Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

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.

so take the ice cube to a dark room and read its IR. Will it?

Of course it won't...if the room is warmer than the ice cube then the ice cube is absorbing energy, not radiating out into warmer surroundings...You couldn't measure energy coming off that ice cube with even the most sensitive instrument because no energy is coming off the ice cube....

that's all one needs to know to show it isn't reading IR.

What is it reading if not IR?

Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.

 

[SSDD]

What is it reading if not IR?

It is reading the negative energy flux from the sensor to the cold ice cream...it is measuring how much and how fast it is losing energy to the ice cream...not how much energy is coming in from the ice cream...which would be none...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

They don't have any idea of what is being measured, or how it is being measured. They believe that because they can see the ice cream on the image, that the ice cream is radiating cold to the camera. They couldn't possibly be more wrong. I already provided an explanation to them about how the camera works and how it is able to record images of objects that are colder than the sensor itself. Here is a brief explanation 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

What that means is that the sensor array in the camera reacts to energy radiating into the camera from objects that are warmer than the camera, and in addition, it also measures energy the warmer camera sensor array loses to objects cooler than itself. The text explains what is happening in no uncertain terms but they don't seem to be able to grasp the facts because they don't mesh with their magical beliefs. If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is warmer, then the sensor is recording energy coming into the camera. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. If the object is cooler, the camera is measuring how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the cooler object. HEAT GOES FROM THE SENSOR TO THE OBJECT....I don't know how what is happening inside the camera could be stated in more simple terms...heat goes from the sensor to the object....how difficult is that to understand?

The high end thermal cameras have internal coolers that keep the sensor very cold...they produce a more accurate image if they are receiving energy from the outside than they do if they are losing energy to cooler objects. If you cool the sensor enough, then practically everything you point it at will be warmer than the sensor and therefore radiating energy to the cooler sensor.

well they know that it isn't measuring IR because if it were, they'd see the girl's breath. Her exhale would be colder than the surrounding air. yet it doesn't capture that at all. It isn't solid.

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

It's CO2

It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.

 

[jc456]

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.

They don't have any idea of what is being measured, or how it is being measured. They believe that because they can see the ice cream on the image, that the ice cream is radiating cold to the camera. They couldn't possibly be more wrong. I already provided an explanation to them about how the camera works and how it is able to record images of objects that are colder than the sensor itself. Here is a brief explanation 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

What that means is that the sensor array in the camera reacts to energy radiating into the camera from objects that are warmer than the camera, and in addition, it also measures energy the warmer camera sensor array loses to objects cooler than itself. The text explains what is happening in no uncertain terms but they don't seem to be able to grasp the facts because they don't mesh with their magical beliefs. If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is warmer, then the sensor is recording energy coming into the camera. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. If the object is cooler, the camera is measuring how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the cooler object. HEAT GOES FROM THE SENSOR TO THE OBJECT....I don't know how what is happening inside the camera could be stated in more simple terms...heat goes from the sensor to the object....how difficult is that to understand?

The high end thermal cameras have internal coolers that keep the sensor very cold...they produce a more accurate image if they are receiving energy from the outside than they do if they are losing energy to cooler objects. If you cool the sensor enough, then practically everything you point it at will be warmer than the sensor and therefore radiating energy to the cooler sensor.

well they know that it isn't measuring IR because if it were, they'd see the girl's breath. Her exhale would be colder than the surrounding air. yet it doesn't capture that at all. It isn't solid.

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

It's CO2

It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.

and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm...what is being measured is how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the colder object...the image is the result of energy leaving the camera, not coming into it. Sorry this is all so far over your head. The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes why you only talk in one liners...if you were to speak more than a single sentence at once, your abject ignorance would flare forth like a spotlight.

As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm.

On what page of the textbook does it say photons only flow one way?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

so take the ice cube to a dark room and read its IR. Will it?

Of course it won't...if the room is warmer than the ice cube then the ice cube is absorbing energy, not radiating out into warmer surroundings...You couldn't measure energy coming off that ice cube with even the most sensitive instrument because no energy is coming off the ice cube....

that's all one needs to know to show it isn't reading IR.

What is it reading if not IR?

Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.

So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't have any idea of what is being measured, or how it is being measured. They believe that because they can see the ice cream on the image, that the ice cream is radiating cold to the camera. They couldn't possibly be more wrong. I already provided an explanation to them about how the camera works and how it is able to record images of objects that are colder than the sensor itself. Here is a brief explanation 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

What that means is that the sensor array in the camera reacts to energy radiating into the camera from objects that are warmer than the camera, and in addition, it also measures energy the warmer camera sensor array loses to objects cooler than itself. The text explains what is happening in no uncertain terms but they don't seem to be able to grasp the facts because they don't mesh with their magical beliefs. If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is warmer, then the sensor is recording energy coming into the camera. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. If the object is cooler, the camera is measuring how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the cooler object. HEAT GOES FROM THE SENSOR TO THE OBJECT....I don't know how what is happening inside the camera could be stated in more simple terms...heat goes from the sensor to the object....how difficult is that to understand?

The high end thermal cameras have internal coolers that keep the sensor very cold...they produce a more accurate image if they are receiving energy from the outside than they do if they are losing energy to cooler objects. If you cool the sensor enough, then practically everything you point it at will be warmer than the sensor and therefore radiating energy to the cooler sensor.

well they know that it isn't measuring IR because if it were, they'd see the girl's breath. Her exhale would be colder than the surrounding air. yet it doesn't capture that at all. It isn't solid.

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

It's CO2

It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.

and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.

Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.

 

[jc456]

so take the ice cube to a dark room and read its IR. Will it?

Of course it won't...if the room is warmer than the ice cube then the ice cube is absorbing energy, not radiating out into warmer surroundings...You couldn't measure energy coming off that ice cube with even the most sensitive instrument because no energy is coming off the ice cube....

that's all one needs to know to show it isn't reading IR.

What is it reading if not IR?

Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.

So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects. As SSDD has already mentioned, the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

 

[jc456]

well they know that it isn't measuring IR because if it were, they'd see the girl's breath. Her exhale would be colder than the surrounding air. yet it doesn't capture that at all. It isn't solid.

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

It's CO2

It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.

and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.

Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.

yep, so again, why can't you see her breath?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course it won't...if the room is warmer than the ice cube then the ice cube is absorbing energy, not radiating out into warmer surroundings...You couldn't measure energy coming off that ice cube with even the most sensitive instrument because no energy is coming off the ice cube....

that's all one needs to know to show it isn't reading IR.

What is it reading if not IR?

Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.

So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects. As SSDD has already mentioned, the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects.

Sense? Sense how? Sonar? Radar? ESP?

the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

Energy? You mean photons?

 

[jc456]

that's all one needs to know to show it isn't reading IR.

What is it reading if not IR?

Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.

So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects. As SSDD has already mentioned, the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects.

Sense? Sense how? Sonar? Radar? ESP?

the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

Energy? You mean photons?

Energy? You mean photons?

measuring loss of energy at the sensor. current

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

It's CO2

It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.

and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.

Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.

yep, so again, why can't you see her breath?

You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is it reading if not IR?

Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.

So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects. As SSDD has already mentioned, the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects.

Sense? Sense how? Sonar? Radar? ESP?

the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

Energy? You mean photons?

Energy? You mean photons?

measuring loss of energy at the sensor. current

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

 

[jc456]

It's CO2

It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.

and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.

Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.

yep, so again, why can't you see her breath?

You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

then how can one point a thermal meter at the sky and read IR? you just busted your own theory. funny

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.

and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.

Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.

yep, so again, why can't you see her breath?

You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

then how can one point a thermal meter at the sky and read IR?

Depends on the meter.

 

[jc456]

Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.

So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects. As SSDD has already mentioned, the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects.

Sense? Sense how? Sonar? Radar? ESP?

the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

Energy? You mean photons?

Energy? You mean photons?

measuring loss of energy at the sensor. current

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

it reads an amperage measurement in the meter. there will be a change in the amperage through the sensor. it's electronics.

 

[jc456]

and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.

Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.

yep, so again, why can't you see her breath?

You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

then how can one point a thermal meter at the sky and read IR?

Depends on the meter.

sure it does. One cooled down so one can see heat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's about 79% N2, about 20% O2, about 0.4% CO2.

and moisture, water. again, exhale on a mirror.

Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.

yep, so again, why can't you see her breath?

You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

then how can one point a thermal meter at the sky and read IR? you just busted your own theory. funny

then how can one point a thermal meter at the sky and read IR?

Find a video like the ice cream video and I'll be glad to discuss it.

you just busted your own theory.

My theory? Scientists have known about matter emitting photons long before I was born.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects. As SSDD has already mentioned, the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects.

Sense? Sense how? Sonar? Radar? ESP?

the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

Energy? You mean photons?

Energy? You mean photons?

measuring loss of energy at the sensor. current

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

it reads an amperage measurement in the meter. there will be a change in the amperage through the sensor. it's electronics.

it reads an amperage measurement in the meter.

Ok.

there will be a change in the amperage through the sensor.

What does it sense to trigger the change?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup. A tiny bit of water vapor.

yep, so again, why can't you see her breath?

You seem more forgetful than usual. Does that worry you?

Air is a poor absorber/poor emitter.

then how can one point a thermal meter at the sky and read IR?

Depends on the meter.

sure it does. One cooled down so one can see heat.

The ice cream camera doesn't look cooled. So what did it read?