Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[SSDD]

That's the problem with mind experiments...
.

Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.

Did you ever contact GSU about their errors?
You should post their response.

Did you contact them to ask if they have the first observation and measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature to support the story they told you which you have swallowed hook line and sinker. Or are you afraid to face the truth.. And just think of the victory you would enjoy IF they actually could provide such measurement to you.

But you won't ask because you know that no such measurements exist...its all just unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

You're the only one to notice all our instruments are lying.
Spread the word!!
Let us know what GSU says. TIA!

So the answer is no..you didn't ask them if they had any actual observations or measurements made with instruments at ambient temperature that support their belief.

And I never said the instruments were lying...I said that you were being fooled by the data they provide. There is a difference. And I can't blame you for not asking them about observations or measurements...if they told you then you would be faced with the fact that you are working from a position of faith and not scientific evidence....i guess that would be hard for you to take.

 

[SSDD]

That's the problem with mind experiments...
.

Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.

Of course it can. Any time you replace the cold environment with an object of intermediary temperature, the warm object will lose energy less quickly.

There are two options. If the warm object has no additional heating source then it will cool less quickly, and be warmer at every interval than it would have been without the secondary object.

If the warm object does have a heating source then it will arrive at a higher equilibrium temperature because the secondary object has reduced the heat loss.

A house cools down slower, and warms up to a higher temperature when it has less exposure to the environment. Don't believe me? Try opening all the windows and doors in the dead of winter.

Cooling less quickly is not warming ian...cooling less quickly is cooling. And the towel is blocking convection...are you saying that CO2 is blocking convection? Can you show me a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one?

Trillions of dollars are at stake...people's lives are at stake...over that very claim...wouldn't you think that there would exist a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Wouldn't you think that a reasonable, rational, logical thinking human being would expect to see some evidence, beyond an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that there is such a link before accepting said link as fact?

Cooling less quickly is not warming ian...cooling less quickly is cooling. And the towel is blocking convection...are you saying that CO2 is blocking convection?

CO2 is causing us to cool less quickly. (Because of back radiation)

Got a measurement of this mythical back radiation made with an instrument at ambient temperature?

Thought not. All you have is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

Idiot.... I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist... I didn't determine via an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that photons exist at every point along their path at the same time...but if you are going to believe they exist, and exist as science claims, then that is just how they are...they exist at every point along their path, from beginning to end at the same time. That statement has ramifications...sorry you can't accept them.

I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist

No, but you did invent all knowing, causality violating photons.

Nope...I just applied their claimed nature to reality...combined with the second law of thermodynamics that states that it is not possible for energy to spontaneously move from cool to warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.

Did you ever contact GSU about their errors?
You should post their response.

Did you contact them to ask if they have the first observation and measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature to support the story they told you which you have swallowed hook line and sinker. Or are you afraid to face the truth.. And just think of the victory you would enjoy IF they actually could provide such measurement to you.

But you won't ask because you know that no such measurements exist...its all just unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

You're the only one to notice all our instruments are lying.
Spread the word!!
Let us know what GSU says. TIA!

So the answer is no..you didn't ask them if they had any actual observations or measurements made with instruments at ambient temperature that support their belief.

And I never said the instruments were lying...I said that you were being fooled by the data they provide. There is a difference. And I can't blame you for not asking them about observations or measurements...if they told you then you would be faced with the fact that you are working from a position of faith and not scientific evidence....i guess that would be hard for you to take.

So the answer is no..

You should tell them!!
Burst their bubble.
Also, explain your discovery of matter ceasing all emission at equilibrium.

And I never said the instruments were lying...I said that you were being fooled by the data they provide

Like the discovery of CBR? The telescope on Earth couldn't detect that energy, because the radio photons wouldn't travel toward the warmer atmosphere of the Earth?

You remember radio photons? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

Idiot.... I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist... I didn't determine via an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that photons exist at every point along their path at the same time...but if you are going to believe they exist, and exist as science claims, then that is just how they are...they exist at every point along their path, from beginning to end at the same time. That statement has ramifications...sorry you can't accept them.

I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist

No, but you did invent all knowing, causality violating photons.

Nope...I just applied their claimed nature to reality...combined with the second law of thermodynamics that states that it is not possible for energy to spontaneously move from cool to warm.

...I just applied their claimed nature to reality

Who claimed their nature could violate causality? Besides you?

the second law of thermodynamics that states that it is not possible for energy to spontaneously move from cool to warm.

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that it is not possible for photons to spontaneously move from cool to warm, does it?

You still haven't explained why photons from the Sun's surface moving toward the hotter corona don't violate your ridiculous misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.

Why not?
What are you afraid of?

 

[mamooth]

Got a measurement of this mythical back radiation made with an instrument at ambient temperature?

Well, yes. Any thermal imaging camera will measure the backradiation from the sky, and those camera are not cooled. That is, common consumer electronics now demonstrate how you're crazy and dishonest.

As far as more detailed measurements of backradiation, that's also been done. Measurements done over 10 years show the slow increase in backradiation caused by the increase in greenhouse gases. That's global warming theory confirmed by direct observation, hence only the most desperate liars still try to deny it.

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface | Berkeley Lab
---
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.
---

 

[IanC]

The towel is always cooler than the tower.

That's the problem with mind experiments...
.

Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.

Of course it can. Any time you replace the cold environment with an object of intermediary temperature, the warm object will lose energy less quickly.

There are two options. If the warm object has no additional heating source then it will cool less quickly, and be warmer at every interval than it would have been without the secondary object.

If the warm object does have a heating source then it will arrive at a higher equilibrium temperature because the secondary object has reduced the heat loss.

A house cools down slower, and warms up to a higher temperature when it has less exposure to the environment. Don't believe me? Try opening all the windows and doors in the dead of winter.

Cooling less quickly is not warming ian...cooling less quickly is cooling. And the towel is blocking convection...are you saying that CO2 is blocking convection? Can you show me a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one?

Trillions of dollars are at stake...people's lives are at stake...over that very claim...wouldn't you think that there would exist a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Wouldn't you think that a reasonable, rational, logical thinking human being would expect to see some evidence, beyond an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that there is such a link before accepting said link as fact?

You keep ducking the issue and refuse to address my points. An object placed between a warm object and a cool environment will either 1. slow the rate of cooling if there is no energy source, or 2. increase the equilibrium temperature if there is a source of energy input.

These types of interactions are seen are under us all the time. For example... My cedar deck has a bench on one side that is only supported at the ends and is otherwise totally open to the environment. After a cold clear night there will be frost on the deck except underneath the bench, but the top of the bench will also be frosty.

The reason for this is simple. Most of the deck is radiating away energy to the cold sky and the surface gets colder than the air. Likewise for the top of the bench. But the bottom of the bench and deck underneath it are at the same temperature as the air.

When moist air comes in contact with a cold surface it cools and cannot hold as much moisture, so frost precipitates out.

Why does the deck cool faster than the air? Because its emissivity is greater and a bigger fraction of the radiation escapes to space than is the case for the atmosphere.

The bench slowed down energy loss and made the deck below it warmer than it would have been otherwise.

This is one glaringly obvious example from real life. There are a myriad of others if you look for them instead of stuffing your fingers in your ears and chanting 'no, no, no'.

 

[SSDD]

Well, yes. Any thermal imaging camera will measure the backradiation from the sky, and those camera are not cooled. That is, common consumer electronics now demonstrate how you're crazy and dishonest.

Sorry hairball...I have provided plenty of information to you on this topic...It is tragic that it was so far over your head that you could not understand it.

Thermal cameras are nothing more than an array of thermopiles which form an image based on how quickly they warm and cool. If you point them at the sky, which is cooler, they form an image based on the amount and rate of cooling due to the loss of heat by the array to the cooler sky.

There is ample information on thermal cameras, fair, etc., that anyone should be able to find it at a level at which they are able to understand. Most everyone that is...apparently you are every bit as stupid as I have thought you to be all along.

Lets try it one more time...

You provided this link to wiki in defense of your ignorance and in your own link, it said this:

"Uncooled thermal cameras use a sensor operating at ambient temperature, or a sensor stabilized at a temperature close to ambient using small temperature control elements. Modern uncooled detectors all use sensors that work by the change of resistance, voltage or current when heated by infrared radiation. These changes are then measured and compared to the values at the operating temperature of the sensor."

That isn't cryptic, or complicated...Are you not able to read even easy words and grasp what they mean? It says right there...using small TEMPERATURE CONTROL ELEMENTS" i.e. thermopiles...modern uncooled detectors WORK BY THE CHANGE OF RESISTANCE, VOLTAGE, OR CURRENT, when heated by infrared radiation...that also means that when they are cooling due to the fact that the source is cooler than the camera itself...The thermopiles change temperature, and the rate and amount of change is then converted into voltage which is then interpreted into a picture via software...

And again, here...from the Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden. The passage below is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books.

"Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive"

Is there any number of times you can look at that and actually come to understand it? He says it right there is very simple language...IF THE OBJECT IS COOLER, THE FLUX BECOMES NEGATIVE...that means the sensor array is losing heat to the cooler object..it is not gaining cold FROM the cooler object. He says right there, the flux changes direction and the heat goes from the sensor to the object. Precisely what I have been telling you for years now but you seem to really be to stupid to understand.. Or maybe you do understand but are such a liar that you don't mind repeating deliberate lies in an effort to support your religion. Personally, I attribute it to abject stupidity.

So lets restart the clock...how long until you claim again, that all you have to do is point a thermal camera at the sky to see back radiation? How long before you "forget" that you have been given a straight forward statement from a very respected text on the topic of thermal sensors and claim that thermal cameras can see and record backradition?

 

[SSDD]

You keep ducking the issue and refuse to address my points. An object placed between a warm object and a cool environment will either 1. slow the rate of cooling if there is no energy source, or 2. increase the equilibrium temperature if there is a source of energy input.

Sorry ian, but alas it is you who is ducking...what you refuse to acknowledge is the BIG HAIRRY ASSED FACT that for all your mind experiments, if this were happening, at a magnitude capable of altering the global temperature it would be a very simple matter to observe it, measure it, quantify it, and present the evidence to the world.

Alas, it hasn't been done because it can't be done because it simply isn't happening. And you are now reduced to trying to compare a f'ing wooden bench which to CO2....just as stupid as trying to compare the glass walls of a greenhouse to CO2. The comparison is simply not rational..and if you were a rational human being rather than a crazed pseudoscience cultist, you would see this obvious fact as well.

The effect of CO2 on the global climate is zero or less.

 

[IanC]

Well, yes. Any thermal imaging camera will measure the backradiation from the sky, and those camera are not cooled. That is, common consumer electronics now demonstrate how you're crazy and dishonest.

Sorry hairball...I have provided plenty of information to you on this topic...It is tragic that it was so far over your head that you could not understand it.

Thermal cameras are nothing more than an array of thermopiles which form an image based on how quickly they warm and cool. If you point them at the sky, which is cooler, they form an image based on the amount and rate of cooling due to the loss of heat by the array to the cooler sky.

There is ample information on thermal cameras, fair, etc., that anyone should be able to find it at a level at which they are able to understand. Most everyone that is...apparently you are every bit as stupid as I have thought you to be all along.

Lets try it one more time...

You provided this link to wiki in defense of your ignorance and in your own link, it said this:

"Uncooled thermal cameras use a sensor operating at ambient temperature, or a sensor stabilized at a temperature close to ambient using small temperature control elements. Modern uncooled detectors all use sensors that work by the change of resistance, voltage or current when heated by infrared radiation. These changes are then measured and compared to the values at the operating temperature of the sensor."

That isn't cryptic, or complicated...Are you not able to read even easy words and grasp what they mean? It says right there...using small TEMPERATURE CONTROL ELEMENTS" i.e. thermopiles...modern uncooled detectors WORK BY THE CHANGE OF RESISTANCE, VOLTAGE, OR CURRENT, when heated by infrared radiation...that also means that when they are cooling due to the fact that the source is cooler than the camera itself...The thermopiles change temperature, and the rate and amount of change is then converted into voltage which is then interpreted into a picture via software...

And again, here...from the Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden. The passage below is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books.

"Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive"

Is there any number of times you can look at that and actually come to understand it? He says it right there is very simple language...IF THE OBJECT IS COOLER, THE FLUX BECOMES NEGATIVE...that means the sensor array is losing heat to the cooler object..it is not gaining cold FROM the cooler object. He says right there, the flux changes direction and the heat goes from the sensor to the object. Precisely what I have been telling you for years now but you seem to really be to stupid to understand.. Or maybe you do understand but are such a liar that you don't mind repeating deliberate lies in an effort to support your religion. Personally, I attribute it to abject stupidity.

So lets restart the clock...how long until you claim again, that all you have to do is point a thermal camera at the sky to see back radiation? How long before you "forget" that you have been given a straight forward statement from a very respected text on the topic of thermal sensors and claim that thermal cameras can see and record backradition?

200+ years ago a great many leading scientists of the day thought there were both frigoric (cooling) waves and caloric (heating) waves because the radiation coming off an object could be collected and aimed at a different object which would then either cool or warm depending on the temperature difference between the two objects.

It soon became apparent that all radiation was caloric, and that cooling/heating was a relative quality controlled by the net flow left over after the gross flow in either direction had their impacts.

A thermal imager or an IR gun compares it's known amount of radiation against the radiation coming off an object being measured. An object with the same temperature would replace the same amount radiation that was being given off by the detector and no change would occur because there was no net flow, even though radiation was going in both directions.

I will leave it to the reader to contemplate the gross and net flows for different combinations of temperature. There is only one special case, absolute zero, where no radiation is coming back to the detector. In all other instances it comparing two gross flows which result in a net flow.

It is also interesting to note that the detectors are only sensitive to wavelengths in the atmospheric window, radiation that freely moves through air with little interaction. If you measured at CO2'S 15 micron wavelength, the air would be opaque, black, and the only temperature reading you would get would be from the area immediately in front of the aperture.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball...I have provided plenty of information to you on this topic...It is tragic that it was so far over your head that you could not understand it

I've humiliated you many times on this topic before. That's always fun to watch, so let's do it again.

Thermal cameras are nothing more than an array of thermopiles which form an image based on how quickly they warm and cool. If you point them at the sky, which is cooler, they form an image based on the amount and rate of cooling due to the loss of heat by the array to the cooler sky.

And yet the camera shows the differences in temperature between the cold clouds and colder sky, both of which are colder than the camera.

According to your lunatic theory, the camera sensors do not absorb any energy from the colder sky or cold clouds. The camera sensors only lose energy by radiation.

Thus, by your theory, the camera sensors should be losing energy at the same rate for the two different temperature colder points, so the camera should not be able to differentiate between cold clouds and colder sky. But it does, hence your moron theory is proven to be totally wrong.

This is where, instead of addressing that simple point that shows your kook theory is crazy cult gibberish, you evade, cry, insult and run. Please proceed. Everyone appreciates a good laugh.

 

[IanC]

You keep ducking the issue and refuse to address my points. An object placed between a warm object and a cool environment will either 1. slow the rate of cooling if there is no energy source, or 2. increase the equilibrium temperature if there is a source of energy input.

Sorry ian, but alas it is you who is ducking...what you refuse to acknowledge is the BIG HAIRRY ASSED FACT that for all your mind experiments, if this were happening, at a magnitude capable of altering the global temperature it would be a very simple matter to observe it, measure it, quantify it, and present the evidence to the world.

Alas, it hasn't been done because it can't be done because it simply isn't happening. And you are now reduced to trying to compare a f'ing wooden bench which to CO2....just as stupid as trying to compare the glass walls of a greenhouse to CO2. The comparison is simply not rational..and if you were a rational human being rather than a crazed pseudoscience cultist, you would see this obvious fact as well.

The effect of CO2 on the global climate is zero or less.

Now you are just changing the subject. We were discussing thermodynamics, how placing another object between a warm object and the cold environment will reduce the cooling rate, and in fact increase the equilibrium temperature if there is an active heating source.

So far you have not directly addressed the issue. Will you? Probably not.

You purposely refuse to back up your claims with explanations because in the past every time you do you find yourself painted into a corner. So you just keep changing the subject. Like this time.

 

[IanC]

This is where, instead of addressing that simple point that shows your kook theory is crazy cult gibberish, you evade, cry, insult and run. Please proceed. Everyone appreciates a good laugh.

The poo flinging monkey is an expert on evading, crying, insulting and running. It takes one to know one.

 

[SSDD]

A thermal imager or an IR gun compares it's known amount of radiation against the radiation coming off an object being measured. An object with the same temperature would replace the same amount radiation that was being given off by the detector and no change would occur because there was no net flow, even though radiation was going in both directions.

Sorry ian, it appears that you know no more about thermal imagers, and IR thermometers than the hairball...personally, I would be f'ing embarrassed, but hey, you are so wrapped up in your beliefs that you can't get in contact with reality.

 

[SSDD]

And yet the camera shows the differences in temperature between the cold clouds and colder sky, both of which are colder than the camera.

Of course it does hairball...the lens focuses an image on the sensor array...point it at clear sky and clouds and even though both are cooler than the camera, the rate of cooling for different areas of the image projected on the array is different, as is the amount of cooling...this isn't rocket science...but to you I suppose it is the next thing to magic.

According to your lunatic theory, the camera sensors do not absorb any energy from the colder sky or cold clouds. The camera sensors only lose energy by radiation.

Of course it doesn't since energy does not move from cool to warm....and I am afraid that it is you who has the lunatic theory believing that the warmer array is absorbing energy from the cooler sky...let me repeat...from page 307, section 7.8 of
Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden...one of the most respected texts on the topic...

"If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object."

I get that you might not be bright enough to understand or comprehend what the term negative flux means, but he states in clear concise english that negative flux means that the energy is moving from the warmer sensor to the cooler object...which part of that are you having a hard time understanding...or is it that it just flies in the face of your cult beliefs?

Thus, by your theory, the camera sensors should be losing energy at the same rate for the two different temperature colder points, so the camera should not be able to differentiate between cold clouds and colder sky. But it does, hence your moron theory is proven to be totally wrong.

You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...Wherever did you get the ludicrous idea that I thought that two cooler objects at different temperatures would absorb energy from a warmer object at the same rate? This really is like magic to you isn't it?

It is tragic to be as stupid as you.

 

[SSDD]

Now you are just changing the subject. We were discussing thermodynamics, how placing another object between a warm object and the cold environment will reduce the cooling rate, and in fact increase the equilibrium temperature if there is an active heating source.

No we aren't...you are trying to discuss your failed mind experiments....Thermodynamics is a real science with real observations, and real measurements, and real quantification....if energy were moving from cool to warm, then it could be measured with an instrument at the ambient temperature...it can't bcecause it isn't....and I really have no interest in your mind experiments which only have validity in your mind...they have no analog out here in the real world

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet the camera shows the differences in temperature between the cold clouds and colder sky, both of which are colder than the camera.

Of course it does hairball...the lens focuses an image on the sensor array...point it at clear sky and clouds and even though both are cooler than the camera, the rate of cooling for different areas of the image projected on the array is different, as is the amount of cooling...this isn't rocket science...but to you I suppose it is the next thing to magic.

According to your lunatic theory, the camera sensors do not absorb any energy from the colder sky or cold clouds. The camera sensors only lose energy by radiation.

Of course it doesn't since energy does not move from cool to warm....and I am afraid that it is you who has the lunatic theory believing that the warmer array is absorbing energy from the cooler sky...let me repeat...from page 307, section 7.8 of
Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden...one of the most respected texts on the topic...

"If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object."

I get that you might not be bright enough to understand or comprehend what the term negative flux means, but he states in clear concise english that negative flux means that the energy is moving from the warmer sensor to the cooler object...which part of that are you having a hard time understanding...or is it that it just flies in the face of your cult beliefs?

Thus, by your theory, the camera sensors should be losing energy at the same rate for the two different temperature colder points, so the camera should not be able to differentiate between cold clouds and colder sky. But it does, hence your moron theory is proven to be totally wrong.

You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...Wherever did you get the ludicrous idea that I thought that two cooler objects at different temperatures would absorb energy from a warmer object at the same rate? This really is like magic to you isn't it?

It is tragic to be as stupid as you.

You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...

How does the warm object know how quickly it can lose heat to a cooler object?
Does the cooler object somehow broadcast info about its temperature?

 

[IanC]

A thermal imager or an IR gun compares it's known amount of radiation against the radiation coming off an object being measured. An object with the same temperature would replace the same amount radiation that was being given off by the detector and no change would occur because there was no net flow, even though radiation was going in both directions.

Sorry ian, it appears that you know no more about thermal imagers, and IR thermometers than the hairball...personally, I would be f'ing embarrassed, but hey, you are so wrapped up in your beliefs that you can't get in contact with reality.

Back to mind experiments. There is a target to be measured by IR guns, and it controlled to show a surface temperature of 20C.

One gun is outside at an ambient temperature of 15C and it reads the target as 20C because it detects a surplus of radiation.

The second gun is inside a building with an ambient temperature of 25C, and it takes the reading through an open window, and reads the target as 20C because it detects a deficit of radiation.

You are one of a very small group that thinks the radiation coming off the target is controlled by the IR gun, or vice versa. And believes both the gun and the target stop radiating completely if the temperatures match.

Every sane person thinks the gun is simply comparing the unknown amount of radiation coming off the target to it's own known amount of internal radiation. A surplus of outside radiation causes the sensor to warm up, a deficit cools it. An exact match causes no change but that does not mean either the gun or the target stopped radiating.

 

[IanC]

And yet the camera shows the differences in temperature between the cold clouds and colder sky, both of which are colder than the camera.

Of course it does hairball...the lens focuses an image on the sensor array...point it at clear sky and clouds and even though both are cooler than the camera, the rate of cooling for different areas of the image projected on the array is different, as is the amount of cooling...this isn't rocket science...but to you I suppose it is the next thing to magic.

According to your lunatic theory, the camera sensors do not absorb any energy from the colder sky or cold clouds. The camera sensors only lose energy by radiation.

Of course it doesn't since energy does not move from cool to warm....and I am afraid that it is you who has the lunatic theory believing that the warmer array is absorbing energy from the cooler sky...let me repeat...from page 307, section 7.8 of
Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden...one of the most respected texts on the topic...

"If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object."

I get that you might not be bright enough to understand or comprehend what the term negative flux means, but he states in clear concise english that negative flux means that the energy is moving from the warmer sensor to the cooler object...which part of that are you having a hard time understanding...or is it that it just flies in the face of your cult beliefs?

Thus, by your theory, the camera sensors should be losing energy at the same rate for the two different temperature colder points, so the camera should not be able to differentiate between cold clouds and colder sky. But it does, hence your moron theory is proven to be totally wrong.

You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...Wherever did you get the ludicrous idea that I thought that two cooler objects at different temperatures would absorb energy from a warmer object at the same rate? This really is like magic to you isn't it?

It is tragic to be as stupid as you.

You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...

How does the warm object know how quickly it can lose heat to a cooler object?
Does the cooler object somehow broadcast info about its temperature?

That's where SSDD'S magic photons come to the rescue! They just know, they don't need no steenkin' information.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet the camera shows the differences in temperature between the cold clouds and colder sky, both of which are colder than the camera.

Of course it does hairball...the lens focuses an image on the sensor array...point it at clear sky and clouds and even though both are cooler than the camera, the rate of cooling for different areas of the image projected on the array is different, as is the amount of cooling...this isn't rocket science...but to you I suppose it is the next thing to magic.

According to your lunatic theory, the camera sensors do not absorb any energy from the colder sky or cold clouds. The camera sensors only lose energy by radiation.

Of course it doesn't since energy does not move from cool to warm....and I am afraid that it is you who has the lunatic theory believing that the warmer array is absorbing energy from the cooler sky...let me repeat...from page 307, section 7.8 of
Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden...one of the most respected texts on the topic...

"If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object."

I get that you might not be bright enough to understand or comprehend what the term negative flux means, but he states in clear concise english that negative flux means that the energy is moving from the warmer sensor to the cooler object...which part of that are you having a hard time understanding...or is it that it just flies in the face of your cult beliefs?

Thus, by your theory, the camera sensors should be losing energy at the same rate for the two different temperature colder points, so the camera should not be able to differentiate between cold clouds and colder sky. But it does, hence your moron theory is proven to be totally wrong.

You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...Wherever did you get the ludicrous idea that I thought that two cooler objects at different temperatures would absorb energy from a warmer object at the same rate? This really is like magic to you isn't it?

It is tragic to be as stupid as you.

You really are an idiot aren't you...apply the SB equation...a warm object will lose heat more quickly to an object at -80 degrees than it will to an object at 40 degrees...

How does the warm object know how quickly it can lose heat to a cooler object?
Does the cooler object somehow broadcast info about its temperature?

That's where SSDD'S magic photons come to the rescue! They just know, they don't need no steenkin' information.

All knowing photons are cool......or hot......or something.