understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has that newly created Qin energy being transferred from a colder object(37Cblanket) to a warmer object(49.3C body).
            Irrefutable evidence that your understanding is wrong. And recall that you previously exposed your ignorance of the effects of a thermal shield/blanket when you were totally ignorant of why the emissivity of the blanket was important! A later 10th edition of Holman’s ‘Heat Transfer’ says in the section on Radiation Shields that I quoted from says: “the higher the reflectivity of the shield (i.e., the smaller its emissivity), the greater the surfaces resistances.” The resistor network diagram shows that this retards heat transfer even more than a blanket with an emissivity of 1 which is the best emitter of energy. I previously explained that your mistaken claim that a blanket worked by transferring energy/heat by emitting it back to you, was exposed as being false by the fact that the most effective blanket has the lowest emissivity which means that it is the least effective radiator of energy.

            ********************
            The dozens of 2nd Law references which show that I am correct and show that you are wrong are shown in this comment of mine: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-2996483488

          • ROO2

            Everyone who reads this entire comment can see that I do understand the science of thermodynamics and heat transfer and that you don’t.

            *Guffaw*

            “An Introduction to Thermodyanmics” page 443:

            “As an object radiates energy into its environment, it also receives energy from its environment.”

            You claim that is impossible as it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

            Would people put their money on you, somebody with clearly no credible scientific education or:

            Keith Stowe, a professor of physics at California Polytechnic State University for 32 years but also studied at the University of Washington, Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Michigan. Who’s understanding of the physics is in agreement with the worlds scientific community across the sciences, and all relevant scientific institutions and societies.

            It’s a really tough call. Pwahahahaha. 😉

          • Robert

            Maybe he and bigwavedave and maltow can write up their at fizziques treatise .
            Maybe they could get monckton, roald, to pal review it.
            E&E probably can add pages for such work…..

          • ROO2

            I’d love to see RealOldOne2 with a paper in E&E. It’s certainly the place that such pseudoscience gibberish should remain, especially as he has quoted papers from there before claiming that it is peer reviewed.

            I can already see the repeatedly spammed comment about “peer reviewed science”.

            BWD, (:s) and Larsen would not comprehend either way.

          • Robert

            Well , E&E claims they peer review:
            “As part of the submission process you will be asked to provide the names of 2 peers who could be called upon to review your manuscript. ”
            https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/energy-environment/journal202462#PeerReviewPolicy

            Not sure about this…. “Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. ” http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html#Impact complaining about e&e impact…….

          • ROO2

            Not sure about this…. “Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. “

            E&E would claim that. But theirs in not a scientific journal. It’s all crap.

          • Robert

            That was pop tech trying to explain/justify/wing about why e&e has a low impact factor ( generally as do the authors)

            E&E has been cited in ar5, but not sure in what context. But that is what a synthesis report does- look at the breadth of published papers.

          • ROO2

            E&E has been cited in ar5

            I’ve not found it yet. Are you sure? I’ve not used the search term crap yet though.

          • Robert

            I’ll dig around, but I remember running into one or two, sections where alternative hypotheses are discussed, clouds, hot spot, cosmicray, orbit,

          • Robert
          • ROO2

            Yep, a paper on economics, not science.

            The economics may be good, but no sensible economist would have to resort to publishing in E&E unless nobody else would touch it. The same as their “science”.

            I’ve not read the context in AR4 WGIII as yet, but I guess it will not be some significant policy point that hinges on the works of such a crap publication. I’d put money on that.

          • Robert

            Well, it gives denialists a talking point -ie ‘e&e s in ipcc’ -; by not mentionin the where and why….

          • RealOldOne2

            “Your scientific illiteracy is on full display.”
            That’s rich coming from someone who claims that the primary energy source that warms the Earth is the cold atmosphere, not the 5500C Sun!

          • evenminded

            More lies RealOldOne2? What a surprise.

            Everyone knows that the primary source of energy to the earth is the sun. Everyone but the most ignorant deniers also knows that without GHGs the averaged temperature of the earths surface would be well below 0C.

          • RealOldOne2

            No lies from me. You claim that there is a real energy flow of 324W/m^2 from the cold atmosphere to the surface of the Earth, while there is only a 168W/m^2 real energy flow from the Sun to the Earth’s surface, so you clearly do believe that the primary source of energy that heats the Earth is the Sun.

            There is no real 324W/m^2 energy/heat flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth. If there was, that ‘backradiation’ energy could be collected just like the 168W/m^2 of solar energy can be collected.

            So have you experimentally demonstrated a working ‘backradiation’ heat collector that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as it does during the daytime? No? Then the real world proves you wrong.

            Question: Why can’t you collect those 324W/m^2 of ‘backradiation’ energy/heat?
            Answer: because they are not a real energy/heat flow, they are a potential energy/heat flow to a sink at absolute zero, but the surface of the Earth is not at absolute zero, it is warmer than the cold atmosphere, so there is no energy/heat flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.

            A detailed explanation of your misunderstanding is given here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/why-atmospheric-radiative-gh-warming-is-a-chimaera/
            and here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/how-the-ipcc-turn-calculated-numbers-into-heat/
            and here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

          • evenminded

            You claim that there is a real energy flow of 324W/m^2 from the cold atmosphere to the surface of the Earth

            That’s correct, there is.

            while there is only a 168W/m^2 real energy flow from the Sun to the Earth’s surface

            No, that is not what is claimed at all. At midday in the tropics the amount of energy from the sun is on the order of ~1000W/m^2. At night the amount of energy from the sun is 0 W/m^2.

            We’ve been over what a black cardboard square will do during the day versus at night. It really is not difficult physics to understand.

          • RealOldOne2

            “That’s correct, there is.”
            No, that there is not, as proven by the fact that you can’t collect any of that energy/heat.
            Your ignorant 2nd Law denying claim of bi-directional energy flow, including energy/heat transfer from colder objects to hotter objects is false, as explained here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/#more-1598

            You are handwaving again. You claim that over a 24 hour period there is twice as much ‘backradiation’ energy being transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warm surface of the Earth as there is solar energy being transferred to the surface of the Earth. That you clearly do believe that the primary source of energy that heats the Earth is the Sun.
            You are just denying reality now.

          • evenminded

            Have you already forgotten your admission of the statistical nature of microscopic interactions and bidirectional energy flows?

            Would you like me to remind you what you stated?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Have you already forgotten your admission of the statistical nature of microscopic interactions and bidirectional energy flows?”
            LOL. You are doing your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation again.
            That was in reference to Maxwell’s discussion of molecular collisions in a solid during conduction. As I pointed out then, it totally irrelevant to radiation heat transfer.

            I’m still waiting for you to explain the physical mechanism of how those molecular collisions happen between the surface of the Sun and the surface of the Earth when they are separated by 93,000,000 miles.
            What’s the problem? Oh yeah, you’re not too good at understanding physical mechanisms are you?

          • evenminded

            Not irrelevant at all.

            The microscopic exchanges of photons are the mechanism for radiative heat exchange in analogy to the kinetic energy exchanges responsible for conductive heat exchange.

            We’ve already been through your demonstrably false statements and lack of understanding of the energy exchanges that can occur in elastic collisions.

            Your lack of understanding of photon exchanges is not surprising. You do not even have a novice level of understanding of thermodynamics.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. More clown dancing! The discussion was about molecular collisions or real physical matter! Photons are not matter.
            Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of science.

            ps. Got that ‘backradiation’ heat collector working yet? Hahaha

          • evenminded

            That’s fine. You then admit that bidirectional energy exchanges do not violate the second law for the microscopic mechanisms responsible for conduction.

            The microscopic mechanisms responsible for the energy exchanges in radiation, i.e. photon emission and absorption, do not violate the second law either.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You then admit that bidrectional energy exchanges do not violate the second law for microscpoic mechanisms responsible for conduction.”
            Why do you continue to lie and misrepresent me? Because you are serially dishonest.
            Heat/energy always flows downhill in temperature/energy, from higher energy/temperature objects to lower energy/temperature objects.

            Statistical molecular collisions are just your handwaving clown dance to avoid discussing your erroneous claim that there is a real 324W/m^2 of energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.

            You are a 2nd Law denier.

          • evenminded

            You stated that you were talking about conduction when you admitted that bidirectional energy exchanges from molecular collisions could occur.

            How is that lying?

          • RealOldOne2

            “You stated that you were talking about conduction when you admitted that bidirectional energy exchanges from molecular collisions could occur.”
            Why do you continue to tell such blatant lies?
            I’ve never said that bidirectional energy flow occurs.

          • evenminded

            So what did you mean when you admitted that Maxwell’s statement was about the statistical nature of microscopic energy transfers?

            Maxwell: “The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body.”

            you: “It is about microscopic, not macroscopic so it is not relevant to our discussion”
            “It doesn’t say that heat transfers from a colder object to a warmer object. When you take the statistics as a whole, heat always transfers from the warmer object to the colder object.”

            Why would statistics be needed at all if all microscopic energy transfers were governed by the 2nd law?

          • RealOldOne2

            You silly fool. Your foolish 2nd Law denying claim that the cold atmosphere transfers twice as much energy to warm the Earth’s surface than the Sun does is not about microscopic molecular collisions.
            You are obfuscating again.

          • evenminded

            Why can’t you address the point at hand ROO2?

            Why would statistics be needed at all if all microscopic energy transfers were governed by your fake version of the 2nd law?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Why can’t you address the point at hand ROO2”
            Your point about microscopic energy transfers is irrelevant to our discussion of your astoundingly stupid claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more energy/heat to the warmer surface of the Earth than the Sun does.

            “governed by your fake version of the 2nd Law”
            You are projecting again. You are the one with the fake version of the 2nd Law. My correct understanding of the 2nd Law is supported by all the following dozens of science references. You have never refuted a single one of them, nor have you ever produced a single valid science reference that supports your 2nd Law denying claim that energy/heat is transferred from a colder object like the atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
            • “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155

            • “Transfer of Energy from the Ocean to the Atmosphere. – Heat moves in predictable ways, flowing from warmer objects to cooler ones, until both reach the same temperature.” – http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            • “Heat energy is transferred as a result of a temperature difference. Energy as heat passes FROM a warm body with higher temperature TO a cold body with lower temperature. The transfer of energy as a result of temperature difference alone is referred to as HEAT FLOW.” – http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-work-energy-d_292.html

            • “Heat does not flow from a cooler to warmer body.” – Clark2010 ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ , peer reviewed science

            • “if the temperature of one object is higher than that of the other object, there will be a transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder object until both objects reach the same temperature.” – http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/differ.html , NASA & California Institute of Technology

            • “When you put a hot object in contact with a cold one, heat will flow FROM the warmer TO the cooler. As a result, the warmer one will usually cool down and the cooler one will usually warm up. Eventually they will reach the same temperature and heat flow will stop.” – http://hop.concord.org/h1/phys/h1pf.html , Hands on Physics – Heat and Temperature

            • “Heat flows from hot to cold – The first statement of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics – heat flows spontaneously FROM a hot TO a cold body” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “Whenever there is a temperature difference between two objects in contact, heat energy will flow FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object until they reach the same temperature.” – http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/HeatFlow.html , Western Washington Univ , Heat Flow

            • “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            • “In the process of reaching thermodynamic equilibrium, heat is transferred FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object. At thermodynamic equilibrium heat transfer is ZERO.” – http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/heat.gif , NASA – Heat Transfer

            • “the laws of thermodynamics lay the framework for the science of heat transfer. … The second law requires that heat be transferred in the DIRECTION OF DECREASING TEMPERATURE. It is analogous to the electric current flowing in the direction of decreasing voltage or the fluid flowing in the direction of decreasing pressure.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150610140851/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.2.html , India Institute of Technology (the MIT/Stanford of India)

            • “Heat transfer is energy in transit due to temperature difference. Whenever there exists a temperature difference in a medium or between media, heat transfer must occur. The basic requirement for heat transfer is the presence of temperature difference. There can be NO net heat transfer between two mediums that are at the same temperature. The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html , India Institute of Technology

            • Lecture on 2nd Law & Perpetual Motion Machines of the 2nd Kind – http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu

            • “When you bring two objects of different temperature together, energy will ALWAYS be transferred FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. The objects will exchange thermal energy until thermal equilibrium is reached, ie., until their temperatures are equal. We say heat flows FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. Heat is energy on the move. … Without an external agent doing work, heat will ALWAYS flow from a hotter to a cooler object.” – http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH7/Heat%20Flow.htm , Univ of Tenn Physics

            • “heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object. … Just as in the case of the cooling coffee mug, energy is being transferred from the higher temperature objects to the lower temperature object. Once more, this is known as heat – the transfer of energy from the higher temperature object to a lower temperature object.” – http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat , Physics Classroom

            • “If there is a temperature difference in a system, heat will naturally move from high to low temperatures. The place you find the higher temperature is the heat source. The area where the temperature is lower is the heat sink.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_transfer.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “We’re going to talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. … Heat flows from hot areas to cold, NOT the other way.” , http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_law2.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “Heat moves from one system because of differences of temperature in the systems. If you have two identical systems with equal temperatures, there will be NO flow of energy. When you have two systems with different temperatures, the energy will start to flow. … Areas of high temperature give off energy TO areas of lower temperature.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_intro.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “When two things are in thermal contact but NO thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the SAME temperature.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            • “Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html


            “Stefan-Boltzmann for Two Blackbodies consider a blackbody B1 of temperature T1 in radiative contact with another blackbody B2 of temperature T2 with T2 > T1 … Q₁₂ = σ(T₂⁴ – T₁⁴) with T₂>T₁. which expresses Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law for the radiative heat transfer from one body in radiative contact with a body of lower temperature. … Notice the requirement in (14.3) that T₂>T₁. In the literature one finds the law without this requirement in the form Q₁₂ = σT₂⁴ – σT₁⁴ , Q₂₁ = σT₁⁴ – σT₂^⁴ = -Q₁₂ (14.5) where Q₂₁ is the heat transfer from B₁ to B₂ as the negative of Q₂₁ .

            This form has led to the misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law as expressing heat transfer from B2 to B1 of size σT₂^⁴ balanced by a transfer of -σT₁⁴ from B₁ to B₂, as if two opposing transfers of heat energy is taking place between the two bodies with their difference determining the net flow. Such a misinterpretation was anticipated an countered in Stefan’s original article [42][Ueber die Beziehung zwischen der Warmestrahlung und der Temperatur (Concerning the relationship between the Thermal radiation and the Temperature)] from 1879:

            ” • The absolute value the heat energy emission from a radiating body cannot be determined by experiment. An experiment can only determine the surplus of emission over absorption, with the absorption determined by the emission from the environment of the body.

            • However, if one has a formula for the emission as a function of temperature (like Stefan-Boltzmann Law), then the absolute value of the emission can be determined, but such a formula has only a hypothetical meaning.”

            Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law (14.3) thus requires T₂>T₁ and does not contain two-way opposing heat transfer, only one-way heat transfer from warm to cold. Unfortunately the misinterpretation has led to a fictitious non-physical “backradiation” underlying CO2 global warming alarmism.” – Johnson2012

            • Promoters of CAGW-by-CO2’s misunderstanding of S-B is also explained here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/okulaer-on-why-atmospheric-radiative.html

            • Further explanation of the errors of CAGW-by-CO2 alarmists’ understanding of thermodynamics: http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

            Then study this:
            Any object above zero has a radiation force/power field, and has the potential to transfer heat energy, but can only do so if the other object is at a lower energy state, ie., a lower temperature, than the first object.

            This shows that a surface has an “emissive power” that has an “upper limit”. That upper limit is only reached if the 2nd object is at absolute zero, as the equation shows. If the other object is at the same temperature, the emissive powers cancel and there is NO heat transfer, as my multiple sources state. – http://web.archive.org/web/20150510195517/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.4.3.html

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            Heat energy spontaneously flows only in one direction, from higher energy states to lower energy states. To do otherwise would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

            The fact that emissive powers of two objects which are at exactly the same temperature cancel is evident because heat flow goes to ZERO. That means the emissive power transfers NO heat energy from either object to the other object when the temperature of the two objects is exactly the same. That is effectively cancelling the emissive power of one surface by an equal but opposite emissive power of the other surface.

            “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            Waves can cancel or reflect back. “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            Look at the electromagnetic wave vector slide, http://physics.info/em-waves/poynting.svg . You see the poynting vectors that AlecM describes. Two facing surfaces at equal temperatures have equal frequency and equal amplitude electric, magnetic, and poynting vectors, but in opposite directions. All the vectors cancel out, and there is no heat energy flow/transfer.

            The entire reference of that slide is here: http://physics.info/em-waves/ Go to the end where it talks about radiation pressure, similar to the WolframResource reference that I cited, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html . Equal but opposite radiation pressure results in no heat energy flow. Equal but opposite radiation force results in no heat energy flow.

            • “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            • “But the internal energy of a system is still proportional to its temperature. We can therefore monitor changes in the internal energy of a system by watching what happens to the temperature of the system. Whenever the temperature of the system increases we can conclude that the internal energy of the system has also increased.” – Purdue Univ., http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php

            Some 2nd Law deniers admit that heat doesn’t flow from colder objects to warmer objects, but that energy does. This is nonsense, since heat is energy in transit:

            • “Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.” – Georgia State Univ. Physics & Astronomy, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html

          • evenminded

            In your fake version of the 2nd law, you think that the microscopic mechanisms for the transfer of energy, either by elastic collisions or by the exchange of photons, is governed by the 2nd law.

            The fundamental mechanisms for energy exchange are reversible mechanisms and are not restricted by the second law. As Maxwell stated the 2nd law governs the macroscopic heat transfer process, which is the net, statistically averaged behavior of all of those multidirectional energy transfers.

            You are a scientifically illiterate moron.

          • RealOldOne2

            “In your fake version of the 2nd law”
            Sorry, you are the one who believes in a fake 2nd law. In my previous comment I showed that my view is supported by real science. Your fake 2nd Law claiming energy/heat transfers from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface is pseudoscience.

            “You are a scientifically illiterate moron.”
            You are projecting again. All you have done is make baseless, empirical evidence-free claims.

          • evenminded

            You haven’t been able to refute the real science for years.

            You’ve been proven wrong time and again.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You haven’t been able to refute the real science for years.”
            You are denying reality again.

            “You’ve been proven wrong time and again.”
            You are projecting again.

          • evenminded

            Elastic collisions and EM pulses (i.e. photons) are each microscopic mechanisms that transfer energy from low energy sources to high energy sinks. There is nothing that you have ever presented that refute these facts.

          • RealOldOne2

            “that transfer energy from low energy sources to high energy sinks.”
            Baseless, evidence-free 2nd Law denial. So sad.

          • evenminded

            Do you need me to explain to you again how a low speed particle can transfer all of its energy to a high speed particle?

          • RealOldOne2

            You’re doing your clown dance of obfuscation again. It’s not about individual molecules, it’s about your false claim of a bulk transfer of energy/heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of he Earth. Can’t happen as it violates the 2nd Law as those dozens of science references that I have posted to you twice show.

          • evenminded

            Yes, it is about individual molecules.

            Individual molecules are able to transfer energy from low energy to high energy. This is not a violation of the second law.

          • Bart_R

            Earth is a working backradiation heat collector; for proof, look at the moon (as close overhead for a full moon as you’ll see for decades).

            Earth and the Moon receive the same amount of sunlight per square foot, yet Earth is much warmer. It’s warmer on average, despite the unshielded Moon getting as hot as 123 C in full sunlight. It’s warmer by night, when only backradiation has any significant warming effect on Earth, and the absence of that same shielding from atmosphere that causes backradiation lets the moon fall to -153 C. Earth’s far warmer by more than S-B would predict, absent backradiation.

            That’s your backradiation energy collector.

            Pay what you owe.

            Or do you deny the Moon, too?

          • RealOldOne2

            Are you ready to admit that your claim, Bart_R: “CO2 tops out the ‘plant food’ category at about 300ppmv.” is wrong yet? Study all this evidence on rice, http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/o/oryzas.php , and then pick any of the hundreds of other plants found here, http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php before answering.

            “Earth is a working backradiation heat collector”
            No, it’s not, because no heat flows from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says it can’t happen. And proof that it doesn’t happen is the fact that you can’t collect that alleged 324W/m² of backradiation-energy/heat-flow like you can collect the 168W/m² of solar energy/heat which is real.
            But I’m a scientist, so if you can show me empirical evidence of a calorific transfer of heat by those 324W/m² of backradiation actually causing a rise in surface temperature above the ambient, which is the evidence of a real radiative heat transfer/flow, then you could convince me. No one has been able to do that yet. A Nobel prize awaits you to be the first person to falsify the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Go for it.

            “Or do you deny the Moon, too?
            I don’t deny any real science about the Moon or the Earth. I just expose pseudoscience like your claim that heat is transferred from colder objects to warmer objects, because that is a denial of the 2nd Law.

          • Bart_R

            You seem particularly to not be dense. No plant has higher nutrient density when raised above 300 ppmv CO2 than when raised at 300 ppmv CO2, if all other conditions are held constant. That means CO2 is not a plant food above 300 ppmv. In fact, plant nutrient density consistently falls as CO2 concentrations rise above 300 ppmv, and plants now are up to 44% less nutrient dense in key amino acids and minerals than the were two centuries ago.

            Did you want to ask me for citations?

            Because mine don’t go through the Idsos’ silly reprocessing treatment, but come from first hand.

            Curious you have to go to an oil-company-sponsored website for your CO2 ‘science’, but can produce no links directly to original authors. Well, not really curious.

            So, when was the last time you admitted you were wrong about anything, to anyone?

            Moon is colder than Earth. The reason is the Moon has insignificant backradiation compared to Earth. You can stamp your feet all you want refusing to acknowledge you’re wrong, but that doesn’t make you less wrong. It just makes you look silly.

          • RealOldOne2

            You are one sick individual. Seek help for your denial of reality issues.

          • Bart_R

            Healthy. Sick. I pay what I owe.

            You should try it sometime.

        • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

          No, I’m afraid that CO2 is not our primary climate driver, it only accounts for 0.04% of all atmospheric gases.

          Actually, I didn’t say it was our primary driver. I said it was a climate driver. The use of the number 0.04% by skeptics is an attempt to use what is known as an “argument from absurdity”. It is hoped that the concentration of CO2 seems so small in this case that it would be deemed absurd for CO2 to have any effect on the climate. But this is a false argument. That’s because the physics of how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere depends not only on its concentration, but also on where its various absorption lines for IR sit relative to the Earth’s emitted IR. In this case there is an absorption peak very near the peak in IR coming from the Earth, so CO2 is well positioned to intercept IR coming from the Earth’s surface. More on the physics of how CO2 operates in the atmosphere can be found in the excellent series of posts here (with a very appropriate title):

          https://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

          Every year the quantity of atmospheric CO2 grows by 1.78 ppm, if man stopped using fossil fuels, CO2 would still increase by 1.70 ppm

          This is incorrect. What you are implying is that natural CO2 accounts for 1.7 ppm while man accounts for 0.08. But it is well known from several lines of evidence that most of the increase in CO2 that we measure is human caused. These lines of evidence range from when the increase began (time of industrial revolution), to measuring the ratios of two isotopes of carbon relative to one another. There is a good post on the subject here (there are references to published research at the end):

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/

          also after 345 ppm, CO2 becomes saturated and will only absorb another 5% max of the solar energy

          This is also incorrect as pointed out in this Physics Today paper. See the box, Saturation Fallacies on page 37. This is also a good paper regarding CO2 greenhouse gas properties, but on a higher level than the Science of Doom posts.

          https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

          With regards to your second paragraph, if you have a link you’d like to share with this information, please do.

          And I never implied that the ice cores gave global results

          Sure you did. Here is what you wrote (emphasis mine):

          Here are some other dates when Global temperatures were higher than today

          The other glaring problem is that we have no way today, to know what our average global temperature or atmospheric CO2 levels are, much less what they may have been in 1880, 1850 or 1750.

          Sure we do. We have instrumental records for today back to the late 1800’s and then we have proxies for older temperatures.

          The theory that CO2 is somehow a global climate driver after 345 ppm has never been proven, never has.

          Here’s a paper that measures back radiation due to increases in atmospheric CO2. Since back radiation is energy, and the first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, this back radiation adds to the energy budget calculations for the Earth – i.e. it is a climate driver. Even skeptic scientists accept this, like Curry, Lindzen and Spencer.

          http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

          Here is skeptic scientist Dr. Roy Spencer (Repulicans regularly call him to testify). In this post he lists the top skeptic arguments that don’t hold water. #’s 1 and 5 is relevant to our discussion.

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

          • BBQman

            All of your opinions are very interesting, but they are only opinions and not proof that CO2 is anything to worry about as a climate driver, at most, after considering the climate drivers we have always had for at least the last 10,000 years or so, CO2s contribution is at best around 0.000001% of the total. But your opinions were interesting to read.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            What I have posted is not opinion. It is what the current science tells us. That, of course, does not mean that further research will change current understanding.

            But that is highly unlikely that things such as the following will change:

            1 – Determining frequency does CO2 absorb IR.

            2 – How CO2 radiates IR.

            3 – Our fundamental understanding of the first law of thermodynamics.

            And quite a few other things.

            So there is indeed a difference between opinion as defined in a dictionary and scientific results as gained through measurement and determined through examination and extension of theory.

            I am surprised that you would actually write something like this.

            I typically find that skeptics are very loose with numbers. Your number of 0.000001% is given without any support. Please provide.

            The main unknown factor in climate science right now, and both skeptics and consensus scientist agree on this, is what is the sensitivity of the climate to CO2.

            The best estimate we have so far is that if we double CO2, temperatures will rise by around 1.75C – and this is not an equilibrium state. But there are large error bars around this number.

            But both skeptic and consensus scientists agree that CO2 is a driver. But many lay skeptics are confused about this.

          • BBQman

            cgs, you say that the best estimate we have so far is that if CO2 is doubled, temperatures will rise 1.75C, yes, I agree this could happen in the correct environment, but our atmosphere can not produce that same controlled environment that the Lab does to achieve those results, unfortunately no lab has ever recreated our atmosphere and are missing the source and sink, extreme low temperatures, no Hadley cell or it’s interaction with the rest of the jet stream, and there is a hard ceiling in the lab while the CO2 in our atmosphere has no ceiling, so the theory remains unproven, we would have to be out of our minds to base global decisions on unproven theories.

            CO2 has never been proven to be a primary climate driver, it only makes up 0.04% of all atmospheric gases, the primary climate drivers are electromagnetic forces and their effect on earth’s molten cores directional flow and the centrifugal forces released which impact our oceans conveyance that influences our jet stream. There is a lot more to it, but I don’t want to get to far ahead where you can’t keep up.

            In the scheme of things, electromagnetic forces are our primary climate driver due to the effects it has on our core, CO2 between 345 to 1,000 ppm is a good range to have a lush green healthy earth.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Well this was a very eye-opening comment and I am glad you wrote it.

            First, the 1.75C number is called Transient Climate Response (TCR). Values for TCR are determined three different ways: by climate models, by paleoclimate data and by the instrumental record. Only the first could reasonably be termed as originating in the “lab”. The other two used measured data to determine the value.

            In your next paragraph, you basically retreat back to your argument from absurdity concerning the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you are unwilling to read things that challenge your ideas, there is not much I can do about it. But the fact remains that I have provided two sources that describe how CO2 is a strong GHG.

            The rest of your comment is actually the part I am glad that you wrote. It provided me a window into your basic position on climate science. Don’t worry about getting too far ahead of me. Just provide some links to your sources for me to review.

            But let’s be clear, no climate scientist today, skeptic or consensus, aligns themselves with the idea that, “electromagnetic forces are our primary climate driver due to the effects it has on our core…” To ascribe to this means you are following folks who are far, far outside of mainstream climate science.

            There is research to suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field plays a role in high altitude (100-500 km above the surface) climate as reported here:

            http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html

          • BBQman

            “Values for TCR are determined three different ways: by climate models, by paleoclimate data and by the instrumental record.”

            The unproven theory of CO2 having some kind of global greenhouse effect is the primary problem that has everyone confused on the AGW settled science side.

            Even today we do not have an effective data collecting sensor grid spacing to accurately project what the global temperatures and CO2 levels are, and even less certainty about what they were in 1880, nothing but regional sampling that can not be extrapolated into global results.
            Your above 3 methods do not account for climate anomalies and should never be related to the assumptions for what today’s or yesteryears global temperatures and CO2 levels were, global decisions about climate should never be made based on discredited unproven assumptions and corruption in the current data collection methods.

            I hope you realize that to date over 80% of all temperature and CO2 data collection points are and have always been placed in the northern hemisphere, that alone makes it impossible to project global anything.

            Also, because of the way the jet stream mechanics function with the Hadley cell, which turns away around 60% of the heavily CO2 laden winds from the equatorial regions up to and at about the 30 degree marks before the poles, compounded by the fact that the polar winds produce almost zero CO2, shows that the methods used to determine atmospheric CO2 levels for the last 800 thousand years through icecore investigations have produced results that are light of CO2 by over half, all icecore results should be multiplied X 2.1734 to show what the actual CO2 results were for the last 100 thousand years, then the multiplier only goes up after 100 thousand years to 800 thousand years.

            Other factors not allowed for in data sampling is the degradation of the other 40% of atmospheric CO2 as a result being exposed to extreme atmospheric temperatures before eventually being trapped in the ice cores taken inside the 30 degree marks.
            You can attach all the links you wish, but so far I have seen nothing that refutes my observations.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bff966e17719ef1fc6b67d5a8e12b86be96eeff0658b3b9f6af4a8cada7df8be.gif

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            I am sure that we would both agree that the study of climate is a science, and that it is essentially is physics and chemistry based.

            But while I am pretty sure we agree on that, I can only hope that we agree on this: that to know the current status of climate science a study of the published literature and textbooks is required. I can only say that I hope you believe this because you have already posted information that, as far as I can tell, is not part of the general body of climate science. I can’t be 100% sure of this, because you won’t post links to where you get your information.

            You also, in the comment above, refer to corruption of the current data methods. This likely indicates that you believe climate scientists are fudging the data, and this, in turn, probably means you don’t trust the published literature. I have my suspicions about what you consider to be corruption, but without further elaboration from you, I can’t know for sure. If you’d like to explain further, I am more than happy to discuss the issue with you.

            I have a higher degree in science (physics). I don’t mention this fact to use it as a cudgel and claim I know more than you. I mention it because that means I am trained to approach science in a particular way, and I was trained in that way over many years. And one of those ways is to study the published literature, and further, to be skeptical of claims made without supporting evidence in the literature. Those claims can range from things like posting numbers to posting graphics (like above) without saying where these numbers or graphics come from. That should not how be how one approaches a discussion of science.

            This doesn’t mean that things not in the literature are wrong, but they certainly deserve extra scrutiny and require a higher level of logical sense to pass initial muster.

            On the flip side, my education makes me suspicious of folks who reject the literature out-of-hand. If you can’t provide a good reason not to read the literature, then I am very suspicious that you are avoiding it for the reason that it makes you uncomfortable – it challenges you in ways you cannot accept.

            Science represents a body of accumulated knowledge. Of course, it is not perfect and we are all aware of at least one instance where the consensus opinion was wrong. But knowing that, in and of itself, is not sufficient reason to reject the total body of work in a particular field. It never has been. If it were, we would never be able to construct any body of knowledge.

            You believe the greenhouse effect is unproven. I can only tell you it is not and point you to resources to learn. The greenhouse effect is accepted by a wide body of scientists.

            You also believe that we don’t have enough measurement density to properly calculate a global temperature or understand levels of CO2. Your criticism would carry more weight if you could actually claim to have read papers on these subjects and could point to what you believe the errors are, or, better, point to published research that does the same thing. But you don’t.

            By rejecting the current published climate science literature, you are, in general, taking a position which is inherently anti-science.

            I appreciate the discussion.

          • BBQman

            Climate stuff

            How much should one have to study the actual evidence to understand all of the data corruption and false assumptions made about what atmospheric CO2 levels were in the 1800s, surly you were not going by the fraudulent results of Icecores which I have already proven to be light on CO2 results by over half for the last 100 thousand years due to the effects of the Hadley convection, and tree rings only tell a regional story, not global, as I said, we can not get any closer then about 85 ppm to what the global atmospheric CO2 levels were.
            Our Greenhouse effect is not effected by CO2 after 345 ppm, that is when it has reached its saturation point, along with all the other environmental elements that are dissipating the energy, and let’s not forget about source and sinks, that is another assumed number, not to long ago it was discovered that climate models were missing around 1.7 trillion trees in the magic formula that can’t be explained in a quantifiable summary, 200 years of thinking that CO2 is a climate driver and still no proof.

            Testing methods used to determine what our assumed global CO2 levels were 200 years ago could easily be off by up to around 85 ppm, it is believed by many critical Thinkers that global CO2 levels back then could have been as high as 300 ppm or more, it’s hard to pinpoint due to the sloppiness of sparse regional sampling which in no way can be extrapolated into global results, and since the northern hemisphere has been recovering and warming back up since the Little Ice Age and its 600 year long impact which ended at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, of course our planet has been warming back up in a natural cycle of a bit less then 1 degree Celsius per century, thus allowing our Flora and Fauna to recover and produce more CO2 as a result, which is good, keeping in the mind other sources and sinks, and natural degradation from extreme temperature lows above 3,000 meters most of the year within the range of the Hadley convection, it becomes obvious to even the most causal thinker that CO2 levels between 345 to 1,000 ppm can not have any kind of global greenhouse effect because of the rapid heat dissipation and degradation of the CO2.

            “During the Little Ice Age, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions.”

            The true climate drivers, not the engine , but the main driver is how electromagnetic forces change the centrifugal thrust and directional oscillations of our molten core, which impacts our oceans conveyance, which influences the jet stream, there are other factors as well, but a detailed study of our jet stream in 1,000 vertical grids will open your eyes to why CO2 is just an insignificant trace gas that in no way could ever be a climate driver after 345 ppm, not when it only makes up 0.04% of all atmospheric gases and mans contributions are only 1/27th of that, I don’t need citations to see those environmental truths, just my eyes.

          • evenminded

            Oh, you don’t know the half of it cgs. BBQman claims that due to a “confluence” of EM forces the tilt of the earth’s rotational axis is going to increase by 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years.

            I’ll let you chew on that for a bit.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            I wasn’t talking to you BBQ.

            But perhaps for the benefit of cgs you can explain the physics that you used to come up with an increase in the tilt of the earth’s axis by 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years.

          • BBQman

            He can read my profile if he wants to, only 29 years and 11 months to go, try to be open minded and patient.

          • evenminded

            Really?

            Where have you explained the physics behind your claim that the tilt of the earth’s rotational axis will increase by 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years?

            Only a moron would think that something that takes 6000 years would occur over the next 30 (and in the wrong direction no less).

          • http://www.the-only-way.net five.to.midnight

            Very true BBQman :-)👍

          • BBQman

            Thank you five!

          • http://www.the-only-way.net five.to.midnight

            You’re welcome!

          • Robert

            “Half of it” ? Don’t forget those EM forces are from 4 gaseous planets that will be or were hiding on the other side of the Sun……. and the coming ice age…..

          • Florf

            “CO2 has never been proven to be a primary climate driver, it only makes up 0.04% of all atmospheric gases,”

            That’s like saying cyanide could possibly be responsible for someone’s death, since it only represent 0.04% of their drink.

            **Concentration isn’t the only relevant variable.** How much heat the molecules of CO2 trap is a crucial variable. CO2 traps more heat (by several factors) than other green-house gases. It’s second only to water vapor.

          • BBQman

            Your analogy is incorrect and not viable, water vapor traps 80% of all solar energy within the first 30 feet off the surface of the earth, CO2 is only 0.04% of what water vapor is, and as you say, traps less then water vapor, CO2 is a non contributor to the greenhouse effect.

          • Florf

            1. No, the analogy works fine. It’s a fact that concentration is NOT the only relevant variable. That’s the purpose of the analogy, and it fulfills its purpose perfectly.

            2. You didn’t provide any evidence for your claim that “water vapor traps 80% of all solar energy within the first 30 feet off the surface of the earth”

            3. Your claim that “CO2 is a non contributor to the greenhouse effect” is absolute nonsense. We have measurements of the spectrum of radiation of heat bouncing off the atmosphere. The spectrum shows that CO2 is the second largest contributor: See Figure1:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

          • BBQman

            You are free to believe as you wish, I will not attempt to stop that! Yet your “links” offer no proof that rising CO2 levels are creating a dangerous green house effect, your links lack quantifiable information and prove nothing.

            Please study the Hadley cell and the rest of the jet stream, then come talk to me after you have gained new knowledge about the actual climate drivers, of which CO2 is not one of them after 345 ppm. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c1edeba6110a72aae8898bca5357544c80691536d2925d99e249a9ef6f98248.jpg

          • Florf

            Nonsense.

            1. The purpose of the link was to refute your baseless claim that CO2 is a non-contributor to warming. It is. CO2 is the second highest green-house gas in terms of reflecting heat. You were wrong.

            2. The link does not lack quantifiable information. The graph I pointed you to, itself, quantifies the amount of radiation. You clearly don’t understand what “quantifying” means.

            3. You, once again, did not provide any evidence for your claim that “water vapor traps 80% of all solar energy within the first 30 feet off the surface of the earth”. Either do so or admit that you cannot.

            4. Finally, the irony of you complaining about my reference while you provide a single, unsourced, barely legible image that doesn’t substantiate your claim, is obviously lost on you. Stop your double-standard. If you’re going to complain about my source, apply the same standards to yours.

          • BBQman

            Your graph contains zero supporting data, it is irrelevant and denied as evidence to support your sides theory of CO2 being a climate driver.

            You don’t seem to have any understanding of how the jet stream fluxes and moves, please study up on it, then come talk to me and we can move onto the sequential order of all climate drivers that existed prior to the industrial revolution and as well today, CO2 after 345 ppm not being one of them since it always lags temperature changes for at least the last 10,000 years.

            CO2 is primarily a byproduct of a warm planet, it’s heat holding capacity can only contribute to holding small amount of heat in in atmosphere and does not create any heat, if any thing, CO2 increases the length of time it takes heat to disparate.

            Yet I will concede that CO2 in levels above 345 ppm most likely warm up the global atmosphere around 0.001 degree Fahrenheit every century, we should stop spending money to reduce CO2 as a greenhouse gases As it has almost zero effect as a climate driver.

          • Florf

            Your graph contains zero supporting data, it is irrelevant and denied as evidence to support your sides theory of CO2 being a climate driver.

            Complete nonsense. The caption of the graph has a direct link to the source of the data. Here it is so you have no excuse:

            https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

            https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

            You are either lying or incompetent.

            You don’t seem to have any understanding of how the jet stream fluxes and moves, please study up on it, then come talk to me, then we can move onto the sequential order of all climate drivers that existed prior to the industrial revolution, as well as they do today, CO2 after 345 ppm not being one of them since it has always lagged temperature changes for at least the last 10,000 years.

            That’s not how this works. You don’t get to change the discussion we were having. You claimed “water vapor traps 80% of all solar energy within the first 30 feet off the surface of the earth”. Either provide evidence supporting that claim or admit that you cannot

            CO2 is primarily a byproduct of a warm planet, it’s heat holding capacity can only contribute to holding small amount of heat in in atmosphere and does not create any heat, if any thing, CO2 increases the length of time it takes heat to disparate.

            …we should stop spending money to reduce CO2 as a greenhouse gases As it has almost zero effect as a climate driver.

            False. The radiative forcing of CO2 is greater than that of other green-house gases besides water vapor, and greater than other sources as well:

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

            You also failed to address the fact that you were complaining about my source while providing an even worse one as “evidence”. I’ll take that as you conceding that you were in fact being intellectually dishonest by having a double standard.

          • BBQman

            Study the jet stream and it’s Hadley cell portion in a 1,000 meter vertical grid then get back to me later after you understand the atmospheric environmental conditions.

          • Florf

            Notice how you didn’t address a single thing I said, and instead have been reduced to rambling about the “jet stream” as if that somehow excused the numerous stupid things you’ve said.

          • BBQman

            Nothing you said supported anything about actual climate drivers, you are attempting to send me down dead end rat holes with your deflections into the minutia of all things CO2, you need to wake up…..and understand that CO2 lags temperature and has for the last 100 thousand years. CO2 is only a byproduct of a healthy earth and discussions about it are a waste of time when one should be looking at electromagnetic forces and their effects on the centrifugal thrusts and directional flow of our molten core.

          • Florf

            Nothing you said supported anything about actual climate drivers,

            That’s a boldface lie. I’m directly addressing your claim that CO is not a significant climate driver. I showed that CO2 is responsible for more radiative forcing than any other greenhouse gas aside from water vapor.

            Nobody is leading you down any rabbit hole, you just can’t address the facts.

            …..and understand that CO2 lags temperature and has for the last 100 thousand years.

            Since you can’t address the facts you try to move on to something else (from questioning whether CO2 has any role, to now saying it lags temparature).

            Too bad for you I can address silly claim easily:

            CO2 and Temperature are in a feed-back loop. As such, either one can lag the other. It depends on what jump-starts the warming or release of CO2.

            Since the last deglaciation, CO2 preceded the increase in temperatures. Here’s a source:

            Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

            CO2 is negligible as a climate driver and primarily a byproduct of a healthy earth and discussions about it are a waste of time when one should be looking at electromagnetic forces and their effects on the centrifugal thrusts and directional flow of our molten core

            Notice how you dishonestly go back to the same claim you failed miserably to substantiate, right after you claimed I was “sending you down a rat hole” when I showed you were wrong:

            Again, you are WRONG. CO2 is responsible for a higher radiative forcing than pretty much any other phenomena:

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

          • BBQman

            You still have offered zero proof that CO2 is any thing other then a minor climate driver, you just have know idea how the Hadley cell and the rest of the jet stream and water vapor regulates excess solar energy, CO2 is primarily a byproduct of a healthy earth, CO2 changes lag temperature changes and have been for the last 100 thousand years.

            The next 30 years are going to be colder like it was around 1770, and CO2 has almost nothing to do with it, be well!

          • Florf

            You still have offered zero proof that CO2 is any thing other then a minor climate driver

            Repeating that bold-face lie isn’t going to make it true, and it’s not going to magically stop me from pointing it out.

            Again, CO2 has the largest radiative forcing besides water vapor. By definition that is NOT a “minor” climate driver. It’s the second largest climate driver.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

            CO2 changes lag temperature changes and have been for the last 100 thousand years.

            False. As shown by the journal article I provided, the evidence shows that temperatures lagged CO2 since the past deglaciation.

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

          • BBQman

            Sorry, your links show no evidence of CO2 as a climate driver of any significance, look into electromagnetic forces and our molten core for the primary climate drivers.

          • Florf

            Yes it does.

            The link shows the radiative forcings of different mechanisms affecting climate. CO2 has the highest radiative forcing compared to the rest.

            You either don’t even know what “radiative forcing” means, or you are a liar.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-2-20.html

          • BBQman

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5ae302e38091f088333a6335695cd68c35babb491669eaaa60d87fcc4ca9cc5.jpg Only 0.04% of the atmospheric gases are CO2, there is no way that, that tiny amount can influence the environmental impacts of the other 99.96%, the math don’t work.

            And the earth has been warmer then today many times in the past.

          • Florf

            Only 0.04% of the atmospheric gases are CO2, there is no way that, that tiny amount can influence the environmental impacts of the other 99.96%, the math don’t work.

            We’ve been over this, liar. You keep repeating that nonsense and I’ll keep repeating my refutations, which you still haven’t addressed:

            1. That’s like saying cyanide could possibly be responsible for someone’s death, since it only represent 0.04% of their drink.
            Concentration isn’t the only relevant variable. How much heat the molecules of CO2 trap is a crucial variable. CO2 traps more heat (by several factors) than other green-house gases. It’s second only to water vapor.

            2. Your claim that “CO2 is a non contributor to the greenhouse effect” is absolute nonsense. We have measurements of the spectrum of radiation of heat bouncing off the atmosphere. The spectrum shows that CO2 is the second largest contributor: See Figure1:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

            And the earth has been warmer then today many times in the past.

            The fact that you post that flawed graph betrays your immense ignorance or dishonesty on this subject. That graph is based in cherry-picking regional effects, not global effects.

            The Medieval Warming Period was contained in certain regions. It was NOT warmer globally compared to today, it was colder on the global level:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

            Notice how the GLOBAL average temperature is much higher today:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/09238a84a6328ff632b3241eaf1632b477412187f3080b899089e1c3e27f3ef9.png

          • BBQman

            Your cyanide example is ridiculous, a better analogy would be to say CO2 is like grain of salt added to 2,500 grains of pepper, the salt has zero impact.

            You still have not shown any evidence that CO2, which is a very minor trace gas, is a climate driver of any significance.

            The data input from your chart is missing, invalid.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Again, CO2 has the largest radiative forcing…”

            But the Earth’s climate system is not controlled simply by radiative forcing. It is a hugely complex interaction of many factors.

            “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor, CO2, is as misguided as it gets.” – Prof. Philip Stott

            And even if you consider radiative forcing, changes in natural climate forcing during the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century were much much larger than changes in CO2 radiative forcing. Peer reviewed science shows that the increase in natural radiative forcing, solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m^2 to 6.8W/m^2 during the late 20th century warming while increases in CO2 forcing was only ~0.5W/m^2.

          • Florf

            But the Earth’s climate system is not controlled simply by radiative forcing. It is a hugely complex interaction of many factors.

            Who said it was? Who said it wasn’t complex? Neither of those address a single thing I said. I was addressing his claim that CO2 was not a significant factor. It is. The climate being complex doesn’t make this fact any less true.

            And even if you consider radiative forcing, changes in natural climate forcing during the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century were much much larger than changes in CO2 radiative forcing.

            Not true. You are comparing different things. What you are talking about is the amount of heat reaching Earth. I’m assuming (since you didn’t provide a source) that you’re referring to this study or others like it:

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.pdf

            The figure they are talking about represents the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface. That is not the same thing as radiative forcing. Yes, the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface has increased. That is largely due to changes in cloud-cover, changes in aerosols, etc. That does not mean that all the energy that enters stays inside. For instance, when clouds coverage is reduced, more energy is let in (because there are less clouds blocking energy from the sun) but more energy is let out as well (since there is less clouds blocking heat from escaping)!

            When you look at the actual radiative forcing (which represent the net effect on the energy balance, not just focusing on the incoming energy and ignoring outgoing energy), CO2 is the dominant force:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-brightening-global-warming.htm

          • RealOldOne2

            “Who said it was.”
            The IPCC when it uses only radiative forcing in the chart you showed to attempt to blame humans for global warming.

            “Not true. You are comparing different things.”
            Yes true. I am comparing the same thing, W/m^2 of radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface from CO2 in the atmosphere and W/m^2 reaching the Earth’s surface from solar radiation. A W/m^2 is a W/m^2.

            “that you’re referring to this study”
            Yes, Herman(2013), and also Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), McLean(2014).

            That is not the same thing as radiative forcing.
            Wrong. A W/m^2 from any radiant emittance source is a radiative forcing.

            An utter fail.

          • Florf

            The IPCC when it uses only radiative forcing in the chart you showed to attempt to blame humans for global warming.

            1. No, it doesn’t. At no point does the IPCC (in that chart or elsewhere), claim that climate change is only about radiative forcing. You are making things up.

            2. I’m not the IPCC. Even if they had -which they don’t- you’re discussing things with me, not them.

            Wrong. A W/m^2 from any radiant emittance source is a radiative forcing.

            Yes true. I am comparing the same thing, W/m^2 of radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface from CO2 in the atmosphere and W/m^2 reaching the Earth’s surface from solar radiation. A W/m^2 is a W/m^2.

            No, it’s not. That’s like saying a net income of $1,000 is the same as a gross income of $1,000 because they are both in dollars. Not the same thing.

            Net income takes into consideration all profits and expenses. Gross income only considers profits.

            Considering only the amount of heat that reaches the Earth’s surface fails to account for the heat that leaves. As I explained – and you failed to respond to – when cloud and aerosols change such that they allow more heat from the sun to enter the Earth, they also allow more heat to escape.

            Yes, Herman(2013), and also Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), McLean(2014).

            Had you visited the link I provided you would have seen Pinker herself correct the same mistake you’re making. She correctly points out the difference in the two figures:

            “The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value. (My emphasis).

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-brightening-global-warming.htm

            And her full response to Monckton’s argument:

            http://web.archive.org/web/20120202031736/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf

            Fail indeed.

          • RealOldOne2

            “At no point does the IPCC (in that chart or elsewhere), claim that climate change is only about radiative forcing. You are making things up.”

          • Florf

            You are picking at nits. They don’t make that explicit statement, but it is implicit.

            No, I’m not nitpicking anything, you’re just wrong. You claimed that the IPCC said that radiative forcings alone control the climate. At no point does the IPCC ever claim that radiative forcing is the only factor.

            Those are the only factors the IPCC stated are “drivers of climate change”.

            That doesn’t equal saying those are the only things responsible for controlling the climate, dummy. It doesn’t even mean those are the only factors! Saying X is Y, does not equal saying “only X is Y”. You were wrong. Period.

            Not that even matter since, again, I’m not the IPCC.

            Red herring. The amount of heat that leaves is irrelevant to the the cause of the initial transfer of energy to the surface.

            Hah, no. Not even close. If the amount that leaves due to the decrease in cloud coverage equals (or surpasses) the amount that enters, the the net effect is one of cooling.Get it? It wouldn’t be the cause of the warming trend since it would have a net cooling effect..

            By your moronic logic the most successful investment ever would be the cause of someone’s bankruptcy (even if it it had 1,000% return), just because the person initially incurred an expense. Lol.

            Sorry, but I don’t get my science from a cartoonist who writes a propaganda screed for his climate religion on a dishonest website.

            1. You apparently get your science from nowhere since so far what you’ve posted is utter nonsense.

            2. You don’t have to get the science from the “cartoonist” (who is actually a PhD candidate). He cites the academic resources. You’re gonna have to use another excuse.

            And Pinker’s argument is flawed for the above reasons in the previous paragraph.

            Your above reason is nonsense. If the net effect is cooling, then that cannot be the cause of the warming trend since it would lead to a decrease in temperatures.

            The fact is you can’t address Pinker’s argument.

            …Budyko(1969)…

            Budyko was a climate scientist that warned of warming caused by CO2, dummy. Stop cherry-picking quotes you clearly don’t understand.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you’re just wrong.”

            No, I’m just right. You’re just wrong, but you duped climate cult zealots just can’t stand being wrong can you. That makes it so much fun exposing your errors and scientific illiteracy. Face reality, you were wrong, WRONG, WRONG!. Get it? You duped climate cult fanatics are a hoot! Hahaha

          • Florf

            No I didn’t. My original statement was “But the Earth’s climate system is not controlled simply by radiative forcing. It is a hugely complex interaction of many factors”.

            And then, when I asked who said that radiative forcing alone was responsible, you claimed it was the IPCC; confirming that you were in fact claiming that.

            And I supported the simplistic focus on radiative forcing with evidence from the IPCC report. A classic Florf Flail.

            No, actually, you didn’t. You quoted them mentioning some radiative forcings. That’s it. That does not even come close to substantiating your claim. The only “failure” here is your own.

            Strawman. At no point did I ever say “only”. Another Florf Flail.

            Yes you did liar:
            “The IPCC when it uses only radiative forcing in the chart you showed to attempt to blame humans for global warming.”

            Your attempt to backtrack was as hilarious as it was unsuccessful. You’re gonna have try some other approach to rescue yourself from your blunder.

            But the net effect of fewer clouds is not cooling, it is warming. Peer reviewed science says that the clouds have a net negative radiative forcing of about -20W/m² (Harries(2000)). More clouds causes cooling. Fewer clouds cause warming. Another Florf Flail.

            Exactly, dummy! A negative -20W/m-2 is a much stronger cooling effect than a positive 3W/m-2 heating effect.

            Thus, even if 3W more energy was reaching the surface due to clouds/aerosols, as the Herman (2013) paper argues, it’s important to determine whether the net impact is positive or negative too (which Herman et al. do not do).

            And you continue to ignore the fact that more sunlight reaching the surface caused heating of the surface, as explicitly stated by Hatzianastassiou(2005):

            No, you are ignoring that those are different things. Again, what matters is the NET effect, while you’re dishonestly focusing on the gross amount of energy reaching the surface of Earth.

            No, your argument is nonsense because it is based on a false premise that fewer clouds causes cooling. As I’ve stated above peer reviewed science says that the net radiative forcing of clouds is negative, so fewer clouds causes warming. Another Florf Flail.

            No, my argument is based on the correct premise – ironically corroborated by you – that clouds have a net cooling effect. Thus, changes in clouds & aerosols allowing more energy to reach the surface is not the end of the story, as it’s crucial to quantify the NET effect. If the net effect is still cooling, you have no point.

            Wrong. The fact is that I have addressed Pinker’s argument, because a W/m² is W/m² regardless of what the cause of that W/m² was. Another Florf Flail.

            Wrong. It’s not the same as an increase is not the same as an net increase, something you still have failed to address. Until you show that it was a NET increase in temperatures do to cloud/aerosols, your argument is a completely failure.

            Red herring. That is irrelevant to the fact that he stated:

            No, it’s not a red-herring. It demonstrates how you’re misrepresenting his position as the facts since he does not agree with your position.

            Furthermore, you’re ignoring that those “observations” are from 1960s! Even if we take your cherry-picked quote at face value, that SW radiation could (not does, could) explain the variability back more nearly 50 years ago does not mean it’s does so now.

            You’ve failed to show that I have cherry picked anything and you’ve failed to show that I don’t understand any of the quotes that I have provided.

            False. The fact that you are using his quotes to argue for a denier’s perspective when in fact it’s clear that he supported AGW proves that you are misrepresenting his conclusions.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL! You are merely repeating all your debunked claimss and you are swirling down the loo. You have been exposed as a serial liar and misrepresenter. You haven’t refuted a single thing I have said. You are delusional, just like your fellow duped CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cultists. Bye.

          • ROO2

            Philip Scott? Not the professor emeritus of biogeography?

            Pwhahahahahahahaha!

          • Robert

            +1 !. You should get more , though. Especially for : “You have failed miserably at providing any evidence for that claim.” And that you’ve posted graphs and links .

          • BigWaveDave

            If it were physically possible for ghgs to cause warming, why is it nobody can state a theory that explains how?

            If you think someone has, quote (not link) the theory.

          • OWilson

            Let’s make that a scientifically statistically insignificant or “negligible” contributor to the earth’s greenhouse effect, and you get another uptick :)

          • BBQman

            That was easy!

          • Cold Miser

            “1 – Determining frequency does CO2 absorb IR. ”
            CO2 has only has several narrow bands of IR absorption on the spectrum. 15 μm, between 1.05-4.3 μm. Water Vapor overlaps CO2 main absorption band (15 μm)
            http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

            “2 – How CO2 radiates IR.”
            CO2 only absorbs 8% of IR
            http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

            CO2 works logarithmically. CO2 when doubled has little warming effect, not more that 1°C.

            “The main unknown factor in climate science right now, and both skeptics and consensus scientist agree on this, is what is the sensitivity of the climate to CO2.”

            Yes, it all hinges on the main “positive” water vapor feedback. Which isn’t happening. Long term (50+ years) data from NOAA and ISCCP

            Charts: http://disq.us/p/1cubo4c

            Specific humidity NOAA.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png

            Relative humidity NOAA
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png

            ISCCP

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            OK, this is great. Let’s investigate this.

            First, I need you to tell me exactly where this data comes from. It is not fair to either me or anyone else who reads this to just have plots placed before them. This data obviously has a source and since it is from NOAA I assume there have also been research papers written discussing it.

            So please provide the exact source. A link to a webpage is a good first start.

          • Cold Miser

            Well, I hope you are not like Robert, who endlessly demands citations and sources, and when provided, doesn’t bother to look at them, instead just tries to smear the source. Because you sound somewhat arrogant by demanding “the exact source”. You must not be a very resourceful person, or familiar how to access data. I have labeled where the data came from and where I originally posted the charts. I will give you more specific parameters used and specific links to where you can download the data.

            This link is where I originally posted the charts. Each chart is labeled. I mentioned where the data came from and some parameters used. For the NOAA WV
            http://disq.us/p/1cubo4c

            Charts created from data directly from the source. See links below.

            ISCCP DATA:
            Data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/index.html
            Column Water Vapor
            http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/browseatmos.html
            Parameters: Total Column Water Vapor (cm), Monthly mean, from Jul. 1983 (8307) to Dec. 2009 (0912)

            NOAA Water Vapor Data: at 300 mb, 600 mb and 1000 mb
            Parameters: Relative humidity, 90N-90S, 0-357.5E, monthly values, area weighted grid.
            Parameters: Specific humidity, 90N-90S, 0-357.5E, monthly values, area weighted grid.
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

            How much do you know about Water Vapor, and the need for long term trend datasets (30+ years)?

            Unlike others, such as evenminded that cherry-pick published papers that either are; too short of a trend, only measures surface WV, only measure over oceans, or are computer modeled, try to lie about what the WV trend is really doing, I hope you are not one of those. In regards to research papers….. I don’t know. I haven’t bothered to look to see if any are published using the complete long term dataset.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Thank you for the links. They were indeed very helpful.

            Concerning the specific and relative humidity plots, l want to focus on the former since it deals with absolute mass of water vapor. Relative humidity is complicated by changes in temperature.

            The two plots you show come from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis project. That information is given in the page title and looking at other pages confirms this. They are computer generated data from a model. That is, they are not measured data, but synthetic data. Now measured data is used as an input to the model, but the output variables depend in different ways on the input. The main paper that describes this project is linked below. If you go to page 462, you will find information on the output variables. Both specific and relative humidity are designated as class B variables. The paper says this about them: “The designation B indicates that, although there are observational data that directly affects the value of the variable, the model also has a very strong influence on the analysis value (e.g. humidity and surface temperature)”.

            http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.0/docs/bams/bams1996mar/bams1996mar-bm.pdf

            This is why it is important to give sources and not just plop down graphs with no information whatsoever. Reanalysis results are important but they are different from measured data, and one needs to know what one is dealing with. I hope this also speaks to my resourcefulness when given appropriate information.

            The next link below is to the American Meteorological Societies State of the Climate report for 2015. It has a section devoted to reviewing surface and upper tropospheric humidity, and total column water vapor. I could have just as easily gone to the IPCC report, but the BAMS report is more recent. Remember these reports review the current published literature and give references to those interested in going to the actual papers – another advantage over just a graph. The section starts on page 25.

            http://www.ametsoc.net/sotc/StateoftheClimate2015_lowres.pdf

            If you read the sections on surface and tropospheric humidity, you will see that both measured data and reanalysis results are reviewed. The models used in the reanalysis are different from the NCAR model, but as we will see, they basically show the same thing.

            After reading the sections and looking at the plots, the following is, I believe, a more complete summary of where current research stands on atmospheric humidity trends:

            1 – Measured surface specific humidity trends are positive, and reanalysis results show this too. See figure 2.15 in BAMS report and accompanying text. Even your plot at 1000mb shows a positive trend.

            2 – Measured upper tropospheric specific humidity trends are positive, while reanalysis trends have tended to be negative. The BAMS report says the following “Global scale monitoring of upper tropospheric relative humidity (UTH) was first reported last year, using one dataset of satellite origin and one reanalysis. However, the reanalysis data showed drying of the upper troposphere since 2001 that was not present in the satellite data.”. And your reanalysis plots show this too. This is a difficult measurement since water vapor reduces significantly as you proceed to higher altitudes. The paper linked below is analysis of radiosonde data. Figure 10 shows data for trends in specific humidity. The increase in the error bars as one goes higher is indicative of the increased difficulty in this measurement.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI2879.1

            The BAMS report also has a section on TCWV measurements, which I leave you to read. The results are different from what your plot shows, but I think I have done enough investigation for one day.

            If you have any research papers which you’d like to link to which contradict any of these results, please do.

            So indeed we do not know with great certainty either Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity or Transient Climate Response values. To know these values better depends upon knowing the feedbacks better – especially the water vapor feedback.

            We can say with some certainty that surface specific humidity values are trending upward, and it is likely that upper tropospheric values are too. But the error bars are too large on the latter to yet rule out a negative trend. And we need to understand the different reanalysis results.

            I will not be able to respond to anything until Monday. So have patience if you reply, but do not see anything from me right away.

          • Cold Miser

            Thank you for your thorough response, it is quite refreshing. I appreciate the effort you put into your answer, while most do not. I hope you understand that most don’t even bother to access at a link, much less take the time to even read past a sentence or two, so I’m in the habit to post for that type of mentality. You are indeed a very resourceful person.

            I would like to present some information for you before I respond to your citations, it will become evident later in my comment when discussing BAM.

            First let me note that in measuring WV, 30 years is considered a short term trend.
            Evidence of this:
            According to climate scientists (American Geophysical Union) long term data sets, longer than 30 years are needed to establish a WV trend because ocean oscillations causes shifts in water vapor distribution. Measurements of vertical atmosphere columns are needed, including mid-upper troposphere and stratosphere to be included to determine WV trends. Most of computer modeling amplifies the climate sensitivity due to an increase in upper atmosphere water vapor.

            Muller et al 2016 call for a 100 year trend.
            “Here, we argue for the implementation of a long-term balloon-borne measurement program for UTLS water vapor covering the entire globe that will likely have to be sustained for hundreds of years.”
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EF000321/pdf

            It’s important to measure all levels of the atmosphere and not just surface water vapor, since according to scientists and the IPCC, Upper-Tropospheric Humidity magnify greenhouse effect. They say it doubles it.

            Climate models predict upper atmosphere moistening which doubles the greenhouse effect from man-made carbon dioxide emissions. “In GCMs, water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases). IPCC AR4 WG1. Box 8.1

            “Nevertheless, these relatively low upper-tropospheric concentrations contribute disproportionately to the ‘natural’ greenhouse effect, both because temperature contrast with the surface increases with height, and because lower down the atmosphere is nearly opaque at wavelengths of strong water vapour absorption.” IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 8.6.3.1

            “Furthermore, any changes in surface absolute humidity have implications for upper tropospheric water vapour content, where it plays a significant role in the global radiation budget as a greenhouse gas (Soden et al., 2005). “
            https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2007-willett/1INTRO.pdf

            The attenuation of outgoing long-wave radiation, i.e., the water vapor feedback, is most sensitive to water vapor changes in the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere, where the air is coldest and driest [Held and Soden, 2000;Dessler and Sherwood, 2009]
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EF000321/pdf

            I feel that you are trying to downplay reanalysis as not acceptable to determine trends, which is untrue. While there is no perfect method each with their own pros and cons, reanalysis is widely used and accepted for climate change and research, especially when high variability over a broad range of time scales need to be continuously monitored. Continuous record of the longest possible duration is needed. Scientists want to continue and improve development of reanalysis for climate research, Climate workshops and scientists agree that reanalyses are the most important contribution to climate research. Arkin 2003; DP Dee 2014; KE Trenberth 2008,

            NCEP/NCAR is the most used and often cited reanalysis. Bosilovich et al 2012.

            Also, make note that one of the reanalysis used in BAM, ERA-40 is subpar to NCEP/NCAR according to this paper.

            “850-hPa relative humidity between ERA-40 and NCEP/NCAR re-analyses”
            Daoud 2008

            An exploratory study is performed on the 850-hP a relative humidity data (RH850) extracted from the Re-Analysis Project (ERA-40) and National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) re-analyses covering a domain centered on western Europe The largest deviations between the two data archives are observed over the North Atlantic Ocean. In addition, unrealistic values of RH850 are detected in the ERA-40 re-analysis at resolutions of both 2.5◦ and 1.125◦. There is no strong correlation between RH850 provided by ERA-40 and observations from radio sounding stations, thus ruling out a straightforward correction of the detected anomalous values.
            It also points out that ERA-40 also has issues and exhibits wetter conditions.

            Yes, on page 25 of the BAM report, it does show that RH (relative humidity) is declining, and that reanalyses in overall behavior agrees with in situ data. It also mentions that El Nino events influenced SH (specific humidity). Unfortunately measurements of In Situ SH is very short term, Only one of their reanalyses data starts in 1960, the rest are shorter. In Figure 2.15 both in situ datasets and reanalysis uses only surface humidity. Also global average total column WV in Fig. 2.16, 2.18, and 2.19 is averaged over 60°S-60°N, a much smaller range than the reanalysis I gave 90°S-90°N, which also included near surface, 600 mb and 300 mb.

            You ask me to accept, like you do, that the BAM report as a more “complete summary” of where the current research stands, wherein it also has reanalyses datasets. On top of that, the reanalyses and in situ data only covers surface data for SH and RH in fig. 2.15, wherein, I provided surface (1000 mb), 300 mb and 600 mb. In addition BAM had less global coverage, and shorter trends.

            Sorry, I can’t agree to that.

            Also, I didn’t get an answer from you about relative humidity, and if you know the significance of it’s declining trend.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            OK, let’s go through the main points you make:

            1 – The need for 30 years or greater data sets. No argument here. This is the classical time period for examining climate as used by climate scientists. There is no question that long measurement periods are essential in climate studies. But scientist will of course analyze what measured data they have. It’s no different than UAH and RSS analyzing satellite data for tropospheric/stratospheric temperature beginning in the 90’s. Those data sets only exceeded 30 years in 2009.

            2 – Understanding what water vapor is doing in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere is more critical than understanding what is happening at the surface. Again, no argument. But this doesn’t mean that measures at other heights are devoid of information. An increase in UTLS water vapor can’t proceed without detection of an increase at the surface – that’s where the WV first makes it into the atmosphere through evaporation.

            It’s similar to the fact that if one wants to know if the Earth has an energy imbalance, you look to measures of ocean heat content. But that doesn’t meant that surface or tropospheric temperature measurements don’t add value to our understanding. A complete climate picture requires a rich variety of data.

            3 – “I feel that you are trying to downplay reanalysis as not acceptable to determine trends…” I have not said this. I have not critiqued the trends from reanalysis at all. What I have complained about is the use of reanalysis data without labelling it as such. Anyone looking at the specific and relative humidity graphs you posted would assume they show measured data. They don’t and that is important to know.

            4 – You are critical of the ERA-40 reanalysis model. This is irrelevant for two reasons. First, it is only at one pressure level 850 hPa, which is not part of the data that in the BAMS report. Second, ERA-40 is only used for specific humidity at the surface for dates prior to 1979. Everything else uses ERA-Interim:

            https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/era-interim

            The final part of your post reiterates the short time nature of some of the measured data (already covered), the fact that figure 2.15 only shows surface specific humidity (of course, since that is what the section is about), and the assertion that the reanalysis data is superior because of the inclusion of a plot at 600mb and the coverage of -90 to 90 in latitude.

            I would be careful about putting too much into the fact that your plots are for -90 to 90 in latitude. Since humidity is a B output variable, you don’t know what humidity data sets have been used as input to the model and thus what their coverages are, and that, in turn, means you don’t know which latitudes and elevations depend more heavily upon the model calculations. (If you have information on this, please share.)

            But ultimately none of the points you raise above directly address or contradict what I gave as our current understanding of water vapor in the atmosphere. I’ll give the two points again:

            1 – Both current measurements and reanalysis calculations show an increase in surface specific humidity. This is true for the 3 reanalysis models used in BAMS (I forgot about MERRA) and the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis you show. In the BAMS report, the measured data (from various sources) run from the mid 70’s up to 2015. The reanalysis outputs run from just prior to 1960 (due to use of JRA-55) up to 2015.

            2 – It is unclear what is happening in the upper troposphere. BAMS produces two satellite measurements, one extending from 1979 forward, that show a near-zero trend for relative humidity, which is consistent with increasing specific humidity. Also, the McCarthy et al., 2009, paper I referenced earlier, which is an analysis of balloon data from 1970 to 2003 (34 years) for 20-70 degrees of the NH, shows increasing specific humidity in the upper troposphere. Conversely, reanalysis computations have produced a decreasing specific humidity. The correct conclusion from this is that neither case is proved, and more data is needed.

            You may wish to ignore the measured data and focus solely on the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis results. I can’t prevent you from doing that. But to ignore the fact that there is measured data, balloon and satellite, that meet the 30 year criteria is not very scientific.

            Relative humidity is, of course, the ratio of the amount of water in a volume of air relative to the maximum amount the air can hold at that temperature. It is basically the ratio of the vapor pressure to the saturation vapor pressure. Concerning RH, its variation and modeling the climate, Held and Soden (2000) wrote:

            In his attempt at quantifying the strength of water vapor feedback, Moller explicitly assumed that the relative humidity of the atmosphere remains fixed as it is warmed. This assumption of fixed relative humidity has proven to be a simple and useful reference point for discussions of water vapor feedback. The alternative assumption of fixed vapor pressure requires that relative humidity H decrease rapidly as temperatures increase, the decrease being 6% of H per ◦C of warming in the warmest parts of the troposphere, and 15% of H per ◦C in its coldest parts.

            I don’t think we are seeing those types of declines as shown at least in the surface measurements of RH in figure 2.15 of the BAMS report.

          • Cold Miser

            “But to ignore the fact that there is measured data, balloon and
            satellite, that meet the 30 year criteria is not very scientific.”
            30 years is still a short term trend for measuring WV according to the
            climate scientists. There are 60-year ocean oscillation that influence
            WV. That’s why climate scientists suggest longer data trends.
            https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5835

            • NCEP reanalysis does not ignore balloon and satellite data.
            • The NCEP re-analysis uses balloon and satellite observations of water vapour.
            • NCEP reanalysis covers more vertical atmosphere, globally, for longer, compared to Bam’s report.
            • Satellite data requires a radiative transfer model to convert measured radiances into water content and with climate science, radiative transfer models tend to be subjective and are moving targets.
            • At least 15% of NOAA’s Radiosonde observations stations are above 60°N.
            • satellite microwave
            radiometers such as SSMI / SSMIS are near-polar orbiting satellites, The WindSat Polarimetric Radiometer is polar orbiting.

            I haven’t received an answer from you yet on my question about RH declining. The definition of RH isn’t what I asked for. I know what RH is. I’m asking if you understand what a declining RH means? Your quote doesn’t answer that question.
            If you don’t want to answer it, that’s fine, I won’t push you further. I just wanted to see if you understand what a declining RH means. Either way, I thank you for a pleasant exchange!

          • Cold Miser

            I just wanted to add an additional thought. Asking me to accept the Bam report, or rather, not dismiss it since it met 30 year criteria over the NCEP reanalysis doesn’t make sense to me. While you have every right to decide which reanalysis you want to favor, I have given you evidence with citations why I find the NCEP reanalysis a better representation of water vapor. I believe I have made a good and strong argument why.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            I appreciate the conversation also.

            Just to be clear, I am not criticizing the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. There is a blog site I frequent, that posts monthly updates to the various temperature series and author includes NCEP/NCAR:
            https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/11/ncepncar-october-down-0056c-nh-sea-ice.html

            What I think I have tried to do (and maybe failed), is to emphasize that whichever one is picked at the surface, NCEP/NCAR, ERA-Interim, JRA-55 or MERRA, they all show the same thing. As far as the upper troposphere, BAMS only reports that the reanalysis showed drying, so that’s a negative slope which is the same as NCEP/NCAR. But they don’t say which reanalysis they are looking at.

            So you likely could have picked any one of these and made the same basic observations as you have with NCEP/NCAR.

            What constitutes my main argument is that you appear to be saying, you’ll look at the reanalysis calculations, but not the measured data. Of course your stated reason for this is that the measured data is not long enough. I just think that’s a bad reason.

            Put another way, I don’t think there is any validity to claiming to know what is happening with water vapor at 300mb because of the NCEP/NCAR calculation. And it will remain that way until the discrepancy between what the various reanalyses show and the measurements are cleared up.

            For RH, I don’t want you to think I am avoiding your question, but you are being mysterious about it. I really don’t know what you are after, but since you don’t like what I wrote above, let me try to answer in a different way.

            Pick any level in the atmosphere. If the temperature of that layer of the atmosphere increases, but the measured RH stays the same, then we can state that specific humidity has increased. This is because as the temperature increases the saturation vapor pressure increases. For RH to stay the same, the absolute amount of water vapor has to increase.

            Now, if the temperature increases, but RH drops, then that could mean any number of things.

            For instance, specific humidity could still have increased. It just didn’t increase enough to maintain a constant RH.

            Or specific humidity could have stayed constant (this is the fixed vapor pressure case that Held and Soden mention). This would also lead to a drop in RH – a big one, as Held and Soden point out.

            Or, specific humidity might have actually decreased, which also would lead to a drop in RH.

            So if RH decreases, that could mean any number of things with respect to specific humidity.

            With respect to water vapor feedback, Held and Soden, 2006 point out that the feedback strength is tied to what happens to RH. In that paper, climate model results naturally produced constant RH as warming occurred. To further check this, they forced RH to remain constant and they got the same water vapor feedback result to within 5%. But they do state this too:

            “Interestingly, the true feedback is consistently weaker than the constant relative humidity value, implying a small but robust reduction in relative humidity in all models on average, as weighted by the water vapor kernel.”

            But if there is a large reduction in RH as the Earth warms, it will imply a much weaker water vapor feedback and thus a lower climate sensitivity.

          • Cold Miser

            I like your style cgs. Thank you for being civil and responding without insults. It’s a rarity here. Measured data is great, and is needed, but as the scientists say, reanalysis is great for finding trends in high variability over a broad range of areas of long time scales that needs to be continuously monitored. NCEP/NCAR is the most used and often cited reanalysis.

            Your last sentence shows that you understand what a decline in RH means. Just one small note, it wouldn’t have to be a large reduction to weaken the feedback.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            I appreciate the compliment and the chance to debate you. We on the pro side of this debate have to concede that the current state of climate science might be wrong. But those on the con side have to concede that there does exist a current state of the science.

            I’ll just finish with one of my favorite quotes:

            “To pursue truth, one should not be too deeply entrenched in any hole. It is best to have strong curiosity, weak affiliations.” -E.B. White, Academic Freedom

          • Cold Miser

            Thank you cgs. And a nice quote!

          • CB

            “All of your opinions are very interesting, but they are only opinions”

            Barbie, CGS has provided multiple, reliable scientific sources to prove she’s correct.

            You have not.

            Why should you be allowed to post your artificially-promoted opinions here if you refuse to support your claims with evidence of any kind?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • BBQman

            Your side including you and cgs, have shown zero evidence that CO2 is a climate driver, there is no way that a trace gas can retain solar energy within the dynamics of the Hadley cell and its impact on the rest of the jet-stream along with the extreme low temperatures that quickly dissipate the stored energy.

            You should write down every significant climate event for the last 800 thousand years after making adjustments to all icecore records that were taken within 30 degrees of the poles depicting CO2 levels by multiplying those results by 2.1734 to reflect what the true atmospheric CO2 levels were in the past, Ice cores taken within 30 degrees of the poles contain less then 40% of the equatorial infused atmospheric CO2 available as a result of the jet stream mechanics that turn away around 60% of the equatorial atmospheric CO2 at the 30+ degree marks, also there is a fair amount of atmospheric CO2 degradation due to the extreme temperatures encountered in the atmospheric at levels of 6,000 meters and above, then just look at the planetary arrangements and processions in a real time model for about 30 years before each climate anomaly and understand how the electromagnetic forcing’s of our gaseous outer planets effect the magnetic soup which earth swims through, then you will see how our orbital tilt and other multiple electromagnetic convolutions impact earth and our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt, it’s just a matter of simply understanding the forces and how they effect us in our frictionless vacuum.

          • CB

            “Your side”

            There are no sides here, Barbie.

            We all are interested in what’s true, right?

            Why should you be allowed to clog the thread with your vote-botted opinions if you refuse to provide any evidence to back them up?

            Answer the question, please.

            “Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface”

            newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase

          • evenminded

            also there is a fair amount of atmospheric CO2 degradation due to the extreme temperatures encountered in the atmospheric at levels of 6,000 meters and above

            LOL. You are still spouting this BS? You still think that CO2 will solidify in the upper atmosphere?

            You truly are a scientifically illiterate joke.

          • BBQman

            Have you studied the Hadley cell and jet stream as I told you to do?

            If not, please stop wasting my time with your little temper tantrums, can you do that for me sweetie?

          • evenminded

            You mean the Hadley cells and the jet stream that cause CO2 to be a well-mixed gas around the globe?

            Yes, I’ve studied it.

            You are a scientifically illiterate moron.

          • BBQman

            No, you have not, buzz off and go do your homework young lady.

            Your childish insults only implies that you once again lost the debate……ho hum…another notch in my gun, winning all the time becomes dreary after awhile, I think a good book will fix that problem….

          • evenminded

            The atmospheric circulation is what causes CO2 to be well-mixed you scientifically illiterate moron.

            Take a look for yourself.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell#/media/File:Earth_Global_Circulation_-_en.svg

          • BBQman

            Did you hear about the EPA? It’s about to be abolished…bout time.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/32cb48401b730ab5156635c237fe4823a0506993e4dc0ed14e456dc4d3228853.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            The tiltminded one is probably venting his anger because of President-elect TRUMP!

          • BBQman

            I noticed that the dishonest MSM would call states for Hillary with only 5% of the vote in, but holy off a call for Trump until 90% was in.

          • RealOldOne2
          • BBQman

            Definitely a keeper.:) LMAO..

          • http://www.the-only-way.net five.to.midnight
          • evenminded

            Are you changing the subject because your BS about Hadley cells and the jet stream has been debunked?

            You really are a scientifically illiterate fool.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            I’ve already found the truth.

            You are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that can’t accept facts and lies when he is proven wrong.

          • ernldo

            1.) NOAA had to change the actual temperature readings to allege that there is no pause in global warming.
            2.) The satellite data does not match the NOAA data.
            3.) More sea ice is being added in Antarctica than is being melted in the Arctic.
            4.) More CO2 is actually beneficial for plants including all plants used for food production as it makes them more drought resistant.
            5.) There is no measurable increase in hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts or any other natural disasters.
            6.) The alleged carbon forcing effect used in the climate models has been proven to be less than what is used in the models.

          • CB

            “NOAA had to change the actual temperature readings”

            How do you know, Erni?

            Where are you getting your information?

            “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

          • ernldo

            You choose your source of fudged numbers. I’ll choose mine….

          • Robert

            And yours come from…?
            Curiously, no evidence cited…..

          • ernldo

            You cited no evidence. You alarmists are worse than any religious worshipers….

          • Robert

            CB cited a source. You made a claim “…fudged numbers. I’ll choose mine….”.
            We see CB”s numbers and source.
            We don’t see yours.
            Or your evidence of “…fudged numbers.”

          • ernldo

            1.) NOAA had to change the actual temperature readings to allege that there is no pause in global warming.
            2.) The satellite data does not match the NOAA data.
            3.) More sea ice is being added in Antarctica than is being melted in the Arctic.
            4.) More CO2 is actually beneficial for plants including all plants used for food production as it makes them more drought resistant.
            5.) There is no measurable increase in hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts or any other natural disasters.
            6.) The alleged carbon forcing effect used in the climate models has been proven to be less than what is used in the models.

            OBAMA’S PLANS HAVE NO IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING

            According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger, “Even if we implement the Clean Power Plan to perfection, the amount of climate change averted over the course of this century amounts to about 0.02 C.

            This is so small as to be scientifically undetectable and environmentally insignificant.”

            Climatologist James Hansen, who wants the Administration to do much more to combat climate change, has stated that “the actions are practically worthless.”

            http://object.cato.org/sites/c

            EPA ADMITS OBAMA’S REGULATIONS WILL CHANGE NOTHING

            If the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan – a 17 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 – were to be implemented immediately, what temperature reduction would that yield by the year 2100?

            The answer: 15 one-thousandths of a degree.

            The effect would be too small even to be measured, let alone to affect sea levels and cyclones and all the rest.

            That number, by the way, is not some screwy calculation from the back of an envelope. It comes from the Environmental Protection Agency’s own climate model, not that the EPA has ever admitted this publicly, obviously because it is embarrassing.

            http://www.usnews.com/opinion/

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/sit

            There’s more

          • Robert

            “…alleged carbon forcing effect..” And three broken links……
            No actual science cited……
            Wonder why……

          • ernldo

            You seem too stupid for debate, refute anything that doesn’t fit your fake narrative,,,,bye, blocked!

          • Robert

            “..fake narrative…”
            “…alleged carbon forcing effect..” And three broken links……
            No actual science cited……
            Wonder why……

            One Way To Bridge The Political Divide: Read The Book That’s Not For You
            http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/501975656/one-way-to-bridge-the-political-divide-read-the-book-thats-not-for-you

            I’ve read both. You?

          • BBQman

            Robert has never answered a single question of mine, ask him to explain how CO2 drives the climate, he nor any of his little settled science friends will answer it, because CO2 is an insignificant climate driver and they can’t argue away that truth.

            97% of all atmospheric CO2 is a byproduct of natural sources and always lags temperature changes, except when unusual volcanic activity pops up.

          • Robert

            Why no sources supporting 1) – 6) ?
            Show us what you read to inform your thinking.

          • BBQman

            Excellent facts!

          • CB

            “I’ve already found the truth.”

            …so I’ve realised something:

            The problem we are facing, both in terms of climate change and just democracy in general is a real inability to discern the difference between truth and fiction.

            Barbie’s making absolutely ridiculous claims and posting animated gif after animated gif in support of those claims.

            That should get him laughed at, yet it’s not, for his fan base (assuming they aren’t all robots).

            People really need to be taught the scientific method, as children.

            I really think that’s the only way to make a democratic society work… or really any society work. We can’t have people running around not giving a care about what’s true.

            “CO₂ is well mixed in the atmosphere, mainly because it’s so long lived.”

            www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide

          • evenminded

            Yes, I forget the term that I saw recently, something like a “post-factual” or “post-truth” society. Facts no longer matter.

          • Robert

            OED”s WotY. Interesting history.

            It’s also the case that fact checking is laborious, tedious and time-consuming, especially compared with the brio that can be generated by a sweeping (but false) assertion. Just look again at the earlier paragraph, picking apart that £350m figure. You can almost hear the nation’s inner teenager chant in unison: bor-ing. Broadcast exchanges are especially resistant to such fact-checking, warning interviewees they don’t “want to get stuck in the weeds” or “lost in the detail”.

            Perhaps that was always so. More significant is the shift in media culture. Technology now allows politicians to communicate directly with their followers, with no need to transmit their claims through the fact-checking filter of a news organisation. Witness Trump and his Twitter account. Meanwhile, the rise of social media and, in the US, cable TV channels and radio stations defined by political hue, means voters can easily get the entirety of their information from sources tailored to reflect their own views back to them.

            That, in turn, makes them ever more unwilling to accept contradictory facts. The editor of the Washington Post – and hero of the film Spotlight – Marty Baron, addressed this in a speech last week, noting how easy it has become to wave aside discomforting facts as the work of the hated “mainstream” media, pushing its secret agenda. “What has taken hold is an alternate reality, a virtual reality, where lies are accepted as truth and where conspiracy theories take root in the fertile soil of falsehoods.”

            It’s clear why this matters. As Baron puts it plaintively: “How can we have a functioning democracy when we cannot agree on the most basic facts?” In the US, that’s become a pressing question. In Britain, we have not yet fallen as far. That’s partly because we still have one forum which cannot so easily be dismissed as peddling a partisan agenda, though its critics, right and left, never cease trying. I’m speaking of the BBC. For all its flaws, it has retained the status once enjoyed by the US networks, broadly trusted to play umpire between competing claims on the truth – or at least to try.

            Post-truth politicians such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are no joke
            Jonathan Freedland
            https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician

          • BBQman

            No, your side just has not ever proven that CO2 is a climate driver, if it was, you would stop putting up links and write up a white paper or summary in a quantifiable way, but you have not, and can’t, because CO2 primarily lags temperature and always has, unless there is unusual volcanic activity.

            Facts have never mattered to your side evenminded.

          • evenminded

            What is it with you and “proof”? Every time you make a comment like that you confirm that you are a scientifically illiterate moron.

            There is no need for me to write any papers on climate science and the greenhouse effect because the experts on the topic have already done so.

            Have you figured out why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F?

            No? Of course you haven’t. You’re an idiot.

          • BBQman

            Deflecting again I see, as I said, CO2 is not and never has been a climate driver of any significance, electromagnetic forces are the primary 2nd tier climate drivers.

            Please tell us in your own words how CO2 is a climate driver?

          • https://disqus.com/by/Tiamat333 🌏🚀🌛Tiamat³³³📡🌌👽
          • BBQman

            Ha ha, good one! Yes, I am about tired of these AGW trolls.

          • evenminded

            I’m not deflecting BBQ, you responded to a comment on “post-truth”.

            You are the bu11sh1tter here. You deniers are the ones that don’t give a rat’s a$$ about what is true and what is not.

            You claims that the tilt of the earth’s axis will increase by 0.7 degrees over 30 years, when in fact the tilt of the axis is decreasing at a rate that would take it 6000 years to change by 0.7 degrees.

            You claim that the Hadley cells keep CO2 from being well-mixed, when in fact it is the atmospheric circulations that keep CO2 well-mixed.

            You claim that you understand electricity and magnetism, when in fact you don’t know the first thing about the topic.

            BigWaveDave claims that evaporation of water occurs at a fixed temperature, when in fact he is confusing that physical phenomenon with boiling.

            RealOldOne2 claims that backradiation violates the second law because bidirectional energy flow is impossible, when in fact it does not and multi-directional energy flows occur all around us.

            ColdMiser supports your nonsensical claims that CO2 will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, and claims that GCMs assume that relative humidity is fixed, when in fact CO2 certainly does not solidify out of the air at -110F and RH is an output that is solved for by GCMs.

            Maltow claims that the moon-landings were faked. Enough said.

            None of you have basic competence in mathematics. None of you care about whether or not what you say is actually backed up by facts. You are all scientifically incompetent morons.

            You’re all idiots.

          • BBQman

            So, does this mean you have not found a paper that explains how CO2 is a climate driver yet?

            Why don’t you guys stop lying about climate science and admit that you have no idea whether or not CO2 can drive the climate.

            You know my theory that electromagnetic forces are our primary climate driver makes more sense then the debunked theory of CO2 as a climate driver.

            Evenminded, don’t you think it’s time to look past your fragile AGW world view, many cracks I have freely pointed out to you, no cost, only to help bring you to higher dimensional plane, and you refuse to see….I suppose you’re just not ready yet…pity. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62ecbf53570fb40d4f3339d3dc6d00e52e9bf68c95d94ced81c4cf7c7bad8a7f.gif

          • evenminded

            There are many papers that explain AGW and CO2’s role. The fact that you do not know this is further evidence that you are a moron.

            You’re an idiot that does not know the first thing about science. This is why you say the ridiculous things that you do. This is why you claim that CO2 will solidify out of the air at -110F. Why don’t you ask ColdMiser why this is not true? Apparently he has a two word reason that will explain it to you.

            You’re an idiot.

          • BBQman

            Your comment is denied…..please submit your paper that will prove to the world that CO2 is a climate driver, that magic super secret formula that you guys feed into those climate models that are so consistently Wrong all the time.

            Don’t be scared little missy, just publish that quantifiable paper that will show proof that CO2 is a significant climate driver….run along now…..chop chop.

          • evenminded

            You can deny the truth all you like. That’s the point. You don’t care about the truth because you are a mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate bu11sh1tter.

            You’re an idiot that doesn’t understand why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.

          • BBQman

            Please get back on topic and explain how CO2 drives the climate…enough of your childish deflecting away from the topic nonsense…go find a thread for teenagers if you can’t keep up in the adult rooms evenminded.

          • evenminded

            The topic is about the truth.

            The truth is that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that makes one bu11sh1t claim after another.

            You’re an idiot that doesn’t understand why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Did it help you BBQ?

            Do you know how to use that phase diagram?

            Do you know what the partial pressure is of CO2 in the atmosphere?

            Seriously, why don’t you ask ColdMiser for his two word explanation. Maybe that will help you understand it.

            I have a 4 word explanation for why you don’t understand it.

            You are an idiot.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Why are you such a moron BBQ?

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            BBQman, please finish what you started and graduate from high school.

            You’re an idiot.

          • 😈 FIREBRED

            Great reply, BBQman. Saved for the future use!

          • ROO2

            I have a 4 word explanation for why you don’t understand it.

            Good, very good. 😉

          • Robert

            Worth noting that critical thinking is cross curriculum and spanning a wide range of age groups. An example focusing on resource evaluation:
            http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic32.htm

            Obviously, teaching SM is important. But being able to analyze covers more uses, esp day to day .

            “.. be taught the scientific method, as children.” And Common Core is on the chopping block.

          • BBQman

            I suppose people see that I make more sense then you and your Romper room Friends…carry on.

          • mbkeefer

            Or he is a paid troll.

          • evenminded

            That thought has crossed my mind. I’ve also wondered if he’s paid to keep his minions to upvote him. I interact with him as if he is an individual. Whatever the truth is, he/it/them is a moron.

          • Truth first

            Isn’t Evenminded (if ever nomen non erat omen this moniker would be a classical case…;) exposing the kind of behaviour of so many of the alarmists, that they play the man and not the ball? And isn’t it usually a lack of arguments that leads to these insults and desperate attempts to win the debate by simply shouting loud enough to silence the opposition?

          • BBQman

            You are correct, everyone here on the alarmist side refuses to debate my points and instead, they attack me, they are like scared children and keep putting up links that still have not proven CO2 to be anything other than a very very minor climate driver after 345ppm.

            I have enjoyed reading your posts, keep em coming Tf!

          • Bart_R

            Let’s help you out.

            You’ve noted that the EPA is about to be dismantled.

            The EPA acted under institutional standards of evidence at the direction of policy makers, and has exclusive authority over all things environmental, and the courts have deemed CO2 emissions to be environmental.

            Remove the EPA, and all things environmental are removed from the direct influence of policy makers. Congress has no say. Senators have no say. The PotUS has no say. Only the courts arbitrate on disputes, without the EPA, until and unless the most incredible engine of gridlock ever seen churns out the highly complex authorities in law to the level that would satisfy SCotUS. Dismantle the EPA in January 2017, and the courts will have absolute dominion for at least six years.

            And what standards of evidence do the courts use for matters of science?

            Certainly not the standards you’ve applied in your arguments, which appear to be Socratic and Ad nauseum.

            The current measures will be the Frye Test or, more likely, the Daubert Standard. By either of those standards, your arguments wouldn’t even qualify to be heard by a judge.

            So you have two choices: learn to love the EPA and the protection of its cloak that the fossil industry has been enjoying up to now, or learn how to argue cases by the Daubert standard.

          • BBQman

            Your premise is ridiculous,M for the last 8 years the EPA has been on George soros and John Podestas payroll to bring the value of coal industry infrastructure and stock down while soros buys it up at Rock bottom prices, why are you so naive Bart R?

            Also, had the EPA actually been doing their job, we would not have polluted orange river or those lead water pipes.

            The EPA is a massive failure, riddled with corruption and must be abolished and many former employees tried and put in prison for treason against the constitution.

          • Bart_R

            Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.

            Left-baiting won’t work on me. I’m to the Right of you.

            Snarl all you like. Just makes you a more obvious punk.

            And you need to READ HARDER. See the part where I pointed out that the EPA doesn’t do anything? So arguing that the EPA isn’t doing its job is just coming to the party late.

            Abolish the EPA, and the courts are in charge of decisions about everything emitted by anyone. You think rolling those dice will end up more in your favor than the utter farce that has been the EPA?

          • BBQman

            Please speak in coherent sentences, Tell me to what degree do you believe CO2 is a climate driver somewhere between 100% to 0.000000001%, just how much does CO2 impact our climate Bart_R?

          • Bart_R

            Why?

            What does that have to do with anything?

            Here’s the question that matters: If you find someone’s lost wallet full of cash, do you return it to them or keep the cash?

            That’s what will matter in court. Right now, the EPA keeps the question from getting to court. Right now, the EPA’s view is the Nanny State will take care of dropsical people who lose wallets and turn a blind eye to anyone who finds them, maybe sometimes with a slap on the wrist, but just as often not even that, but in general paying a huge subsidy as a finders fee.

            It’s a screwy system the Left set up, toothless and useless and more expensive even than courts.

            Your silly little red herring questions?

            Science answered those questions to a level that exceeds the Daubert standard sixty years ago. On those questions, you lose in court, no matter what you or I ‘believe’.

          • Robert

            Bbqman”s conspiracy claim reads way more funny if imagined the rough draft were scrawled in crayon on old newspapers.
            Then fine tuned in ComicSans

          • BBQman

            Robert, really…..you can’t prove CO2 to be a climate driver so you resort to ad hominem attacks….grow up son, but I still believe you will see the light one day!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9574c4e745db9f94aeb581e7009df97b6553e5d68deb8d93a5a21fa28f15bc51.jpg

          • Robert

            Well of course, since you seem to be about the only person, beside trump, who doesn’t understand that the science isn’t a hoax, ……

          • eric m

            Science is amazing and surely not a hoax; climate science is a different animal all together .such an incestuous institution this climate field. Publish or peril to a pre-concieved outcome. go against the narrative or question it out loud,no money,career for you .In fact you will be tarred and feathered.. they have finally found a way to tax the air we breath , to the tune of trillions of dollars .

          • Robert
          • Truth first

            You’re not too bad yourself. Loved your Life dog flattening Me Twice-video. As well as the ward robe malfunction at the Statue of Liberty due to Global warming.

          • BBQman

            Thank you.:)

          • http://www.the-only-way.net five.to.midnight

            BBQman is a really nice person.

          • Hardly

            Standard Operating procedure for the GLOBAL WARMING (er. CLIMATE CHANGE now because the darn planet refuses to kowtow to their will) – when all else fails, attack. When all else failed (polls didn’t move in her favor), SHil-Liar-ry mounted a personal attack on “The Donald”. All left-bent regurgitators believe in “equality” as long as you CONFORM to their view of equality.

          • Cold Miser

            Exactly what I have told evenminded and others. Insults are lack of a valid argument.

          • evenminded

            Actually, the arguments that I have made are entirely valid. The insults are added for fun. Be proud, you’ve earned them.

            Anyone ignorant enough to think that CO2 will solidify out of air at -110F has proven that they are a scientifically illiterate fool.

          • Cold Miser

            Still waiting for you to answer how CO2 can drive climate without the positive water vapor feedback. Instead of insulting people, how about learning something? Oh wait, that’s right you can’t. You think NOAA data is “bu11sh*t”. Have you told them that yet? Have you told NASA yet that their employee is claiming one thing while they’re claiming another? You got some work to do, get to it. In the meantime, you can visit that NOAA data again that shows there is no positive WV feedback and declining RH.

          • evenminded

            I’m still waiting for you to provide a single shred of evidence that you have any competence to be able to understand basic math and science.

            Given that you think CO2 can solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, I doubt I will ever see any.

          • Cold Miser

            Repeatedly shown exactly where you called NOAA data bu11sh*t:
            http://disq.us/p/1cuemkz

            “Given that you think CO2 can solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, I doubt I will ever see any.”
            Repeatedly told I never made that comment. post hoc, ergo propter hoc

          • evenminded

            No, I did not call the data bu11sh1t. I called your interpretation of the data bu11shit.

            It doesn’t matter if you made the statement or not. You supported it and the fact is that if you do not understand that it is false then you are more of a scientifically illiterate moron than you have already demonstrated yourself to be.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “You supported it and the fact is that if you do not understand that it is false then you are more of a scientifically….”

            Just…. Wow!

            Do you realize what you just said here? You deny you called the data bu11sh*t in the first sentence, and then turn around and call the NOAA data false in the second sentence.

            Stupid is as stupid does

          • evenminded

            Again, apparently you have reading comprehension problems. My comment was not referring to the data, it was referring to your claims about WV and WV feedback. Whether or not you understand that fact is irrelevant to the truth of that fact.

            The second part of my comment was referring to your support of BBQman’s comment that CO2 can solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F. Again, if you do not understand that it is false then you are more of a scientifically illiterate moron than you have already demonstrated yourself to be.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            You seem to have missed the part where the data/charts shows there’s a declining RH and no significant positive wv feedback. It’s obvious.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

            That you continue to lie, by ignoring that I upvote for various reasons, is your problem of creating a false dichotomy, and informal fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Not mine.

            So, I take it as a no. You did not listen to my plea to be a reasonable person, and reflect upon your irrational behavior and nastiness.

            So, yes, I actually was an idiot in one aspect, actually asking you to be reasonable. “Can you, for once, act like an actual reasonable human? Can you step
            back a minute and observe your behavior objectively? Now, I could be an
            idiot for asking that question, since I never wanted to engage with you
            in the first place due to your nastiness, lack of objectiveness, and
            conflating your opinion as fact.”

          • evenminded

            Declining RH does not necessarily imply no WV feedback.

            Given that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that can’t even bring himself to learn that CO2 does not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, or to read the peer-reviewed science that I have provided on WV feedback, what’s “obvious” to you is entirely irrelevant to the scientific community that studies climate.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “Declining RH does not necessarily imply no WV feedback.”
            What does a declining RH, no significant SH increase, with increasing atmosphere temperatures imply evenminded? Repeat, what does it imply evenminded?
            Or would you rather go back to the question I’ve been trying to get you to answer, How does CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback? Hint, you can answer it in 3 words.
            Instead, you’re stuck on a claim that I never made. Your so desperate to find anything to get me to keep responding to you, because you “enjoy our exchanges”. The answer to your question about a claim I never made….. Hint, I can answer why it doesn’t in two words. But your also stuck on upvotes, because you can’t learn that I upvote for various reasons.

          • evenminded

            I’ve given you what the expert opinion is on WV feedback. The fact is that you don’t even understand the NOAA plots that you have posted. You don’t understand the limitations of the data collected and those of the reanalysis used. The experts that study climate do consider all of these issues and have written peer-reviewed papers on the topic. Those papers that have been written by these experts refute your ignorant claims.

            You are a scientifically illiterate moron that supported the claim that CO2 will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F. That’s basically like supporting a claim that 1+1=3. It’s utterly idiotic and the fact that you can’t explain why it is wrong illustrates just how much of an incompetent imbecile you are.

          • Cold Miser

            Yes, you did give me cited papers, and for the 5, 6, or 7th time, (I lost count) I told you why they were cherry-picked.
            Evenminded, you’re such a sore loser.
            Now, why can’t you answer my questions? Focus. How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

          • evenminded

            Given that you are a scientifically illiterate moron that can’t explain why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, you’re evidence-free claim that the handful of papers that I posted are cherry-picked is absolutely laughable given that you have provided zero peer-reviewed papers that contradict those that I posted.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Oh, and you can’t learn, or comprehend. Go back and read my last comment……. sore loser.

          • evenminded

            I read you’re comment. Here’s mine again.

            You are a scientifically illiterate moron that supported the claim that CO2 will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F. That’s basically like supporting a claim that 1+1=3. It’s utterly idiotic and the fact that you can’t explain why it is wrong illustrates just how much of an incompetent imbecile you are.

          • Cold Miser

            “I read your comment.” Well, it’s a comprehension issue on your part then. You missed the parts where I have repeatedly said, I vote for various reasons, and I can answer why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F in two words.
            Yet here you are, trying to argue about a comment I never made.
            And then you reply like this….. “It doesn’t matter if you made the statement or not.” Only an idiot would use that logic.

            Now, looks like you are the illiterate moron who continues to argue about upvotes, post hoc, ergo propter hoc. While you can’t answer my question I have repeated for you at least a dozen times. “What does a declining RH, no significant SH increase, with increasing
            atmosphere temperatures imply evenminded? Repeat, what does it imply evenminded”

            You are such a sore loser.

          • evenminded

            I don’t care what reasons you vote for. If you support comments that state 1+1=3, then you’re an idiot.

            I doubt that you can provide the scientific reasoning for why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere in two words, but go ahead knock yourself out. Maybe BBQman will be able to understand your two word explanation.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            See, sore loser.
            Now waiting for you to answer my questions….. I already gave you a hint to the answer.

          • evenminded

            Since I have already provided you with several peer-reviewed papers on WV feedback, you can wait for the answer to your question for as long as you like. It doesn’t change that fact that you are a scientifically illiterate moron that supports false statements on physics.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Evenminded exposed. Only has false generic insults. SORE LOSER!

          • evenminded

            Given that I have already provided you with several peer-reviewed papers on WV feedback, you clearly can’t understand the relevant science on the point. So you can wait for the answer to your question for as long as you like. It doesn’t change that fact that you are a scientifically illiterate moron that supports false statements on physics.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Already addressed those papers you provided and explained why they were cherry-picked, repeatedly . You are exposed sore loser, evenminded. Your childish behavior to argue over an upvote is the most desperate argument I have ever witnessed here.

          • evenminded

            No, you have not addressed them. You are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that claimed that the papers were cherry-picked without actually refuting any of the content of the papers. Given that you are scientifically incompetent that is no surprise.

            You’re a moron that supports the scientific equivalent of 1+1=3.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “No, you have not addressed them.” I have, awhile back, and explained why they were cherry-picked. I provided citations to my statements.
            SORE Loser.

          • evenminded

            No, you have not addressed them. You have provided no citations that have shown them to be incorrect or any citations that have come to materially different conclusions. All of these support the claim that WV is increasing and the WV feedback is positive.

            Here they are again.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0485.1

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/full/nature06207.html

            http://www.pnas.org/content/111/32/11636.full.pdf

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/epdf

            http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087.full

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD020184/full

            You don’t have the scientific competence to understand these papers, let alone refute them.

            You’re a scientifically illiterate moron that remains incapable of explaining why CO2 does not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.

            The fact that you claim you can explain the physics behind this fact with two words shows just how ignorant you are.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Now you are lying again.
            I did address them. It’s in my history.

            SORE loser.

          • evenminded

            It’s in your history?

            Where did you provide a peer-reviewed paper that refutes this paper?

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0485.1

            Where did you provide a peer-reviewed paper that refutes this paper?

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/full/nature06207.html

            Where did you provide a peer-reviewed paper that refutes this paper?

            http://www.pnas.org/content/111/32/11636.full.pdf

            Where did you provide a peer-reviewed paper that refutes this paper?

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/epdf

            Where did you provide a peer-reviewed paper that refutes this paper?

            http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087.full

            Where did you provide a peer-reviewed paper that refutes this paper?

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD020184/full

            You’re a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that cannot even explain why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.

            you’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Strawman, and moving goal-posts. “Where did you provide a peer-reviewed paper that refutes this paper?”

            Explained why your cited papers were cherry-picked with citations.
            Here: http://disq.us/p/1diu19r
            Reminded you again, here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/mm-fa/the_five_most_ridiculous_things_trump_advisers_have_said_about_energy/#comment-2995547818
            And again Here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thenewamericanmagazine/has_climate_change_rhetoric_backfired/#comment-2994474018

            And I’ll summarize again why your papers were “cherry-picked”. They all have shorter trends than the charts I showed. Long term trends, over 30 years are needed. Supporting evidence/citation, including peer-review were provided provided.
            Total Vertical Column data needed, not just at surface data. Upper-tropospheric/low stratosphere humidity data needed since it magnifies greenhouse effect. Supporting evidence/citations including peer-review were provided.

            Your citations were limited to one or more of these; extremely short term trends; less than 30 years trends; surface measurements only; measurements only over oceans, less global coverage.

            Same for Dessler’s paper. It’s more about rebutting Paltridge et al 2009. Reanalysis’s from this study are shorter lengths, with less global coverage (50°N-50°S, broken up in 3 plots) than the NCEP/NCAR data I charted (global 90°N-90°S, from 1948-Sept. 2016).
            Dessler: “To minimize the effects of the introduction of satellite data in 1979, we do not include any of the reanalysis fields prior to 1979 in our analysis.”

            NCEP/NCAR includes weather balloons, considered the gold standard for measuring humidity. “radiosonde profiles are often viewed as a gold standard” Serenze et al 2011.

            “The radiosonde network is one of the reliable sources of the longest record of humidity in the troposphere and lower stratosphere. The radiosonde data have been the backbone for operational forecasting and a key data source for climate analysis.” Kishore et al 2011.

            NCEP/NCAR is the most cited reanalysis. Asrar Ghassem, James W. Hurrell – 2013

            You’re just behaving badly since you are a sore loser.

          • evenminded

            Not a straw man, and not moving the goal posts.

            You are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus. So you stating that peer-reviewed literature is wrong is laughable at best.

            You’re an idiot if you think that the NCEP/NCAR data has coverage from 90N to 90S or that its accuracy is considered to be of high quality beyond the 1970s.

            You’re a scientifically illiterate idiot that does not comprehend the information that he cites. Leave the science to the experts moron.

          • Cold Miser

            First, yes, you created a strawman and moved goal posts.
            Second, “So you stating that peer-reviewed literature is wrong is laughable at best.” Another strawman. I never said they were wrong. I explained why they were cherry-picked. I’ll repeat:

            They all have shorter trends than the charts I showed. Long term trends, over 30 years are needed. Supporting evidence/citation, including peer-review were provided provided.
            Total Vertical Column data needed, not just at surface data. Upper-tropospheric/low stratosphere humidity data needed since it magnifies greenhouse effect. Supporting evidence/citations including peer-review were provided.

            Your citations were limited to one or more of these; extremely short term trends; less than 30 years trends; surface measurements only; measurements only over oceans, less global coverage.

            Long term trends 60+ years shows there isn’t a significant positive water vapor feedback, with declining RH.

          • evenminded

            No, no straw man was created. I was asking if there have been any peer-reviewed publications by experts in the field that refute the several peer-review papers that I posted that all confirm positive WV feedback.

            Clearly your answer is that you do not have any such publications in hand. All that you have is your own scientifically illiterate “analysis”

            Given that you cannot even explain why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, and do not understand what GCMs calculate, you have proven that you do not understand basic science.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Yes, multiple strawmans, moving the goalpost, because you are a sore loser that can only spew false generic rhetoric.
            Ignoring 60+ years of long term data that there is no significant SH feedback and declining RH.
            Ignoring why your cited papers are cherry-picked. Repeat for the 3rd time:

            They all have shorter trends than the charts I showed. Long term trends, over 30 years are needed. Supporting evidence/citation, including peer-review were provided provided.
            Total Vertical Column data needed, not just at surface data. Upper-tropospheric/low stratosphere humidity data needed since it magnifies greenhouse effect. Supporting evidence/citations including peer-review were provided.

            Your citations were limited to one or more of these; extremely short term trends; less than 30 years trends; surface measurements only;
            measurements only over oceans, less global coverage.

            Instead you try to pick a fight over an upvote! That’s how desperate you are!
            P.S. I already told you I can answer in two words why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110. While you can’t even answer my question: How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapour feedback? It only takes 3 little words evenminded. You’re the loser. Why don’t you run along now and play with your kids, so they don’t have to play with magnets.

          • evenminded

            Again, these are not straw men. If there are no papers that refute the ones that I posted, then the ones that I posted are obviously not cherry-picked.

            Given that you cannot even explain why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, and do not understand what GCMs calculate, you have proven that you do not understand basic science.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Yes they are strawman.

            I can explain in two words why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.

            “Given that you can’t explain” how can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapour feedback, you have proven “you do not understand basic science”.

            “You’re an idiot.”

            Now, go play with your kids, so they don’t have to play with magnets. Stop acting like a child and be a responsible parent.

          • evenminded

            I can explain in two words why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.

            Go ahead then moron. Do you think BBQman will understand it?

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Still waiting for your explanation of how can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapour feedback……

            Now, go play with your kids, they should be more important to you than me.

          • evenminded

            You can wait as long as you like moron.

            I’ve already proved that you don’t understand basic math and science.

            The fact that you think you can explain why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words is laughable.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “I’ve already proved that you don’t understand basic math and science.”
            You know, that’s still a funny joke!
            You haven’t even come close to proving anything, except that you are ignoring your children, and show that you find me to be much more important than them. Now, that’s really pathetic!

          • evenminded

            LOL

            You’re the idiot that doesn’t understand the science that he reads which is why you claimed that GCMs assume constant RH, and why you think you can explain why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            More strawmans evenminded, and just another desperate attempt by a sore loser who can’t win an argument. You can’t even comprehend anything. We already had this discussion.
            It wasn’t my claim about GCM’s assuming constant RH, it was the claim made by NASA, and the IPCC. I gave you cited evidence on this. Repeat here: “In climate modeling, scientists have assumed that the relative humidity of the atmosphere will stay the same regardless of how the climate changes.” -NASA
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WaterVapor/water_vapor3.phpAR5 CMIP5 models project constant RH. “that relative humidity (RH) remains approximately constant” …. “unchanged RH response to warming….”
            IPCC Chapter 12“New evidence from both observations and models has reinforced the conventional view of a roughly unchanged RH response to warming. It has also increased confidence in the ability of GCMs to simulate important features of humidity and temperature response under a range of different climate perturbations. Taken together, the evidence strongly favours a combined water vapour-lapse rate feedback of around the strength found in global climate models. IPCC AR4 8.6.3.1.2 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html

            No, according to you, NASA and the IPCC were wrong using the word “assume” while one of their paid climate whores who makes errors in temperature data claims it’s not “assumed”. So, who’s right and who’s wrong? Do we believe Schmidt on a blog? Or NASA and the IPCC? Which one is it? Either way, the GCMs are wrong that calculate a constant RH. It’s not constant.

            Remember? We already agreed RH is not constant.

            So, you’re the desperate loser who can’t comprehend and make false representations of what I or others say, argue over an upvote, call NOAA data bu11sh*t, quote-mine, cherry-pick, Argumentum ad nauseam, Argumentum ad ignorantiam, False dichotomy, and is an irresponsible parent who thinks I’m more important than his kids, who can’t answer my one question: How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

            Checkmate, evenminded.

          • evenminded

            I’ve already won the argument. I’ve proven that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that does not understand the science that he reads, is suffering severely from the D-K effect to the extent that he thinks he knows more about climate science than the experts, and is idiotic enough to think that he can explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “I’ve already won the argument.”
            Oh, you just keep rolling with the funny jokes!

            You’ve proven nothing except you’re a desperate loser and irresponsible parent who thinks I’m more important than his kids that lacks comprehension, who can’t answer my one question: How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

            You’re such a sore loser, you can’t even acknowledge you lost the game.

          • evenminded

            I’ve proven that you’re a scientifically illiterate ignoramus.

            What was it I observed about you before? Oh that’s right, it was the quote from Lincoln.

            It’s better for you to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

            You should have kept to that strategy. We all know you’re a fool.

            Maybe you can amuse us some more and give us that two word explanation about why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F. I doubt it though. You’re too much of an idiot to be able to explain any basic science, let alone in two words.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “I’ve proven that you’re a scientifically illiterate ignoramus.”
            The same joke, still funny.
            We both know you have done no such thing. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, False dichotomy.

          • evenminded

            Actually, anyone with scientific competence knows that you are a moron.

            You don’t understand what GCMs do and you think that you can explain why CO2 doesn’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words.

            You’re an idiot suffering from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • Cold Miser

            Just more false rhetoric from you, full of insults, void of any valid arguments. So you have to make up ones about upvotes.

          • evenminded

            It is a fact that you don’t understand what GCMs do and you think that you can explain why CO2 doesn’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words.

            You’ve said these very things. Are you trying to distance yourself from these ridiculous statements now?

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            You are conflating your opinions with facts again. Sore loser.
            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

          • evenminded

            No, not really.

            It’s a fact that you suffer severely from the D-K effect to the extent that you think you know more about climate science than the experts.

            It’s a fact that you think (or thought) that GCMs assume that RH is constant.

            And it’s a fact that you are idiotic enough to think that you can explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “No, not really.” Yes. REALLY.
            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapour feedback?
            I’ll leave you now clinging only to Insults, an obvious sign that you lack any valid argument.

          • evenminded

            Clinging to insults? No, that’s just added for fun.

            I’m continuing to point out the fact that you think that GCMs assume that RH is constant, and you think you can explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Yes, clinging to insults.

          • evenminded

            Again, the insults are for fun.

            You just provided the evidence that you are an idiot that doesn’t understand what he reads.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “Again, the insults are for fun.”
            Which shows just what kind of person you are. Something normal people would never brag about.

          • evenminded

            Yes, I’m the kind of person that knows that you are a scientifically illiterate imbecile, and that you think that you can explain why CO2 does not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F in two words proves that fact (among several other things).

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Yes, in two words I can show that I know why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110°F.
            But first …. How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

            60+ years of data says (NOAA ) Specific humidity is not increasing.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png

            60+ years of data (NOAA ) says Relative humidity is declining.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png

            25+ years of data (NOAA ) says total column water vapor is declining
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

          • evenminded

            Yes, in two words I can show that I know why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110°F.

            Yes, we’ve established that this is what you think. It proves that you are a scientifically illiterate moron.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            ” It proves that you are a scientifically illiterate moron.”
            Argumentum ad ignorantiam, False dichotomy. No, you haven’t.
            You are conflating your opinions with facts again. Sore loser.

            So pathetic, clinging only to Insults, an obvious sign that you lack any valid argument.
            And you brag that insulting is “fun”, showing just what kind of person you are. Something normal people would never brag about.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            You are the moron that claims he can explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110°F with two words.

            Anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows that you are full of it.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            More insults, more lies. That’s all we get from evenminded. Because he thinks it’s “fun”. That’s right, he says he insults for fun. Evenminded is a sick individual.

          • evenminded

            Lies? Oh I don’t think so.

            It’s a fact that you cannot explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110°F with two words.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “It’s a fact that you cannot explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110°F with two words.”
            Argumentum ad ignorantiam, False dichotomy.

            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

          • evenminded

            It most certainly is a fact that you cannot explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110°F with two words.

            I know the science behind this fact and I know that there is no way that it can be explained in two words.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            I didn’t say explain. Stop putting words in my mouth.

            “Yes, in two words I can show that I know why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110°F.
            But first …. How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3018316194

          • evenminded

            That’s right, you can’t explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110°F in two words.

            Given that I have explained it, who cares if you can lift two words from my explanation?

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Argumentum ad ignorantiam, False dichotomy.
            Obviously you care and want me to “explain” it. You have nothing better to do than insult people by making up false dichotomies and Arguments from ignorance over upvotes.

          • evenminded

            You’re the idiot that doesn’t understand basic science.

            You’re the idiot that claimed to be able to explain this with two words, now you’re changing your tune.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            You are conflating again.. My word, “answer” …. your word, “explain”.
            So obvious, for all to see, your little semantics game.
            Now, as I just said in my other comment:

            So, I’m exiting out of this endlessly circular argument that you wish will continue, and will let you have the last word, since you are such a sore loser. Go ahead, and insult away….. It will just show how you lack any valid argument.

            Maybe one day you will find the courage to answer my question. How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

          • evenminded

            Any “answer” to why a scientific process occurs or does not occur requires an explanation.

            You’re an idiot and a liar.

          • Cold Miser

            “Maybe you can amuse us some more and give us that two word explanation about why CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F. I doubt it though.”
            Still waiting for you to answer my question I’ve been asking for a month now that you won’t answer, “How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapour feedback?

          • evenminded

            Like I said, you can wait all you like.

            I’ve proven that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus, so I’m good.

            You though, are an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “I’ve proven that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus, so I’m good.” Argumentum ad ignorantiam, False dichotomy. No, you haven’t.
            The only thing you are good at is flinging insults and false rhetoric.

          • BBQman

            I concur!

          • evenminded

            Given that I’ve shown that you don’t understand basic science then I would have to say that I have proven that you are scientifically illiterate. And yes, I am good at fling insults to those that have earned them.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “Given that I’ve shown that you don’t understand basic science….”
            Really evenminded, repeating this joke over and over is getting rather tiresome. That just shows how pathetic and desperate you are.

          • evenminded

            I have no problem repeating the truth ad nauseam. The only joke here is you. You are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that does not understand the science that he reads. You suffer severely from the D-K effect to the extent that you think you know more about climate science than the experts, you think (or thought) that GCMs assume that RH is constant, and you are idiotic enough to think that you can explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            You might want to let your pal ROO2 know he’s not helping you with his Dessler video.

          • evenminded

            You mean the Dessler that is a published expert on climate science? The same one that would never be stupid enough to claim that CO2 will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F or that there is no positive WV feedback? The same Dessler that says that WV being a positive WV feedback is soundly established science but that the effects of clouds is still a topic with open questions?

            Is that the Dessler that you are talking about?

            That Dessler is an expert on climate science. You, on the other hand, are an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Why don’t you tell ROO2 how posting this video doesn’t help they way he thinks it does since Dessler says that RH stays constant?
            1. How many times do I have to tell you I never claimed CO2 will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F? How many times do I have to tell you I can answer in two words why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F? Endlessly? Because this is all you can argue, fake arguments? Based on upvotes? That’s why you are so pathetic.
            2. “The same Dessler that says that WV being a positive WV feedback is soundly established science but that the effects” Doesn’t look like it’s soundly established science (perhaps only in GCMs) when the long term data says otherwise.

            60+ years of data says (NOAA ) Specific humidity is not increasing.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png

            60+ years of data (NOAA ) says Relative humidity is declining.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png

            25+ years of data (NOAA ) says total column water vapor is declining.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

            Just more strawmans and false rhetoric from evenminded. Sore loser.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Dessler does not say that RH is constant you moron. That is you not understanding what you read or in this case hear. Dessler is talking about the history of the science. Why don’t you educate yourself and read the man’s published works.

            You are an absolute idiot. What Dessler clearly says it that WV is a positive feedback and that the climate science on that point is “nailed”.

            You claimed that you can explain why CO2 won’t solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words.

            The fact is that you cannot do so.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Go back and listen. He said, “…. atmosphere will contain constant relative humidity….”

            The fact is you can’t answer how CO2 can drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback.

          • evenminded

            You need to listen again and understand the context of his statements. Atmospheric RH is relatively/approximately constant. He is speaking in generalities about RH and the evolution of the scientific understanding. If you actually read the man’s work you would understand the context within which he is making these statements.

            Apparently you also missed the fact that he says that the science behind positive WV feedback is nailed.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “Apparently you also missed the fact that he says that the science behind positive WV feedback is nailed.” But it’s not, revisit those long term (60+ years) water vapour charts from NOAA data.

          • evenminded

            Let’s see, experts in climate science versus a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that doesn’t understand what GCMs do and thinks that he can explain why CO2 does not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F in two words?

            I think I’ll take the peer-reviewed research of the experts.

            You’re a moron.

          • Cold Miser

            Yes, ignore the long term data from NOAA. They aren’t experts at all. S/.

          • evenminded

            Yes, ignore the fact that you are a scientifically incompetent ignoramus and there are several papers written by experts in the field that have established the fact that there is a positive WV feedback.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            We’ve already discussed those papers you cited were limited in one or several aspects: duration of time; surface coverage of globe; coverage of atmospheric vertical column.

            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

            60+ years of data says (NOAA ) Specific humidity is not increasing.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png

            60+ years of data (NOAA ) says Relative humidity is declining.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png

            25+ years of data (NOAA ) says total column water vapor is declining
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

          • evenminded

            Yes, we’ve established that the experts have nailed down the fact that WV is a positive feedback, and we’ve established that you do not understand the science.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            No, we’ve established the papers you cited had limitations. Now stop lying.

            60+ years of data says (NOAA ) Specific humidity is not increasing.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png
            60+ years of data (NOAA ) says Relative humidity is declining.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png
            25+ years of data (NOAA ) says total column water vapor is declining
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback? What does a declining RH, flat SH, and rising atmosphere temperature mean?

          • evenminded

            We’ve established that you have no peer-review science that claims that WV feedback is not positive.

            We’ve established that you do not understand the climate science studies that you read.

            We’ve established that you are an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            You just can’t stop lying. You just can’t stop with the insults. It’s like a disease with you.

            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback? What
            does a declining RH, flat SH, and rising atmosphere temperature mean?

          • evenminded

            Lies? No, these are facts.

            We’ve established that you have no peer-review science that claims that WV feedback is not positive.

            We’ve established that you do not understand the climate science studies that you read.

            We’ve established that you are an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Yes lies. That, and your insulting nature is the only thing that has been established here. You are conflating fact with your opinion. This is one of two faults I observed from you with exchanges you had with others. It’s why I never wanted to engage with you in the first place. The second major fault is your insulting behavior. You are a irrational person who gets a thrill out of insulting others.

          • evenminded

            Nope, not lies.

            Truth – you have no peer-review science that claims that WV feedback is not positive.

            Truth – you have stated that GCMs assume that RH is fixed, when in fact GCMs do no such thing.

            Truth – you have stated that you can explain why CO2 does not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F with two words, when in fact you can do no such thing.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Repeat. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, False dichotomy. And Strawman.

            NOAA Data speaks for itself.

            60+ years of data says (NOAA ) Specific humidity is not increasing.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png
            60+ years of data (NOAA ) says Relative humidity is declining.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png
            25+ years of data (NOAA ) says total column water vapor is declining
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback? What does a declining RH, flat SH, and rising atmosphere temperature mean?

            We can do this all day long evenminded. I know how important it is for you to get the last insult in.

          • evenminded

            That is not data you ignorant moron, it’s a reanalysis with questionable accuracy prior to 1970 and the scientists wrote papers indicating as such in the 1990s.

            You have no peer-review science that claims that WV feedback is not positive.

            I have provided several papers that demonstrate WV feedback is positive and you viewed a video showing a climate science expert state that the science behind the positive WV feedback is nailed.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Just more semantics. Reanalysis is based on data/observations input. It shows there isn’t a positive water vapor feedback, and a declining RH.
            Yes, as for the papers you cited, I’ve already explained repeatedly why they had limitations. You do not listen, just repeat yourself. And you just criticized one of those very papers you cited.
            So, I’m exiting out of this endlessly circular argument that you wish will continue, and will let you have the last word, since you are such a sore loser. Go ahead, and insult away….. It will just show how you lack any valid argument.

            Maybe one day you will find the courage to answer my question. How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback?

          • evenminded

            It’s not semantics. You are making false statements.

            The climate scientists have nailed the fact that WV feedback is positive.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6t2vlyKaBc

            You are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that does not understand basic science. You do not have the knowledge base to understand the papers that I posted, let alone refute them.

            You’re an idiot and a liar.

          • ROO2

            It wasn’t my claim about GCM’s assuming constant RH, it was the claim made by NASA, and the IPCC. I gave you cited evidence on this. Repeat here: “In climate modeling, scientists have assumed that the relative humidity of the atmosphere will stay the same regardless of how the climate changes.” -NASA

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6t2vlyKaBc

          • Cold Miser

            Please explain what Andrew Dessler says in this video, and how it is related to NASA and the IPCC assuming constant RH in GCM’s. I don’t have time to watch it.

          • ROO2

            It will take less time to watch it than it took you to type your post to claim your had no time to watch it.

            Try again.

          • Cold Miser

            Not good enough. Explain how this video fits into the context that the IPCC and NASA say that GCM’s assume constant RH.

          • Cold Miser

            Watched it. Realized it was under two minutes, not the two hours I thought at first glance. Do you realize that this is just more evidence that I’ve been telling evenminded? See, evenminded and I have been arguing that GCM’s assume constant RH. He says GCM’s don’t assume constant RH, I say they do. We both agree that RH does not stay constant. So, you just offered evidence that helps me, and makes evenminded look stupid.

          • ROO2

            He says GCM’s don’t assume constant RH, I say they do

            There are models that contain fixed RH, and models that allow RH to change.

            You are both correct.

          • evenminded

            Yes, there are models that assume RH is constant, but GCMs are not this type of model. GCMs solve for water content, they do not assume it is constant.

          • ROO2

            General circulation models solve for water content

            Agreed.

          • evenminded

            Neither NASA nor the IPCC state that general circulation models (GCMs) assume that RH is constant.

            You are an idiot. I have given you links to the paper that describes the GCM that is used by NASA and it explicitly states that water content is a variable in the model.

            You are an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Well, it just shows how inconsistent the IPCC and NASA are, since I gave you citations that they do assume constant RH.

          • evenminded

            No, what it shows is that you are a scientifically ignorant moron who has not even achieved a movie status in his understanding of climate science.

            Neither the IPCC nor NASA ever claim that general circulation models assume constant RH.

            You have not cited a single paper nor a single official website that makes such a statement.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “Neither the IPCC nor NASA ever claim that general circulation models assume constant RH.” …. “You have not cited a single paper nor a single official website that makes such a statement…”
            Yet, they do. And yes, I have.

            As I already explained, (here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3000946122) the IPCC is considered peer-reviewed by some (not by me).

            “To a first approximation, GCM simulations indeed maintain a roughly unchanged distribution of RH under greenhouse gas forcing.” The IPCC concludes “New evidence from both observations and models has reinforced the conventional view of a roughly unchanged RH response to warming” IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 8.6.3.1

            Wang et al 2016 implies this.“In climate modeling, scientists have assumed that the relative humidity of the atmosphere will stay the same regardless of how the climate changes.”

            Repeated constantly for you: “In climate modeling, scientists have assumed that the relative humidity of the atmosphere will stay the same regardless of how the climate
            changes.” -NASA
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WaterVapor/water_vapor3.php

            Repeated multiple times where I cited NASA and the IPCC assume RH:
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/mm-fa/the_five_most_ridiculous_things_trump_advisers_have_said_about_energy/#comment-2995487862

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3000946122

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/mm-fa/the_five_most_ridiculous_things_trump_advisers_have_said_about_energy/#comment-2994477039

          • evenminded

            The IPCC does not state that GCMs assume that RH is constant.

            You just provided a quote that proves that I am right.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “General circulation models do not assume that RH is fixed.”
            You can claim this all day long, the fact is NASA and the IPCC say RH remains constant. NASA claims it’s “assumed”.
            Repeated constantly for you: “In climate modeling, scientists have
            assumed that the relative humidity of the atmosphere will stay the same regardless of how the climate changes.” -NASA
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.g

          • evenminded

            NASA does not claim that GCMs assume RH is constant.

            Not all climate models are GCMs. Logical reasoning is not your bag.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Ah yes, it’s the word “assume” that gets your panties in a bunch. Remove the word assume, as I’ve said before. We both agree RH does not remain constant, yet GCMs says it does.

            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback? What does a declining RH, flat SH, and rising atmosphere temperature mean?

            60+ years of data says (NOAA ) Specific humidity is not increasing.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png

            60+ years of data (NOAA ) says Relative humidity is declining.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png

            25+ years of data (NOAA ) says total column water vapor is declining
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

          • evenminded

            No, GCM’s do not predict that RH is fixed and they do not assume that it is fixed either. The fact that you do not realize these two facts demonstrates that you are unable to comprehend the scientific studies that have been provided to you.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “No, GCM’s do not predict that RH is fixed and they do not assume that it is fixed either.” I didn’t say predict, did I? It’s obvious that the GCM’s need to be updated on their “observations”. It’s apparent RH is not constant, it’s declining.

            60+ years of data says (NOAA ) Specific humidity is not increasing.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/395a62b3914a0f8dff4ea7874fccf65f1df2a54b93e0874f87eddfab10ae0e1c.png
            60+ years of data (NOAA ) says Relative humidity is declining.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/889ed61a6e6c4a1123b440970b34a269952c96adf29fb21cd93433929ce95c50.png
            25+ years of data (NOAA ) says total column water vapor is declining
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82b0dbcfd4f134ee90f8647bc97e11eb3f167894328e8a2626118963c07b5a2d.png

            How
            can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback? What
            does a declining RH, flat SH, and rising atmosphere temperature mean?

          • evenminded

            Good FSM you are daft. All results of GCMs can be characterized as predictions. You stated, “yet GCMs says it does”. You are wrong, RH is not fixed in the results of GCM simulations.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Your words, “GCM’s do not predict that RH is fixed and they do not assume that it is fixed either”. Not mine.
            You are calling yourself daft.

            How can CO2 drive climate without a positive water vapor feedback? What
            does a declining RH, flat SH, and rising atmosphere temperature mean?

          • evenminded

            It’s not semantics, it’s fact. Logic just is not your bag.

            You stated, “yet GCMs says it does” in reference to fixed RH. You are wrong, RH is not fixed in the results of GCM simulations.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Creating Strawmans. Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Never said fixed, never said predict. You are having a one sided argument with yourself, calling yourself daft and an idiot.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/18c65cd92d8cad532a3274a2bf3ca56c4a56329ec1aa3fc3c496def6c9402155.png
            Levang et al 2015

            “General Circulation Models (GCMs) are a class of computer-driven models for weather forecasting, understanding climate and projecting climate change, where they are commonly called Global Climate Models.” Science Daily.

          • evenminded

            Ah, so now you want to take back your erroneous statements. That’s fine I have no problem with you admitting your errors.

            You claimed that GCMs assume that RH is fixed, when in fact they do no such thing.

            You were wrong.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            See semantics. I told you a while back to remove the word assume.
            My point all along, GMCs show a constant RH, when in fact it’s not. This is what you wasted your time on. Sore loser.

          • evenminded

            Semantics?

            Sorry, but science is all about making precise statements and your statements on the matter show that you had no clue what GCMs do.

            You were wrong and you are still wrong. GCMs do not assume constant RH, nor do they show constant RH in their simulations.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Robert

            It would be interesting to magnet this exchange on a physics dept whiteboard and watch the comments. One could imaging the soc, psych, ed, and ps depts generating a paper or two about learning, bias…….

          • Cold Miser

            “Actually, the arguments that I have made are entirely valid.”
            You mean where you call NOAA data bu11sh*t?
            Where you quote-mine to try to prove that GMCs don’t assume constant RH, by citing a blog, when his employer, NASA and the IPCC clearly state that GMCs assume RH?
            Where you continuously misrepresent, actually full out lie about what I say?

            Now that’s a truthful insult! Whereins you have to lie and use faulty logic to insult me.

          • evenminded

            I never called any NOAA data bu11sh1t. I called your statements about WV bu11sh1t.

            I haven’t quote-mined anything. You’re an idiot because the NASA webpage on GCMs links to papers by Gavin Schmidt. GS is one of the developers of the NASA GCMs. I imagine that his blog would provide accurate information on the models that he helped to develop. I also provided you links to the papers that state that water mixing ration is a variable of the model. Hence, RH is not assumed to be constant. You’re wrong. You do not understand the science that you read.

            Given that you are a scientific moron that thinks that CO2 will solidify out of air at -110F it’s no surprise that you do not comprehend the scientific information that you try to cite.

          • Cold Miser

            “I never called any NOAA data bu11sh1t. I called your statements about WV bu11sh1t.”
            Liar. This is your response to the charts I posted from NOAA data.
            http://disq.us/p/1cuemkz

            Have you told NOAA yet that you think their data is “bu11sh1t”?

            I’ve shown you through citations that NASA and the IPCC GCMs assume constant relative humidity. You’re claiming they don’t, because you cite “evidence” from a blog. You’re the idiot. So have you figured out who is correct, and who isn’t?

            So is this the same as when you claimed you never predicted who would win the presidency, but said this: “If you want my best guess, it’s that HC will get somewhere between 271 and 325, and will win the popular vote by about 4%.”
            http://disq.us/p/1d6n6z3

            “Given that you are a scientific moron that thinks that CO2 will solidify out of air at -110F”
            Oh look, another complete lie from you. I’ve never made that statement.
            P.S. As I have told you before, I upvote for various reasons. I do not waste my time justifying/explaining which one that is for each specific upvote I make.

          • evenminded

            Yes, that is my response, thank you for verifying what I have said. I was refuting your lack of understanding of WV in the atmosphere and provided you with 4 separate peer reviewed papers from experts in the field that show that WV increases with temperature.

            You have not shown a single paper describing GCMs that claim relative humidity is assumed to be constant. The fact is that you never will because water vapor is a variable in GCMs as I proved with a comment from a blog written by the developer of NASA’s GCMs and with a direct link to the paper.

            You are an absolute idiot that does not understand what he is reading. NASA has never stated that a GCMs assume RH remains constant. Do you realize that not all climate models are GCMs? Obviously not because you are a scientifically illiterate moron.

            I never did claim that I could predict the presidency. I explained what my best guess was while indicating that I though other possibilities could occur. Again, according to the terms of the bet that BBQman wanted to engage in, I would have won. What I did predict was that BBQman would be wrong about his claim that DT would win NY, NJ, CA, and WA. I was right.

            You upvoted a comment whose only claim was that CO2 would solidify out of that atmosphere at -110F. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would think that. So, either you are a scientifically illiterate moron that doesn’t understand basic physics, or you like to upvote scientifically illiterate morons that don’t understand physics. Either way, you are an idiot.

            You kind of remind me of a commenter that went by the name of Woodfords Frog. I also demonstrated that he was a mathematically illiterate moron and a bald faced liar. You and he have a lot in common.

          • Cold Miser

            Argumentum ad nauseam

            “I was refuting you lack of understanding of WV in the atmosphere and
            provided you with 4 separate peer reviewed papers from experts in the
            field that show that WV increases with temperature”
            And I showed you with citations that your papers were cherry-picked,
            along with NOAA data that shows WV isn’t increasing with temperature and RH is declining.

            “You have not shown a single paper describing GCMs that claim relative humidity is assumed to be constant.” …. “NASA has never stated that a GCM assumes RH remains constant.”
            I’ve shown you directly that’s what NASA and the IPCC have said, by quoting them. . While I don’t necessarily consider the IPCC reports to be peer-review, many others, including the IPCC itself, do. It’s you, who has not shown me one single paper that shows RH isn’t assumed.

            “I never did claim that I could predict the presidency. I explained what my best guess was while indicating” Semantics again. You predicted what Hillary would get in votes, which would give her the presidency. You can’t even concede to that. Which is my point.

            “You upvoted a comment whose only claim was that CO2 would solidify out of that atmosphere at -110F.”
            Post hoc ergo propter hoc
            Did you not read my P.S. where I specifically state I upvote for various reasons? I have told you this before. You are an idiot to imply that I have made that claim based on an upvote. That just shows how dishonest you are.

            Now, are you gong to answer my question about how CO2 can drive climate? Or make up more lies about me?

          • evenminded

            No, the papers were not cherry-picked and I just provided another link from NASA that states the same thing. You are unable to provide a single peer reviewed paper that shows that WV does not increase with temperature. You’re an idiot.

            On GCM’s, all that you have done is to show that you don’t understand the science that you read. You’re and idiot.

            As for my best guess about the election, it’s not semantics at all. My answer to BBQman’s initial question was an honest “I don’t know”. Even given the fact that I did not know, my best guess was still closer to the actual result than his. I would have won the bet. That is a fact. As to conceding to the fact that HC did not win the presidency, of course I concede to that. That is an obvious fact. You and BBQman are the ones that are not able to accept obvious facts, not me.

            Speaking of obvious facts. It is an obvious fact that CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F. Only morons like you and BBQman support such scientifically illiterate statements like that.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Argumentum ad nauseam
            More false generic rhetoric from you. You lack any valid argument.

            Added. Waiting for you to answer my question, How Can CO2 drive climate. You are just like Robert, you both are experts at avoiding questions.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            I just refuted every single point you tried to make.

            You’re an idiot. You and Woodfords Frog should start a support group. I’m sure RealOldOne2 and BBQman will be interested in joining you.

          • Cold Miser

            “I just refuted every single point you tried to make.”
            Now that’s funny! Thanks for the joke!

          • evenminded

            The only joke here is you. LOL

            Tell us again why you think that CO2 will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.

          • Cold Miser

            “Tell us again why you think that CO2 will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.”
            You don’t learn. I didn’t make that claim.

            “The only joke here is you. LOL” Now that’s weak! Where are some of your better insults?

            How can CO2 be the driver of climate?

          • evenminded

            You didn’t make that claim?

            So you think that claim is something that a scientifically illiterate moron would make, or you agree with that claim to the extent that you would upvote it?

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            “You didn’t make that claim?”
            Gee, how many times do I have to tell you that.
            You don’t learn.
            How can CO2 be the driver of climate?

          • evenminded

            No, you didn’t make that claim directly, you just supported it with an upvote.

            So you think that claim is something that a scientifically illiterate moron would make, or you agree with that claim to the extent that you would upvote it?

            You’re caught between a rock and a hard place and you don’t know what to do.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            You do realize that repeating yourself isn’t going to make what you say come true. Still waiting for a better insult…. In the meantime, how can CO2 be the driver of climate.

          • evenminded

            I have no problem repeating the truth over and over again.

            You agreed with BBQman’s statement that CO2 will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F.

            You’re a scientifically illiterate idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            Ad nauseam, False
            Dichotomy, I’ve already provided cited evidence pointing to the faults in the papers you provided, and ad hominem,

            Now, why can’t you summarize how CO2 drives climate? In your own words….. “because you’re a scientifically illiterate idiot.”

          • evenminded

            Yes, your ad nauseum denial of your ignorance is tiring.

            You have provided no peer reviewed studies that refute the studies that I gave you to read. I doubt that you have even read the studies that I provided, and I know that you are unable to understand them.

            I have no interest in attempting to teach someone like you that can’t even understand the fact that CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F. If you can’t understand that simple bit of physics, then there is no hope for you to understand climate science. You have already demonstrated that you are unable to understand the scientific statements that you read. You’re a scientifically illiterate idiot.

          • Cold Miser

            ” have no interest in attempting to teach someone like you that can’t
            even understand the fact that CO2 will not solidify out of the
            atmosphere at -110F.”
            I didn’t ask you to teach me about a claim I never made. So we can add strawman to the list of ad nauseam, false dichotomy, and ad hominem.
            I asked you to summarize how CO2 can drive climate.

          • evenminded

            It doesn’t matter if you made the claim or not.

            If you are that scientifically illiterate that you don’t understand the fact that CO2 will not solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, then there is no point in attempting to teach you about climate science. I don’t attempt to teach individuals that don’t understand basic algebra how to do calculus. Hence, attempting to teach a scientifically illiterate moron like you about climate science is pointless.

          • Cold Miser

            ad nauseam, false dichotomy, and ad hominem, strawman,
            and LIAR.
            I didn’t ask you to teach me anything. Another strawman. I’m making a point by asking you to summarize how CO2 drives climate (without a positive WV feedback).

          • evenminded

            The only point to be made here is that you are too scientifically illiterate to understand climate science. Hence, it is pointless to even attempt to explain anything to you until you can present a shred of evidence that you are able to understand basic math and science.

            You can start by explaining why CO2 will not sublimate out of the atmosphere at -110F.

            Or not, I don’t really care. You’ve already proven yourself to be a scientifically incompetent moron.

          • Cold Miser

            ad nauseam, false dichotomy, and ad hominem, strawman, and LIAR.
            Still waiting for you to show me how CO2 drives climate without a positive WV feedback.

          • evenminded

            Still waiting for you to demonstrate competence in basic math and science.

            You can start by explaining why CO2 will not sublimate out of the atmosphere at -110F.

            Or not, I don’t really care. You’ve already proven yourself to be a scientifically incompetent moron.

          • BigWaveDave

            You have demonstrated no competence in basic math or science, so why would you require anyone else to answer your stupid questions that are void of any relevance to Earth’s climate?

          • evenminded

            I’ve demonstrated more competence than you, Cold Miser, and BBQman.

            I’m still the only one of the four of us that understands that CO2 will not solidify out of air at -110F, and that your answer to my math problem is still wrong.

          • BigWaveDave

            You understand very little.

            You have in fact demonstrated no understanding of anything.

            Your answer to the question about evaporating water “The temperature of water most certainly can vary as the water is evaporating.” is at best no better than my answer to your irrelevant math challenge that think makes you superior even though you have not demonstrated that you even know how to answer it or explained how it could be relevant.

            How much heat does it take to evaporate water?

            If the pressure remains constant, does evaporating water change temperature?

          • evenminded