Sentences with phrase «on backradiation»

Willbo1, a further comment on backradiation.

Go work on your backradiation heat collector!

Not exact matches

There will be Regionally / locally and temporal variations; increased temperature and backradiation tend to reduce the diurnal temperature cycle on land, though regional variations in cloud feedbacks and water vapor could cause some regions to have the opposite effect; changes in surface moisture and humidity also changes the amount of convective cooling that can occur for the same temperature distribution.

You are on full tilt now that you endlessly dodge the question: If those 333W / m ² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy, then why can't you collect it like you can collect the 161W / m ² of solar radiation?»

Since no one on the planet has ever been able to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector, answer this question: If those 333W / m ² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy, then why can't you collect it like you can collect the 161W / m ² of solar radiation?»

my model thermo - meter from -30 F to -20 F since dawn and with a probably pretty good albedo given the whiteness of my view — but blue skies for the transparent greenhouse so nada in the backradiation scam On the interior, firewood is oxidizing nicely.

Now the Albedo (backradiation into space, energy losses) has to be subtracted with 30 % and the IPCC gives the figure of 242 W / sqm on the Earth» surface received and worked into the climate system after subtraction of the albedo.....

Following on the outright laughable lie you made about longwave from the sun being being «excised» from AGW theory, further evidence of your profound ignorance of the theory you purport to challenge, is your obsession with backradiation, which, in order to support some predetermined conclusion, you presumably want to pretend is a vital factor in your trademark silly fisicsfiction.

Simple sleight of hand deceit to be able to claim that the «increase in greenhouse gases is causing this by «greenhouse gas» «trapping» and «backradiation», putting the blame mostly on Carbon Dioxide.

The extrapolations from these fake fisics memes can be amusing, I was told re «backradiation» that a hunter could leave a chunk of raw meat in his igloo and go hunting for a few hours and on his return his chunk of meat would be a cooked dinner waiting for him.

However, for some information on whether or not «backradiation» is «fiction,» I would invite you to consider my Hubs:

«FROST on the ground (shaded from direct Sunlight) can remain there all day (even when ground and air are above 0 deg.C) so why doesn't backradiation melt it?»

The «backradiation» explanation is simply an heuristic argument based on the fact that, in equilibrium, the backradiation from the atmosphere and the incoming solar radiation must balance with the outgoing surface radiation.

Myrrh says Seriously, stop being ridiculous — you provide the experiment to prove that this backradiation claim of yours is real world science and not as it clearly is, an idea from the imagination based on no known real world basic physics.

TON; time you did a post on the defects of pyrgeometers and backradiation; it would be a great reference point.

HenryP says: March 11, 2012 at 7:39 am Myrrh says Seriously, stop being ridiculous — you provide the experiment to prove that this backradiation claim of yours is real world science and not as it clearly is, an idea from the imagination based on no known real world basic physics.

Gary, I first became suspicious when introduced to these warmist backradiation ideas — my very first problem with it was seeing the claimed «rise in industrial CO2 driving temperatures» linked to a temperature rise from, and described as the Earth's norm, the end of the Little Ice Age and realising the great outpouring from industry didn't begin until the middle of the last century, maybe you're too young to remember the few cars being driven on practically empty motorways in rush hour..

Seriously, stop being ridiculous — you provide the experiment to prove that this backradiation claim of yours is real world science and not as it clearly is, an idea from the imagination based on no known real world basic physics.

I prefer the term «IR absorbing gases», rather than greenhouse gases, since the greenhouse effect is still rather unclear and there is no consensus on the candidate mechanisms of «backradiation» or «insulation» or «IR absorption» and I think Gerlich and Tscheuschner have effectively falsified the greenhouse effect and I am still hoping someone will present a better verifiable theory.

It seems to me that idea that this weak amount solar energy filtering through the immense Venus atmosphere and warming a surface which over 700 K, is on par with the idea of «backradiation» warming Earth's surface.

The skin layer is where the CO2 / backradiation effect allegedly has its impact on determining the heat content of the ocean.

It is a simple matter to increase the absorption in a gas above the level of the incident energy, without ever having to increase the relative concentration of the gas, and is done on a daily basis in my field, and has been for many decades, but we do not call it «backradiation».

If I switch on «backradiation» on the night side I get a lower cooling rate.

On the matter of «backradiation» and «greenhouse gases», I recommend that you accept Joel Shore's explanations at face value.

This second point applies to Earth despite the fact that Earth has backradiation which the Moon does not have; so any point on Earth will have incident solar, reflectivity, regolith absorption and back radiation confounding any application of SB to calculate temperature at that site.

In an atmosphere there is backradiation contributing to the incident T on the absorptivity of the surface; however this incident T from backradiation is in fact from the surface; in this circumstance calculating emissivity from the surface is a measure of the backradiation returning as absorptivity incident T.

Taking everything into consideration, if the AGWers think that some «backradiation» from the CO2 we have here is going to have any effect whatsoever, especially net effect, on the RATE of heat loss from the earth, they must be totally barmey.

That was my point; what is being absorbed from backradiation is what was emitted and what was emitted is based on the temperature of the surface.

Guys; today I had the good fortune to meet a real nuclear physicist now retired (fiber and laser optics) so I pumped him with a handful of questions frequently raised on skeptical blogs eg «backradiation» rather than downward radiation.

cohenite, Quick correction: «That was my point; what is being absorbed from backradiation is what was emitted and what was emitted is based on the temperature of the surface.»

Bottom line, I think we're on the same side in that the statement that «backradiation warms the surface of the active object» is incorrect.