Arctic Ice

[Old Rocks]

Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated. Now the cold object gets a lot more photons than it is radiating, so is warmed. The warm object gets far less photons than it is radiating, so cools. Simple physics.

And the subject of this thread is arctic ice, which is rapidly declining. And this year, we may see a virtually ice free Arctic Ocean for a short time.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

It appears that the ice has started it's downward trend. At at least three standard deviations below the average. Best hope for a very cold spring in the Arctic.

 

[SSDD]

Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated..

So you say...and yet, you can't show me a single measurement of a discrete band of GHG radiation made with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...seems that you just believe in something with no evidence at all in support of that belief...if there were actual measurements of back radiation made with instruments that didn't have to be cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere, then I would believe in back radiation...see how that works...I believe in reality...you believe in .........something other than reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

They have an array of microbolometers

Most of them don't use such technology.

Thermographic camera - Wikipedia
---
Uncooled detectors are mostly based on pyroelectric and ferroelectric materials or microbolometer technology.
---

See the word "or" there? That means IR cameras exist that use pyroelectric and ferroelecric materials, which do not use temperature.

Therefore, your theory is demonstrably crap.

You are beyond stupid hairball...do you know that?

Here, from your thermographic camera link at wiki..

Uncooled thermal cameras use a sensor operating at ambient temperature, or a sensor stabilized at a temperature close to ambient using small temperature control elements. Modern uncooled detectors all use sensors that work by the change of resistance, voltage or current when heated by infrared radiation. These changes are then measured and compared to the values at the operating temperature of the sensor.

Are you not able to read even easy words and grasp what they mean? It says right there...using small TEMPERATURE CONTROL ELEMENTS" i.e. thermopiles...modern uncooled detectors WORK BY THE CHANGE OF RESISTANCE, VOLTAGE, OR CURRENT, when heated by infrared radiation...that also means that when they are cooling due to the fact that the source is cooler than the camera itself...The thermopiles change temperature, and the rate and amount of change is then converted into voltage which is then interpreted into a picture via software...

Here is a pyroelectric sensor...it is a thermopile...it operates based on temperature changes, both positive and negative...

Here, from the Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden.... The passage below is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books.

Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

Ferroelectric sensors work on the same principle but may be incorporated into a film which effectively increases the number of sensors in the array....the operation is still the same..postive flux when the source is warmer than the film...negative flux when the source is cooler...that is to say...once again...when the object is warmer, the energy is moving from the object to the sensor...when the object is cooler, the energy moves from the sensor to the object. The fact that there can be more sensors in the array due to them being in the form of a film, a more resolved image is possible.

So once again hairball, you are dead wrong...energy does not move from cool to warm and uncooled IR cameras register the cooling of the sensor and produce an image when they are pointed at objects that are cooler than the camera...as I have been telling you for quite some time now...

One can only wonder how long before you forget that you have been given proof that you are wrong in the form of a respected text on the topic and repeat the same old lie again and again, that the sensors are receiving energy from the cooler object..

We've been thru this -- thermopiles are old technology. I DESIGN this stuff. Has nothing to do with being "cooler" than the camera OTHER THAN if you want to reduce thermal noise in the device themselves. If that cooling is provided (and I've done it a dozen times in products) --- it doesn't affect the SIGNAL component of the measurement. Only the "electrical noise" that is generated from the component. The SIGNAL component -- remains unchanged.

On a STRONG signal -- you don't need cooling. Like the headset I developed for fire fighters.

But if you're trying to detect IR signals from a weak signal -- like a biosample -- you need to reduce the "self--noise" of the component to even FIND the signal.

Give it up.. Didn't understand this the first time - won't understand it now. We MEASURE IR radiation.. Doesn't matter whether it comes from a artery in your arm or the Sky Gods.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now SSo DDumb, your betters have repeatedly tried to educate you in the basics of radiative physics, all too no avail. I do not even intend to try.

"your betters"? I had no idea you had a sense of humor

Liberals have always thought that they were better than everyone...it is ingrained in their character. It would be hard to be a liberal if you didn't think that you were superior to everyone.

And this supports your hypothesis how?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated. Now the cold object gets a lot more photons than it is radiating, so is warmed. The warm object gets far less photons than it is radiating, so cools. Simple physics.

And the subject of this thread is arctic ice, which is rapidly declining. And this year, we may see a virtually ice free Arctic Ocean for a short time.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

It appears that the ice has started it's downward trend. At at least three standard deviations below the average. Best hope for a very cold spring in the Arctic.

Yeah, step down transformers work because only some of the current flows back upstream to the higher current, most of the current follows OR's imaginary laws of physics, right?

 

[SSDD]

We've been thru this -- thermopiles are old technology. I DESIGN this stuff. Has nothing to do with being "cooler" than the camera OTHER THAN if you want to reduce thermal noise in the device themselves. If that cooling is provided (and I've done it a dozen times in products) --- it doesn't affect the SIGNAL component of the measurement. Only the "electrical noise" that is generated from the component. The SIGNAL component -- remains unchanged.

Yeah...we have been through it all before..you were wrong then and you are wrong now... You claim to design that stuff, but that is just a claim...one disputed by texts on the topic of modern sensors...

When the object being viewed by the camera is cooler than the camera, the image is produced by the amount and rate of cooling by the sensing array...in exactly the opposite way as when the object being viewed is warmer than the array...in ether event, it is the energy flux that is being measured, and the image is the result of current produced by that flux...

Once again...from Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Braden

Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

On a STRONG signal -- you don't need cooling. Like the headset I developed for fire fighters.

If the radiator is warmer than the camera you don't need cooling...If the object is cooler than the camera, then the energy flux is negative...the heat is moving from the camera to the object...

But if you're trying to detect IR signals from a weak signal -- like a biosample -- you need to reduce the "self--noise" of the component to even FIND the signal.

Fooling yourself with instrumentation is a large part of what is wrong with climate science...I see it exists in other fields as well...if you want to measure a signal that is cooler than the camera, you have two choices...cool the camera to a temperature lower than the temperature of the object...or measure the rate and amount of cooling that is happening in your sensor as a result of it being focused on a cooler object...you will not be getting any radiation from the object to the warmer array.

Give it up.. Didn't understand this the first time - won't understand it now. We MEASURE IR radiation.. Doesn't matter whether it comes from a artery in your arm or the Sky Gods.

Of course you do...measuring positive flux coming in to the camera from a warmer object is measuring IR radiation...measuring negative flux going out of the camera as a result of the array being focused on a cooler object is also measuring IR...one is measuring IR coming into the camera...one is measuring IR going out of the camera...both are measuring IR. It is clear that you either don't understand, or are willing to be less than honest in an attempt to support your belief...

 

[SSDD]

Now SSo DDumb, your betters have repeatedly tried to educate you in the basics of radiative physics, all too no avail. I do not even intend to try.

"your betters"? I had no idea you had a sense of humor

Liberals have always thought that they were better than everyone...it is ingrained in their character. It would be hard to be a liberal if you didn't think that you were superior to everyone.

And this supports your hypothesis how?

Every observation ever made.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SSDD]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And more logical fallacy..and more and more and more...it is all you have, isn't it?

 

[ABikerSailor]

And on and on and on with the fake news...it's like you don't know that there are other sources with which to verify your spew...

Tell me rocks, how does the glassy eyed chant go?

Yeah, the ice amount between 2006 and 2017 seems to be the same, but the ice in the upper part of the picture is smaller, and in the upper left hand corner, you can clearly see land in the 2006 picture in the form of that string of islands, but in the 2017 picture, the islands appear to have disappeared underwater.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you install a step down transformer, say from 220 to 110, is it your understanding that half of the current in the 110 side flows back upstream to the 220 side?

 

[SSDD]

And on and on and on with the fake news...it's like you don't know that there are other sources with which to verify your spew...

Tell me rocks, how does the glassy eyed chant go?

Yeah, the ice amount between 2006 and 2017 seems to be the same, but the ice in the upper part of the picture is smaller, and in the upper left hand corner, you can clearly see land in the 2006 picture in the form of that string of islands, but in the 2017 picture, the islands appear to have disappeared underwater.

Geez guy...those are the Aleutian Islands...rest assured that they have not sunk below the rising seas...but thanks for the laugh anyway.

 

[SSDD]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you install a step down transformer, say from 220 to 110, is it your understanding that half of the current in the 110 side flows back upstream to the 220 side?

Those damned free electrons think that they can do whatever the hell they want to do I suppose...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you install a step down transformer, say from 220 to 110, is it your understanding that half of the current in the 110 side flows back upstream to the 220 side?

Those damned free electrons think that they can do whatever the hell they want to do I suppose...

They're just "Smart" too I reckon

 

[ABikerSailor]

And on and on and on with the fake news...it's like you don't know that there are other sources with which to verify your spew...

Tell me rocks, how does the glassy eyed chant go?

Yeah, the ice amount between 2006 and 2017 seems to be the same, but the ice in the upper part of the picture is smaller, and in the upper left hand corner, you can clearly see land in the 2006 picture in the form of that string of islands, but in the 2017 picture, the islands appear to have disappeared underwater.

Geez guy...those are the Aleutian Islands...rest assured that they have not sunk below the rising seas...but thanks for the laugh anyway.

I'm just saying what your video shows, and if your video is wrong (which it is), then maybe the rest of your info is flawed as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

I'm sure there was a point being made about the NET flux. But you excepted so little of it -- I don't know WHY that's important.

To overcome the DIRECTION of the net flux -- you simply calibrate it. You may choose any set of "net fluxes" that your heart desires to do that. If I for instance calibrate when the sensor is at 70deg with and OBJECT that is 70deg -- that's my absolute "calibration reference" (or I can imply it from other data) . So let's just assume that's what we do. If I KNOW that's my 70 deg signal reading, than as the OBJECT varies in temperature (holding the sensor at 70deg) the electrical signal will vary plus and minus from that point and can see the shape of the response and calibrate that.

But I'm not done yet. I have to hold the OBJECT at 70deg and find the SAME curve for varying the sensor thru temperature and calculate the compensation curve from that. (*EDIT* Usually it's easier to do this step first)

No black magic -- science and engineering. The fact that the net fluxes can be BIDIRECTIONAL (net flow one way or the other) don't matter a whit. In fact this quote CONFIRMS that they are and don't violate any rule of thermo by being that way.

Because I've told you before the NET FLUXES never go from cold to hot. But the photons DO go in each direction at varying rates.

 

[SSDD]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you install a step down transformer, say from 220 to 110, is it your understanding that half of the current in the 110 side flows back upstream to the 220 side?

Those damned free electrons think that they can do whatever the hell they want to do I suppose...

They're just "Smart" too I reckon

Its what we get for letting them be free....give an electron its freedom and it thinks that it is as good as a proton or a neutron...going wherever they want...going up the wire instead of down it...next thing electrons from a 6 volt current will be thinking that they can run up the wire and take up residence in a 12 volt battery.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Earth always LOSES the net flux battle with the sky. Nothing is violated. Net flux moves from hot to cold..

About the 213th time you've been told that.

 

[SSDD]

I'm sure there was a point being made about the NET flux. But you excepted so little of it -- I don't know WHY that's important.

That's the whole point...they aren't talking about "net" flux...they are talking about flux period...if the lens is focused on an object that is warmer than the sensor array, the flux is positive and the image is generated from the rate, and amount of warming the array registers....if the lens is focused on a cooler object, the flux is negative and the image is generated from the rate, and amount of cooling the array registers...there is no positive flux into the camera if the lens is focused on an object that is cooler than the array.

To overcome the DIRECTION of the net flux -- you simply calibrate it.

No...to overcome the direction of the FLUX.. you cool the array....or you warm up the object to a temperature warmer than the array.

 

[SSDD]

The Earth always LOSES the net flux battle with the sky. Nothing is violated. Net flux moves from hot to cold..

About the 213th time you've been told that.

there is no net flux...net as it is applied to energy movement is an ad hoc construct derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more. Tell me 213 more times..you will be wrong every time...show me a measurement of a discrete frequency of back radiation made with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.