No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

what you're promoting is that GHGs make the atmosphere warm, and it's cold. And LWIR is radiating upward toward space. you think it magically comes back. and can't post any observance of any such thing. additionally, all of the documents you have posted to date say that ghg's provide twice the radiation of the incoming sun light. wow. from a cold atmosphere at that. so the temperature of any emittance would be that temperature. Ice warming the surface. too funny.

And LWIR is radiating upward toward space. you think it magically comes back.

Some of it comes back. Not magic.

and can't post any observance of any such thing.

How many more should I post?

 

[jc456]

what you're promoting is that GHGs make the atmosphere warm, and it's cold. And LWIR is radiating upward toward space. you think it magically comes back. and can't post any observance of any such thing. additionally, all of the documents you have posted to date say that ghg's provide twice the radiation of the incoming sun light. wow. from a cold atmosphere at that. so the temperature of any emittance would be that temperature. Ice warming the surface. too funny.

And LWIR is radiating upward toward space. you think it magically comes back.

Some of it comes back. Not magic.

and can't post any observance of any such thing.

How many more should I post?

Some of it comes back. Not magic.

only if it's colder on the surface. wow.

How many more should I post?

One from an instrument that can read LWIR without being cooled.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

there is nothing in those pictures that is atmospheric radiation. none, zip, nadda.

Why not?

Maybe you just post the experiment that shows the ice radiating?

You don't believe Stefan Boltzmann? Why not?

Well our surface, whatever the compounds are, dirt, blacktop, cars, buildings, etc....it's received SWIR from the sun.

Shortwave IR? What's that?
Matter that receives LWIR, from the ground for instance, can't also emit LWIR? Why not?

wow. now that's hilarious dude.

A lens opening facing up is hilarious?

what happens to the stuff going up, it disappears?

Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?

I shouldn't make fun, it sounds like your brain injury is pretty serious.

Why not?

Simple, it isn't there.

You don't believe Stefan Boltzmann? Why not?

it isn't radiating. put your hand over ice and your hand will feel cold.

Shortwave IR? What's that?

The sun

Matter that receives LWIR, from the ground for instance, can't also emit LWIR?

post the observation of it.

A lens opening facing up is hilarious?

no, that you think you can measure direction. LWIR is coming from the surface, you're measuring from the surface where it is being emitted. hmmmmmm


Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?

Why not?

Simple, it isn't there.

The sensor detected it.

it isn't radiating. put your hand over ice and your hand will feel cold.

Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer?

The sun

You think we receive a lot of IR from the Sun?

post the observation of it.

Besides the 3 I already posted?

no, that you think you can measure direction.

Of course you can. If I point a camera towards the sky, it doesn't record objects on the ground.

LWIR is coming from the surface

View attachment 235814

This LWIR is coming from the sky.

Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?

Why not?

Because radiation travels in a straight line.

The sensor detected it.

It did? how? why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold? ahhh the tricks they do play eh?

Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer?
my science is based on observation. again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

Besides the 3 I already posted?

Garbage science, it's all you got. I get it. why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE? you keep avoiding that. you post some nonsense from a test instrument that you have no idea what it's reading.

Because radiation travels in a straight line.

I thought it got absorbed

It did? how?

It's science, don't worry about it.

why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold?

What is hotter?

my science is based on observation

Your observation is based on the feeling of your hand.

again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Garbage science, it's all you got.

Right, sensors are garbage.

why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE?

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

I thought it got absorbed

If radiation from the ground gets absorbed, some will re-reradiate down and hit the sensor.

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Right, sensors are garbage.

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct. so show the observed measured Ice emitting. hmmmm skating away brother.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right. Except for all the evidence already posted.
Who told you coffee in a colder environment would warm again?

still nothing eh?

Where's the figures for your equation btw?

View attachment 235558

That equation describes a perfect black body sitting all alone in a perfectly empty vacuum...it doesn't describe the real world at all....

Really?
Imperfect black bodies radiating in atmosphere don't radiate?

Of course they do...but not according to that formula...they radiate according to this formula...not that you can read it....

.they radiate according to this formula...not that you can read it....

Post a real source that says they radiate less in warmer surroundings...…...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what you're promoting is that GHGs make the atmosphere warm, and it's cold. And LWIR is radiating upward toward space. you think it magically comes back. and can't post any observance of any such thing. additionally, all of the documents you have posted to date say that ghg's provide twice the radiation of the incoming sun light. wow. from a cold atmosphere at that. so the temperature of any emittance would be that temperature. Ice warming the surface. too funny.

And LWIR is radiating upward toward space. you think it magically comes back.

Some of it comes back. Not magic.

and can't post any observance of any such thing.

How many more should I post?

Some of it comes back. Not magic.

only if it's colder on the surface. wow.

How many more should I post?

One from an instrument that can read LWIR without being cooled.

only if it's colder on the surface. wow.

Link?

 

[jc456]

Why not?

Simple, it isn't there.

You don't believe Stefan Boltzmann? Why not?

it isn't radiating. put your hand over ice and your hand will feel cold.

Shortwave IR? What's that?

The sun

Matter that receives LWIR, from the ground for instance, can't also emit LWIR?

post the observation of it.

A lens opening facing up is hilarious?

no, that you think you can measure direction. LWIR is coming from the surface, you're measuring from the surface where it is being emitted. hmmmmmm


Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?

Why not?

Simple, it isn't there.

The sensor detected it.

it isn't radiating. put your hand over ice and your hand will feel cold.

Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer?

The sun

You think we receive a lot of IR from the Sun?

post the observation of it.

Besides the 3 I already posted?

no, that you think you can measure direction.

Of course you can. If I point a camera towards the sky, it doesn't record objects on the ground.

LWIR is coming from the surface

View attachment 235814

This LWIR is coming from the sky.

Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?

Why not?

Because radiation travels in a straight line.

The sensor detected it.

It did? how? why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold? ahhh the tricks they do play eh?

Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer?
my science is based on observation. again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

Besides the 3 I already posted?

Garbage science, it's all you got. I get it. why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE? you keep avoiding that. you post some nonsense from a test instrument that you have no idea what it's reading.

Because radiation travels in a straight line.

I thought it got absorbed

It did? how?

It's science, don't worry about it.

why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold?

What is hotter?

my science is based on observation

Your observation is based on the feeling of your hand.

again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Garbage science, it's all you got.

Right, sensors are garbage.

why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE?

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

I thought it got absorbed

If radiation from the ground gets absorbed, some will re-reradiate down and hit the sensor.

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Right, sensors are garbage.

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct. so show the observed measured Ice emitting. hmmmm skating away brother.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.

I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed. so far nothing.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science

I posted an article that it's is used wrong. but you didn't read it probably right? So since you think it is used correctly, show me observed measured data that it's right for your scenario.

 

[jc456]

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/2nd_Law-b.html

"This is the first thing to understand about the 2nd Law. Energy always and inevitably flows from higher concentrations to lower concentrations."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simple, it isn't there.

The sensor detected it.

it isn't radiating. put your hand over ice and your hand will feel cold.

Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer?

The sun

You think we receive a lot of IR from the Sun?

post the observation of it.

Besides the 3 I already posted?

no, that you think you can measure direction.

Of course you can. If I point a camera towards the sky, it doesn't record objects on the ground.

LWIR is coming from the surface

View attachment 235814

This LWIR is coming from the sky.

Dude, radiation going up wouldn't hit a lens facing up, now would it?

Why not?

Because radiation travels in a straight line.

The sensor detected it.

It did? how? why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold? ahhh the tricks they do play eh?

Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer?
my science is based on observation. again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

Besides the 3 I already posted?

Garbage science, it's all you got. I get it. why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE? you keep avoiding that. you post some nonsense from a test instrument that you have no idea what it's reading.

Because radiation travels in a straight line.

I thought it got absorbed

It did? how?

It's science, don't worry about it.

why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold?

What is hotter?

my science is based on observation

Your observation is based on the feeling of your hand.

again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Garbage science, it's all you got.

Right, sensors are garbage.

why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE?

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

I thought it got absorbed

If radiation from the ground gets absorbed, some will re-reradiate down and hit the sensor.

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Right, sensors are garbage.

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct. so show the observed measured Ice emitting. hmmmm skating away brother.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.

I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed. so far nothing.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science

I posted an article that it's is used wrong. but you didn't read it probably right? So since you think it is used correctly, show me observed measured data that it's right for your scenario.

nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.

The formula was derived from observations. That's why it is used today.

If you have proof that the formula doesn't work for ice, you'll be up for a Nobel Prize.
FYI, your feelings don't count as proof.

I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed.

I don't have any of the variables of your ice cube.

then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.

IR doesn't hit the instrument unless it's cooled? Link?

I posted an article that it's is used wrong.

That moron was hilarious! You have a real source?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/2nd_Law-b.html

"This is the first thing to understand about the 2nd Law. Energy always and inevitably flows from higher concentrations to lower concentrations."

If you have one that says radiation only flows from warmer matter to cooler matter, post that.

 

[jc456]

The sensor detected it.

It did? how? why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold? ahhh the tricks they do play eh?

Your science is based on feelings? Are you a warmer?
my science is based on observation. again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

Besides the 3 I already posted?

Garbage science, it's all you got. I get it. why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE? you keep avoiding that. you post some nonsense from a test instrument that you have no idea what it's reading.

Because radiation travels in a straight line.

I thought it got absorbed

It did? how?

It's science, don't worry about it.

why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold?

What is hotter?

my science is based on observation

Your observation is based on the feeling of your hand.

again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Garbage science, it's all you got.

Right, sensors are garbage.

why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE?

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

I thought it got absorbed

If radiation from the ground gets absorbed, some will re-reradiate down and hit the sensor.

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Right, sensors are garbage.

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct. so show the observed measured Ice emitting. hmmmm skating away brother.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.

I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed. so far nothing.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science

I posted an article that it's is used wrong. but you didn't read it probably right? So since you think it is used correctly, show me observed measured data that it's right for your scenario.

nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.

The formula was derived from observations. That's why it is used today.

If you have proof that the formula doesn't work for ice, you'll be up for a Nobel Prize.
FYI, your feelings don't count as proof.

I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed.

I don't have any of the variables of your ice cube.

then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.

IR doesn't hit the instrument unless it's cooled? Link?

I posted an article that it's is used wrong.

That moron was hilarious! You have a real source?

The formula was derived from observations. That's why it is used today.

"The SB equation which deals with the radiation of an object in the presence of other matter describes equilibrium perfectly and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics." Quote from SSDD"


from: Black-body radiation - Wikipedia

"The thermal radiation spontaneously emitted by many ordinary objects can be approximated as black-body radiation. A perfectly insulated enclosure that is in thermal equilibrium internally contains black-body radiation and will emit it through a hole made in its wall, provided the hole is small enough to have negligible effect upon the equilibrium."

That moron was hilarious! You have a real source?

A sourced moron I guess. Since none of you can post anything, I'll take the moron's word.

IR doesn't hit the instrument unless it's cooled? Link?

Per the second law that's the only way to do it, yep!!!

Infrared thermography using cooled MWIR & LWIR cameras | Xenics - Infrared Solutions
"High speed midwave & longwave infrared (MWIR & LWIR) cooled cameras are used in various high speed thermography applications. "

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It did? how?

It's science, don't worry about it.

why is it hotter than anything leaving the surface when the sky is cold?

What is hotter?

my science is based on observation

Your observation is based on the feeling of your hand.

again, do I lose heat from hand, or does the ice heat my hand?

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Garbage science, it's all you got.

Right, sensors are garbage.

why can't you find an experiment showing how much radiation comes from ICE?

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

I thought it got absorbed

If radiation from the ground gets absorbed, some will re-reradiate down and hit the sensor.

If the ice is above 0K, they both radiate.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Right, sensors are garbage.

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

Why can't you plug in the numbers? Math still make you sad?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct. so show the observed measured Ice emitting. hmmmm skating away brother.

Then show it from a measurement. why can't you?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

they are when they are cooled to read something that isn't there.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

science is also observation to prove an equation to show it is correct.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science?

Use the formula. Why can't you?

nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.

I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed. so far nothing.

How does an IR sensor, "read something that isn't there"?

then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.

You think the Stefan Boltzmann equation is wrong? Based on what science

I posted an article that it's is used wrong. but you didn't read it probably right? So since you think it is used correctly, show me observed measured data that it's right for your scenario.

nope, cause it won't tell me anything since it can't be observed.

The formula was derived from observations. That's why it is used today.

If you have proof that the formula doesn't work for ice, you'll be up for a Nobel Prize.
FYI, your feelings don't count as proof.

I did state back a few days ago you could go ahead and post the calculation completed.

I don't have any of the variables of your ice cube.

then point it to the sky ambient temperature and show me the reading.

IR doesn't hit the instrument unless it's cooled? Link?

I posted an article that it's is used wrong.

That moron was hilarious! You have a real source?

The formula was derived from observations. That's why it is used today.

"The SB equation which deals with the radiation of an object in the presence of other matter describes equilibrium perfectly and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics." Quote from SSDD"


from: Black-body radiation - Wikipedia

"The thermal radiation spontaneously emitted by many ordinary objects can be approximated as black-body radiation. A perfectly insulated enclosure that is in thermal equilibrium internally contains black-body radiation and will emit it through a hole made in its wall, provided the hole is small enough to have negligible effect upon the equilibrium."

That moron was hilarious! You have a real source?

A sourced moron I guess. Since none of you can post anything, I'll take the moron's word.

IR doesn't hit the instrument unless it's cooled? Link?

Per the second law that's the only way to do it, yep!!!

Infrared thermography using cooled MWIR & LWIR cameras | Xenics - Infrared Solutions
"High speed midwave & longwave infrared (MWIR & LWIR) cooled cameras are used in various high speed thermography applications. "

The thermal radiation spontaneously emitted by many ordinary objects can be approximated as black-body radiation.

Even ice.

A sourced moron I guess.

Yes, a moron who disagrees with every reputable source.
He even thinks E=MC^2 is wrong. Hilarious!!!

Per the second law that's the only way to do it, yep!!!

The second law says IR won't hit an ambient temperature instrument? You're lying.

 

[Wuwei]

Still can't bring yourself to simply state what the equation says... How pathetic is that?

You have to define the configuration troll.

Still can't bring yourself to simply state what the equation says... How pathetic is that?

The variables are all listed right there in the equation....the mathematical statement of a physical law...

And what I mean is state precisely what the equation says..either you can do it, or you can't. Which is it?

I described the configuration and asked if that was what you were referring to by the variables and you have not simply said yes or no. I'm not going to waste time discussing a formula applied to an unknown configuration. You fail physics 101.

Nope...pure science...maybe the word science is yet another one that you don't know the definition of... here, let me help..... systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

You observe and learn...then you observe some more, and learn some more...then you devise experiments to test what you think you know...then you learn some more..and on it goes...models don't mean squat till such time as they replicate observable, measurable, testable reality...

Now yer cookin. My metaphysics comment was because you were talking about a "fundamental nature of what is happening". Now you seemed to have switched to the subject of how observations result in mathematical models. Good for you. That's what atomic physics is all about.

And dodge..and dodge...and dodge...and drag your intellect through the sewer in an attempt to defend your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable beliefs.

Ah, your TROLL nature is back again.

 

[SSDD]

You have to define the configuration troll.

Define the configuration? Are you really that stupid? It is simply the statement of the S-B law when the radiator is not in a vacuum and the temperature of its surroundings are greater than absolute zero.

I described the configuration and asked if that was what you were referring to by the variables and you have not simply said yes or no. I'm not going to waste time discussing a formula applied to an unknown configuration. You fail physics 101.

Thus far, you have done nothing but shuck and jive...and dodge and weave employing one weasel tactic after another to avoid simply stating what that equation says. It is a simple mathematical statement that represents the S-B law...what's the matter bucky?

Care to try again? I am happy to help you get started...Power equals the emissivity of the radiator times the S-B constant times the area of the radiator times.....??? ...you can do it...

And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface.. In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure.. Tell me...exactly where is the surface of a gas so that you may properly apply the S-B equation to the atmosphere?

Now yer cookin. My metaphysics comment was because you were talking about a "fundamental nature of what is happening". Now you seemed to have switched to the subject of how observations result in mathematical models. Good for you. That's what atomic physics is all about.

Want to quibble over the use of words? The science dictionary defines nature as: The world and its naturally occurring phenomena, together with all of the physical laws that govern them.

Ah, your TROLL nature is back again.

Typical liberal alarmist whiner...if I make my questions to pointed...and draw attention to the fact that you can't support your beliefs with any actual observed, measured evidence and are constantly attempting to weasel your way out of answering the simplest of questions because it will contradict your beliefs ...call me a troll....

You have become an instrument of comedy...

 

[Crick]

You ARE a troll

 

[SSDD]

You ARE a troll

And you can't state in plain language what a simple algebraic expression says..pardon me if your opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Here we are 800+ posts into this thread and still not a single thing that challenges the OP...You are laughable skidmark...

 

[Crick]

And you ARE a fucking troll

 

[SSDD]

And you ARE a fucking troll

What's the matter skidmark...feeling frustrated because you couldn't even come close to challenging the OP?

Impotent ad hom the best you could come up with?

 

[Crick]

We have thousands of pages of evidence that you simply reject out of hand. This thread does nothing but testify to your stupidity, your dishonesty and the deeply troll-like behavior ALL your posts display.

 

[Wuwei]

And speaking of that equation...note that in any version of the S-B law, the area of the radiator is a key component...area implies that there is a surface.. In case you weren't aware...and that is probable since you can't even state what the simple equation above says...area is the extent of a two-dimensional surface enclosed within a specified boundary or geometric figure..

You finally stated the configuration for the equation. So, if T refers to the temperature of the object with area A, and Tc refers to the background temperature, then using this equation:

how would you write the equation if the object at temperature T is colder than the background at Tc?. I know how a physicist would write it, I'm curious how you would.

.

 

[SSDD]

We have thousands of pages of evidence that you simply reject out of hand. This thread does nothing but testify to your stupidity, your dishonesty and the deeply troll-like behavior ALL your posts display.

And yet, not a single thing with which to challenge the OP...sucks to be you.