Relativity and climate science

[SSDD]

You can't see snow on a dark moonless night away from city lights.

And yet, it is still radiating energy.

Not good at thinking huh? Where does the light come from? Is your eye warmer than stars? Is it warmer than city lights reflected off clouds? Take that snow inside a truly dark room, turn off the lights and tell me that you can see the energy it is radiating.

Are you guys really this dense? Clearly you just accept without ever giving anything any thought at all. When you see light, you must consider the temperature of the source of that light.... Do you really not know this?

 

[SSDD]

You can't see snow on a dark moonless night away from city lights.

And yet, it is still radiating energy.

Yes it is. But not visible light. A snake's infrared receptors may be able to pick it up but not human eyes.

Pretending that you don't know that the source of the light is important just makes you look stupid Ian, and if you really don't know this, then go about correcting your ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

Visible light is just a special case of radiativemenergy. By definition it comes from very warm objects. Thats what boltzman and bbody theory says. But all bodies generate in the long wave wave freqs as well.

The world looks very different in IR. If you ever were in a tank simulator, youd know that your IR display can be seeing objects that are colder than the detector.

There are no statements in bbody theory about selective radiation. The pattern is determined only by the shape of the emitting surface. And yes ----- you can count IR photons coming off of a snow bank. In fact ive done that with multi spectral images from LANdSat and other other sensors.

Really? So you can prove that photons exist? Lets see that proof. If you can count them, then surely you can prove that they exist. My guess is that whatever you believe you have been counting is an artifact of a mathematical model and not photons. What is your guess?

Looking forward to that proof that photons exist and that you are actually counting them. Can I perhaps be invited to the presentation when you get your Nobel? I would like to shake your hand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your argument keeps evolving. LOL!
It doesn't matter, the snow is radiating energy to something warmer.

My argument isn't changing at all....it is just taking a looooooonnnnnnggggg time for you to catch up. Where is that light coming from? Does the light originate with the snow?

snow absorbed energy from the sun. Then, the snow radiated energy to my warmer than the snow optic nerve. Why isn't that a violation of your 2nd Law?

Your eye is warmer than the sun where the light comes from? What sort of eyes do you have?

Snow can radiate energy to my eye if the energy comes from the sun before it is absorbed and re-emitted and that doesn't violate the 2nd Law?

Your theory is evolving again. Now cooler objects can radiate toward warmer objects. Wow!

What if the energy absorbed by the snow came from something cooler than my eye?
Can I still it?

 

[IanC]

Visible light is just a special case of radiativemenergy. By definition it comes from very warm objects. Thats what boltzman and bbody theory says. But all bodies generate in the long wave wave freqs as well.

The world looks very different in IR. If you ever were in a tank simulator, youd know that your IR display can be seeing objects that are colder than the detector.

There are no statements in bbody theory about selective radiation. The pattern is determined only by the shape of the emitting surface. And yes ----- you can count IR photons coming off of a snow bank. In fact ive done that with multi spectral images from LANdSat and other other sensors.

Really? So you can prove that photons exist? Lets see that proof. If you can count them, then surely you can prove that they exist. My guess is that whatever you believe you have been counting is an artifact of a mathematical model and not photons. What is your guess?

Looking forward to that proof that photons exist and that you are actually counting them. Can I perhaps be invited to the presentation when you get your Nobel? I would like to shake your hand.

what a pompous ass you are. Are you denying that photons exist, or just questioning their definition? Yet you believe the SLoT is the highest authority on photons? 19th century general obsevations trumping 20th century technology. a

 

[flacaltenn]

You can't see snow on a dark moonless night away from city lights.

You either have light coming in from stars or you have light bouncing off clouds....what you don't have is absolute darkness. What you do have is a light source that is warmer than your eye. You know this stuff Ian, why pretend that you don't in order to try to bolster someone's idiot argument? And if you don't....I mean, really don't know it, then that's enough said.

Your view is biased because you're hanging on the premise that objects that create VISIBLE light -- need to be very hot by BBody standards.. But that's not true.

There are SEVERAL methods for producing visible light without a hot source..

Fireflies use biochemistry --- You can generate photons by simply bending certain crystals or exploding bubbles. You have Phosphorescence --- which is the principle of materials capable of generating photons from electrical stimulation or secondary photon emission..

Doesn't HAVE to be a warm source at all.. Don't think fireflies are heating themselves much. Or luminous plankton that I've surfed in in Florida weren't warm enough to GLOW white...

 

[flacaltenn]

We got to cut to the chase here. Because Im certainly not gonna go another 10page round with you about basic engineering thermo.. Here it is...

1) No "postmodern Physics"
2) No relativity involved.
3) No violation of Thermo Laws
4) Not an isolated reference. I can provide DOZENS of recitations in SIMILIAR basic texts..

Engineering Heat Transfer By M. M. Rathore, R. Kapuno
Chapter 13

Engineering Heat Transfer - M. M. Rathore, R. Kapuno - Google Books

Cut and pasted from Chapter 13..

Author provides DOZEN of examples showing BIDIRECTIONAL calculations of radiative energy between surfaces of ALL shapes and view factors. Basically grooving to the theme of the "optics" of the different situations.

ALL of these "net flow" calculations show a simple subtraction of the photon energy flows between the surfaces.. The only COMPLEX part is the calculation of the "View Factor" to determine the distribution of the "aiming" factor between the surfaces that launch the photons..

If you can't READ Chapter 13 --- not my fault.. All you need to see is the sections I cut. But there are Corrolary Rules for these transfers of energy as well. NONE of which violate any basic thermo principle.

If you should decide that this ONE ref I picked is a fluke, Google <<radiative heat "net flow" calculation>> and choose ANY of these others. I guarantee you'll be bored to tears trying to find an exception to the ref. that I gave..

Compr. Engineering Heat Transfer - Page 306books.google.com/books?isbn=8170081866
Mahesh M. Rathore - 2000 - *Preview
Determine the heat loss by each plate and the net flow of radiant energy to the walls of the room. [Ans. Qj = 109 kW, Q2 = - 32 kW, Qnet = 77 kW] 9.6. If the two discs of problem 9.3 are connected by a reradiating and non conducting wall, what ...Biotransport: Principles and Applications: Principles and ... - Page 544books.google.com/books?isbn=1441981195
Robert J. Roselli, *Kenneth R. Diller - 2011 - *Preview - *More editions
The heat loss through the hole is the sum of the flows from nodes 1 and 2. Ji-Eb3 ... We can write the radiation flow equation for each surface in the format that a flow to the surface is positive. This is the ... conjunction with a net flow to surface 1.Engineering Heat Transfer - Page 972books.google.com/books?isbn=1449656013
M. M. Rathore, *R. Kapuno - 2011 - *Preview - *More editions
If the emissivi- ty of the painted surface is 0.9, determine the net radiative heat transfer rate from the surface and the rate of change of ... Determine the heat loss by each plate and the net flow of radiant energy to the walls of the room. If the two ...Principles of Heat Transfer - Page 583books.google.com/books?isbn=0495667706
Frank Kreith, *Raj M. Manglik, *Mark S. Bohn - 2010 - *Preview - *More editions
An inspection of Eq. (9.62) shows that there is also an analogy between heat flow by radiation and the flow of electric current. ... and the area-shape factor as the conductance between two nodes at potentials Ebi and Ebj, then the resulting net flow of heat is analogous ... For the case when the net radiation heat transfer rate qr,k from one surface Ak is prescribed while the temperature is specified for all the ...

 

[flacaltenn]

Just to be clear.. I need to embellish post #46.. Even tho I cite VISIBLE photon sources where HEAT is NOT driving the flow --- this is not to be taken as a capitulation to the topic of BBody radiation..

You are correct that BBodies that generate visible light are generally hotter. But that does not change the fact that the flow calculations MUST BE bidirectional.. The HEAT energy of the BBodies is just the potential force driving the energy exchange. If the hotter source potential WAS NOT diminished by the lower thermal potential of the cooler source, then ALL FLOW rates between that hot source and ANY OTHER cooler blackbody would be the same.. THAT would violate the conservation law and possibly the 2nd law of thermo.

Because you could not AFFECT the flow rates by warming or cooling the "cooler" object..

That's EXTREMELY important to this whole dust-up.. What you are ADVOCATING violate the thermo law of conservation. Saying that no matter WHAT THE THERMAL POTENTIAL of the cooler is ----- the flow rate would be determined SOLELY by the warmer object..

You have an alternate "excuse" for violating the conservation Law??