Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

yep, it's a good link, you should read better on the two way energy flow as that sentence continues...
"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." This is exactly what I'm saying and SSDD, he can chime in here if he's interested..
and then there is this.... I thought all things emit all the time even if at the same temperature, well?

"When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same."

When they're discussing flux, they're discussing net flow.


From page 129.....

The Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies the radiant power (flux) that would be emanated from a surface of temperature, T, toward an infinitely cold space (at absolute zero). When thermal radiation is detected by a thermal sensor, the opposite flowing radiation from the sensor toward the object must also be accounted for. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

Keep trying!!

Funny, but you need to reread it

OK.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When they're discussing flux, they're discussing net flow.


From page 129.....

The Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies the radiant power (flux) that would be emanated from a surface of temperature, T, toward an infinitely cold space (at absolute zero). When thermal radiation is detected by a thermal sensor, the opposite flowing radiation from the sensor toward the object must also be accounted for. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

Keep trying!!

Funny, but you need to reread it

OK.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

 

[jc456]

Funny, but you need to reread it

OK.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

 

[MPS777]

OK.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

The source says all objects with a temperature emit thermal radiation. That’s the input to the sensor (even if the object is colder than the sensor). That’s why it talks about net flow, because as long as the object is above absolute zero, there’s always an input.

 

[jc456]

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

The source says all objects with a temperature emit thermal radiation. That’s the input to the sensor (even if the object is colder than the sensor). That’s why it talks about net flow, because as long as the object is above absolute zero, there’s always an input.

quote it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

I don't care what it says

Obviously.

it says nothing in all coming out.

It says, "flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object"

 

[jc456]

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

I don't care what it says

Obviously.

it says nothing in all coming out.

It says, "flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object"

and if no flux is received it sends all out as explained with the cold object statement quoted.

"A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object cause they're saying it ain't happening.

 

[MPS777]

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

The source says all objects with a temperature emit thermal radiation. That’s the input to the sensor (even if the object is colder than the sensor). That’s why it talks about net flow, because as long as the object is above absolute zero, there’s always an input.

quote it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup. Net to or away.

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

I don't care what it says

Obviously.

it says nothing in all coming out.

It says, "flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object"

and if no flux is received it sends all out as explained with the cold object statement quoted.

"A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object cause they're saying it ain't happening.

and if no flux is received

Then your target is at 0K.

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object

You think cold objects don't radiate? That's funny.

If only your source agreed.......

 

[jc456]

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

I don't care what it says

Obviously.

it says nothing in all coming out.

It says, "flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object"

and if no flux is received it sends all out as explained with the cold object statement quoted.

"A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object cause they're saying it ain't happening.

and if no flux is received

Then your target is at 0K.

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object

You think cold objects don't radiate? That's funny.

If only your source agreed.......

Then your target is at 0K.

That’s not what they said wrong, if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor as I’ve posted twice burp!!

 

[jc456]

yep no cold flow to the sensor, just like we said. so still waiting on you jethro.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

The source says all objects with a temperature emit thermal radiation. That’s the input to the sensor (even if the object is colder than the sensor). That’s why it talks about net flow, because as long as the object is above absolute zero, there’s always an input.

quote it.

View attachment 188603

View attachment 188605

No mention of your statement there

 

[Wuwei]

Todd, that is an entertaining discussion with a stupid, slow-witted, dull, obtuse, foolish, careless, blockheaded, boneheaded, dumbass, dunce, dunderhead, fuckhead, knucklehead, loggerhead, lunkhead, muttonhead, numskull, shithead, simpleton, confused, bewildered, retarded, unintelligent, thick, dumb, simple, slow, dull, dim, dense, sluggish, deficient, crass, gullible, simple-minded, witless, dopey, moronic, obtuse, brainless, cretinous, half-witted, slow, braindead, dumb-ass, doltish, dead from the neck up, thickheaded, woodenheaded, fucked up, bird brain.

Thank you thesaurus.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

It's not my fault that your source says net.

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

I don't care what it says

Obviously.

it says nothing in all coming out.

It says, "flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object"

and if no flux is received it sends all out as explained with the cold object statement quoted.

"A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object cause they're saying it ain't happening.

and if no flux is received

Then your target is at 0K.

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object

You think cold objects don't radiate? That's funny.

If only your source agreed.......

Then your target is at 0K.

That’s not what they said wrong, if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor as I’ve posted twice burp!!

That’s not what they said

Why would they have to say objects at 0K don't emit?
Everybody knows that.

if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor

You're making less sense than usual.
Are you drunk?

 

[jc456]

I don't care what it says, it says nothing in all coming out. warm reaching out to cold, input minus output. No input all output. I know, just like I said.

I don't care what it says

Obviously.

it says nothing in all coming out.

It says, "flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object"

and if no flux is received it sends all out as explained with the cold object statement quoted.

"A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object cause they're saying it ain't happening.

and if no flux is received

Then your target is at 0K.

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object

You think cold objects don't radiate? That's funny.

If only your source agreed.......

Then your target is at 0K.

That’s not what they said wrong, if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor as I’ve posted twice burp!!

That’s not what they said

Why would they have to say objects at 0K don't emit?
Everybody knows that.

if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor

You're making less sense than usual.
Are you drunk?

Figured I come down to your level I guess! Still waiting for that observation of your magic photons

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't care what it says

Obviously.

it says nothing in all coming out.

It says, "flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object"

and if no flux is received it sends all out as explained with the cold object statement quoted.

"A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object cause they're saying it ain't happening.

and if no flux is received

Then your target is at 0K.

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object

You think cold objects don't radiate? That's funny.

If only your source agreed.......

Then your target is at 0K.

That’s not what they said wrong, if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor as I’ve posted twice burp!!

That’s not what they said

Why would they have to say objects at 0K don't emit?
Everybody knows that.

if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor

You're making less sense than usual.
Are you drunk?

Figured I come down to your level I guess! Still waiting for that observation of your magic photons

You'd have to take a dozen college level science classes to come within Hubble Telescope range of my level.

 

[jc456]

and if no flux is received it sends all out as explained with the cold object statement quoted.

"A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object cause they're saying it ain't happening.

and if no flux is received

Then your target is at 0K.

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object

You think cold objects don't radiate? That's funny.

If only your source agreed.......

Then your target is at 0K.

That’s not what they said wrong, if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor as I’ve posted twice burp!!

That’s not what they said

Why would they have to say objects at 0K don't emit?
Everybody knows that.

if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor

You're making less sense than usual.
Are you drunk?

Figured I come down to your level I guess! Still waiting for that observation of your magic photons

You'd have to take a dozen college level science classes to come within Hubble Telescope range of my level.

Naw you got magic photons. Show em off bubba!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and if no flux is received

Then your target is at 0K.

still waiting for your observed IR from a cold object

You think cold objects don't radiate? That's funny.

If only your source agreed.......

Then your target is at 0K.

That’s not what they said wrong, if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor as I’ve posted twice burp!!

That’s not what they said

Why would they have to say objects at 0K don't emit?
Everybody knows that.

if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor

You're making less sense than usual.
Are you drunk?

Figured I come down to your level I guess! Still waiting for that observation of your magic photons

You'd have to take a dozen college level science classes to come within Hubble Telescope range of my level.

Naw you got magic photons. Show em off bubba!

My photons wear a blindfold.

 

[jc456]

Then your target is at 0K.

That’s not what they said wrong, if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor as I’ve posted twice burp!!

That’s not what they said

Why would they have to say objects at 0K don't emit?
Everybody knows that.

if the temp is cold it sends out the sensor

You're making less sense than usual.
Are you drunk?

Figured I come down to your level I guess! Still waiting for that observation of your magic photons

You'd have to take a dozen college level science classes to come within Hubble Telescope range of my level.

Naw you got magic photons. Show em off bubba!

My photons wear a blindfold.

And pull rabbits out of hats

 

[SSDD]

Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.

Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.

Of course more thermal energy goes from the surface toward the gas than the gas to the surface, thus preserving the well understood form of the SloT.

If for some idiotic reason the molecules of the cold gas are forbidden from moving toward the warm surface, how will the surface lose thermal energy to the gas?

The accepted form of the second law is the one that I keep posting for you wack jobs..if a form of the second law which said that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm were accepted, then that is what the 2nd law would say.

That is a vague answer. The science requires that molecules of a cold gas must be able to hit a warm surface.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

Science requires? Really? Without regard to observable, measurable reality? That sounds more like a religious proclamation than a scientific one....religion requires belief without physical evidence.....science requires observable, measurable, repeatable observation...the only thing science "requires" is evidence.

 

[SSDD]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

where is the link to your purported source?

feel free to learn from actual scientists.

warmers?

there isn't any cure for stupid.

I gave you the sources...are you to lazy to look them up? Are you claiming that they are somehow not accurate representations of the energy budget as claimed by climate science?