Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

[Wuwei]

You must have skipped over this part

"The detector element is an extremely sensitive thermistor that is cooled to LHe temperatures in order to decrease the thermal background."

Liquid helium is still warmer than the CMB. And, of course, that CMB radiation had to penetrate a very warm atmosphere and was likely concentrated by large dishes that were at ambient temperature. For SSDD's assertion to hold, those photons would have had to see 13.82 billion years into the future at a target 13.82 billion light years away probably less than a centimeter across and decide whether or not to make the trip.

Sticking with SSDD is not making you look any brighter Frank. Besides every single "warmer" Ian and FCT both think he's nuts. Do you really think SSDD knows more physics than the two of them?

If your physics is correct, why bother to cool it all?

You said it yourself. You quoted my source which stated, "in order to decrease the thermal background." Cooling detectors and electronics always significantly decreases "shot noise" or Poisson noise - a type of electronic noise.

 

[Wuwei]

Thermodynamics is thermodynamics regardless of what it is applied to. You think there are separate laws of thermodynamics that only apply to refrigerators? What a goober.

Nope. There is only one law. It can be stated heat can not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a warmer object. You had two statements of the law. The second one was only for refrigerators, and the first one was the general law. What a goober.

And again, check the specs on those bolometers...they were cooled to about 2.75K in order to receive the CMB...fooling yourself with instrumentation again.

Some were at 4 K. Also the the cold CMB heat radiation has to hit the 300 degree antenna.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm confused. If my thermometer currently reads 72 degrees in my office, you're telling me that I can point it to a colder office across the street and it will read 68?

Really?

Nope, I never said or implied that. Are you one of SSDD's minions that has a screwy view of thermodynamics?

What's so screwy about following the laws of physics?

 

[Wuwei]

I'm confused. If my thermometer currently reads 72 degrees in my office, you're telling me that I can point it to a colder office across the street and it will read 68?

Really?

Nope, I never said or implied that. Are you one of SSDD's minions that has a screwy view of thermodynamics?

What's so screwy about following the laws of physics?

Nothing is wrong with that unless you purposefully misinterpret the laws like SSDD. I don't really know if you are one of SSDD's minions and think that thermal radiation shuns objects that are colder than the source. There is no physical mechanism for that. SSDD thinks photons from a colder source somehow disappear.

Look I really don't care if you believe that AGW is a farce. You have plenty of ways of making your point. You don't have to bastardize the laws of physics like SSDD does to make the point.

 

[Crick]

..or they were received by IR instruments which were cooled down to a temperature lower than 2.75K.

With what?

 

[Dale Smith]

I'm confused. If my thermometer currently reads 72 degrees in my office, you're telling me that I can point it to a colder office across the street and it will read 68?

Really?

Nope, I never said or implied that. Are you one of SSDD's minions that has a screwy view of thermodynamics?

What's so screwy about following the laws of physics?

Nothing is wrong with that unless you purposefully misinterpret the laws like SSDD. I don't really know if you are one of SSDD's minions and think that thermal radiation shuns objects that are colder than the source. There is no physical mechanism for that. SSDD thinks photons from a colder source somehow disappear.

Look I really don't care if you believe that AGW is a farce. You have plenty of ways of making your point. You don't have to bastardize the laws of physics like SSDD does to make the point.

Here is my question to you, sir....how can we have a benchmark for "global climate change" when geo-engineering has been going on in earnest since 1997 at the very latest? Soil and water samples do not lie. Other NATO countries have produced some incredible documentaries complete with sub-titles for us Americans that show irrefutable truth that aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters have been causing these weather anomalies that have been blamed on climate change. This scam goes all the way back to the Iron Mountain Report that was leaked in 1967 claiming that climate change and pollution could be used to unite the masses into global governance. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N jumped all over it and when they were formed in 1969 (to bring down the middle class of America) and they started pushing environmental laws...I have their own words lest you be unconvinced. You and your fellow tree-hugging liberals are being played for chumps...me? I am not buying tickets to this bad theater because I can see right through this bad play.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is my question to you, sir....how can we have a benchmark for "global climate change" when geo-engineering has been going on in earnest since 1997 at the very latest? Soil and water samples do not lie. Other NATO countries have produced some incredible documentaries complete with sub-titles for us Americans that show irrefutable truth that aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters have been causing these weather anomalies that have been blamed on climate change. This scam goes all the way back to the Iron Mountain Report that was leaked in 1967 claiming that climate change and pollution could be used to unite the masses into global governance. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N jumped all over it and when they were formed in 1969 (to bring down the middle class of America) and they started pushing environmental laws...I have their own words lest you be unconvinced. You and your fellow tree-hugging liberals are being played for chumps...me? I am not buying tickets to this bad theater because I can see right through this bad play.

You can believe what you want, I really don't care. But at least you are not bastardizing the laws of physics.

 

[Dale Smith]

Here is my question to you, sir....how can we have a benchmark for "global climate change" when geo-engineering has been going on in earnest since 1997 at the very latest? Soil and water samples do not lie. Other NATO countries have produced some incredible documentaries complete with sub-titles for us Americans that show irrefutable truth that aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters have been causing these weather anomalies that have been blamed on climate change. This scam goes all the way back to the Iron Mountain Report that was leaked in 1967 claiming that climate change and pollution could be used to unite the masses into global governance. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N jumped all over it and when they were formed in 1969 (to bring down the middle class of America) and they started pushing environmental laws...I have their own words lest you be unconvinced. You and your fellow tree-hugging liberals are being played for chumps...me? I am not buying tickets to this bad theater because I can see right through this bad play.

You can believe what you want, I really don't care. But at least you are not bastardizing the laws of physics.

It's the Hegelian Dialectic, cause the problem, wait for the emotional outcry and then propose a solution to the very problem that you caused that suits your agenda....that is what "climate change" bullshit is all about....guarantee you on that one. I would love to get off of petroleum based energy but the powers that be will never allow that to happen because they stand too much to lose...what they want to do is "double dip" by charging you a tax to use their product so you can eek out a meager existence on this POS prison planet. Technology to get us off of oil and coal has been around since the 1930's and it has been suppressed. Nikola Tesla's patents were stolen by USA.INC....fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you deny the basic premise that the 3rd method of heat transfer (radiative) exists then? Or are you just too lazy to research WHY it's included in all textbooks on thermo..

Are you saying that my statement was untrue? You don't seem to be...but you seem reluctant to admit that it is true.

The lack of clarity on light being wave or particle hasn't stopped the optics folks or the laser folks or the imaging folks or changed any designed equipment in any substantial way. Sounds like you are making excuses to not accept the entire concept of radiative heating.. ARE YOU???

 

[flacaltenn]

Explain how radiation magically stops when the IR gun is pointed at something the same temperature. I say they both continue to radiate, you say they stop but refuse to give a mechanism to abort the collisions that produce the radiation in the first place.

Your basic error here Ian is that you don't seem to know how an IR gun operates. Once again you have shown that people fool themselves with instrumentation all the time.

I know how they work.. Told you they don't use thermopiles anymore. Told you what the lens is for. And you scooted right out of the topic.. How DO they work SSDD?? Got an entertaining alternate explanation other than measuring the amount of IR radiation being received (regardless of the relative temperatures)?

 

[flacaltenn]

A radio spectrum was recorded and then a radiance temperature is computed...it is very much like the same process for measuring back radiation at ambient temperature...it is the output of a mathematical model...not an actual measurement of back radiation. To measure anything that could be construed as back radiation, the sensing device must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

You forgot that I provided you with 65 examples of thermal radiation from a cold object to an antena 300 degrees warmer.The cold cosmic microwave background, CMB, at 2.7 degrees K must strike a radio antenna on earth at 300 degrees K in order to be detected.

30 of the systems use bolometers as detectors.
You don't need any mathematical models to compute or interpret the detected bolometer signals because they directly detect HEAT.

What is a Bolometer?

Bolometers are detectors used to measure incident Infrared radiation. They are very sensitive to thermal radiation and are predominantly used in the infrared spectrum between 10 to 5000µm (30THz to 60GHz). The detector element is an extremely sensitive thermistor ...
Infrared detectors, IR imagers, IR cameras, spectrometers, cryogenic systems, cryostats & dewars - Infrared Laboratories About Bolometers

You must have skipped over this part

"The detector element is an extremely sensitive thermistor that is cooled to LHe temperatures in order to decrease the thermal background."

The cooling of the detector is only required to measure very weak signals. Because even without an input from a radiating object -- all detectors have a noise component that increases with temperature. Even a simple diode or transistor (even resistors) has a similar noise issue with temperature.

 

[flacaltenn]

OMG --- how close you are.. But how far it is to the truth.. The LENS is there because it's accepting IR radiation in the forrm OF LIGHT. Lenses don't focus "temperatures".. And I haven't held a thermopile in my hands for about 20 years. They are a very complicated way to measure heat and have virtually no sensitivity to objects that aren't very warm.. All of these Home Depot IR thermometer use direct photoelectric conversion. With small and cheap and accurate photodiodes that are tuned to IR. Like the IR sensor in a remote control..

Here you go flacaltenn...from the Fluke site...I am sure that you are familiar with Fluke.

http://support.fluke.com/hart-sales/Download/Asset/4100366_6203_ENG_A_W.PDF

What is an infrared thermometer?

Infrared thermometers are a subset of radiation thermometers. These devices measure infrared radiation and display a temperature based on the radiation measured by the infrared thermometer and the emissivity setting of the infrared thermometer. The term infrared thermometer generally refers to handheld devices with a thermopile detector. Some other names used for infrared thermometers are IR guns, point and shoot thermometers, spot pyrometers, laser thermometers.

And radiation from your freezer IS coming out -- IS focused by lens -- and IS delivered to the photosensors that then measure an electric current corresponding to the number of IR photons received per unit time..

Sorry guy...it isn't... in the case of objects that are warmer, the thermopile warms up and that results in a voltage which is then converted into a temperature...if the object is cooler, the focus of the lens results in the thermopile cooling down which also results in a voltage which is then converted into a temperature...the whole thing is operating based on a mathematical formula assigned to a voltage that results from the thermopile warming or cooling...or not changing at all. It all works much like Pictet's experiment.

Go buy one -- take it apart -- and send us a pic of the "thermopile" in it. Even it HAD a thermopile in it -- it's still the incoming IR radiation thru that lens that would "warm" that thermopile..

No need...I actually read the book that came with mine... Since there is no question that I am right about how IR thermometers work the only real question is whether or not you are grown up enough to admit that you were wrong....fooling yourself with instrumentation isn't something to be to embarrassed about...half of climate science is fooling itself with instruments and the other half is adjusting temperatures in part based on the failure of the other half to understand what their instruments are doing.

Reference Pictet's experiment for a very crude version of that high tech beauty you probably own but don't understand how it works.

Those FLuke devices use a thermopile because they combine contact temperature measurements with non-contact "gun" readings. So that the thermistor calibration is already there for the CONTACT measurements.

As I told you --- wouldn't matter. Because the "ring of thermistors" design is still measuring the heat content of the photons that impinge on the target.. Point it at a -40degC and you get no voltage because that's the limit of it's dynamic range. Point it at -20degC and you will see the heating effect of photons being absorbed into the target. The thermopile design probably gives these more expensive devices a slightly better cold range because the noise floor of a thermistor is less than that of photodiode at room temperatures.

STILL --- you are measuring photon energy from a distant object. EVEN IF the reference temperature of the thermistor pile and the target is at a higher temperature.

Far as I can tell -- you believe the lens is magically focusing "cool" onto the target. Target never goes below the reference temperature. Which is roughly whatever the ambient temperature of the device is.. It's not COOLING the target to -40degC. That's for certain...

So --- bloviate away as required to preserve whatever physic fantasies gets you hot.
BTW --- that link to a bunch of hack-artists taking apart a 2D thermal imager was hysterically funny. The word "thermopile" was found once on that page. From a guy who thought he spotted it behind the screws. Unfortunately -- thermopiles or discrete photodiodes don't DO 2D imaging. You use an actual IR tuned CAMERA for that job...

 

[flacaltenn]

Good News SSDD --- The labtests are back and I've diagnosed the exact poison that has damaged your ability to understand radiative physics.. And since I've only ever been in these threads as a friendly intervention -- I can assure you that a CURE is imminent. Within a day -- you'll be up to 21st Century understanding of the topic.

You have Pictet Disease. A rare re-emergence of a bad 18th century understanding of IR propagation and heating. Finally convinced me to go look it up.. And I was amazed (and at 1st stumped) by what I saw. But putting aside that every "hard-core" GW denier uses this as an explanation to explain away the GHouse effect -- it is a marvelous Vegas Strip Magic Act.. A true Hogwarts lecture for physicists.

So thanks for the entertainment. I gotta go work. But I will post a new thread here addressing how the professional GW deniers manage to make even me blush with their misrepresentations of what the Pictet Experiment proved...

You actually believe right now that "cold" can be focused by a lens.. Couldn't understand this until I spent a couple hours revisiting 18th century physics. You will be OK very shortly...

 

[IanC]

Boy, it's easy to tell who's got the degree in atmospheric physics. ; -}

"thinner (lighter) atmosphere"?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaaa

FCT, good explanation but don;t let SSDD off the hood. He still hasn't given you the declarative statement you requested.

I disagree with your comments about thermodynamics courses. How many thermodynamics classes do you claim to have seen? I took two semesters of thermo and one of heat transfer. Radiative transfer was brought up in semester one and was discussed and used throughout all three classes, particularly the third. You may be thinking of the strong tendency in initial classes to only look at equilibrium scenarios and not move into dynamic situation until later courses, coinciding with students working their way through the diff eq required to examine non-equilibrium problems.

You have no understanding of atomic weights? Or gravity? Or the spinning of the earth?

I appear to have a better understanding of every topic that might even loosely fall under the rubric of physics than do you. The idea that you have a degree in atmospheric physics is absolutely laughable.

Your legend in your own mind...

Now that is what is funny. The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order. Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth? In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth.. I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.

Billy Bob - why do you say such stupid things? I have never heard anyone say all CO2 emissions head towards Earth. There is only one idiot that says none of them do, and that's SSDD.

Do the skeptical side a favour by not posting such embarrassing comments.

No Ian, What is embarrassing are those who think that LWIR can cause ocean warming. It Can Not. The math does not work in your favor. Crick Simply thinks that it can even though only 30% of re-emitted LWIR (near surface) is towards the planet. As altitude increases that amount dwindles rapidly. Had you read my post you would have understood this.

Does that mean you take back your asinine accusation that Crick said all CO2 radiation is emitted towards the surface?

Now on to your latest idiotic statement. 30% of re-emited LWIR is directed at the surface. Where is your source? All of the CO2 reemission that makes it to thesurface is from the first 20 metres, most from 2 metres and less. Hardly enough distance for the curvature of the Earth to make a difference. Perhaps you mean water vapour reemission. I don't have the extinction distance but I presume it is 100 metres or less,most within 20 metres, depending on the wavelengths of course. Still not enough for curvature to make much difference because the sideways component is being absorbed long before it escapes.

I really wish you would think your statements through before you post them. My reasonable skeptical statements get tainted by your foolish and unreasonable ones.

 

[IanC]

Good News SSDD --- The labtests are back and I've diagnosed the exact poison that has damaged your ability to understand radiative physics.. And since I've only ever been in these threads as a friendly intervention -- I can assure you that a CURE is imminent. Within a day -- you'll be up to 21st Century understanding of the topic.

You have Pictet Disease. A rare re-emergence of a bad 18th century understanding of IR propagation and heating. Finally convinced me to go look it up.. And I was amazed (and at 1st stumped) by what I saw. But putting aside that every "hard-core" GW denier uses this as an explanation to explain away the GHouse effect -- it is a marvelous Vegas Strip Magic Act.. A true Hogwarts lecture for physicists.

So thanks for the entertainment. I gotta go work. But I will post a new thread here addressing how the professional GW deniers manage to make even me blush with their misrepresentations of what the Pictet Experiment proved...

You actually believe right now that "cold" can be focused by a lens.. Couldn't understand this until I spent a couple hours revisiting 18th century physics. You will be OK very shortly...

Interesting. Is there really more to it than just the solar heater/cooler box example?

 

[flacaltenn]

Good News SSDD --- The labtests are back and I've diagnosed the exact poison that has damaged your ability to understand radiative physics.. And since I've only ever been in these threads as a friendly intervention -- I can assure you that a CURE is imminent. Within a day -- you'll be up to 21st Century understanding of the topic.

You have Pictet Disease. A rare re-emergence of a bad 18th century understanding of IR propagation and heating. Finally convinced me to go look it up.. And I was amazed (and at 1st stumped) by what I saw. But putting aside that every "hard-core" GW denier uses this as an explanation to explain away the GHouse effect -- it is a marvelous Vegas Strip Magic Act.. A true Hogwarts lecture for physicists.

So thanks for the entertainment. I gotta go work. But I will post a new thread here addressing how the professional GW deniers manage to make even me blush with their misrepresentations of what the Pictet Experiment proved...

You actually believe right now that "cold" can be focused by a lens.. Couldn't understand this until I spent a couple hours revisiting 18th century physics. You will be OK very shortly...

Interesting. Is there really more to it than just the solar heater/cooler box example?

Not familiar with that discussion. This is kinda neat because it's not obvious at first. Just like making tigers disappear on stage.. Phuds are STILL writing papers on it because it's fun for them..

 

[IanC]

Pictet did an experiment where cold and colder at one focal point were seen as cold and colder thermometer readings at the other focal point. Initially there was some confusion whether there was both heat and anti-heat. Is that the one?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have no understanding of atomic weights? Or gravity? Or the spinning of the earth?

I appear to have a better understanding of every topic that might even loosely fall under the rubric of physics than do you. The idea that you have a degree in atmospheric physics is absolutely laughable.

Your legend in your own mind...

Now that is what is funny. The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order. Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth? In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth.. I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.

Billy Bob - why do you say such stupid things? I have never heard anyone say all CO2 emissions head towards Earth. There is only one idiot that says none of them do, and that's SSDD.

Do the skeptical side a favour by not posting such embarrassing comments.

No Ian, What is embarrassing are those who think that LWIR can cause ocean warming. It Can Not. The math does not work in your favor. Crick Simply thinks that it can even though only 30% of re-emitted LWIR (near surface) is towards the planet. As altitude increases that amount dwindles rapidly. Had you read my post you would have understood this.

Does that mean you take back your asinine accusation that Crick said all CO2 radiation is emitted towards the surface?

Now on to your latest idiotic statement. 30% of re-emited LWIR is directed at the surface. Where is your source? All of the CO2 reemission that makes it to thesurface is from the first 20 metres, most from 2 metres and less. Hardly enough distance for the curvature of the Earth to make a difference. Perhaps you mean water vapour reemission. I don't have the extinction distance but I presume it is 100 metres or less,most within 20 metres, depending on the wavelengths of course. Still not enough for curvature to make much difference because the sideways component is being absorbed long before it escapes.

I really wish you would think your statements through before you post them. My reasonable skeptical statements get tainted by your foolish and unreasonable ones.

The amount re-emitted towards the surface is less than 30% of the absorbed LWIR. DO THE MATH! There are only about three or four people who can understand this math on this board, I am hoping your one of them.

Source

 

[IanC]

I appear to have a better understanding of every topic that might even loosely fall under the rubric of physics than do you. The idea that you have a degree in atmospheric physics is absolutely laughable.

Your legend in your own mind...

Now that is what is funny. The Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of wave propagation disprove your AGW religion in short order. Tell me Crick, how do you get your "intelligent" molecules of CO2 to shed all of their IR towards the surface of the earth? In order for your religion to be even close to being plausible, every wave of LWIR from CO2 would have to penetrate the oceans 24/7/365 to depth.. I have clearly shown that premise a lie in posts 1 and 2.

Billy Bob - why do you say such stupid things? I have never heard anyone say all CO2 emissions head towards Earth. There is only one idiot that says none of them do, and that's SSDD.

Do the skeptical side a favour by not posting such embarrassing comments.

No Ian, What is embarrassing are those who think that LWIR can cause ocean warming. It Can Not. The math does not work in your favor. Crick Simply thinks that it can even though only 30% of re-emitted LWIR (near surface) is towards the planet. As altitude increases that amount dwindles rapidly. Had you read my post you would have understood this.

Does that mean you take back your asinine accusation that Crick said all CO2 radiation is emitted towards the surface?

Now on to your latest idiotic statement. 30% of re-emited LWIR is directed at the surface. Where is your source? All of the CO2 reemission that makes it to thesurface is from the first 20 metres, most from 2 metres and less. Hardly enough distance for the curvature of the Earth to make a difference. Perhaps you mean water vapour reemission. I don't have the extinction distance but I presume it is 100 metres or less,most within 20 metres, depending on the wavelengths of course. Still not enough for curvature to make much difference because the sideways component is being absorbed long before it escapes.

I really wish you would think your statements through before you post them. My reasonable skeptical statements get tainted by your foolish and unreasonable ones.

View attachment 57617

The amount re-emitted towards the surface is less than 30% of the absorbed LWIR. DO THE MATH! There are only about three or four people who can understand this math on this board, I am hoping your one of them.

Source

I am unsure why you think a paper on MidWave IR, which does not even address the important CO2 band, is relevant to supporting your statement. Did you even read it? surely you must have at least read the summary?

6. SUMMARY

The spectral and radiometric characteristics of the radiative transfer process in the MWIR have been examined. The
effects of mixed gases are numerous in the MWIR, although much of the spectral region is dominated by water vapor
and carbon dioxide absorption. Aerosols were found to still have an influence in the MWIR and should be included in
any radiative transfer calculations. Surface emissivity varies less than in the VNIR/SWIR, with typical values at or above
0.85. Combining radiative transfer equations for both the solar reflective and the thermal emissive regimes, and
neglecting terms that provided minimal contributions to the overall at-sensor radiance, the expected at-sensor radiance
could be estimated. From this a simplified equation for the surface-leaving radiance including both solar and thermal
components was derived. Limited availability of MWIR data precluded application of the technique at this time.
Click to expand...
I honestly havent a clue as to what you understand, if anything about atmospheric radiation. the surface is affected by the atmosphere directly above it, a few hundred metres at most. the surface radiates 400W and it gets 335W back because the atmosphere above it is close to the same temp.

TOA radiation is much different than surface radiation. roughly half escapes freely through the atmospheric window (ignored in your link), the rest of the radiation is produced at higher altitudes and only escapes because water has precipitated or the atmosphere has thinned enough so that other wavelengths start getting through. CO2 is the last to let go, at 60 below.

are there other things involved? of course! but get an idea of some of the basics before you swamp yourself with complexities

 

[SSDD]

But radiation energy is produced by every object above zero degrees Kelvin, in all directions, including towards warmer objects. This is caused by collisions, hence its random nature.

Can you prove that outside of a mathematical model? Answer.....No SSDD, I can't...but I believe it anyway.