Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[flacaltenn]

THERE IS NO HEATING OF SURFACE DIRECTLY --- by the GreenHouse.. (in an equilibrium state) .

The NET heat flux is ALWAYS to the sky... The GreenHouse simply retards the RATE of loss to space....

 

[SSDD]

So all textbooks are always right...and the length of tome a thing is accepted has “something” to do with whether it is correct or not...

And the answers to those equations are the same whether net energy transfer exists or not...net transfer only happens in the models...it is never observed in the real world...

But...All hail the dogma....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn’t prove it,

Post your evidence disproving it. If you can stop whining long enough.

Btw, where’s that email about ssdd?

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

DURR.....

Disprove something I don’t believe exists! Outstanding . You prove it exists

Again, my proof is your silence on proving your claim

Disprove something I don’t believe exists!

You don't believe the Stefan-Boltzmann equation exists?

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

Projecting your sessions! I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects like the 2nd law states, and if you feel they do post the radiating cold object at the warmer object, it must be simple to prove since you’re adamant about it

I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects

I know, you think Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong. Good for you!!

The fundamental assumption of the SB law is that the radiator is radiating into a cooler background...anyone who believes that the SB law deals with two way energy transfer is kidding themselves...the equations simply do not say any such thing.

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

 

[jc456]

Disprove something I don’t believe exists! Outstanding . You prove it exists

Again, my proof is your silence on proving your claim

Disprove something I don’t believe exists!

You don't believe the Stefan-Boltzmann equation exists?

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

Projecting your sessions! I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects like the 2nd law states, and if you feel they do post the radiating cold object at the warmer object, it must be simple to prove since you’re adamant about it

I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects

I know, you think Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong. Good for you!!

The fundamental assumption of the SB law is that the radiator is radiating into a cooler background...anyone who believes that the SB law deals with two way energy transfer is kidding themselves...the equations simply do not say any such thing.

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Disprove something I don’t believe exists!

You don't believe the Stefan-Boltzmann equation exists?

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

Projecting your sessions! I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects like the 2nd law states, and if you feel they do post the radiating cold object at the warmer object, it must be simple to prove since you’re adamant about it

I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects

I know, you think Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong. Good for you!!

The fundamental assumption of the SB law is that the radiator is radiating into a cooler background...anyone who believes that the SB law deals with two way energy transfer is kidding themselves...the equations simply do not say any such thing.

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out

Still no evidence disproving Stefan-Boltzmann? DURR......

 

[jc456]

I wonder if he'll laugh at you more than he laughed at SSDD

Let’s see it, or are you a liar?

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Funny, I’m still waiting for your observation of cold objects radiating towards hot object!

Well wait no more JC, you're about to get straighten out about "IR heat" and radiative physics... DO ASK FOR HELP if you need it, but quite simply --- The amount of IR energy passed between any two bodies will exchange in BOTH directions, depending on the geometry of the surfaces and the temperatures of the objects.. A cold and hot body will BOTH "radiate" each other.. The hot one always wins the TOTAL transfer.. Here's you proof..

Post #495. Thanks for the try, but that’s not observation and I asked for observed. Just in case you missed that part. And, i never said that the cold object doesn’t radiate, just not with a warmer object next to it. In your own post it states ‘depending’.

That science FACT in that textbook simply says that EVERYTHING is capable of radiating IR.. Even clouds and snow and ice.. And it actually SOLVES your complaint if you understood it.. A cold object facing a warm object is in a photon gunfight.. And the WARM object always wins.. Because it's the bigger IR photon flux... So NO LAW OF BASIC THERMODYNAMICS IS VIOLATED...

HOWEVER -- if you're talking about a massively distributed atmospheric shield of green house gases, that WEAK "back radiation" which is only maybe a fiftieth the earth's heat shedding, DOES happen to get reduce by a few WATTS out of HUNDREDS of watts.. Those gases act like a electromagnetic "blanket" to retard the loss to space and slow the heat loss.

The earth still LOSES HEAT every hour of the night and day to the cooler sky and space.. It just loses it at a rate reduced by the THERMAL DIFFERENCE between the atmosphere and the absolute cold of space...

NO SECOND LAW VIOLATION... Don't be a dummy.... Especially, if you don't understand the standard textbooks on the subject....

You didn’t read my whole post, why? I never said any such thing.

by the way, if they are in text books, they could say how they observed cold radiating with a warm object next to it. Just saying!

 

[jc456]

Projecting your sessions! I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects like the 2nd law states, and if you feel they do post the radiating cold object at the warmer object, it must be simple to prove since you’re adamant about it

I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects

I know, you think Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong. Good for you!!

The fundamental assumption of the SB law is that the radiator is radiating into a cooler background...anyone who believes that the SB law deals with two way energy transfer is kidding themselves...the equations simply do not say any such thing.

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out

Still no evidence disproving Stefan-Boltzmann? DURR......

I’m waiting loser you’re still posting nothing

 

[jc456]

Caviat: According to an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....all hail the dogma...all bow before the dogma...the dogma is infallible...the dogma known all..

Not “proof” flacalten...nothing like proof and you sholld be ashamed and embarrassed for suggesting that it was...such is the power of dogma...it makes proof out of thin air...and people are expected to simply accept and believe..

As I've explained to you before -- the burden on TEXTBOOK is many times higher than the burden on any papers or theories or opinion that appear in Journals.. This explanation of radiative physics is in 5 textbooks on my shelf.. All the way from the 60s to the 2000s... And no group of bright physicists have challenged the math or the theory....

It's NOT abstract... While at Kennedy Space Center, I worked on modeling for skin heat distribution for SkyLab, the Space station and the Shuttle.. Helped develop the "vehicle rotation" regimes to avoid hot spots on the sun side and distribution of internal heat along the body of the craft..

It's also the same math and physics that applies to ANY electromagnetic heating. And it's USED in a wide variety of actual systems and projects...

You go with dogma... I'll wait for the textbook revisions and a REASON to doubt it...

Just show how they observed it, cold radiating at warmer. Why isn’t in there? All those books and what no observation?

 

[flacaltenn]

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Funny, I’m still waiting for your observation of cold objects radiating towards hot object!

Well wait no more JC, you're about to get straighten out about "IR heat" and radiative physics... DO ASK FOR HELP if you need it, but quite simply --- The amount of IR energy passed between any two bodies will exchange in BOTH directions, depending on the geometry of the surfaces and the temperatures of the objects.. A cold and hot body will BOTH "radiate" each other.. The hot one always wins the TOTAL transfer.. Here's you proof..

Post #495. Thanks for the try, but that’s not observation and I asked for observed. Just in case you missed that part. And, i never said that the cold object doesn’t radiate, just not with a warmer object next to it. In your own post it states ‘depending’.

That science FACT in that textbook simply says that EVERYTHING is capable of radiating IR.. Even clouds and snow and ice.. And it actually SOLVES your complaint if you understood it.. A cold object facing a warm object is in a photon gunfight.. And the WARM object always wins.. Because it's the bigger IR photon flux... So NO LAW OF BASIC THERMODYNAMICS IS VIOLATED...

HOWEVER -- if you're talking about a massively distributed atmospheric shield of green house gases, that WEAK "back radiation" which is only maybe a fiftieth the earth's heat shedding, DOES happen to get reduce by a few WATTS out of HUNDREDS of watts.. Those gases act like a electromagnetic "blanket" to retard the loss to space and slow the heat loss.

The earth still LOSES HEAT every hour of the night and day to the cooler sky and space.. It just loses it at a rate reduced by the THERMAL DIFFERENCE between the atmosphere and the absolute cold of space...

NO SECOND LAW VIOLATION... Don't be a dummy.... Especially, if you don't understand the standard textbooks on the subject....

You didn’t read my whole post, why? I never said any such thing.

by the way, if they are in text books, they could say how they observed cold radiating with a warm object next to it. Just saying!

I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..

And if you did not deny that everything can radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum even IF its colder --- WTF was your issue??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects

I know, you think Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong. Good for you!!

The fundamental assumption of the SB law is that the radiator is radiating into a cooler background...anyone who believes that the SB law deals with two way energy transfer is kidding themselves...the equations simply do not say any such thing.

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out

Still no evidence disproving Stefan-Boltzmann? DURR......

I’m waiting loser still posting nothing

Can't remember my many examples? Is it dementia? Sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Funny, I’m still waiting for your observation of cold objects radiating towards hot object!

Well wait no more JC, you're about to get straighten out about "IR heat" and radiative physics... DO ASK FOR HELP if you need it, but quite simply --- The amount of IR energy passed between any two bodies will exchange in BOTH directions, depending on the geometry of the surfaces and the temperatures of the objects.. A cold and hot body will BOTH "radiate" each other.. The hot one always wins the TOTAL transfer.. Here's you proof..

Post #495. Thanks for the try, but that’s not observation and I asked for observed. Just in case you missed that part. And, i never said that the cold object doesn’t radiate, just not with a warmer object next to it. In your own post it states ‘depending’.

That science FACT in that textbook simply says that EVERYTHING is capable of radiating IR.. Even clouds and snow and ice.. And it actually SOLVES your complaint if you understood it.. A cold object facing a warm object is in a photon gunfight.. And the WARM object always wins.. Because it's the bigger IR photon flux... So NO LAW OF BASIC THERMODYNAMICS IS VIOLATED...

HOWEVER -- if you're talking about a massively distributed atmospheric shield of green house gases, that WEAK "back radiation" which is only maybe a fiftieth the earth's heat shedding, DOES happen to get reduce by a few WATTS out of HUNDREDS of watts.. Those gases act like a electromagnetic "blanket" to retard the loss to space and slow the heat loss.

The earth still LOSES HEAT every hour of the night and day to the cooler sky and space.. It just loses it at a rate reduced by the THERMAL DIFFERENCE between the atmosphere and the absolute cold of space...

NO SECOND LAW VIOLATION... Don't be a dummy.... Especially, if you don't understand the standard textbooks on the subject....

You didn’t read my whole post, why? I never said any such thing.

by the way, if they are in text books, they could say how they observed cold radiating with a warm object next to it. Just saying!

I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..

And if you did not deny that everything can radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum even IF its colder --- WTF was your issue??

JC is dumber than SSDD so finds it more difficult to defend the epicycles.

 

[jc456]

The fundamental assumption of the SB law is that the radiator is radiating into a cooler background...anyone who believes that the SB law deals with two way energy transfer is kidding themselves...the equations simply do not say any such thing.

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out

Still no evidence disproving Stefan-Boltzmann? DURR......

I’m waiting loser still posting nothing

Can't remember my many examples? Is it dementia? Sorry.

Yep nothing observed, still waiting

 

[jc456]

Funny, I’m still waiting for your observation of cold objects radiating towards hot object!

Well wait no more JC, you're about to get straighten out about "IR heat" and radiative physics... DO ASK FOR HELP if you need it, but quite simply --- The amount of IR energy passed between any two bodies will exchange in BOTH directions, depending on the geometry of the surfaces and the temperatures of the objects.. A cold and hot body will BOTH "radiate" each other.. The hot one always wins the TOTAL transfer.. Here's you proof..

Post #495. Thanks for the try, but that’s not observation and I asked for observed. Just in case you missed that part. And, i never said that the cold object doesn’t radiate, just not with a warmer object next to it. In your own post it states ‘depending’.

That science FACT in that textbook simply says that EVERYTHING is capable of radiating IR.. Even clouds and snow and ice.. And it actually SOLVES your complaint if you understood it.. A cold object facing a warm object is in a photon gunfight.. And the WARM object always wins.. Because it's the bigger IR photon flux... So NO LAW OF BASIC THERMODYNAMICS IS VIOLATED...

HOWEVER -- if you're talking about a massively distributed atmospheric shield of green house gases, that WEAK "back radiation" which is only maybe a fiftieth the earth's heat shedding, DOES happen to get reduce by a few WATTS out of HUNDREDS of watts.. Those gases act like a electromagnetic "blanket" to retard the loss to space and slow the heat loss.

The earth still LOSES HEAT every hour of the night and day to the cooler sky and space.. It just loses it at a rate reduced by the THERMAL DIFFERENCE between the atmosphere and the absolute cold of space...

NO SECOND LAW VIOLATION... Don't be a dummy.... Especially, if you don't understand the standard textbooks on the subject....

You didn’t read my whole post, why? I never said any such thing.

by the way, if they are in text books, they could say how they observed cold radiating with a warm object next to it. Just saying!

I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..

And if you did not deny that everything can radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum even IF its colder --- WTF was your issue??

Yep, when it is pointed at cold, it loses energy to the cold object, it is the thermo coupler reading a loss of energy. What is the make, I’ll be happy to pull the explanation from their web site for you!

 

[flacaltenn]

Well wait no more JC, you're about to get straighten out about "IR heat" and radiative physics... DO ASK FOR HELP if you need it, but quite simply --- The amount of IR energy passed between any two bodies will exchange in BOTH directions, depending on the geometry of the surfaces and the temperatures of the objects.. A cold and hot body will BOTH "radiate" each other.. The hot one always wins the TOTAL transfer.. Here's you proof..

Post #495. Thanks for the try, but that’s not observation and I asked for observed. Just in case you missed that part. And, i never said that the cold object doesn’t radiate, just not with a warmer object next to it. In your own post it states ‘depending’.

That science FACT in that textbook simply says that EVERYTHING is capable of radiating IR.. Even clouds and snow and ice.. And it actually SOLVES your complaint if you understood it.. A cold object facing a warm object is in a photon gunfight.. And the WARM object always wins.. Because it's the bigger IR photon flux... So NO LAW OF BASIC THERMODYNAMICS IS VIOLATED...

HOWEVER -- if you're talking about a massively distributed atmospheric shield of green house gases, that WEAK "back radiation" which is only maybe a fiftieth the earth's heat shedding, DOES happen to get reduce by a few WATTS out of HUNDREDS of watts.. Those gases act like a electromagnetic "blanket" to retard the loss to space and slow the heat loss.

The earth still LOSES HEAT every hour of the night and day to the cooler sky and space.. It just loses it at a rate reduced by the THERMAL DIFFERENCE between the atmosphere and the absolute cold of space...

NO SECOND LAW VIOLATION... Don't be a dummy.... Especially, if you don't understand the standard textbooks on the subject....

You didn’t read my whole post, why? I never said any such thing.

by the way, if they are in text books, they could say how they observed cold radiating with a warm object next to it. Just saying!

I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..

And if you did not deny that everything can radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum even IF its colder --- WTF was your issue??

Yep, when it is pointed at cold, it loses energy to the cold object, it is the thermo coupler reading a loss of energy. What is the make, I’ll be happy to pull the explanation from their web site for you!

It's not a "thermocouple" dolt.. It's OPTICAL.. And it's reading specifically IR PHOTONS directed at it.. The optics are very narrow to allow you to descriminate the target area...

And there'd be NO POINT in you reading me the manual.. I've designed equipment to read IR photons....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out

Still no evidence disproving Stefan-Boltzmann? DURR......

I’m waiting loser still posting nothing

Can't remember my many examples? Is it dementia? Sorry.

Yep nothing observed, still waiting

The Sun shining through the corona, the Earth radiating through the thermosphere, the atmosphere radiating toward the surface. All examples of cooler matter radiating at warmer matter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out

Still no evidence disproving Stefan-Boltzmann? DURR......

I’m waiting loser still posting nothing

Can't remember my many examples? Is it dementia? Sorry.

Yep nothing observed, still waiting

I always liked this one.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well wait no more JC, you're about to get straighten out about "IR heat" and radiative physics... DO ASK FOR HELP if you need it, but quite simply --- The amount of IR energy passed between any two bodies will exchange in BOTH directions, depending on the geometry of the surfaces and the temperatures of the objects.. A cold and hot body will BOTH "radiate" each other.. The hot one always wins the TOTAL transfer.. Here's you proof..

Post #495. Thanks for the try, but that’s not observation and I asked for observed. Just in case you missed that part. And, i never said that the cold object doesn’t radiate, just not with a warmer object next to it. In your own post it states ‘depending’.

That science FACT in that textbook simply says that EVERYTHING is capable of radiating IR.. Even clouds and snow and ice.. And it actually SOLVES your complaint if you understood it.. A cold object facing a warm object is in a photon gunfight.. And the WARM object always wins.. Because it's the bigger IR photon flux... So NO LAW OF BASIC THERMODYNAMICS IS VIOLATED...

HOWEVER -- if you're talking about a massively distributed atmospheric shield of green house gases, that WEAK "back radiation" which is only maybe a fiftieth the earth's heat shedding, DOES happen to get reduce by a few WATTS out of HUNDREDS of watts.. Those gases act like a electromagnetic "blanket" to retard the loss to space and slow the heat loss.

The earth still LOSES HEAT every hour of the night and day to the cooler sky and space.. It just loses it at a rate reduced by the THERMAL DIFFERENCE between the atmosphere and the absolute cold of space...

NO SECOND LAW VIOLATION... Don't be a dummy.... Especially, if you don't understand the standard textbooks on the subject....

You didn’t read my whole post, why? I never said any such thing.

by the way, if they are in text books, they could say how they observed cold radiating with a warm object next to it. Just saying!

I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..

And if you did not deny that everything can radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum even IF its colder --- WTF was your issue??

Yep, when it is pointed at cold, it loses energy to the cold object, it is the thermo coupler reading a loss of energy. What is the make, I’ll be happy to pull the explanation from their web site for you!

How does "COOL" flow away from anything? You have a transfer mechanism that science doesn't know about? You're really confused. Confused about the difference between heat and light. And confused about how a simple IR thermometer works.

LIGHT (like IR radiation) is a different animal than heat.. It travels differently. It has an actual electromagnetic structure.. It is NOT heat.. UNTIL it is absorbed by an object. It's like other form of light.. That's why there is a separate physics for it's ability to propagate and convert to heat energy..
It transfers NOTHING to the object being scanned.. I counts IR light photons EMITTED by objects as way to determine their temperature....

 

[SSDD]

THERE IS NO HEATING OF SURFACE DIRECTLY --- by the GreenHouse.. (in an equilibrium state) .

So you have your own personal greenhouse hypothesis as well? One that doesn't claim that there is direct heating of the surface. Interesting, because the IPCC, the mouthpiece of climate science says otherwise...

IPCC FAQ 1.3 What is a greenhouse effect?

"Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

The NET heat flux is ALWAYS to the sky... The GreenHouse simply retards the RATE of loss to space....

Oh...so that explains why there is no upper tropospheric hot spot...the fingerprint of man made climate change and the inescapable, inevitable result of ANYTHING that claims to retard the rate of loss of energy to space...and I suppose it explains why there is no decrease in the amount of outgoing LW to space at the TOA as well...all that "retardation"

There is retardation present in this discussion, but it has nothing to do with the movement of energy. Interesting how you luke warmers tend to all have your own personal versions of the greenhouse hypothesis...none of which seem to work the same way as the greenhouse hypothesis that climate science describes...

 

[SSDD]

Disprove something I don’t believe exists!

You don't believe the Stefan-Boltzmann equation exists?

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

Projecting your sessions! I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects like the 2nd law states, and if you feel they do post the radiating cold object at the warmer object, it must be simple to prove since you’re adamant about it

I don’t believe cold objects radiate to warmer objects

I know, you think Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong. Good for you!!

The fundamental assumption of the SB law is that the radiator is radiating into a cooler background...anyone who believes that the SB law deals with two way energy transfer is kidding themselves...the equations simply do not say any such thing.

Still no backup for your "objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?
Or for your dimmer switch theory?
Weird.

Maybe you should contact Dr. Raeder again?

Still no evidence they emit, funny, you keep striking out

Yep...they will show you book after book after book and model after model and tell you what "everyone" believes...what they won't show you is actual evidence...that used to be what physics was all about...before the post modern age that is...now it is about protecting the dogma, and inventing particles and mechanics to explain away everything that contradicts the dogma..

 

[SSDD]

I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..

What you do every time you point your Home Depot IR thermometer is get fooled by instrumentation. That lens in the front of your thermometer focuses whatever you point it at at an internal thermopile...if you are pointing it at a warmer object, the thermopile begins to warm and the amount and rate of warming is converted to an electrical signal and plugged into an equation and it tells you the temperature...if what you are pointing it at is a cooler object, the internal thermopile starts cooling down and again, the rate and amount of cooling is converted into an electrical signal and plugged into an equation and it tells you the temperature.

I hate to burst your bubble, but your thermometer is not measuring cold radiation moving from your leaky window to your warmer thermometer. You should be embarrassed that you don't know how such a simple instrument works, but clearly you aren't.....behold, the power of dogma.....you apparently are perfectly fine with being fooled by your instrument every time you use it....ALL HAIL THE DOGMA....

I see why you would want to keep this sort of conversation away from the general population...if I didn't know how my Home Depot IR thermometer worked, I might not want everyone in creation to know about it either...especially if I was passing myself off as some sort of expert in energy transfer..