Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[flacaltenn]

In a model perhaps...not in the real world...but feel free to show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of radiation with an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than that of the snow drift...

The Home Depot IR thermometer is not cooled to a temperature lower than the snow pile -- YET -- it will read the surface temp of the snow pile fairly accurately...

You just REPEAT things and never learn anything.. That's why we NEED special threads for your disabilities...

I've COOLED IR detectors many times.. But NEVER to read a colder object.. They are COOLED to reduce their internal THERMAL NOISE and get better dynamic range on the the measurements.. We've been HERE twice before and you just huff it off just like all those "dogma" textbooks....

 

[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......

The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background...it says nothing about two way energy flow....the onus is upon you guys to prove it wrong...Set T to the same temperature as TC and P=zero...I have no problem with that...you on the other hand believe that it is wrong...so prove it with some actual evidence.

The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background..

Two way flow. Or between 2 objects.

it says nothing about two way energy flow...

Nothing in the equation says one way.

Set T to the same temperature as TC and P=zero...

Yes, net power loss is zero.

I have no problem with that...you on the other hand believe that it is wrong...

I have no problem with a net loss of zero.

Any backup for your "no radiating in either direction" theory?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The sensor array in the camera is made of multiple thermopiles...some are warming...some are cooling..the amount and rate of warming is indicated by warm colors...the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream...

.the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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..

Yep...they will show you book after book after book and model after model and tell you what "everyone" believes...

And then there is you, telling us what no one believes.

what they won't show you is actual evidence...

Did you ever find that evidence for "objects at equilibrium cease emissions"? No? Weird.

Sure...there is all sorts of evidence...the fact that you can't measure energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...or even energy moving spontaneously between two objects at equilibrium is evidence...if the energy were moving, then you could measuring it happening...it isn't, and you can't....that is evidence..

the fact that you can't measure energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...or even energy moving spontaneously between two objects at equilibrium is evidence...

If you have any evidence that no energy moves between objects at equilibrium, post it.

Or if you have any real scientists saying no energy moves between objects at equilibrium, post them.

What? Nothing? Still? LOL!

 

[SSDD]

The Home Depot IR thermometer is not cooled to a temperature lower than the snow pile -- YET -- it will read the surface temp of the snow pile fairly accurately...

And your Home Depot thermometer isn't telling you anything about discrete wavelengths of energy is it? Or do you believe that it is?

The only thing your Home Depot thermometer is telling you is how much and how fast the internal thermopile is losing energy to the snow pile...it isn't receiving jack from the snow pile...it is measuring how much and how quickly the internal thermopile is cooling off...and nothing else...Go learn something...

You just REPEAT things and never learn anything.. That's why we NEED special threads for your disabilities...

Funny coming from a guy who claims to be an expert who doesn't even know how a simple IR thermometer works...even my grandkids can tell you how that simple instrument works... At this point it is more than clear that it is you who has the disability .....extreme arrogance brought on by belief in magical dogma...

I've COOLED IR detectors many times.. But NEVER to read a colder object.. They are COOLED to reduce their internal THERMAL NOISE and get better dynamic range on the the measurements.. We've been HERE twice before and you just huff it off just like all those "dogma" textbooks....

You have only been fooled by instrumentation...typical among warmers and luke warmers...you see what you want to see and never bother to try and find out what you are actually measuring...like the IR thermometer...you think you are measuring anything from the snow pile but you aren't.. you are only measuring how much and how fast the internal thermopile is losing energy to the snow..

You cool instruments that are capable of measuring discrete wavelengths of energy because if you don't and the object you point the instrument at is cooler than the instrument, no energy will move from the object to the instrument...even if the object is a fraction of a degree warmer than the instrument, you can measure discrete wavelengths of energy coming form the object...let the object get even a fraction of a degree cooler than the instrument and you get nothing...you can call the nothing you measure noise all you like if that sort of mental masturbation is your thing...but you are not measuring anything because there is nothing to measure...

You can call the snow on a TV screen that is receiving no signal noise if you like...but it isn't noise...it is lack of signal because there is nothing there...

Yes...we have been here before and you lost then as well because when the rubber meets the road and it is time to produce evidence to support your beliefs, you have none...all you have is evidnece that you are easily fooled by instruments as evidenced by your complete ignorance of what your IR thermometer is actually measuring.

The more you talk, the more I see why you would want to censor this sort of argument...I mean, geez...how much more simple could an instrument be than an IR thermometer and you don't even know what that is measuring...you have all the dogma, but dogma is all it is...no actual evidence to support anything other than the obvious fact that instruments fool you...

 

[abu afak]

Exchange from my "How do we know it's human caused" below that I think is relevant here. Only read the first few pages though.

We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...

And you're Wrong on that too....
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data.
The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect."..."​

See Link for many more Precise Charts.

`

 

[SSDD]

Exchange from my "How do we know it's human caused" below that I think is relevant here. Only read the first few pages though.

We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...
Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...

And you're Wrong on that too....
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect."..."

`

Sorry guy...but that simply is not true...you will believe anything won't you...and apparently from anybody (skeptical science...what a joke) so long as they are a warmer...


Here are the graphs from that study...feel free to print them out and overlay them...you will see that they are identical...the claimed difference was all in models...not in the actual observations.

 

[abu afak]

Sorry guy...but that simply is not true...you will believe anything won't you...and apparently from anybody (skeptical science...what a joke) so long as they are a warmer...

Here are the graphs from that study...feel free to print them out and overlay them...you will see that they are identical...the claimed difference was all in models...not in the actual observations.

Thanks.
That's why it shut you up in my thread below.
We do know radiative heat escape is being blocked and by what GH gas at what Wavelength.

The charts are just your extraordinarily Disingenuous attempt to say the opposite of what is said in much more detail than what you Spammed up.

Again. We know heat escape is blocked by GH gases and at their precise wavelengths.
This can be found on Many websites. Many studies.
Gameover again, but you will keep posting as always.

In fact, my above info puts you pretty much out of this whole thread. 60 pages refuted in one simple excerpt.
You HAVE to just do post-overs to obscure the facts.
`

 

[SSDD]

the charts are what they are...they show no decrease in outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 emission bands...the only difference was in the models...not in observation.

 

[flacaltenn]

And your Home Depot thermometer isn't telling you anything about discrete wavelengths of energy is it? Or do you believe that it is?

Oh holy shit man.. I just can't get past the idiocy in the 1st line of every post you make.. The ENTIRE INSTRUMENT is tuned to reading ONLY Deep Infra Red wavelengths. The OPTICS is special glass that filters EVERY OTHER wavelength out so that it is not measured...

You have only been fooled by instrumentation...typical among warmers and luke warmers...you see what you want to see and never bother to try and find out what you are actually measuring...like the IR thermometer...you think you are measuring anything from the snow pile but you aren't.. you are only measuring how much and how fast the internal thermopile is losing energy to the snow..

Damn this is pretty dense denial.. You've totally lost the ability to think clearly.... Don't even CARE to reinspect these brain farts after being corrected a dozen times.. For the FINAL time...

The INSTRUMENT is not losing heat to the snow pile.. HERE"S WHY...

1) The optics is a highly magnified field of view.. The inclusion angle is about 12Deg and is "cut off" for operation at about distances longer than 10 feet.. Which MEANS the actual AMOUNT of snow pile being viewed at say 4 feet is about a 3 inch diameter of snow... So if you think 3" of snow in the FOView -- demagnified onto about a 10mm sensor at four feet away is gonna COOL the sensor MORE than the AMBIENT BELOW FREEZING temperature -- your brain is in idle...

2) You can make that measurement at 1 foot to 10 feet and get the SAME RESULT... If the snow pile was COOLING the sensor -- there would LESS cooling the farther away you went...

3) How does the snow pile "cool" the sensor anyways?? The air is not a great thermal conductor.. And in fact, if anything was cooling the sensor it would be the ambient air -- not the snow pile.. There is NO DIRECT HEAT TRANSFER path from the sensor to the snow pile with any amount of real efficient CONDUCTIVE heat transfer... It's all a machine gun battle of photons..

You're on your own with the rest of that post.. I'm in shock and awe....

 

[SSDD]

Oh holy shit man.. I just can't get past the idiocy in the 1st line of every post you make.. The ENTIRE INSTRUMENT is tuned to reading ONLY Deep Infra Red wavelengths. The OPTICS is special glass that filters EVERY OTHER wavelength out so that it is not measured...

No...it isn't...you might be able to get past your idiocy if you actually tried to learn a bit about the instrument...It is not "tuned" to only read deep IR wavelengths...and the optics are nothing but a lens that focuses light (IR) onto a thermopile behind it.

Once again, although you apparently are too dense to understand, your IR thermometer is measuring nothing...NOTHING...but the amount and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile...The lens in the front focuses light (IR) onto the thermopile which then either warms up, or cools down due to absorbing energy from the object you are pointing at, or loses energy to the object you are pointing at...the temperature change is converted to an electrical signal which is measured, put through a formula and converted to a temperature... It has a maximum and minimum range but that is due to the thermopile itself, not the magical glass...or any other hocus pocus you believe to be going on.

The fact that you call me an idiot when you don't even know how this simple instrument works is both funny, and sad...

And back to the point....does an instrument that measures the rate of change of an internal thermopile and converts it to a temperature tell you anything about discrete wavelengths of energy?

Do you know what the word discrete might mean with regard to wavelengths of energy? Discreet, from the latin discretus....separate...distinct.

You are the source of the idiocy here...not me...you and your belief in magic...

Damn this is pretty dense denial.. You've totally lost the ability to think clearly.... Don't even CARE to reinspect these brain farts after being corrected a dozen times.. For the FINAL time...

Yep....you are chin deep in denial...so far in that you don't even realize it...you have gone off the deep end and surrendered to magical thinking...and no matter how many times you repeat your total misunderstanding...you will still be wrong.

The INSTRUMENT is not losing heat to the snow pile.. HERE"S WHY...

Of course it is...

1) The optics is a highly magnified field of view.. The inclusion angle is about 12Deg and is "cut off" for operation at about distances longer than 10 feet.. Which MEANS the actual AMOUNT of snow pile being viewed at say 4 feet is about a 3 inch diameter of snow... So if you think 3" of snow in the FOView -- demagnified onto about a 10mm sensor at four feet away is gonna COOL the sensor MORE than the AMBIENT BELOW FREEZING temperature -- your brain is in idle...

That is precisely why the light from the object is "FOCUSED" onto the thermopile...

2) You can make that measurement at 1 foot to 10 feet and get the SAME RESULT... If the snow pile was COOLING the sensor -- there would LESS cooling the farther away you went...

Read the info on your thermometer..it states pretty clearly that the further away you are from the object, the less accurate the reading will be...because the light from the object is FOCUSED" on the thermopile...

3) How does the snow pile "cool" the sensor anyways??

Refer to Pictet's experiment...he was operating under the mistaken belief that cold objects emitted cold radiation as well...and his experiment describes a rudimentary IR thermometer...

http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Pictet-Apparent_Radiation_and_Reflection_of_Cold.pdf

Pictet unintentionally provided a fine demonstration of the fact that a cold body can not make a warm body warmer...and some 50 years later Lord Kelvin and Clausius provided second law of thermodynamics and its one way energy movement to explain what was happening in Pictet's experiment... Your IR thermometer works just like that only considerably more complicated and accurate...

The air is not a great thermal conductor.. And in fact, if anything was cooling the sensor it would be the ambient air -- not the snow pile..

Again...the snow pile is FOCUSED on the internal thermopile...it is the thermopile, and its amount and rate of cooling or warming that is converted to an electrical signal, run through a formula and then provides a temperature.. The only thing being measured is how much and how quickly the thermopile is warming or cooling...it isn't a difficult concept to grasp if you could drop the belief in magic just for a minute...

There is NO DIRECT HEAT TRANSFER path from the sensor to the snow pile with any amount of real efficient CONDUCTIVE heat transfer... It's all a machine gun battle of photons..

Sorry guy...your IR thermometer is not magic...it is a simple machine that measures how much and how fast an internal thermopile is warming or cooling...nothing more...if you point it at a cool object, then it loses heat to the cooler object...

Here....from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications: page 307, section 7.8

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

Now you can go on with your magical thinking all you like...but the fact is that the thermopile in your IR thermometer is losing energy to the cooler object...you are not measuring magical cold radiation coming from a snow pile or any damned thing else that is cooler than your thermometer...

You're on your own with the rest of that post.. I'm in shock and awe....

Convenient dodge...It is apparent why you wanted to make a "safe zone" of the entire board except for this thread which you gave a derogatory name...you have made an abysmal showing here and you should be embarrassed for yourself... Dogma and magical thinking is not a good substitute for actually knowing a thing or two...

You may have a career in instrumentation, but it is clear that you don't know what they are measuring or how they are doing it...you are immersed in the dogma to the point that you aren't even able to get a clue...because like all consumers of dogma...you believe you already have all the answers....

 

[jc456]

I

thermopile, I'm used to thermocouplers from my past experiences. same difference, and you should be ashamed you don't know how the device actually converts for temperature readings.

Nope... Thermopiles are ancient, inefficient and noisy... And since the electronics revolution, there are cheaper better ways to collect IR photons...

I do know what I'm doing. Or I wouldnt have been on the "go-to" team for photon counting applications and products...

I disagree, I am in the business of electronics, and there’s no reverse energy. Just isn’t and the device you claim to have calculates the temperature based on receiving IR from warmer objects or losing energy to show cold objects. You won’t even give the brand so I can pull their specs on what it does .

 

[jc456]

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.

The sensor array in the camera is made of multiple thermopiles...some are warming...some are cooling..the amount and rate of warming is indicated by warm colors...the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream...

View attachment 272989

.the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?
nope, none.
cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

 

[SSDD]

I

thermopile, I'm used to thermocouplers from my past experiences. same difference, and you should be ashamed you don't know how the device actually converts for temperature readings.

Nope... Thermopiles are ancient, inefficient and noisy... And since the electronics revolution, there are cheaper better ways to collect IR photons...

I do know what I'm doing. Or I wouldnt have been on the "go-to" team for photon counting applications and products...

I disagree, I am in the business of electronics, and there’s no reverse energy. Just isn’t and the device you claim to have calculates the temperature based on receiving IR from warmer objects or losing energy to show cold objects. You won’t even give the brand so I can pull their specs on what it does .

He is so blinded by his arrogance and dogma that even if the man who designed the instrument told him how it worked, he would deny it in favor of what he believes...he has become the worst sort of fundamentalist zealot...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Yep nothing observed, still waiting

I always liked this one.

The sensor array in the camera is made of multiple thermopiles...some are warming...some are cooling..the amount and rate of warming is indicated by warm colors...the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream...

View attachment 272989

.the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?
nope, none.
cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

nope, none.

SB disagrees.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

Everything emits photons.

 

[jc456]

Yep nothing observed, still waiting

I always liked this one.

The sensor array in the camera is made of multiple thermopiles...some are warming...some are cooling..the amount and rate of warming is indicated by warm colors...the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream...

View attachment 272989

.the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?
nope, none.
cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

nope, none.

SB disagrees.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

Everything emits photons.

SB disagrees.

how so?

post the completed equation that shows that.

 

[jc456]

Yep nothing observed, still waiting

I always liked this one.

The sensor array in the camera is made of multiple thermopiles...some are warming...some are cooling..the amount and rate of warming is indicated by warm colors...the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream...

View attachment 272989

.the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?
nope, none.
cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

nope, none.

SB disagrees.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

Everything emits photons.

yep, I don't disagree. when they emit them is the issue. you seem lost as normal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I always liked this one.

The sensor array in the camera is made of multiple thermopiles...some are warming...some are cooling..the amount and rate of warming is indicated by warm colors...the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream...

View attachment 272989

.the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?
nope, none.
cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

nope, none.

SB disagrees.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

Everything emits photons.

SB disagrees.

how so?

post the completed equation that shows that.

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

 

[jc456]

The sensor array in the camera is made of multiple thermopiles...some are warming...some are cooling..the amount and rate of warming is indicated by warm colors...the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream...

View attachment 272989

.the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?
nope, none.
cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

nope, none.

SB disagrees.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

Everything emits photons.

SB disagrees.

how so?

post the completed equation that shows that.

View attachment 273078

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

fill it out, enter the temperatures and show me. no, no, come on big man step up and show the calculation. cold object warm object fill it in. let's see your answer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 272989

.the amount and rate of cooling is indicated by cool colors...

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?

cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

Really? The image of the colder ice cream is because photons are moving from the camera to the ice cream, but none are moving from the ice cream to the camera?
nope, none.
cold radiation is not being beamed into the camera from the ice cream..

Because there is no such thing as cold radiation. Just radiation.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

nope, none.

SB disagrees.

And something that radiates is emitting heat energy

Everything emits photons.

SB disagrees.

how so?

post the completed equation that shows that.

View attachment 273078

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

fill it out, enter the temperatures and show me. no, no, come on big man step up and show the calculation.

-10C