Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does radiation from the Sun, moving from cool to warm, relate to the Sun?

You said it was a mystery

I never said radiation moving from the surface to the corona was a mystery.

Neither did he in his post

I agree, he didn't say the flaw in his theory was a mystery......he just evaded the flaw.

I didn’t say anything about a flaw was mentioned

I agree, you didn't notice his flaw.
Or you noticed it and didn't mention it.

 

[jc456]

You said it was a mystery

I never said radiation moving from the surface to the corona was a mystery.

Neither did he in his post

I agree, he didn't say the flaw in his theory was a mystery......he just evaded the flaw.

I didn’t say anything about a flaw was mentioned

I agree, you didn't notice his flaw.
Or you noticed it and didn't mention it.

I didn’t notice one because there isn’t any there. It’s that simple. Perhaps you could tell us where the heat source originated on the sun. Seems you believe it is the corona?

 

[SSDD]

CCDs detect radiation coming off objects cooler than the device.

Been through that already....CCDs can only detect radiation coming off an object if it is cooler than the CCD...I provided you with one of the most respected texts on the topic and they author clearly stated that the flux was positive, that is coming into the device, if the object was warmer than the CCD array...and if the object was cooler then the energy flux was negative...that is leaving the array and the electronics were determining how much, how quickly, and in what pattern the array was cooling.

You have a way of forgetting everything that doesn't support your belief in magic. Here, let me refresh your memory.. from he Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

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

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

The cooling sensor doesn't produce an image that is as accurate as a warming sensor which is why, the best IR cameras are cooled to temperatures quite a bit lower than the ambient so the energy flux is almost always positive.

You are so anxious to be right that you are incapable of actually learning anything...if it doesn't support your belief in magic, it is in one ear and out the other with you...you don't look for physical evidence because you know full well that there is no physical evidence to support your belief...models are all you can believe because magic is possible within a model.

Is this where you claim we are being fooled by instrumentation? Or that using a powered device is not spontaneous?

No...it is where I point out that once again, like a common rube, you have been fooled by instrumentation simply because you have no idea what the sensor is measuring, or how it works, and never bothered to find out... you simply assume that your magical belief is supported by reality...NEWSFLASH...it is not.

 

[IanC]

I didn’t notice one because there isn’t any there. It’s that simple. Perhaps you could tell us where the heat source originated on the sun. Seems you believe it is the corona?

Three pages of useless banter, and you finally stumble upon the right question to ask.

The sun has its own energy source, a nuclear reactor in its core, turning mass into energy via E=mc^^2

This causes a temperature gradient from core to surface, and the surface radiates the same amount of energy that is being produced. Less neutrinos and magnetic fields, etc.

The surface is a reasonably constant temperature driven by ''spontaneous" thermal transfer. Note that an object with an active power source will come to an equilibrium temperature, while an unpowered object will simply cool until the stored energy disappates. In all cases the object is fully radiating at j=sigmaT^^4.

The corona is made up of plasma ions accelerated up to very high speeds by a poorly understood mechanism involving the magnetic field. It is not in thermal equilibrium with the surface, it is not getting it's energy from the surface, it is not a blackbody emitter.

The Sun's surface radiation is simply transmitted through the Corona because it is 1. very rarified, and 2. it is not a black body absorber.

 

[IanC]

CCDs detect radiation coming off objects cooler than the device.

Been through that already....CCDs can only detect radiation coming off an object if it is cooler than the CCD...I provided you with one of the most respected texts on the topic and they author clearly stated that the flux was positive, that is coming into the device, if the object was warmer than the CCD array...and if the object was cooler then the energy flux was negative...that is leaving the array and the electronics were determining how much, how quickly, and in what pattern the array was cooling.

You have a way of forgetting everything that doesn't support your belief in magic. Here, let me refresh your memory.. from he Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

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

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

The cooling sensor doesn't produce an image that is as accurate as a warming sensor which is why, the best IR cameras are cooled to temperatures quite a bit lower than the ambient so the energy flux is almost always positive.

You are so anxious to be right that you are incapable of actually learning anything...if it doesn't support your belief in magic, it is in one ear and out the other with you...you don't look for physical evidence because you know full well that there is no physical evidence to support your belief...models are all you can believe because magic is possible within a model.

Is this where you claim we are being fooled by instrumentation? Or that using a powered device is not spontaneous?

No...it is where I point out that once again, like a common rube, you have been fooled by instrumentation simply because you have no idea what the sensor is measuring, or how it works, and never bothered to find out... you simply assume that your magical belief is supported by reality...NEWSFLASH...it is not.

While some detectors do operate on the principle of heating or cooling due to the net radiation exchanged with the object being measured, that is not the case with CCDs. They react to photons hitting them, not unlike the silver ions reacting with light in film. Of course the change is not permanent like in film. The 'buckets' catching photons like raindrops are regularly added up and then emptied for the next batch of photons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said radiation moving from the surface to the corona was a mystery.

Neither did he in his post

I agree, he didn't say the flaw in his theory was a mystery......he just evaded the flaw.

I didn’t say anything about a flaw was mentioned

I agree, you didn't notice his flaw.
Or you noticed it and didn't mention it.

I didn’t notice one because there isn’t any there. It’s that simple. Perhaps you could tell us where the heat source originated on the sun. Seems you believe it is the corona?

I didn’t notice one because there isn’t any there.

You didn't notice the flaw?
He said cooler matter can't radiate at warmer matter.
His flaw is as large as the Sun in the sky.

Perhaps you could tell us where the heat source originated on the sun.

Fusion occurs at the core.

 

[SSDD]

CCDs detect radiation coming off objects cooler than the device.

Been through that already....CCDs can only detect radiation coming off an object if it is cooler than the CCD...I provided you with one of the most respected texts on the topic and they author clearly stated that the flux was positive, that is coming into the device, if the object was warmer than the CCD array...and if the object was cooler then the energy flux was negative...that is leaving the array and the electronics were determining how much, how quickly, and in what pattern the array was cooling.

You have a way of forgetting everything that doesn't support your belief in magic. Here, let me refresh your memory.. from he Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

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

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

The cooling sensor doesn't produce an image that is as accurate as a warming sensor which is why, the best IR cameras are cooled to temperatures quite a bit lower than the ambient so the energy flux is almost always positive.

You are so anxious to be right that you are incapable of actually learning anything...if it doesn't support your belief in magic, it is in one ear and out the other with you...you don't look for physical evidence because you know full well that there is no physical evidence to support your belief...models are all you can believe because magic is possible within a model.

Is this where you claim we are being fooled by instrumentation? Or that using a powered device is not spontaneous?

No...it is where I point out that once again, like a common rube, you have been fooled by instrumentation simply because you have no idea what the sensor is measuring, or how it works, and never bothered to find out... you simply assume that your magical belief is supported by reality...NEWSFLASH...it is not.

While some detectors do operate on the principle of heating or cooling due to the net radiation exchanged with the object being measured, that is not the case with CCDs. They react to photons hitting them, not unlike the silver ions reacting with light in film. Of course the change is not permanent like in film. The 'buckets' catching photons like raindrops are regularly added up and then emptied for the next batch of photons.

Does all technology fool you so easily? Are you just a natural dupe? What is it like to be so easily fooled? CCD's as found in cameras, or CMOS both work on the same principle...that is they look at visible light. When you point them at an ice cube, they aren't looking at IR...or energy coming off the ice cube, they are looking at visible light....then anyone who isn't a big old dupe might ask himself what is the temperature of the light source? Is the light source cooler than the CCD or CMOS array? My bet is.....a resounding no. Old rocks used to put up the same stupid argument when he would point out that he could point his flashlight at a hot piece of metal and still see the light.....the poor idiot never considered the temperature of the filament in his flashlight...

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CCDs detect radiation coming off objects cooler than the device.

Been through that already....CCDs can only detect radiation coming off an object if it is cooler than the CCD...I provided you with one of the most respected texts on the topic and they author clearly stated that the flux was positive, that is coming into the device, if the object was warmer than the CCD array...and if the object was cooler then the energy flux was negative...that is leaving the array and the electronics were determining how much, how quickly, and in what pattern the array was cooling.

You have a way of forgetting everything that doesn't support your belief in magic. Here, let me refresh your memory.. from he Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

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

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

The cooling sensor doesn't produce an image that is as accurate as a warming sensor which is why, the best IR cameras are cooled to temperatures quite a bit lower than the ambient so the energy flux is almost always positive.

You are so anxious to be right that you are incapable of actually learning anything...if it doesn't support your belief in magic, it is in one ear and out the other with you...you don't look for physical evidence because you know full well that there is no physical evidence to support your belief...models are all you can believe because magic is possible within a model.

Is this where you claim we are being fooled by instrumentation? Or that using a powered device is not spontaneous?

No...it is where I point out that once again, like a common rube, you have been fooled by instrumentation simply because you have no idea what the sensor is measuring, or how it works, and never bothered to find out... you simply assume that your magical belief is supported by reality...NEWSFLASH...it is not.

While some detectors do operate on the principle of heating or cooling due to the net radiation exchanged with the object being measured, that is not the case with CCDs. They react to photons hitting them, not unlike the silver ions reacting with light in film. Of course the change is not permanent like in film. The 'buckets' catching photons like raindrops are regularly added up and then emptied for the next batch of photons.

Does all technology fool you so easily? Are you just a natural dupe? What is it like to be so easily fooled? CCD's as found in cameras, or CMOS both work on the same principle...that is they look at visible light. When you point them at an ice cube, they aren't looking at IR...or energy coming off the ice cube, they are looking at visible light....then anyone who isn't a big old dupe might ask himself what is the temperature of the light source? Is the light source cooler than the CCD or CMOS array? My bet is.....a resounding no. Old rocks used to put up the same stupid argument when he would point out that he could point his flashlight at a hot piece of metal and still see the light.....the poor idiot never considered the temperature of the filament in his flashlight...

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

Does all technology fool you so easily?

Radio telescopes at the bottom of our "hot" atmosphere detected "cold" CMB.
No fooling.

since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

Matter at 0 C doesn't emit photons. Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong.
You heard it here first.

 

[IanC]

CCDs detect radiation coming off objects cooler than the device.

Been through that already....CCDs can only detect radiation coming off an object if it is cooler than the CCD...I provided you with one of the most respected texts on the topic and they author clearly stated that the flux was positive, that is coming into the device, if the object was warmer than the CCD array...and if the object was cooler then the energy flux was negative...that is leaving the array and the electronics were determining how much, how quickly, and in what pattern the array was cooling.

You have a way of forgetting everything that doesn't support your belief in magic. Here, let me refresh your memory.. from he Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

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

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

The cooling sensor doesn't produce an image that is as accurate as a warming sensor which is why, the best IR cameras are cooled to temperatures quite a bit lower than the ambient so the energy flux is almost always positive.

You are so anxious to be right that you are incapable of actually learning anything...if it doesn't support your belief in magic, it is in one ear and out the other with you...you don't look for physical evidence because you know full well that there is no physical evidence to support your belief...models are all you can believe because magic is possible within a model.

Is this where you claim we are being fooled by instrumentation? Or that using a powered device is not spontaneous?

No...it is where I point out that once again, like a common rube, you have been fooled by instrumentation simply because you have no idea what the sensor is measuring, or how it works, and never bothered to find out... you simply assume that your magical belief is supported by reality...NEWSFLASH...it is not.

While some detectors do operate on the principle of heating or cooling due to the net radiation exchanged with the object being measured, that is not the case with CCDs. They react to photons hitting them, not unlike the silver ions reacting with light in film. Of course the change is not permanent like in film. The 'buckets' catching photons like raindrops are regularly added up and then emptied for the next batch of photons.

Does all technology fool you so easily? Are you just a natural dupe? What is it like to be so easily fooled? CCD's as found in cameras, or CMOS both work on the same principle...that is they look at visible light. When you point them at an ice cube, they aren't looking at IR...or energy coming off the ice cube, they are looking at visible light....then anyone who isn't a big old dupe might ask himself what is the temperature of the light source? Is the light source cooler than the CCD or CMOS array? My bet is.....a resounding no. Old rocks used to put up the same stupid argument when he would point out that he could point his flashlight at a hot piece of metal and still see the light.....the poor idiot never considered the temperature of the filament in his flashlight...

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

Hahahaha. First you get the mechanism wrong for how CCDs work.

I do agree that there is a minimum threshold energy of the wavelengths that will be detected by CCDs that is determined by the type of metal substrate used. I think it is about 10 microns for common varieties.

So, as long as an object is emitting some radiation at 10 microns or lower, it will be detected by the CCD.

What is the Planck curve for an ice cube?

Somewhere in between those two curves. Roughly half of the radiation is at 10 microns or lower. The CCD will have no problem 'seeing' it.


Of course you believe in some bizarro land version of physics where the ice cube doesn't radiate at all, but I can't help your stupidity.

The graph I provided is actually a very good description of how net radiation transfer of energy works. The pink line is the amount of radiation going toward the warmer object. The blue line is radiation going towards the cooler object. At each and every wavelength the warm object produces more radiation, and the area between the curves describes the excess radiation that is being transferred to the cool object.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha. First you get the mechanism wrong for how CCDs work.

It isn't surprising that all instrumentation fools you so easily...you don't have any idea what any of it is measuring. You just take the reading the instrument is giving you, filter it through your belief in magic, and then just assume it is telling you what you want to hear.


Here...from the Rochester Institute of Technology....

"Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) were invented in the 1970s and originally found application as memory devices. Their light sensitive properties were quickly exploited for imaging applications and they produced a major revolution in Astronomy. They improved the light gathering power of telescopes by almost two orders of magnitude. Nowadays an amateur astronomer with a CCD camera and a 15 cm telescope can collect as much light as an astronomer of the 1960s equipped with a photographic plate and a 1m telescope.

CCDs work by converting light into a pattern of electronic charge in a silicon chip. This pattern of charge is converted into a video waveform, digitised and stored as an image file on a computer."


And before you show how profoundly you are fooled by instrumentation and tell me that CCD's can detect infrared light, here...from Larson Electronics:

"Infrared light is no different from visible light. It behaves the same way, only it radiates at a frequency that is undetectable to the human eye. CCD devices, however, can detect this wavelength and thus form images from infrared illumination. In fact, some camera manufacturers have already exploited this natural characteristic of CCD’s and introduced versions of their devices that are touted as low light or night vision capable, yet in reality differ little from their normal offerings only by having a source of infrared light included with the camera. True some devices now use CCD’s that are specially designed to increase their sensitivity to light in the infrared spectrum, it still remains though that almost all CCD’s are capable of capturing images in what for all practical purposes amounts to total darkness using infrared."

Here, from the SPIE digital library, in an article describing an experiment that involves an infrared telescope being launched outside the space shuttle..

"However, it is generally recognized that supplemental overview imagery acquired in the visible portion of the spectrum is necessary to assist in accurately interpreting the data generated by the infrared focal plane. For this purpose, the TRE will be equipped with a Charge Coupled Device (CCD) Visible Light Sensor (VLS) that will yield the cloud and ground truth data needed to assist in pointing and scene verification."


Here from Texas A&M..

A CCD, or charged coupled device, is a device used in digital photography that converts an optical image into electrical signal. CCD chips can detect faint amounts of light and are capable of producing high resolution images needed in scientific research and applications thereof. CCDs are particularly useful in astronomical imagery due to their great sensitivity to light/

Again, take your CCD into a dark room and point it at an ice cube...you will record exactly squat. If you believe you will get an image of an ice cube in a dark room with a CCD, you are in for a profound disappointment...and why? Because you have once again been completely bamboozled by instrumentation.

You know ian, there is literally volumes of information on how instrumentation works and what devices are recording and what they are not. It is available for anyone to read...so that anyone can avoid being fooled by instrumentation if they so desire. Do you want the magic to be true so badly that you just don't want to know what the instrumentation you reference is actually recording for fear that it might alter your belief in magic?

 

[IanC]

Where in that spew of cut&paste is your point?

It didn't even give the lowest threshold energy wavelength to activate detection on a CCD.

An ice cube is a near blackbody which gives off radiation in the infrared range. Part of its range is in the detectable region for CCDs. Therefore a CCD responds to an ice cube.

Are you just complaining that it would take a shitty picture? I can agree to that. The exposure time between emptying the bins would need to be increased, and the quality in a no visible light environment will typically be poor, but that is an entirely different argument than saying the CCD does not respond at all.

Why do you keep making specious claims?

This latest bullshit claim is similar to your claim that air cannot absorb IR. Even though IR is emitted into the atmosphere from the surface but only a fraction comes out at the top, you claim no absorption based on the brochure put out by a company selling heating panels.

IR actually IS poorly absorbed by the atmosphere. But there is a lot of atmosphere to do it.

Just like water is a poor absorber of visible light but it is very dark at 1000 metres below the surface.

 

[Wuwei]

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."

 

[IanC]

True some devices now use CCD’s that are specially designed to increase their sensitivity to light in the infrared spectrum, it still remains though that almost all CCD’s are capable of capturing images in what for all practical purposes amounts to total darkness using infrared."

It is hard to believe that SSDD put up this quote as a rebuttal to me for saying a CCD would respond to an ice cube.

My diagram showed that the range of wavelengths emitted in IR is almost identical for two objects differing by 20C. Only the amount of radiation per wavelength changes.

As long as the temperature of the object is warm enough to emit some radiation in the threshold wavelength of 10 microns or lower, then you will get a response in the CCD.

 

[IanC]

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."

Did you notice how his nostrils turned blue when he exhaled?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."

Did you notice how his nostrils turned blue when he exhaled?

Fooled by instrumentation.

DERP!

 

[IanC]

I made a mistake. The threshold wavelength for standard CCDs is 1.1 microns, not 11 microns. I should have taken more care to get my facts straight. An ice cube would not trigger a response in a standard CCD. I was wrong. Mea culpa.

 

[Wuwei]

Did you notice how his nostrils turned blue when he exhaled?

LOL. No. I missed that the first time around. There seemed to be a small spot of blue in the center of each nostril.

 

[jc456]

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."

Did you notice how his nostrils turned blue when he exhaled?

why don't you see blue coming out of her mouth as she eats the ice cream. you should be able to see her breath if that were truly measuring temperature. her exhaling while laughing should have resulted in a color change. It didn't. I see that as a big fail.

 

[SSDD]

Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."

Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

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

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

Since you clearly don't know what that means let me tell you. It means that the camera is recording how much heat the sensor is losing to the ice cream...the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative...that is the heat is leaving the sensor and going to the cooler object. The ice cream isn't radiating cold to a warmer object....the only thing an ice cube can radiate to is something colder than itself.

As to the 40 second mark where the ice cream is warmed up a bit...the color changes because since the ice cream has warmed up a bit, the sensor is losing a bit less heat to it...the electronics recognize this reduced heat loss and translate that into a warmer color gradation. It is no wonder that you believe the shit you believe....you don't have any idea what the instrumentation is doing, or what it is measuring...like ian, you look at the data and filter it through your magical beliefs and then talk about it as if you had a clue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Put that ice cube on a table in a dark room and point your CCD or CMOS at it and see how many photons you collect...my bet is that it will be a grand total of zero...since if the ice cube is cooler than its surroundings, it is absorbing energy...not emitting it.

Here is a video of a girl eating ice cream filmed with a room temperature FLIR camera. You should notice that the false color level of blue has gradations meaning the that the ice cream has gradations in cold intensity. Especially notice the 40 sec. point where some of the ice cream was slightly warmed by her mouth. In short it is not a "grand total of zero."

Did you notice how his nostrils turned blue when he exhaled?

why don't you see blue coming out of her mouth as she eats the ice cream. you should be able to see her breath if that were truly measuring temperature. her exhaling while laughing should have resulted in a color change. It didn't. I see that as a big fail.

you should be able to see her breath if that were truly measuring temperature.

It's not measuring temperature? What is it measuring?

I see that as a big fail.

Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail? LOL!