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

[SSDD]

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?

Really? Point the uncooled instrument at the ground which according to science is radiating 350+ wm^2 and you will measure a spectrum of discrete frequencies of radiation...just turn that instrument up towards open sky which according to climate science is radiating down 330+ wm^2 and all of the spectrum of frequencies disappears...you don't get a spectrum that is less clear because of interference...you get nothing as in nothing coming in. No instrument can measure back radiation...that is radiation moving from a cooler object to a warmer object because radiation doesn't move in that direction...the second law of thermodynamics says pretty clearly that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object without some work having been done to make such movement happen.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Again...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model. If that illustration represents reality, why can't you measure it at ambient temperature?

 

[SSDD]

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.

A spectrometer/spectroscope measures nothing but incoming radiation. It takes that incoming radiation and breaks it into its spectral components. It has to if you want an accurate spectrum of the object you are pointing it at. If it were measuring its own internal radiation, the spectrum would not represent just the object it were pointed at. Once again, you don't have the slightest idea what the various instruments are measuring which goes a long way towards explaining why you are so easily fooled by them. It isn't as if there aren't hundreds if not thousands of pages on the web explaining how they work.

You remind me very much of an actor who was on the series Cheers...his name was Cliff Claven. He believed that he knew most everything and was perfectly willing to spew is ignorance in public. It might have taken you 45 seconds to look up the workings of a spectrometer/spectroscope and then you wouldn't have given perfectly terrible, and completely wrong information to Tresha91203. I do hope that she doesn't simply take your word for what the instrument in question measures or she may in turn go about spreading your ignorance.

Now go ahead and tell me that you weren't aware that we were talking about spectroscopes even though the entire topic of the conversation revolves around measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation. Let me guess, you though they were measured with a pyrogeometer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Unlike you, I don't need to be part of a herd

I know, you're unique in your misinterpretation.
And you know more about sensors than The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

You're like a new Einstein.

 

[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.

Again...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model. If that illustration represents reality, why can't you measure it at ambient temperature?

Still claiming that an instrument that is uncooled isn't being hit by the same number of photons as
the cooled instrument 2 feet away? Still hilarious.

Maybe I should ask Dr Raeder if he agrees?

Unless you have another source that will disagree with your claims?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

A spectrometer/spectroscope measures nothing but incoming radiation. It takes that incoming radiation and breaks it into its spectral components. It has to if you want an accurate spectrum of the object you are pointing it at. If it were measuring its own internal radiation, the spectrum would not represent just the object it were pointed at. Once again, you don't have the slightest idea what the various instruments are measuring which goes a long way towards explaining why you are so easily fooled by them. It isn't as if there aren't hundreds if not thousands of pages on the web explaining how they work.

You remind me very much of an actor who was on the series Cheers...his name was Cliff Claven. He believed that he knew most everything and was perfectly willing to spew is ignorance in public. It might have taken you 45 seconds to look up the workings of a spectrometer/spectroscope and then you wouldn't have given perfectly terrible, and completely wrong information to Tresha91203. I do hope that she doesn't simply take your word for what the instrument in question measures or she may in turn go about spreading your ignorance.

Now go ahead and tell me that you weren't aware that we were talking about spectroscopes even though the entire topic of the conversation revolves around measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation. Let me guess, you though they were measured with a pyrogeometer.

It doesn't matter what kind of sensitive optical or IR instrument you are talking about. To maximize the SNR, cooling the detector minimizes the Johnson noise. That is why detectors are cooled.

Thermal energy from the detector body itself also adds to the incoming radiation measured, (as we both said.) That's what I told TRESHA91203 .

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't matter what kind of sensitive optical or IR instrument you are talking about. To maximize the SNR, cooling the detector minimizes the Johnson noise. That is why detectors are cooled.

We aren't talking about noise...we are talking about the lack of any measurable energy coming in from cooler objects...if it were just noise, then you might get a degraded spectrum, or a spectrum missing certain frequencies...but we are talking about the absence of measurable radiation...that is hardly noise.

Again..fooled by instrumentation that you don't even begin to understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't matter what kind of sensitive optical or IR instrument you are talking about. To maximize the SNR, cooling the detector minimizes the Johnson noise. That is why detectors are cooled.

We aren't talking about noise...we are talking about the lack of any measurable energy coming in from cooler objects...if it were just noise, then you might get a degraded spectrum, or a spectrum missing certain frequencies...but we are talking about the absence of measurable radiation...that is hardly noise.

Again..fooled by instrumentation that you don't even begin to understand.

we are talking about the lack of any measurable energy coming in from cooler objects..

You feel that if energy is not measurable, it's not hitting the receiver.

Like if they hadn't cooled the receiver, CMB radiation wouldn't hit the Earth. Just silly.

 

[Wuwei]

We aren't talking about noise.

Yes we are. That is why detectors are cooled.

.if it were just noise, then you might get a degraded spectrum

That is exactly what happened when the CMB was first observed and measured with a detector cooled to 4 degrees K when the input from the CMB was a warmer 2.7K.

.but we are talking about the absence of measurable radiation...that is hardly noise.

Correction: Not WE. Only YOU are talking about that. No scientist is. Yes yes. I know. You don't believe Quantum Mechanics.

 

[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... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.

You don't understand, "post a link"?

 

[SSDD]

That is exactly what happened when the CMB was first observed and measured with a detector cooled to 4 degrees K when the input from the CMB was a warmer 2.7K.

So now you are going to attempt to compare the problems associated with receiving a resonant radio frequency equating to background radiation that is barely there to the 300+ wm^2 that climate science claims is returning to the surface of the earth from the atmosphere? Is there any foul sewer you won't drag your intellect through in an attempt to support your failed argument?

Correction: Not WE. Only YOU are talking about that. No scientist is. Yes yes. I know. You don't believe Quantum Mechanics.

So show me a measurement of a discrete C02 emission frequency made with an uncooled instrument...either you can or you can't...and we both know that you can't.

The fact remains that the greenhouse hypothesis has been in dispute since it was first proposed...Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius all said that it was bullshit and after 120+ years you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence in support of it and what bit of pitiful evidence you do provide only demonstrates that you are easily fooled by instrumentation primarily because you don't have the faintest idea of what they are measuring or how it is being measured,

 

[Wuwei]

So now you are going to attempt to compare the problems associated with receiving a resonant radio frequency equating to background radiation that is barely there to the 300+ wm^2 that climate science claims is returning to the surface of the earth from the atmosphere?

It's cold radiation hitting a warm dish. It has nothing to do with resonance at that point.

Is there any foul sewer you won't drag your intellect through in an attempt to support your failed argument?

You lash out like a troll again when you are faced with solid physics.

The fact remains that the greenhouse hypothesis has been in dispute since it was first proposed...Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius all said that it was bullshit and after 120+ years you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence in support of it and what bit of pitiful evidence you do provide only demonstrates that you are easily fooled by instrumentation primarily because you don't have the faintest idea of what they are measuring or how it is being measured

You have given no cogent reply as to why radiation is stopped in its tracks when aiming toward earth, but not a cold detector. And more lashing out at science. Do you have any theory at all? Or is emotionally lashing out your best and only retort?

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, so where is that cooling?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.

Are you not posting a link because you're a pussy like SSDD?
Or is it because you realized your mistake and are trying to forget?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.

Are you not posting a link because you're a pussy like SSDD?
Or is it because you realized your mistake and are trying to forget?

No I have the link, I just think that you ignoring it once tells me how you will behave again.. So why waste my time?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.

Are you not posting a link because you're a pussy like SSDD?
Or is it because you realized your mistake and are trying to forget?

No I have the link, I just think that you ignoring it once tells me how you will behave again.. So why waste my time?

You have a link that says "less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object"?

I don't believe you.

 

[SSDD]

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... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.

Are you not posting a link because you're a pussy like SSDD?
Or is it because you realized your mistake and are trying to forget?

No I have the link, I just think that you ignoring it once tells me how you will behave again.. So why waste my time?

You are wasting your time...toddster is looking for a peer reviewed, published paper that says what you are telling him in terms that a 5th grader can understand...saying it in the form of mathematics doesn't mean anything to him...it's like his insistence that the SB equation for the emission of matter in the presence of other matter describes a two way exchange of energy even though the equation clearly describes a one way equation...he wants someone, in a peer reviewed paper to actually comment on the equation pointing out that it describes a one way exchange of energy.

He want's hard science to be written in a manner that a 10 year old can understand...imagine the wiggle room you would have if science were written like that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.

Are you not posting a link because you're a pussy like SSDD?
Or is it because you realized your mistake and are trying to forget?

No I have the link, I just think that you ignoring it once tells me how you will behave again.. So why waste my time?

You are wasting your time...toddster is looking for a peer reviewed, published paper that says what you are telling him in terms that a 5th grader can understand...saying it in the form of mathematics doesn't mean anything to him...it's like his insistence that the SB equation for the emission of matter in the presence of other matter describes a two way exchange of energy even though the equation clearly describes a one way equation...he wants someone, in a peer reviewed paper to actually comment on the equation pointing out that it describes a one way exchange of energy.

He want's hard science to be written in a manner that a 10 year old can understand...imagine the wiggle room you would have if science were written like that.

How about a paper that backs up your silly equilibrium claim? LOL!

I notice you're still running away from your "Matter that absorbs outside energy never emits spontaneously" claim.

Why you scared, bro?