Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

[Old Rocks]

Back to the subject. Even though there is a slight decline in the TSI, we are not seeing that reflected in the real world temperatures.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still no answer? You're the one taking on all of science.

And I mean physics, not bullshit AGW.

Michael Mann is full of shit. Just like you.

You said my explanation for why a cooled instrument can measure a radiation spectrum from a warmer object and a second instrument uncooled, right next to it can not measure a spectrum from the object which is cooler than that instrument was not the actual reason...so what is your explanation for it? Let me know when you have an answer.

You claim to know physics...so explain it., If you have no explanation...if you have nothing, then you really have no basis for thinking that my explanation is anything other than the actual reason.

was not the actual reason.

Just to be clear, your "reason" is because photons from the atmosphere can't travel to a warmer instrument on the ground, but can travel to a cooler instrument......because the 2nd Law. Is that close enough?

So you have an explanation or not?

The photons hit both instruments, obviously.

Now you explain why I'm wrong.

Not obviously...both instruments are perfectly capable of measuring and recording a spectrum, yet only the one that is cooler than the radiation source measures one...why?

Do you have a rational, scientifically valid reason or not?

It's been posted before that cooling reduces internal interference.

Net thermal flux is larger if the instrument is cooled.

Now, about your claim that atmospheric photons only hit a cooled instrument, and not an uncooled one.

Are you the only person in the world who knows the secret?
Seems that way.
Weird.

 

[Old Rocks]

Back to the subject. Even though there is a slight decline in the TSI, we are not seeing that reflected in the real world temperatures.

For today, we are looking at +0.9 for the world, and +1.3 for the Northern Hemisphere. Now that is some cooling.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Back to the subject. Even though there is a slight decline in the TSI, we are not seeing that reflected in the real world temperatures.

For today, we are looking at +0.9 for the world, and +1.3 for the Northern Hemisphere. Now that is some cooling.

Only in your Karl Et Al world... The rest of us know better..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You said my explanation for why a cooled instrument can measure a radiation spectrum from a warmer object and a second instrument uncooled, right next to it can not measure a spectrum from the object which is cooler than that instrument was not the actual reason...so what is your explanation for it? Let me know when you have an answer.

You claim to know physics...so explain it., If you have no explanation...if you have nothing, then you really have no basis for thinking that my explanation is anything other than the actual reason.

was not the actual reason.

Just to be clear, your "reason" is because photons from the atmosphere can't travel to a warmer instrument on the ground, but can travel to a cooler instrument......because the 2nd Law. Is that close enough?

So you have an explanation or not?

The photons hit both instruments, obviously.

Now you explain why I'm wrong.

Not obviously...both instruments are perfectly capable of measuring and recording a spectrum, yet only the one that is cooler than the radiation source measures one...why?

Do you have a rational, scientifically valid reason or not?

It's been posted before that cooling reduces internal interference.

Net thermal flux is larger if the instrument is cooled.

Now, about your claim that atmospheric photons only hit a cooled instrument, and not an uncooled one.

Are you the only person in the world who knows the secret?
Seems that way.
Weird.

Weird... And for some reason you don't have a clue why less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object... You really can't grasp basic physics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

was not the actual reason.

Just to be clear, your "reason" is because photons from the atmosphere can't travel to a warmer instrument on the ground, but can travel to a cooler instrument......because the 2nd Law. Is that close enough?

So you have an explanation or not?

The photons hit both instruments, obviously.

Now you explain why I'm wrong.

Not obviously...both instruments are perfectly capable of measuring and recording a spectrum, yet only the one that is cooler than the radiation source measures one...why?

Do you have a rational, scientifically valid reason or not?

It's been posted before that cooling reduces internal interference.

Net thermal flux is larger if the instrument is cooled.

Now, about your claim that atmospheric photons only hit a cooled instrument, and not an uncooled one.

Are you the only person in the world who knows the secret?
Seems that way.
Weird.

Weird... And for some reason you don't have a clue why less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object... You really can't grasp basic physics.

And for some reason you don't have a clue why less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object...

If you have a source that backs up your claim, post it.

And you should tell SSDD that photons from cooler matter are allowed to hit warmer matter.

He needs some help.

 

[boedicca]

I keep reminding you all to buy a decent cheap used fur coat on Ebay before the prices go through the roof. Anyone who lives in an area that already has a snowy season is going to get hammered. And those of us who are used to lows in the 40s and now snow, are going to be in shock if we don't get proper gear.

 

[Wuwei]

The radiation is only “downdwelling” to the cooled instrument as evidenced by the fact that if you place an instrument which is not cooled next to the cooled instrument instrument, the instrument which is warmer than the atmosphere will not measure that spectrum as it is not downdwelling to said warmer instrument or to anywhere else that is warmer than the atmosphere, ie., the surface if the earth.

Certainly an instrument at ambient temperature would be swamped by a high level of internal long wave radiation noise.

So do you think the observed long wave radiation that was downwelling to a cooled detector would stop radiating elsewhere, or would it still be downwelling elsewhere but stop short of hitting the earth. Or would it somehow impede some of the upwelling radiation from the warm earth?

Recall that the SB equation says the earth is radiating around 400 W/m² . You have to consider where all that upwelling long wave IR energy goes, because at the TOA the outgoing LW radiation was observed to be only 240 W/m².

 

[SSDD]

You said my explanation for why a cooled instrument can measure a radiation spectrum from a warmer object and a second instrument uncooled, right next to it can not measure a spectrum from the object which is cooler than that instrument was not the actual reason...so what is your explanation for it? Let me know when you have an answer.

You claim to know physics...so explain it., If you have no explanation...if you have nothing, then you really have no basis for thinking that my explanation is anything other than the actual reason.

was not the actual reason.

Just to be clear, your "reason" is because photons from the atmosphere can't travel to a warmer instrument on the ground, but can travel to a cooler instrument......because the 2nd Law. Is that close enough?

So you have an explanation or not?

The photons hit both instruments, obviously.

Now you explain why I'm wrong.

Not obviously...both instruments are perfectly capable of measuring and recording a spectrum, yet only the one that is cooler than the radiation source measures one...why?

Do you have a rational, scientifically valid reason or not?

It's been posted before that cooling reduces internal interference.

You show me a drawing depicting an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and offer that up as proof? Proof of what exactly?

Net thermal flux is larger if the instrument is cooled.

Point the instrument at the ground and you get a spectrum....point it at open sky and you don't...which interference are you talking about? Isn't there supposed to be better than 330 wm^2 radiating down from the sky? Those few wm^2 make so much interference that you can't measure any discrete frequency at all? Really? Point the instrument away from open sky and at the sun and you get a spectrum...seems that there would be a whole lot more interference there. It is clear that you are easily fooled by instrumentation and fooled by whatever someone may tell you about instrumentation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

was not the actual reason.

Just to be clear, your "reason" is because photons from the atmosphere can't travel to a warmer instrument on the ground, but can travel to a cooler instrument......because the 2nd Law. Is that close enough?

So you have an explanation or not?

The photons hit both instruments, obviously.

Now you explain why I'm wrong.

Not obviously...both instruments are perfectly capable of measuring and recording a spectrum, yet only the one that is cooler than the radiation source measures one...why?

Do you have a rational, scientifically valid reason or not?

It's been posted before that cooling reduces internal interference.

You show me a drawing depicting an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and offer that up as proof? Proof of what exactly?

Net thermal flux is larger if the instrument is cooled.

Point the instrument at the ground and you get a spectrum....point it at open sky and you don't...which interference are you talking about? Isn't there supposed to be better than 330 wm^2 radiating down from the sky? Those few wm^2 make so much interference that you can't measure any discrete frequency at all? Really? Point the instrument away from open sky and at the sun and you get a spectrum...seems that there would be a whole lot more interference there. It is clear that you are easily fooled by instrumentation and fooled by whatever someone may tell you about instrumentation.

You show me a drawing depicting an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and offer that up as proof?

You're acting like I drew that diagram myself.
That's from one of your sources.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

It's cute that you think you know more than they do.

which interference are you talking about?

As the diagram from The Handbook of Modern Sensors shows,
the sensor responds to the net flux. Do you need the definition of "net"?

 

[SSDD]

You're acting like I drew that diagram myself.
That's from one of your sources.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

Doesn't much matter who drew it any more than who drew the graphs and diagrams suggesting that salt raises your blood pressure, or any of the other myriad of graphs that supposedly showed one thing or another that turned out to simply not be true.

The istruments are showing you something...puzzle it out and let me know when you have an answer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're acting like I drew that diagram myself.
That's from one of your sources.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

Doesn't much matter who drew it any more than who drew the graphs and diagrams suggesting that salt raises your blood pressure, or any of the other myriad of graphs that supposedly showed one thing or another that turned out to simply not be true.

The istruments are showing you something...puzzle it out and let me know when you have an answer.

Doesn't much matter who drew it

Cute.

Do you have a similar professional source that backs up your claim that photons are
emitted toward a cooled instrument and are not emitted toward an uncooled instrument?

Of course you don't.

Every time you post a real source, it contradicts your claims.

 

[SSDD]

So you don't have an answer...all you have is your belief. Unsurprising...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't have an answer...all you have is your belief. Unsurprising...

All by yourself...…...weird.

 

[SSDD]

So you don't have an answer...all you have is your belief. Unsurprising...

All by yourself...…...weird.

All by myself with nothing but the observable, measurable evidence to support me, while you have nothing but unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, models.

I'll take it. Thanks for playing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't have an answer...all you have is your belief. Unsurprising...

All by yourself...…...weird.

All by myself with nothing but the observable, measurable evidence to support me, while you have nothing but unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, models.

I'll take it. Thanks for playing.

All by myself with nothing but the observable, measurable evidence to support me,

If that were true, you'd have plenty of sources, all agreeing with your belief that the atmosphere will emit toward a cooled instrument but not toward an uncooled one.

You'd have plenty of sources, as respectable as the Handbook of Modern Sensors, all saying that energy only flows one way, instead of none agreeing with you and all of them showing a two way flow of energy.

And you'd have a source, any source, that agrees with your claim that at equilibrium, all radiation stops.

But you don't have any sources, with all that "observable, measurable evidence" that you claim backs you up.

Because you're all by yourself. Weird.

 

[Tresha91203]

God, I'm going to regret opening my mouth in this echo chamber, but I'm actually curious.

It seems very reasonable to point out that lowering the temperature of the instrument, however necessary, skews the results. The cooled instrument would obviously be measuring more than back radiation. At risk of sounding like an idiot, but there's got to be some way to at least ballpark measure how much more. No?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

God, I'm going to regret opening my mouth in this echo chamber, but I'm actually curious.

It seems very reasonable to point out that lowering the temperature of the instrument, however necessary, skews the results. The cooled instrument would obviously be measuring more than back radiation. At risk of sounding like an idiot, but there's got to be some way to at least ballpark measure how much more. No?

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Page 106 in the pdf.

 

[Wuwei]

God, I'm going to regret opening my mouth in this echo chamber, but I'm actually curious.

It seems very reasonable to point out that lowering the temperature of the instrument, however necessary, skews the results. The cooled instrument would obviously be measuring more than back radiation. At risk of sounding like an idiot, but there's got to be some way to at least ballpark measure how much more. No?

A detector doesn't measure the difference between input radiation and it's own internal radiation. It measures the sum of those two. As you lower the temperature of the detector all that's left is the external radiation, and that more accurately represents what you are trying to measure.

 

[SSDD]

If that were true, you'd have plenty of sources, all agreeing with your belief that the atmosphere will emit toward a cooled instrument but not toward an uncooled one.
.

If the observable measurable evidence isn't enough for you, then you have my sympathy. Unlike you, I don't need to be part of a herd and have people around me to hold my hand and tell me that my position is good and true even if the observable measurable evidence doesn't support it.