What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

the inescapable conclusion from that statement is that you disagree with the fundemental physics principle that all objects warmer than zero degrees Kelvin radiate.

the atmosphere is warmer than 0K, it does radiate, some of that radiation is in the direction of the surface. QED

I never said that objects don't radiate, I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.

I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.

Those tiny thermometers they have are neat!

I didn't invent the rules

I know, you just misinterpret them.

Nope

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Man, glad you two at least got each other.

Combined, they still don't have 100 IQ points.

Think so? JC is probably on the wrong side of the curve but SSDD is just wrong.

Sop you say...but every observation ever made supports my argument while all you have is unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.

Tell us again how matter stops emitting if it's near matter of the same temperature.

No need...The SB equations speak for me.

Write out the equation....set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....(hint) zero...and it is supported by every observation ever made...whether you believe your eyes or not......Two way energy exchange has never been observed or measured...it only exists within mathematical models...not out here in the real world.

set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....

That would give the result of net power loss = zero.

and it is supported by every observation ever made

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.

 

[SSDD]

I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd

And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models. You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?

 

[IanC]

I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd

And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models. You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?

You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.

 

[jc456]

I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd

And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models. You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?

You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.

and when we ask for observed measurements to validate your position, there is nothing.

 

[IanC]

I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd

And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models. You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?

You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.

and when we ask for observed measurements to validate your position, there is nothing.

Nothing to validate my position? Are you kidding?

Look up blackbody radiation. Look up thermal energy transfer. Look up photons or emissivity or a host of other topics. They are consistent with my position and against yours. At best, all you can find are definitions and explanations that are so general that they don't cover the specific topics we are fighting over.

 

[jc456]

I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd

And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models. You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?

You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.

and when we ask for observed measurements to validate your position, there is nothing.

Nothing to validate my position? Are you kidding?

Look up blackbody radiation. Look up thermal energy transfer. Look up photons or emissivity or a host of other topics. They are consistent with my position and against yours. At best, all you can find are definitions and explanations that are so general that they don't cover the specific topics we are fighting over.

and still no observed measurement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd

And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models. You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?

You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.

and when we ask for observed measurements to validate your position, there is nothing.

Nothing to validate my position? Are you kidding?

Look up blackbody radiation. Look up thermal energy transfer. Look up photons or emissivity or a host of other topics. They are consistent with my position and against yours. At best, all you can find are definitions and explanations that are so general that they don't cover the specific topics we are fighting over.

and still no observed measurement.

 

[IanC]

I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd

And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models. You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?

You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.

and when we ask for observed measurements to validate your position, there is nothing.

Nothing to validate my position? Are you kidding?

Look up blackbody radiation. Look up thermal energy transfer. Look up photons or emissivity or a host of other topics. They are consistent with my position and against yours. At best, all you can find are definitions and explanations that are so general that they don't cover the specific topics we are fighting over.

and still no observed measurement.

light is probably the most researched and measured topic in science. Todd just gave you a measurement of backradiation in the comment above. what other types of measurements would you like to see?

 

[jc456]

And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models. You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?

You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.

and when we ask for observed measurements to validate your position, there is nothing.

Nothing to validate my position? Are you kidding?

Look up blackbody radiation. Look up thermal energy transfer. Look up photons or emissivity or a host of other topics. They are consistent with my position and against yours. At best, all you can find are definitions and explanations that are so general that they don't cover the specific topics we are fighting over.

and still no observed measurement.

View attachment 95378

what was the instrumentation used?

 

[IanC]

a picture of instrumentation. I googled Schulze-Dake and found this paper on comparisons of the available machines circa 1992. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426(1992)009<0762:EINRCA>2.0.CO;2

the page numbered 765 gives details on this particular instrument, which appears to be superior. you should read the PDF to find out more about the design and performance of these radiometers. in particular you will note that none of them are cooled, and that the response at different temperatures is analyzed. as are many other factors and calibrations.

those interested in Backradiation, both the theory and the measured data, could do worse than checking out this three part article. The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.

and when we ask for observed measurements to validate your position, there is nothing.

Nothing to validate my position? Are you kidding?

Look up blackbody radiation. Look up thermal energy transfer. Look up photons or emissivity or a host of other topics. They are consistent with my position and against yours. At best, all you can find are definitions and explanations that are so general that they don't cover the specific topics we are fighting over.

and still no observed measurement.

View attachment 95378

what was the instrumentation used?

Pyranometers.

 

[SSDD]

You are a funny guy ian....once again, you prove that you are perfectly willing to be fooled by instrumentation if it supports your beliefs....net radiometers are little more than souped up pyrogeometers..

Net radiometers operate via thermopiles whose warm joints are in thermal contact with the receiver and the upper cool joints are in thermal contact with the lower receiver...via a contrived mathematical model, the temperature difference between the two receivers is supposedly proportional to the net radiation...The temperature difference between hot and cold is converted to voltage by a Seebeck effect.

So congratulations...once again, you have fallen victim to being fooled by instrumentation...net radiometers are not measuring back radiation any more than pyrogeometers are...they are measuring the temperature difference between sensors on a thermopile...again, if you want to actually measure physical radiation (as opposed to radiation contrived via a mathematical model) you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and once again, that is not back radiation, it is merely radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

 

[IanC]

You are a funny guy ian....once again, you prove that you are perfectly willing to be fooled by instrumentation if it supports your beliefs....net radiometers are little more than souped up pyrogeometers..

Net radiometers operate via thermopiles whose warm joints are in thermal contact with the receiver and the upper cool joints are in thermal contact with the lower receiver...via a contrived mathematical model, the temperature difference between the two receivers is supposedly proportional to the net radiation...The temperature difference between hot and cold is converted to voltage by a Seebeck effect.

So congratulations...once again, you have fallen victim to being fooled by instrumentation...net radiometers are not measuring back radiation any more than pyrogeometers are...they are measuring the temperature difference between sensors on a thermopile...again, if you want to actually measure physical radiation (as opposed to radiation contrived via a mathematical model) you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and once again, that is not back radiation, it is merely radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring?

If you say they are only detecting an effect of IR, then prove that your cooled instruments are not just detecting an effect of IR but the actual existence of IR.

Prove it.

 

[SSDD]

You are a funny guy ian....once again, you prove that you are perfectly willing to be fooled by instrumentation if it supports your beliefs....net radiometers are little more than souped up pyrogeometers..

Net radiometers operate via thermopiles whose warm joints are in thermal contact with the receiver and the upper cool joints are in thermal contact with the lower receiver...via a contrived mathematical model, the temperature difference between the two receivers is supposedly proportional to the net radiation...The temperature difference between hot and cold is converted to voltage by a Seebeck effect.

So congratulations...once again, you have fallen victim to being fooled by instrumentation...net radiometers are not measuring back radiation any more than pyrogeometers are...they are measuring the temperature difference between sensors on a thermopile...again, if you want to actually measure physical radiation (as opposed to radiation contrived via a mathematical model) you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and once again, that is not back radiation, it is merely radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring?

If you say they are only detecting an effect of IR, then prove that your cooled instruments are not just detecting an effect of IR but the actual existence of IR.

Prove it.

Already have on another thread...they are doing nothing more than performing calculations based on temperature changes of internal thermopiles. You just don't want to admit that you have been completely fooled by instrumentation and claims based on faulty knowledge of what the instrument is actually measuring.

 

[IanC]

You are a funny guy ian....once again, you prove that you are perfectly willing to be fooled by instrumentation if it supports your beliefs....net radiometers are little more than souped up pyrogeometers..

Net radiometers operate via thermopiles whose warm joints are in thermal contact with the receiver and the upper cool joints are in thermal contact with the lower receiver...via a contrived mathematical model, the temperature difference between the two receivers is supposedly proportional to the net radiation...The temperature difference between hot and cold is converted to voltage by a Seebeck effect.

So congratulations...once again, you have fallen victim to being fooled by instrumentation...net radiometers are not measuring back radiation any more than pyrogeometers are...they are measuring the temperature difference between sensors on a thermopile...again, if you want to actually measure physical radiation (as opposed to radiation contrived via a mathematical model) you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and once again, that is not back radiation, it is merely radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring?

If you say they are only detecting an effect of IR, then prove that your cooled instruments are not just detecting an effect of IR but the actual existence of IR.

Prove it.

Already have on another thread...they are doing nothing more than performing calculations based on temperature changes of internal thermopiles. You just don't want to admit that you have been completely fooled by instrumentation and claims based on faulty knowledge of what the instrument is actually measuring.

Prove it. Prove that the scientists and manufacturers of scientific instruments have fooled themselves. What are they measuring instead of radiation?

You make declarative statements with no supporting evidence. Start showing the evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Prove it. Prove that the scientists and manufacturers of scientific instruments have fooled themselves. What are they measuring instead of radiation?

Dang ian...you sure turn into a pissy little bitch when you are proven wrong...don't you. I never said that the manufacturers have fooled themselves...I said that the users have fooled themselves...and it is evident by the claims being made of measurements being made with the instruments...which clearly are not capable of measuring what they are claimed to be measuring.

 

[IanC]

Prove it. Prove that the scientists and manufacturers of scientific instruments have fooled themselves. What are they measuring instead of radiation?

Dang ian...you sure turn into a pissy little bitch when you are proven wrong...don't you. I never said that the manufacturers have fooled themselves...I said that the users have fooled themselves...and it is evident by the claims being made of measurements being made with the instruments...which clearly are not capable of measuring what they are claimed to be measuring.

So you seemingly agree that the instruments are measuring something in a reproducible fashion. If it is not radiation from the atmosphere then what is it? Explain yourself and provide some sort of evidence other than the misfiring neurons in your brain.

 

[SSDD]

Prove it. Prove that the scientists and manufacturers of scientific instruments have fooled themselves. What are they measuring instead of radiation?

Dang ian...you sure turn into a pissy little bitch when you are proven wrong...don't you. I never said that the manufacturers have fooled themselves...I said that the users have fooled themselves...and it is evident by the claims being made of measurements being made with the instruments...which clearly are not capable of measuring what they are claimed to be measuring.

So you seemingly agree that the instruments are measuring something in a reproducible fashion. If it is not radiation from the atmosphere then what is it? Explain yourself and provide some sort of evidence other than the misfiring neurons in your brain.

Temperature changes in an internal thermopile result in an electrical charge which is then "interpreted" via a contrived mathematical formula. The something that is being measured is the temperature change of the internal thermopile...any number of things might cause the thermopile to change temperature. The resulting electrical current is then interpreted every time by the same contrived mathematical formula... What they are measuring is based on the assumption that only one thing can cause the temperature change within the thermopile....if you are a hammer....everything looks like a nail.

The only instruments that actually measure radiation directly must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to measure any radiation coming from the atmosphere...let the instrument warm and they will record nothing....but have no problem recording incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature which, according to believers is only half as much radiation as is coming back from the atmosphere.

Clearly it is your own brain that is misfiring...tragic lack of critical thinking skills....the opposite of skeptical is gullible.

 

[Crick]

"Any number of things" when the instrument is designed specifically to ensure that nothing but incoming radiation affects the thermopile's temperature?