Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.
And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...believing that you can is the fantasy....as evidenced by your attempt to claim that sensors that measure nothing more than the temperature changes of an internal thermopile are measuring back radiation....they aren't...the numbers they provide are nothing more than the results of running the amount and rate of the temperature change through a flawed mathematical model...one based on another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....
Sorry hairball...but you are wrong...as usual.
How about you explain why, instead of just crying at me?
I see the hand in both images and the effect does NOT support your radiative fantasy bullshit. Per your view, the cooled camera should have been swamped with background signal that the uncooled camera shouldn't have seen These two pictures only prove you a fool.
My god SSDD you are one hell of a liar. You tried to sneak one past us without a link to your source.Sorry hairball...but you are wrong...as usual.
How about you explain why, instead of just crying at me?
Have already explained to you hairball...sorry you didn't like it and won't accept the facts since they shoot down your craziness...but for those who are as uninformed as you but actually interested in the truth, I will explain again.
The FLIR detects thermal energy and via a mathematical model, converts it to an image....if the emitter is warmer than the camera's detector, the thermal energy detected by the sensor shows up as an image....The relatively inexpensive uncooled FLIR devices incorporate a microbolometer..it is an array of temperature sensors....point them at something and they detect the amount, and rate of change of temperature...they are not receiving IR...they are detecting the rate and amount of temperature change...high tech thermopiles...and they create an image based on that information....if you point it at an object or region that is cooler than the camera, the detectors start cooling off...if the area or object that you are pointing it at is cooler than the camera, but not a uniform temperature, the detectors cool off at different rates and an image is created from that data...but the image is of very poor quality since it is nothing more than the output of a mathematical model creating a picture from the amount and rate of temperature changes of a bunch of very small, very sensitive thermopiles.
In the cooled cameras, the arrays are cooled to a very low temperature and as such are actually detecting incoming radiation as opposed to the uncooled cameras which, when pointed at a cooler object are measuring the amount and rate of cooling of an array of very small, very sensitive thermopiles...this accounts for the vast difference in image quality...
Here is an image made with a cooled camera of hand print on a wall
Here is the same handprint made with an uncooled camera.
The image made with the cooled camera is actually recording incoming radiation and as a result is quite sharp...the image made with the uncooled camera is measuring the amount and rate of cooling of an array of temperature sensors and is mathematically fabricating the image from that data and as a result, the quality of the image is not even approaching the quality of the cooled camera.
My god SSDD you are one hell of a liar. You tried to sneak one past us without a link to your source.
You are fucking out of your mind. Both sensors are making an image out of a temperature change on their sensors. That temperature change is brought about by radiation from the surface they are focused on.
You have claimed all along that an uncooled sensor should receive nothing. Yet it obviously does. The cooled sensor, that YOU say should be swamped with background signal, is the one that shows a blank.
I'd say you stuck your size 13 foot right into your mouth fool.
LinkSorry thunder...the manufacturer of that thermometer contacted spencer and explained to him how and why he was fooling himself with his instrumentation....there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
Sorry thunder...the manufacturer of that thermometer contacted spencer and explained to him how and why he was fooling himself with his instrumentation....there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
oh bull hockey. you can't prove any of it.Sorry, but mainstream science says you're talking out your anal orifice. That data is good. The greenhouse effect is quite real. Human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. Period.
dude you have no clue.....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...believing that you can is the fantasy....as evidenced by your attempt to claim that sensors that measure nothing more than the temperature changes of an internal thermopile are measuring back radiation....they aren't...the numbers they provide are nothing more than the results of running the amount and rate of the temperature change through a flawed mathematical model...one based on another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....
Just more of SSoooDDumb's usual completely ignorant anti-science twaddle...
In the real world, from, straight from the darling of the deniers, Dr. Roy Spencer.....
Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
Measuring The (Nonexistent) Greenhouse Effect in My Backyard with a Handheld IR Thermometer and The Box
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 6th, 2010
Laypersons are no doubt confused by all of our recent esoteric discussions regarding radiative transfer, and whether global warming is even possible from a theoretical standpoint.
So, let’s take a break and return to the real world, and the experiments you can do yourself to see evidence of the “greenhouse effect”.
One of the claims of greenhouse and global warming theory that many people find hard to grasp is that there is a large flow of infrared radiation downward from the sky which keeps the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.
Particularly difficult to grasp is the concept of adding a greenhouse gas to a COLD atmosphere, and that causing a temperature increase at the surface of the Earth, which is already WARM. This, of course, is what is expected to happen from adding more carbon dioixde to the atmosphere: “global warming”.
Well, it is one of the marvels of our electronic age that you can buy a very sensitive handheld IR thermometer for only $50 and observe the effect for yourself.
These devices use a thermopile, which is an electronic component that measures a voltage which is proportional to the temperature difference across the thermopile.
If you point the device at something hot, the higher-intensity IR radiation heats up the hot-viewing side of the thermopile, and the IR thermometer displays the temperature it is radiating at (assuming some emissivity…my inexpensive unit is fixed at e=0.95).
If you instead point it at the cold sky, the sky-viewing side of the thermopile loses IR radiation, cooling it to a lower temperature than the inside of the thermopile.
For instance, last night I drove around pointing this thing straight up though my sunroof at a cloud-free sky. I live in hilly territory, the ambient air temperature was about 81 F, and at my house (an elevation of 1,000 feet), I was reading about 34 deg. F for an effective sky temperature.
If the device was perfectly calibrated, and there was NO greenhouse effect, it would measure an effective sky temperature near absolute zero (-460 deg. F) rather than +34 deg. F, and nighttime cooling of the surface would have been so strong that everything would be frozen by morning. Not very likely in Alabama in August.
What was amazing was that driving down in elevation from my house caused the sky temperature reading to increase by about 3 deg. F for a 300 foot drop in elevation. My car thermometer was showing virtually no change. This pattern was repeated as I went up and down hills.
The IR thermometer was measuring different strengths of the greenhouse effect, by definition the warming of a surface by downward IR emission by greenhouse gases in the sky. This reduces the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface (and lower atmosphere) to space, and makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be.
If you have a day where there are patches of blue and clouds, you can point the thermometer at the clouds and pick up a warmer reading than the surrounding blue sky.
I did it this morning (see photo, above). When I moved from a view of the blue sky to the patch of clouds, the sky-viewing side of the thermopile became warmer…even though the thermopile is already at a higher temperature than the sky. The display would read a few degrees warmer than the reading looking at blue sky.
If you perform this experiment yourself, you need to be careful about the elevation angle above the horizon you are pointing being about the same. Even in a clear sky, as you move from the zenith (overhead), down toward the horizon the path length of sky the IR thermometer sees increases, and so you measure radiation from lower altitudes, which are warmer. This makes the effective sky temperature goes up. (This is ALSO evidence of the greenhouse effect, since looking at the sky above the horizon is like adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere overhead. The (apparent) concentration of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere goes up, and so does the intensity of the back radiation.)
Even earlier in the morning, about 5:30, the middle-level clouds were thicker, and I measured a sky temperature in the 50’s F. We will see more evidence of that using air temperatures, below.
This shows that the addition of an IR absorber/emitter, even at a cold temperature (the middle level clouds were probably somewhere around 30 deg. F), causes a warm object (the thermopile) to warm even more! This is the effect that some people claim is impossible.
Remember, the IR thermometer calibrated temperature output is based upon real temperatures, the temperatures on either side of the thermopile.
And if you think this is just an effect of some sunlight reflecting off the cloud….read on.
Evidence from The Box
I have been seeing the same effect in “The Box”, which is my attempt to use the greenhouse effect to warm and cool a thin aluminum plate coated with high-emissivity paint, that is heavily insulated from its surroundings in order to isolate just the radiative transfers of energy between the sky and the plate. This can be considered a clumsy, inefficient version of the IR thermometer. But now, *I* am making actual temperature measurements.
The following plot (click on it for the full-size version) shows data from the last 2 days, up through this morning’s events. The plate gets colder at night than the ambient temperature because it “sees” the cold sky, and is insulated from heat flow from the surrounding air and ground.
In the lower right, I have also circled where thin middle-level clouds came over, emitting more IR radiation downward than the clear sky, and causing a warming of the plate. Since the plate is mostly isolated from heat exchanges with the surrounding air and warm ground, it responds faster than the ambient air temperature to the intensity of “back radiation” downwelling from the sky.
When I woke this morning before sunrise, around 5:30, I saw these mid-level clouds (I used to be a certified aviation weather observer), I measured about 50 deg. F from the handheld IR thermometer.
This supports what people already experience…cloudy nights are, on average, warmer than clear nights. The main reason is that clouds emit more IR downward, change the (im)balance between upwelling and downwelling IR, and if you change the balance between energy flows in and out of an object, its temperature will change. Conservation of Energy, they call it.
(WARNING: a technical detail about the above measurements and their importance to greenhouse theory follows.)
What this Means for the Miskolczi “Aa=Ed” Controversy
Except for relatively rare special cases, the total amount of IR energy downwelling from the sky (Ed) will ALWAYS remain less than the amount upwelling from below and absorbed by the sky (Aa). As long as (1) the atmosphere has some transparency to IR radiation (which it does), and (2) the atmosphere is colder than the surface (which it is), then Ed will be less than Aa…even though they are usually close to one another, since temperatures are always adjusting to minimize IR flux divergences and convergences.
But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.
Sorry thunder...the manufacturer of that thermometer contacted spencer and explained to him how and why he was fooling himself with his instrumentation....there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
And the lying troll spews some complete bullshit, with not a shred of evidence to back up his insane rejection of reality.......which is how the troll got the name - SSoooDDumb.
It isn't as if it would be difficult to find, but since you are such a lazy wacko...and I suppose most of your time is taken up by chanting...here, the first link I came to...
Thermometer Manufacturer Destroys Greenhouse Gas Warming Myth
why do you think there isn't any background signal?You are fucking out of your mind. Both sensors are making an image out of a temperature change on their sensors. That temperature change is brought about by radiation from the surface they are focused on.
You have claimed all along that an uncooled sensor should receive nothing. Yet it obviously does. The cooled sensor, that YOU say should be swamped with background signal, is the one that shows a blank.
I'd say you stuck your size 13 foot right into your mouth fool.
You are fucking out of your mind. Both sensors are making an image out of a temperature change on their sensors. That temperature change is brought about by radiation from the surface they are focused on.
You have claimed all along that an uncooled sensor should receive nothing. Yet it obviously does. The cooled sensor, that YOU say should be swamped with background signal, is the one that shows a blank.
I'd say you stuck your size 13 foot right into your mouth fool.
why do you think there isn't any background signal?
Your link is to a denier cult wesite that has some idiot denier claiming a lot of unsupported BS about IR thermometers. Meaningless garbage only suitable for deceiving retards like you. That IS NOT what the manufacturer says.....or what all of the scientists say.
The FLIR detects thermal energy and via a mathematical model, converts it to an image...
