Sentences with phrase «thermal backradiation»

Not exact matches

Still dodging the simple 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?»

You're just dodging the question that you have never and can never answer: 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?»

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?»

which proves you concede that backradiation is not a real transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the surface.

The only way for you to show that you are correct is to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector that collects twice as much heat / thermal energy as a solar collector does

«that's pretty nonsensical» It is nonsensical because backradiation is not a real thermal energy transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth because that would violate the 2nd Law.

So have you got your backradiation heat collector working yet that collects twice as much heat / thermal energy as a solar collector and collects just as much heat / thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime?

Nope, that's no a backradiation heat / thermal energy collector that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as a solar collector does during the daytime.

You're still dodging the simple 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?»

Your fantasy pseudoscience is exposed as false because you are unable to answer this question that you continually dodge: 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?»

Nope all that gumflapping and handwaving doesn't answer the simple 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?»

The only way for you to show that you are correct is to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector that collects twice as much heat / thermal energy as a solar collector does, and collects just as much heat / thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime.

All he has to do is experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation heat collector that collects twice as much heat / thermal energy as a solar collector, and that collects just as much heat / thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime since according to them backradiation is transferring thermal energy / heat 24/7.

When RelaOldOne2 writes, «If those 333W / m ² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy», what does that mean?

Thanks for confirming your climate cult's claim that backradiation transfers 333W / m ² of thermal energy to the earth's surface is pure nonsense.

Put back the direct heat from the Sun, which is thermal infrared, longwave infrared — where's the downwelling from «greenhouse gases by backradiation / blanketing from the upwelling of the heated Earth»?

I have explained why AGWSF has taken out the real direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, so that they can pretend, you do understand that word I assume, pretend that the all thermal infrared heat downwelling from the atmosphere comes from their imaginary backradiation from their version of greenhouse gases.

Because, all the real world measurements taken of downwelling longwave, thermal, infrared are now attributed as «from the atmosphere» and not from the Sun direct, beam, and therefore bounced back by these claimed greenhouse gases and so real rises in amount, as for example in the recent warming period we had from the Sun's activity, are fraudulently attributed to Greenhouse Effect backradiation.

With electromagnetic energy from the Sun it needed to push the idea of «shortwave heats land and oceans» because it first had to take out the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, a.k.a. longwave infrared, a.k.a. heat, to establish its claimed «backradiation by greenhouse gases from trapping the upwelling thermal infrared from the heated Earth» and it didn't want any interference by the real world's direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, direct longwave infrared.

So taking out the direct real heat energy which reaches us from the Sun, which is thermal infrared, means they can pretend that any thermal infrared measured «downwelling» from the atmosphere comes from this «backradiation».

I explain why they have changed the basic difference between Heat and Light from the Sun, to pretend that any real thermal infrared we receive from the atmosphere is the result of «backradiation from greenhouse gases and not direct, beam heat, from the Sun».

Thank you, Bevan, for the very clear analysis of the absurdity created by the impossible AGW fictional fisics of `'» shortwave in longwave out» and the thermal infrared beam from the Sun blocked by an unexplained invisible barrier greenhouse glass unable to get through to heat the Earth's surface», but, included in their upwelling and downwelling measurements from the atmosphere anyway, which they call «backradiation».

AGWSF has done this so they can pretend that any downwelling heat, thermal infrared, from the atmosphere is from «backradiation» from the upwelling thermal infrared from the heated land and oceans.

In some frequencies, thermal radiation is blocked very efficiently, and the backradiation shows the temperature of the warm air right near the surface.

Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no greenhouse effect.

There is «backradiation» because people have given that label to «downward directed thermal IR radiation from the atmosphere toward the surface».

Backradiation is best understood as a component of an EXCHANGE of thermal energy; it's NOT a PRODUCER of it.

The spectral characteristics of backradiation show the greenhouse effect very directly, as the energy is from emission in the bands where greenhouse gases are able to interact with thermal radiation.

Earth receives 64wm2 (after deduction of thermals and evapotranspiration from insolation of 161 wm2) which somehow backradiation magnifies to an emission of 396wm2.

The simplist example I can think of to demonstrate that backradiation can simultaneously exist with lower temperatures is to consider a blackbody sphere with a fixed internal thermal energy source.