Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

[Crick]

That should make it easier. If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match. That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.

So what do you think is happening in the climate today that hasn't happened in the earth climate before?

1) Both atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature have been rising faster than they have risen in at least 800,000 years
2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising without forced heating to drive it out of solution, ie, CO2 is leading heating.
3) Sea levels are rising faster than at any time in this interglacial period.

See that steep ramp from ~7,000 years BP to ~14,000 years BP? The rate of rise there is approximately 1.33 mm/year. The current rate is in excess of 3.5mm/year

4) The current global temperature is unprecedented in the Holocene Epoch.

Show us that the changes taking place today are being caused by the same forcing factors that have driven climate change throughout its pre-industrial history. Show that the unique new climate behavior that human forcing must produce has not taken place.

Can you show any actual evidence that the warm up leading to the holocene maximum, the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, or the Medieval warm period were in any significant way different than the present warm period...other than the fact that they were warmer than the present while CO2 was supposedly at safe levels?

"Other than the fact"??? You've answered your own question and admitted my point. The difference in the modern era is that CO2 has been driven up by human activities rather than the warming of the planet

1) Show that humans are not responsible for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere

You must first show proof that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.

No, I do not. Just as in every prior occasion in which I identified potential AGW falsifications, you fail to catch on to what's happening. These are YOUR tasks, not mine. AGW explicitly contends that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is due to human activity. Show that point to be incorrect and you will have falsified AGW.

2) Show there is no additional CO2 in the atmosphere

Irrelevant till you prove #1

It is not irrelevant and it is not dependent on any other contention. This point is a core facet of AGW. Show it to be false and you falsify AGW.

3) Show that CO2 does not produce a greenhouse effect

The onus is upon you to show that it does. Lets see the proof.

How did you get this stupid?

4) Alternatively, show that no gas produces a CO2 effect

What effect are you talking about? Absorption and emission? Show that absorption and emission equal warming.

I see I flubbed that one. That should have read "Alternatively, show that no gas produces a greenhouse effect". But, then, you knew that. And if you'd really like to discuss radiative heat transfer, I want to hear how it works in SSDD-World. I've asked you to explain your position several times and I've yet to see a single word from you. If you have and I've missed, point me to it as I'd really love to see it.

5) Show that the Earth has not warmed

It has been warming for 14K years with multiple periods warmer than the present...prove that man is in any way responsible for any of it.

If you think you can make the argument that there has been no significant change in the rate of warming from 14,000 years BP to 08 July 2014, have at it. My data shows a very slow rate of change supplanted by a meteoric rise in temperatures beginning about 150 years ago. If you've got something different, let's see it. Again, this would falsify AGW because AGW explicitly claims exceptional warming beginning in 1750.

6) Show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century

Prove that correlation equals causation. Show that there is no correlation between the so called consensus and funding...

I have to do none of these things. These are directions to attack AGW, not me.

7) Show that some other forcing mechanism has a superior correlation with temperature and a physical mechanism superior to AGW

Neither you, nor climate science has yet to prove AGW.. We skeptics keep asking for proof and you can't deliver.

And, o n e m o r e t i m e: theories in the natural sciences don't GET proven. Try to keep this in your mind. Whenever you consider using the word prove or proof in these discussions, alarm bells should go off upstairs. Evidence, experimentation, reason and logic, yes. Proofs? No.

__________________
Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth

It's good to see you recognize Mamooth's discernment here and are willing to admit your own errors and broaden your intellectual horizons. Statistics is the underlying mechanism behind thermodynamics. For that matter, on a more recent topic, it is also the fundamental mechanism behind the ideal gas law you so profoundly misunderstand.

 

[flacaltenn]

That should make it easier. If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match. That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.

So what do you think is happening in the climate today that hasn't happened in the earth climate before?

1) Both atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature have been rising faster than they have risen in at least 800,000 years
2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising without forced heating to drive it out of solution, ie, CO2 is leading heating.
3) Sea levels are rising faster than at any time in this interglacial period.

See that steep ramp from ~7,000 years BP to ~14,000 years BP? The rate of rise there is approximately 1.33 mm/year. The current rate is in excess of 3.5mm/year

Dood --- You gotta quit hanging out at shiftyscience.com. It's rotting you brain..

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/



A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1).

YOU might need a calculator.. But the rest of can figure that in our heads. 20Meters in a 1000 yrs?? That's 20mm/yr ...

And THAT if the proxy evidence can even MEASURE intervals within 1000 years.
Don't some kind of alarm bells go off in your head when you look at that graph and make a claim like that??

 

[Crick]

That should make it easier. If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match. That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.

1) Both atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature have been rising faster than they have risen in at least 800,000 years
2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising without forced heating to drive it out of solution, ie, CO2 is leading heating.
3) Sea levels are rising faster than at any time in this interglacial period.

See that steep ramp from ~7,000 years BP to ~14,000 years BP? The rate of rise there is approximately 1.33 mm/year. The current rate is in excess of 3.5mm/year

Dood --- You gotta quit hanging out at shiftyscience.com. It's rotting you brain..

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1).

YOU might need a calculator.. But the rest of can figure that in our heads. 20Meters in a 1000 yrs?? That's 20mm/yr ...

And THAT if the proxy evidence can even MEASURE intervals within 1000 years.
Don't some kind of alarm bells go off in your head when you look at that graph and make a claim like that??

Does Meltwater Pulse 1A extend from 7k-14k BP?

No.

So, was I talking about Meltwater Pulse 1A?

No.

Are you thinking of contending that todays situation is a glacial meltwater pulse? Cause, it might be difficult to contend that the world's ice isn't melting and that sea levels aren't rising at an exceptional rate if you want to simultaneously say we're undergoing a meltwater pulse.

I wanted folks looking at that graphic to be aware how much steeper is the current rate of rise than the graph displays for the last 7-8,000 years. Several of you keep trying to contend that the warming we've been experiencing the last 150 years is simply the tail end of the the last 14,000 year's warming, when it quite obviously shows a very dramatic acceleration for which your side of this argument has absolutely no explanation.

 

[SSDD]

1) Both atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature have been rising faster than they have risen in at least 800,000 years

And yet another string of lies, picked cherries, and misinformation from abraham.

Which proxy data set is giving you sharp enough resolution to determine what sort of temperature changes happened within a 1 or 2 century interval?

) Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising without forced heating to drive it out of solution, ie, CO2 is leading heating.
3) Sea levels are rising faster than at any time in this interglacial period.

As to the CO2 levels, bullshit...As far as sea levels go, learn to read a chart.

) The current global temperature is unprecedented in the Holocene Epoch.

Of course it isn't...but even if it were, how could a sane person possibly suppose that the holocene (a short interglacial) represents the "normal" climate of planet earth?

Other than the fact"??? You've answered your own question and admitted my point. The difference in the modern era is that CO2 has been driven up by human activities rather than the warming of the planet

You have yet to prove that CO2 has anything more than a coincidental relationship to temperature increases.

No, I do not. Just as in every prior occasion in which I identified potential AGW falsifications, you fail to catch on to what's happening. These are YOUR tasks, not mine. AGW explicitly contends that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is due to human activity. Show that point to be incorrect and you will have falsified AGW.

Yes, that is what AGW contends...the contention has yet to be proven. Repeating a point as proof of your argument, when that point remains proven is a logical fallacy...do you need to be reminded which one?

It is not irrelevant and it is not dependent on any other contention. This point is a core facet of AGW. Show it to be false and you falsify AGW.

Yes, it is a core facet of AGW...and it remains to be substantiated with the first piece of actual empirical evidence. The fact that the temperature has not increased in 2 decades while CO2 has increased should give you pause regarding the claim if you were a thinking person not mesmerized by pseudoscience. And before you drag out your idiot ocean heat content chart, be prepared to explain why the rate of increase has not changed in a very long time...and describe the mechanism which you believe would cause warming to switch from the atmosphere to the deep oceans...and explain why, if the amount of heat you believe to be accumulating in the deep oceans is really there, why we are seeing a decreased rate of sea level rise as opposed to the expected increase due to thermal expansion.

How did you get this stupid?

A true mark of cultish thinking...deriding someone who expects you to prove your claims.

I see I flubbed that one. That should have read "Alternatively, show that no gas produces a greenhouse effect". But, then, you knew that. And if you'd really like to discuss radiative heat transfer, I want to hear how it works in SSDD-World. I've asked you to explain your position several times and I've yet to see a single word from you. If you have and I've missed, point me to it as I'd really love to see it.

Do you really believe that the surface of the earth absorbs twice as much energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from the sun?

If you think you can make the argument that there has been no significant change in the rate of warming from 14,000 years BP to 08 July 2014, have at it. My data shows a very slow rate of change supplanted by a meteoric rise in temperatures beginning about 150 years ago. If you've got something different, let's see it. Again, this would falsify AGW because AGW explicitly claims exceptional warming beginning in 1750.

Your data are wrong...your data are based on tampered records...your data are lies. This is how the IPCC represented the temperature of the past 1000 years in 1995. What work is the new temperature representation based on that is sufficient to overturn the literally hundreds of papers from all over the world that the earlier chart represented?

I have to do none of these things. These are directions to attack AGW, not me.

Of course you don't. It is clear that you are content to continue to lie, misrepresent, mischaracterize, cherry pick, and did I say lie...yes, I did but with you it warrants being said again.

Neither you, nor climate science has yet to prove AGW.. We skeptics keep asking for proof and you can't deliver.

And, o n e m o r e t i m e: theories in the natural sciences don't GET proven. Try to keep this in your mind. Whenever you consider using the word prove or proof in these discussions, alarm bells should go off upstairs. Evidence, experimentation, reason and logic, yes. Proofs? No.

And hypotheses in climate science don't get falsified..the data simply get changed, fabricated, or discarded as necessary to continue to support the hoax.

It's good to see you recognize Mamooth's discernment here and are willing to admit your own errors and broaden your intellectual horizons. Statistics is the underlying mechanism behind thermodynamics. For that matter, on a more recent topic, it is also the fundamental mechanism behind the ideal gas law you so profoundly misunderstand.

Good of you to admit to being as stupid as mammoth. Statistics is not a mechanism. Statistics is a means to attempt to describe how a mechanism may act, or what result a mechanism may cause, but it is not a mechanism itself. It is such fundamental misunderstandings that label you as a poser mr fake engineer.

 

[jc456]

That should make it easier. If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match. That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.

So what do you think is happening in the climate today that hasn't happened in the earth climate before?

1) Both atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature have been rising faster than they have risen in at least 800,000 years
2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising without forced heating to drive it out of solution, ie, CO2 is leading heating.
3) Sea levels are rising faster than at any time in this interglacial period.

See that steep ramp from ~7,000 years BP to ~14,000 years BP? The rate of rise there is approximately 1.33 mm/year. The current rate is in excess of 3.5mm/year

4) The current global temperature is unprecedented in the Holocene Epoch.





"Other than the fact"??? You've answered your own question and admitted my point. The difference in the modern era is that CO2 has been driven up by human activities rather than the warming of the planet





No, I do not. Just as in every prior occasion in which I identified potential AGW falsifications, you fail to catch on to what's happening. These are YOUR tasks, not mine. AGW explicitly contends that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is due to human activity. Show that point to be incorrect and you will have falsified AGW.





It is not irrelevant and it is not dependent on any other contention. This point is a core facet of AGW. Show it to be false and you falsify AGW.





How did you get this stupid?





I see I flubbed that one. That should have read "Alternatively, show that no gas produces a greenhouse effect". But, then, you knew that. And if you'd really like to discuss radiative heat transfer, I want to hear how it works in SSDD-World. I've asked you to explain your position several times and I've yet to see a single word from you. If you have and I've missed, point me to it as I'd really love to see it.





If you think you can make the argument that there has been no significant change in the rate of warming from 14,000 years BP to 08 July 2014, have at it. My data shows a very slow rate of change supplanted by a meteoric rise in temperatures beginning about 150 years ago. If you've got something different, let's see it. Again, this would falsify AGW because AGW explicitly claims exceptional warming beginning in 1750.





I have to do none of these things. These are directions to attack AGW, not me.

Neither you, nor climate science has yet to prove AGW.. We skeptics keep asking for proof and you can't deliver.

And, o n e m o r e t i m e: theories in the natural sciences don't GET proven. Try to keep this in your mind. Whenever you consider using the word prove or proof in these discussions, alarm bells should go off upstairs. Evidence, experimentation, reason and logic, yes. Proofs? No.

__________________
Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth

It's good to see you recognize Mamooth's discernment here and are willing to admit your own errors and broaden your intellectual horizons. Statistics is the underlying mechanism behind thermodynamics. For that matter, on a more recent topic, it is also the fundamental mechanism behind the ideal gas law you so profoundly misunderstand.

dude........DUDE......still no proof of CO2 driving temperatures. WHERE IS IT?

All of this is unnecessary, merely provide the proof! pssst...I know you don't have any. Why not just admit it and let's move on.

Lastly, do you have physical evidence to prove CO2 drives temperatures? Yes.....or....No.

 

[SSDD]

dude........DUDE......still no proof of CO2 driving temperatures. WHERE IS IT?

All of this is unnecessary, merely provide the proof! pssst...I know you don't have any. Why not just admit it and let's move on.

Lastly, do you have physical evidence to prove CO2 drives temperatures? Yes.....or....No.

You know it doesn't exist...I know it doesn't exist...even he and his cronies know it doesn't exist...but telling the truth isn't part of who they are so the lies, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and did I say lies...yes the lies will continue so long as they hold out any hope that someone...anyone reading their posts will believe or be swayed. They aren't actually talking to skeptics any longer..that debate was lost long ago and they know it...they are simply spray painting propaganda on the wall hoping that someone reads it and is influenced by it.

 

[mamooth]

Good of you to admit to being as stupid as mammoth. Statistics is not a mechanism. Statistics is a means to attempt to describe how a mechanism may act, or what result a mechanism may cause, but it is not a mechanism itself. It is such fundamental misunderstandings that label you as a poser mr fake engineer.

Yes, we've heard this before from you. The past century of physics is all totally wrong, because your liars' cult says so. Meanwhile, the field of Statistical Mechanics still says that statistics is the mechanism behind the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I got a "B" in Statistical Mechanics, Junior year.

Have you settled on a final kook version of the 2nd law? I'm just trying to figure out how your "a gas under pressure constantly generates heat" loopy claim works with the rest of your bizarre thermodynamics. You need to publish a grand stupid unified theory that unites all of your crazy revisionist physics.

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Both atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature have been rising faster than they have risen in at least 800,000 years
2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising without forced heating to drive it out of solution, ie, CO2 is leading heating.
3) Sea levels are rising faster than at any time in this interglacial period.

See that steep ramp from ~7,000 years BP to ~14,000 years BP? The rate of rise there is approximately 1.33 mm/year. The current rate is in excess of 3.5mm/year

Dood --- You gotta quit hanging out at shiftyscience.com. It's rotting you brain..

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1).

YOU might need a calculator.. But the rest of can figure that in our heads. 20Meters in a 1000 yrs?? That's 20mm/yr ...

And THAT if the proxy evidence can even MEASURE intervals within 1000 years.
Don't some kind of alarm bells go off in your head when you look at that graph and make a claim like that??

Does Meltwater Pulse 1A extend from 7k-14k BP?

No.

So, was I talking about Meltwater Pulse 1A?

No.

Are you thinking of contending that todays situation is a glacial meltwater pulse? Cause, it might be difficult to contend that the world's ice isn't melting and that sea levels aren't rising at an exceptional rate if you want to simultaneously say we're undergoing a meltwater pulse.

I wanted folks looking at that graphic to be aware how much steeper is the current rate of rise than the graph displays for the last 7-8,000 years. Several of you keep trying to contend that the warming we've been experiencing the last 150 years is simply the tail end of the the last 14,000 year's warming, when it quite obviously shows a very dramatic acceleration for which your side of this argument has absolutely no explanation.

Really simple Bullwinkle.. I have yet to see you read and interpret a SINGLE graph correctly.. You said ----

See that steep ramp from ~7,000 years BP to ~14,000 years BP? The rate of rise there is approximately 1.33 mm/year. The current rate is in excess of 3.5mm/year.

You were off by MORE than a factor of ten.. Because at 13,500 yrs ago, the seas had just risen at a rate closer to 20mm/yr.. And that's probably on the low side because of low temporal resolution of the data.

You gave the wrong answer to your own question cause MWaterPulse 1A IS in that period of time as are several other pulses that are well documented to be an order of magnitude HIGHER than today's rate. And because you fail EVERY FUCKING TIME at reading graphs, there is NO indication on that graph of ANY RATES to compare to the present.

 

[SSDD]

Have you settled on a final kook version of the 2nd law? I'm just trying to figure out how your "a gas under pressure constantly generates heat" loopy claim works with the rest of your bizarre thermodynamics. You need to publish a grand stupid unified theory that unites all of your crazy revisionist physics.

Nah, I am fine with the second law as it is written...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects. How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere? How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the ocean absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you settled on a final kook version of the 2nd law? I'm just trying to figure out how your "a gas under pressure constantly generates heat" loopy claim works with the rest of your bizarre thermodynamics. You need to publish a grand stupid unified theory that unites all of your crazy revisionist physics.

Nah, I am fine with the second law as it is written...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects. How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere? How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the ocean absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?

...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.

 

[SSDD]

Have you settled on a final kook version of the 2nd law? I'm just trying to figure out how your "a gas under pressure constantly generates heat" loopy claim works with the rest of your bizarre thermodynamics. You need to publish a grand stupid unified theory that unites all of your crazy revisionist physics.

Nah, I am fine with the second law as it is written...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects. How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere? How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the ocean absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?

...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative. It is on those who assert that need to provide proof of claim. Anyway, who would be dumb enough to try and disprove climate change. It's been happening for a lot longer than humans have even been around.

Hey prove you didn't beat your wife. ROFL

 

[flacaltenn]

Nah, I am fine with the second law as it is written...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects. How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere? How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the ocean absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?

...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

No difference in the rules for propagation of InfraRed. Granted you need to cool an IR camera to see very small IR flux from cold objects. But that action doesn't change the flux coming from the object. It's a matter of detection threshold --- not EM propagation..

Clearly it's the balance of the EXCHANGE of IR photons that determines the direction of heat flow.. There is no go/nogo threshold for the exchange based on temperature.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah, I am fine with the second law as it is written...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects. How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere? How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the ocean absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?

...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

You mean visible light?

Yes, my eyeball works best with visible light.

How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces?

Is this an Amendment to the 2nd Law you've discovered?

Energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects, if the cooler object was warmed by something hot?

LOL!

How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?

Wasn't the atmosphere warmed by the Sun?

 

[mamooth]

According the the SSDD theory, if I shine my nice cool LED flashlight at the door of a hot oven, the light can't go through the glass, because the oven inside is hotter than the flashlight.

But when we do the experiment, the light clearly does go through the glass. We can see the light hitting the back of the hot oven and reflecting back out.

Hence, the SSDD theory of "energy can't flow from cool to hot!" is decisively refuted.

 

[IanC]

photons dont give a shit about the temperature of where they were produced, where they end up being absorbed, or the intervening space between the two.

SSDD has a simplistic and immature view of thermodynamics but he is not going to listen to any criticism of it, so you are wasting your time. all of us have blind spots of one sort or another, this is one of his.


using LED, chemical florescence, etc in an example of energy transfer by temperature gradient does not disprove that simple law, it only shows that there are complexities and exceptions to everything.

 

[SSDD]

...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

No difference in the rules for propagation of InfraRed. Granted you need to cool an IR camera to see very small IR flux from cold objects. But that action doesn't change the flux coming from the object. It's a matter of detection threshold --- not EM propagation..

Are you sure that the IR flux is moving towards the camera before it is cooled? I mean, you can't see it till the camera is cooled...then bingo...there it is. Where was it before? The camera should be able to see it if it were there, right?

 

[SSDD]

Is this an Amendment to the 2nd Law you've discovered?

No...just the second law. If you are seeing cool objects then it is because light from a source warmer than your eye is reaching your eye. You aren't receiving any energy, visible or otherwise from the object that is cooler than your eye.

Energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects, if the cooler object was warmed something hot?

If you are seeing the object, you are seeing it because of reflected light from a warmer source are you not?

the atmosphere warmed by the Sun?

Most incoming solar radiation is in the short wave bands is it not? Isn't the atmosphere mostly transparent to short wave radiation? Think it is time for you to stop yet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is this an Amendment to the 2nd Law you've discovered?

No...just the second law. If you are seeing cool objects then it is because light from a source warmer than your eye is reaching your eye. You aren't receiving any energy, visible or otherwise from the object that is cooler than your eye.

Energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects, if the cooler object was warmed something hot?

If you are seeing the object, you are seeing it because of reflected light from a warmer source are you not?

the atmosphere warmed by the Sun?

Most incoming solar radiation is in the short wave bands is it not? Isn't the atmosphere mostly transparent to short wave radiation? Think it is time for you to stop yet?

If you are seeing cool objects then it is because light from a source warmer than your eye is reaching your eye.

Unless it's light from a source cooler than my eye.

If you are seeing the object, you are seeing it because of reflected light from a warmer source are you not?

Reflected? I think you mean absorbed and re-emitted.

Think it is time for you to stop yet?

No, I will continue pointing out your error.

 

[flacaltenn]

You mean visible light? How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? It is you who really should stop.

No difference in the rules for propagation of InfraRed. Granted you need to cool an IR camera to see very small IR flux from cold objects. But that action doesn't change the flux coming from the object. It's a matter of detection threshold --- not EM propagation..

Are you sure that the IR flux is moving towards the camera before it is cooled? I mean, you can't see it till the camera is cooled...then bingo...there it is. Where was it before? The camera should be able to see it if it were there, right?

Having designed a bunch of IR cameras, I can tell you that the photons are there. If you INTEGRATED long enough -- you'd see them. We COOL to get shorter exposures and clearer pictures at LOWER levels of IR.. You can clearly detect cooler objects on a 70degF sensor. The issue is if camera reaches 90 or above or if you need better signal/noise of a 40degF source on a 80degF camera.

It's largely a matter of dynamic range against the spatially STATIONARY noise on the sensor that increases with thermal noise.