User talk:Hotflashhome

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hotflashhome, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Enuja (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been posting on Talk:Global warming. I suggest you read Greenhouse effect to help you understand the basic mechanism. As far as I understand your posts on the talk page of global warming, you don't appear to believe that the greenhouse effect is possible. The article global warming does not address the greenhouse effect itself, but simply a change in it. So, it seems to me that you're targeting the wrong article.

You're also mis-using the talk page. The basic talk page guidelines are here; other people on the Global warming talk page have directed you to a sub-set of that page, but it might be helpful for you to read the whole thing. Please don't use talk pages to try to understand basic concepts; please use them only to discuss how to improve the articles. There are many off-Wikipedia resources to help you understand the greenhouse effect.

You seem to be interested in thermography; there is a Wikipedia article on the subject that already includes quite a few thermal images. However, it is tagged as an article that needs more references and needs to be re-organized. It appears to be article you could really help this encyclopedia by improving. You are not going to improve this encylopedia by arguing about whether or not the greenhouse effect exists. - Enuja (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The term Green House Gas was first coined almost 200 years ago. The original reference was for a completely different application.

During the divelopment of photography almost 200 years ago the phrase was first coined. Early photographs used negatives made of plates of glass coated with silver oxide which re-acted with light. Typically, the plates of glass were discarded after use and some enterprising farmer decided to build a glass house for his plants.

He had some problems. His plants grew fine in the winter however they died in the summer. He finally decided that the only thing that was different was that his smudge pots were not heating in summer.

Today, most greenhouses have greenhouse gas generators to provide carbon gases for the plants to feed.

Yes I have problems with the idea of Greenhouse gases radiating at the Earth. I have seen no evidence and neither has anyone who has written or referenced the article. Every statement made about radiation and the atmosphere in any reference work is always qualified with a MAY Contribute or something like that. Since I see physical evidence that this is contra indicating almost every day I work with the cam, I take umbrage. Green House Gases Maycontribute to Global Warming, but there is no evidence that the mechanism for this effect is infrared radiation. I would love to get a government grant to test this out.

As for long wave and mid wave cameras. In mid wave, CO 2 radiates between 4 and 5 micrometers wavelength. That radiation represents a temperature of 700 to 900 Degrees Kelvin. In other words, if I aimed my cam at the radiation at that wavelength, it would burn out the bolometer. However, in the melange of gas that represents the atmosphere, the gases are all mixed. There are not clouds of methane forming in the Earth's troposhere.

I would however see the effects of that radiation if it were absorbed by other near by molecules of gas, depending on the transparency, reflectivity and emissivity (and with it absorbtion) of infrared of the molecule at that wavelength.

Thanks for the push. I have long lamented on the poor quality of papers written for infrared cameras in Wikipedia. If it is okay, I would put a link to my blog here for anyone who would like to see it. It would approximate any changes I would propose for the page. There is so much more than what is in the blog but I would have to be able to post word files there too.

I have used and loved this site since I first discovered it years ago. It is the most dynamic site on the net (along with Google Earth). I highly urge you not to close your minds to new ideas even though those ideas might be ccontrary to the beliefs the people who first wrote the articles.

I just had another thought. Oh Boy!!!

I get to post my latest Horizon Pictures here.

The air temperature on ground level is 24 degrees Celsius. The time this was taken was 1300 hrs. EDT. We can see the sky temperature is substantially lower.

The horizon shows the warmer Earth and the cooling of the atmosphere as altitude is increased.Hotflashhome (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you use reliable sources for information you add to thermography and other articles on Wikipedia, it is always a great contribution to improve articles. Keep in my that your blog, or blogs in general, are not a reliable sources for any articles. While there are certainly true things that have not yet been published, keep in mind that encylopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources. In order for "facts" to be in Wikipedia, they need to be verifiable, which means that they need to be published in a reliable source. On the other hand, you are free to link your blog or website or whatever here on your talk page (or on your user page, which you haven't edited yet). Although these pages are still part of the Wikipedia project and we users aren't free to post literally anything (and we are not allowed to use these pages as our own general homepage or store information), a link to your blog is absolutely appropriate; please see Wikipedia:User page for the complete guidelines.

You may notice that I'm not addressing any of your greenhouse-effect arguments; I really don't know the physics and the research all that well. I believe what I've read in reliable sources, but I'm not going to be useful in trying to explain the current understanding of the greenhouse effect to you. I can try my best to welcome you to Wikipedia and point out what's helpful for building an encyclopedia, but I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge or interest to break down your argument in order to accept it or show you any errors in it. - Enuja (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your statement here. I will attempt to explain my argument.

The atmosphere is a large homogenious mix of atmospheric gases. As such all the gases within the mix are subject to the same physical rules. The primary rule I refer to here is that as these gases lose pressure, they will cool. Therefore gases that are at 1000 feet altitude will be about 2 degrees Celsius cooler than the atmosphere closer to Earth. All of these gases would be at the same temperature.

Because these gases are cooler, they cannot radiate back at the Earth since the Earth is warmer. Therefore there is only one direction for the radiation to go and that is out to space.

It is true that my camera will not see the so called Greenhouse Gases which have been referred to in the Global Warming article. However these gases would be subject to the same physical laws which all atmospheric gases would be subjected to. Therefore, at altitude, they would be be at the same temperature as the atmosphere.

Therefore the question becomes, "Are these gases radiating at a temperature that is a warmer radiation than the Earth?".

The land portion of the Earth is covered with carbon compounds. It is expected that these compounds would radiate as well in the short wave portion of the spectrum. Therefore, it would be arguable that these radiation patterns would be the same as what a long wave thermal camera would see.

Therefore I would ask that all thermographers with short wave cams take shots of 'Their Horizons' and this might help to answer the question once and for all. In fact I would ask that all thermographers contribute to this study! Hotflashhome (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your problem. Any object, or a defined space filled with gas, if it is above the temperature of absolute 0, is always radiating heat. Yes, the earth radiates more heat to the atmosphere than the atmosphere radiates to the earth. This image, used as a thumbnail on the Greenhouse gas article shows this. The earth radiates 452 W/m^2 (350 W/m^2 of which is absorbed by greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere (and 40 W/m^2 past the atmosphere directly into space) while the atmosphere radiates 324 W/m^2 back to the earth. Yes, this means that the earth radiates more energy into the atmosphere than the atmosphere radiates back to earth. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the amount of energy absorbed and radiated back to earth by the atmosphere. All else being equal, this means that the earth will get warmer. If the concentration of greehouse gases in the atmosphere were to decrease, the earth would get cooler. The figure, the information on the figure's page, and probably the sources cited on the figure's page, should really help you with this. I am not an expert, but I think I was able to understand the problem you're having. It not, I don't think there is anything else I can do to help explain this. - Enuja (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Second Law

There is a minor problem with your argument and that leads to the crux of my argument. The Second Law of Thermodynamics simply states that heat radiates from warm to cold. The radiation will not 'travel' back at the Earth because the Earth is Warmer than the sky. Therefore there is only one direction that radiation will travel to and that is space.

From your experience — remember, that’s the basis of the second law — what direction do you think the energy of molecules would go — from those faster moving air molecules in the warm room to the slower moving water molecules in the cold ice ... or would the slower moving molecules in the ice give up some of their energy to the warm air? Sure. From the hotter to the colder! Always.[1]

The numbers you have posted are arbitrary since the temperature of the Earth and the atmosphere are constantly changing. The radiation power values you have stated would always be different. The formula for radiating power $W=T⁴*5.7*10^-8$ where W= your wattage output in watts per square meter T= temperature in Kelvin and 5.7*10^-8 is the radiation constant. The other number that is in this equation but which I ignore for a reason is called emissivity which is a ratio which calculates the specific temperature of the object being tested. It is not important to know the actual temperature but what the effective radiating temperature is for the object of the calculation. It also happens to be part of the work I published last year at Inframation 2007.. What the introduction says is that the Emissivity on the Infrared Camera would always be set to 1 as to capture theEffective Radiating Temperature of the object in question to allow for the power to be calculated.

The other nice thing about the second law is that it defines the methods by which gases will mingle.

I hope this will help you to understand why a colder sky cannot possibly radiate back at a warmer Earth. I am having trouble getting others to see this.

Thank you for all your input. It is nice to play around in here before I start on the Thermography page. Hotflashhome (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're having trouble with steady state versus equlibrium? Yes, on average, heat is moving from the earth to the atmosphere. But the net amount moving from the earth to the atmosphere is dependent on both the amount moving from the earth to the atmosphere and the amount moving from the atmosphere to the earth. Changing either one of these will change the steady-state temperature of the earth. I'm sorry I couldn't help you more. - Enuja (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As a scientific article, the section on Greenhouse Gases is filled with unsubstantiated claims and no data that I could find. As well there is no data to substantiate the claim that the prime mechanism for the Global Warming effect is infrared radiation. I will review the Greenhouse gas section of the article now.

Global Warming is “an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely ‘predicted’ (author’s quote) to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution” (Webster Dictionary). I have no expertise in this area so I would not care to comment on the veracity of this supposition. I can say that I am having trouble getting any data that is provided to back this statement up in the article since many of the references in the article do not seem to be operating any longer.

However, the mechanism cited for Global Warming by Greenhouse gases infrared radiation and its agent, Radiative Forcing. This article is still functioning and offers calculations for modeling of the radiative phenomenon.

1) This imbalance in the radiation budget has the ‘potential’ (author’s quote) to lead to changes in climate parameters and thus result in a new equilibrium state of the climate system.

No data for the analysis of the phenomenon, only modeling. Since scientific tools such as thermal imaging are recent additions to the tools used by weather analysts, data would not be available until recently. Even though these tools are now available, the authors of the paper still chose to ignore any data they could offer to validate the model. They have ignored the infrared data which they might have used and stuck to the model.

2) The radiative forcing due to all well-mixed greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times was ‘estimated’ (author's quote) to be 2.45 Wm-2 in the SAR with an uncertainty of 15%. This is now altered to a radiative forcing of 2.43 Wm-2 with an uncertainty of 10%, based on the range of model results and the discussion of factors leading to ‘uncertainties’ (author’s quotes) in the radiative forcing due to these greenhouse gases.

Given the fact that any data required to validate this statement would not be available since the technology is recent, I would have to say that this statement is entirely not provable.

The study has also stated it has made: 3) with no dynamically-induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).

To leave out any changes in these factors negates the study since it is water in all its forms which holds the lion’s share of the responsibility of keeping the planet warm in the first place.

I have always contended that increases in rain would have to accompany any warming in the climate. This increase in atmospheric temperature would necessarily increase the ability of the atmosphere to retain water vapour planet wide since worldwide troposheric temperatures would rise.

I would make two statements now that refute the whole idea that global warming is caused by radiative forcing. 

One: The upshot of this discussion is that there really is no data to support the supposition that infrared forcing is causing global warming. None is published in the article on Global Warming in Wikipedia and there are no references for any studies in the appendix that I could find. The only references were ‘maybes’, ‘estimates’ and ‘potentials’. In fact, using computer modeling to predict weather has proven to be more witchcraft than fact. A noted Canadian weather forecaster (and a global warming advocate) predicted the weather for 2008 and then stated the accuracy of that prediction was about 5% accurate.

Two: The meager number of thermographs posted on my discussion page and the Global Warming discussion page are more data than is offered anywhere on the Global Warming article.

I would state now that there is no proof that Global Warming is caused by radiative forcing or any radiative factors. Another more valid mechanism would need to be proposed. However I would warn everyone now that introducing temperature increases from weather stations would also be questioned by me since these weather stations are mostly at airports and in cities which have locally higher radiating temperatures than anywhere else. City populations are growing; they are paved and plowed in winter which exposes paving which will increase the radiative signature. Airports are also paved and the grass is cut which will also increase the radiative signature and affect temperature readings. This makes most temperature data suspect and if necessary, I can prove that too.

I doubt you will find any weather stations under the canopy of the 2.5 million square kilometers of Canada’s boreal forest or Russia’s for that matter which is almost 4 times the size!Hotflashhome (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you find any dead links in any articles, here is an information page on what to do. You can also just identify all dead links you find on the talk page; someone else can go ahead and fix it. Many of the references in Global warming are from peer reviewed journals, and therefore usually require a subscription to read (so, aren't dead links, but maybe you can't get the articles from your current location). However, information in peer reviewed journals is quite reliable, so in order to provide good support for facts or statements in articles, we try to use peer reviewed journals as much as possible. If there is a particular article you'd like a copy of, I may be able to get you one. If you're interested in the general state of the field, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (available on the IPCC's website [2]) is a summary that includes many references. Now, the IPCC reports, like the Wikipedia article, often start with general information summarizing what's in the rest of the report, and only get to references about specific data in the detailed sections of the report. - Enuja (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I will have to go back and see why I am having problems. Some of the links which are in PDF format will not download without errors and some of them I have no trouble reading. Since I have Adobe Reader 8 and Acrobat 4 I suspect the problem may arise from the site rather than my computer.

I think it would be a good time to say why this whole discussion has me in a tither. I have been a thermal imager for 5 years now and have been involved in the industrial applications of the technology from my earliest days. For most of the applications used in thermography, the thermographer is interested in the capture of temperatures. There are many settings and algorithms in the camera to help the thermographer to get a temperature including the one that provides the image in the first place.

However the camera itself does not see temperature. The camera sees infrared radiation which is not visible to the eye. Because this is radiation it means that power transfer is taking place. Whenever there is a warm spot in the viewer, there is something colder also present and this is where the power is transfering to.

The paper that I published last year was for a templates I developed to allow for the calculation of that power transfer taking place. The calculation is done in Watts per Square meter just as is quoted in many of the references in the Global Warming article. The difference is that I show that power transfer on the template and can calculate that power.

So a thermal camera really shows power transfer and not temperature. The temperature is an add on.

To best understand this please pay a visit to my blog which I entitled Our Radiating Environment which is on the link below. That might help you better understand. Thank you again for your wonderful help. Bill

http://journals.aol.ca/unclbill3108/howtostopheatlossesinhomes/entries/2008/04/30/our-thermal-environment/1960

There is an archive button at the top of the page to refer to other entries. Hotflashhome (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling. Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. p.665

The first page of Radiative Forcing in the Report has 7 'likely's', 3 'very likely's', 1 extremely unlikely and one very unlikely. In other words there is no accumulated scientific data to justify any of this section of the report. In fact It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. This is from the quote above.

In other words the Global Warming community has built its entire case for human caused climate change on a computer model and not on scientifically reproduceable data.

I still say my data is bigger than their's! lol I will be in and out of here with quotes from the climate change symposiumHotflashhome (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

When presenting scientific data it is important to present the statstical probabilities attached to your conclusions. In my field, we usually reject the null hypothesis (and accept the alternative hypothesis) when there is a 5% chance that the null hypothesis could be true. The probabilities in the IPCC report are different, but putting probabilities on causes is the way we do science. Both when making predictions about the future and when trying to parse out what percentage of an effect is caused by what cause, math is needed. Models are needed to predict what will happen in the future and very useful when trying to tease out the contributions of different things on a single measured outcome. Models are not inherently unscientific, and probablities are very important in science. Didn't you say that you came up with math to get the actual temperature of something from the radiation it emits and its emissivity? That's a model, too. - Enuja (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually my thermographic templates do not use a model. They are based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which I did not develop. I only made the templates from that Law.

The model may be a proper way to introduce a new theory. However if it is not verifiable with real data it becomes a non issue. I still say that all the 'likelys' there are in this latest version of the global warming model do not make up for one real thermograph.

The concept of 'Radiative Forcing' was introduced in the early part of the new millenium and maybe as far back as 1996 and the basic premise is still in use today. However with all the 'likelys' still in the published article, no quantification of this driver for Man Made Global Warming has yet been introduced. I still say I have introduced more data against this concept than the paper has presented for it.

A model is not much use when it cannot be proven. It cannot be used as a reference source, especially after all the time that has elapsed to allow the model to be tested and this has not been done.

I submit that I have tested that model and have found it to be incorrect, at least in the premise I have presented it with. In Long Wave Infrared there is no evidence of Radiative Forcing as an action in the atmosphere.Hotflashhome (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What you see in your camera & what you write in Wikipedia

What you see in your camera (the fact that the atmosphere, on average and in total, radiates less energy than the earth radiates) contradicts neither the existence of greenhouse gases nor the fact that a change in the concentration of greenhouse gases (= a change in "radiative forcing") will change the steady-state temperature of a planet.

I, and other people, have told you that Wikipedia is not for your own original research and Wikipedia talk pages are not for discussing the topics of the articles. Please do not take it personally that your off-topic discussion (along with a bunch of other discussions [3] [4] [5] [6]) was deleted from the global warming talk page. Keep editing article pages to try to improve them, but please stop bringing up your own disagreement with the published science on article talk pages. Continually bringing up your own original research on talk pages (and by this I don't mean critically analyzing published sources: that's an important thing to do on talk pages) is disruptive and counterproductive to article-improvement discussions on talk pages. - Enuja (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not done anything more than discuss the opinion of the authors of the radiative forcing. I have simply stated that it disobeys scientific laws. I am sorry you see that as disruptive. It was just meant as constructive critism.

Since there seems to be no room on the Global Warming site in Wikipedia for discussion, I will desist in further comments on the Global Warming pages. There does not seem to be room for scientific principles in the discussion on that page anyway.

The Global Warming lobby has always had a problem with detractors of its theories. Instead of explanations they will always end the argument with 'that is the way it is'! I have only asked for a scientific explanation of its theories, especially when it comes to radiative forcing. Obviously the Global warming editors of this site think that Radiative Forcing is the law and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the theory. After all the Second Law was published in the 19th century so maybe today's global warming scientists are not aware of it.

My thermographs were only meant to highlight the question of the second law and how it affects all gases in space. That Radiative Forcing omits any mention of it is just bad science. The second law has many applications as it applies to the actions of homogeneous gases that I only thought that it must be included in the study and its effects must be taken into account.

No one has been able to answer my questions. It would seem that Radiative Forcing is just bad science.

The second law of thermodynamics is not my theory. It is someone else's law. I did not invent thermal imaging. I presented the second law and the thermal images to go with it as "critically analyzing published sources" (your quote). That this site cannot take critical analysis is more proof that science in this discussion really does not count.

I think I have a better way out of this. Since I have published a paper on radiative power transfer, I would have to say that I should be able to post thermographs and the accompanying templates which calculate radiative power transfer of the Earth, in the Global Warming site. That, I think would be pertinent, would it not? That way, I would be providing answers instead of questions. Please let me know if you think this would be acceptable.

Thank you for your attention.BillHotflashhome (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do a study, and then publish it in a peer reviewed journal, that has globally summed radiative power transfer of the atmosphere to the earth and the earth to the atmosphere, then that study would probably be extremely useful on greenhouse gas. You'd need a published study that showed this calculated global radiative power transfer at at least two different periods in time at least a decade or so apart in order to useful on the radiative forcing or global warming articles.

As far as why no-one has answered your question here, I don't think anyone here has yet understood how the existence of greenhouse gases could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I also don't think anyone here doubts or disagrees that the net transfer of energy between the atmosphere and the earth's surface is from the earth to the atmosphere. The whole radiative forcing thing is just a change in the net radiative transfer of energy. That's all. "Forcing" just means "change". - Enuja (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I suggest you go to the IPCC page and see the discussion which I am having with them there. They completely discount the Second Law.

I am trying to garner funding for a study in this important field. It will probably have to come from the private sector as government funding of the project would probably be considered as politically incorrect. I am hoping to find an independent third party to fund this project.

As for the 10 year period you mention, I am sure that this will not be necessary. I suspect that the theoretical model called 'Radiative Forcing' will be discounted as viable long before that. Too many questions have been raised. I don't think that Radiative Forcing can win a battle against the Second Law.

It doesn't have to unless the sun disappears.--BozMo talk 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to copy all future comments made on my questions and comments for fear that they will be erased.

They may be deleted from discussion pages where they are not relevant but you can always recover them from the edit history. If you create a whole new page (please don't) and it gets deleted then most admins including me will give you your entire content and edits back for you to work on in user space until they are fit for public consumption. --BozMo talk 06:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hotflashhome (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't "completely discount the Second Law". I am afraid they are just bored with people who don't know how to apply it and are putting it in completely the wrong article; you were asked to go to greenhouse effect since that's the bit you are struggling with. I am sorry people aren't more patient but there are plenty of editors on those pages with PhDs who taught thermodynamics to undergraduates, and you are making neither an original nor a complicated mistake. Maybe looking at what you do understand we can try another way of looking at it. If you go into outer space with your camera and look at the earth the temperature you will record will be below the surface temperature of the earth. That tells you the atmosphere is keeping the earth warm, as with houses. No one claims the earth does not lose heat to the sky, that's why it isn't as hot as the sun. The question is whether the heat it is losing is more or less and a sort of radiative insulating mechanism (try to use terms you know) is radiative forcing. The sky isn't really heating the earth up, the sun does that. The sky (by radiation) stops the earth cooling. But of course if you run your boiler as much (that's the sun) and improve your insulation (which is here by radiation not conduction) your house gets warmer. See Greenhouse effect. --BozMo talk 06:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We are now right back to square one I am sorry to say. As you say "The sky (by radiatiion) stops the Earth cooling". However that radiation will not be radiated back at Earth but at space.Hotflashhome (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear I am sorry you are still struggling. I will have one more go and then I think you will have to find someone else to try and get on your wavelength. I think your next step could be to look up Black body radiation. The radiation from the upper atmosphere will be radiated in all directions, the radiation setting out from something does not know the temperature of what it is heading towards. But the point is that compared to the Earth in a vaccuum (which would see deep space at -267C or whatever) Earth with any atmosphere sees say -50C night sky which when you include the sun makes it settle at say 20C average ambient. Then with greenhouse gases it sees -30C night sky which settles it at 25C. --BozMo talk 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You must remember that Radiation works much differently than Convection. Convection is a mode which depends on the temperature of the land and water to warm the air. Convection is the method which warms our air so we can live in relative comfort on this Earth. This process is slow.

Radiation travels at the speed of light. As radiation leaves the Earth, it might impinge on atoms in the air and warm them. However the ability of the atmosphere to actually absorb this radiation is very low which gives us the massive temperature difference in temperature from what we feel on the Earth and what is Radiating.

We are almost always warmer than our radiating environment because of the convection of heat which warms the air. This is because air is able to warm over the land and water. But air, for the most part, is transparent to infrared. Please check out OUR Radiating Environment on my blog page, the address for which is posted on my User Page.

I have posted thermographs in the past on other sites in Wikipedia which have been erased. In these thermographs I have tried to show the variabilities in the atmosphere which might be affecting the Earth and would actually power Global Warming. These thermographs have shown what occurs close to Earth when humidity is high and when there is a great amount of microscopic molecules which accumulate close to Earth. These are normal at night in summer when the air temperature is at dew point. The temperature of this 'invisible mist' looks warmer than the Earth but when plugged into my template, the cummulative value is still cooler than the Earth. There has been only one time when I saw the sky warmer than the Earth and that was during a heavy snow storm. I have tried to be fair with the use of these thermographs to show all situations which affect Our Radiating Environment.

The thermographs which I posted and were erased, are very transient. For the most part, the sky appears as it does in the images shown above. In winter, this effect is more pronounced as the absorption temperature of the sky is below the lower limit of the thermal camera I own (lower than - 45 degrees Celsius).

Unfortunately, My Radiating Environment has been compromised this summer. In Ontario Canada, we have been plagued by below normal temperatures for the last seven months and above normal precipitation. Because we have above normal precipitation, this could also be considered an argument for Global Warming. But that mechanism would not be Radiative Forcing.

To conclude, I have seen in my camera and with the climate here this year, some evidence that the environment may be changing. This evidence is based on conductive and convective changes which are visible in infrared, in the main, because of the acumulation of water vapour in the lower portions of the troposhere, and are transient. In infrared there is no evidence of the 'Radiative Forcing' which is prevalent in the literature. In infrared there is no way that a cooler gas (with attendant smog and water vapour and condensed water vapour in clouds at altitude) can radiate at a warmer gas (with attendant smog and MUCH greater amounts of water vapour and condensed microscopic water droplets at ground level) and warm the lower gas. The lower gases cannot be warmed in any way by the cooler gases. I propose that if there is man made global warming it cannot be from radiation. The warmer gas at ground level would radiate at the cooler gas at altitude and the cooler gas at altitude has only one way to power. As we all know, the weather computers are often unable to model a weather forecast for 24 hours, let alone a year.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is the law which ultimately powers this radiating transfer. It is this law and its application that I published last year. The law calculates in Watts per square meter, the value of the transfer of radiating power from warmer to cooler. This transfer, within the troposphere, will change continually, depending on the radiative temperatures of the upper and lower troposphere.

I have shown the function of the templates on my blog page, the address which is posted on my User Page in Wikipedia. I would like to utilize thermographs which are in the templates, for the Thermal Imaging page in Wikipedia. These have to do with calculating Radiating Heat Losses for home heat loss and were published last year and presented at a conference of thermographers in Las Vegas last November. However, I would like to present them as they are written and the way to do that best would be with a PDF file. Is it possible to load PDF files with imbedded JPG's on a Wiki page? It was not possible in my blog pages but I made adjustments that sort of work (my computer art work is not that great).

Thank you again for your kind attention. I enjoy working with Wikipedia.

P.S. I wrote a supplemental paragragh on Blackbodies on the Wikipedia Thermography page last week. This is a primarily Infrared Camera related piece. Please check it out and let me know what you think. BillHotflashhome (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is still wrong, just in a more complicated way. Some statements are plain wrong but correctible: e.g. "the lower gases cannot be warmed in any way by the cooler gases" (a cold mirror can heat a hot object by reflection without violating the second law) but even if the casual use of language was fixed there is still the confusion between "warming" as meant in climate and "warming" as in the second law. The difference is because of the presence of the sun which is a large negentropic influence (or is the word negantropic I never could spell). "Heat won't go from the cooler to the hotter you can try it if you like but you'd far better notta" is only true in the absence of other entropic flows: e.g. you can clearly make it happen with a heat pump. In this instance there is a heat transfer which doesn't violate the second law because it is a back eddy in a big heat flow out of the sun. --BozMo talk 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually a heat pump is a perfect example of the Second Law in action. The heat pump has a compressor which uses the second law for its effect. When the compressor compresses the refrigerant, the refrigerant condenses in the condensor and this adds energy to the system in the form of heat which is released to the house. When the refrigerant is allowed to expand and evaporate, the refrigerant cools and heat is absorbed from the cooling in the evaporator. This cooler product is either released to the outside air of the air source heat pump or the return line of a ground source heat pump.

This is a thermograph of the feed pipes of a poorly working ground source heat pump in action. The ground water in the heat pump is the problem here because of the temperature is much cooler than the expected 10 degree Celsius temperature which was expected to come from the ground. You can see the temperature of the intake which has Glycol in the is below freezing. This heat pump is not very efficient because of this but it was still heating the house.

The supply line from the ground is the bottom intake pipe which is at -.5 Celsius and the top pipe is the return which is at -3.5 Celsius. Obviously the heat pump is delivering some heat to the system as the return is cooler. Even though this is clearly not an efficient system, it is still heating the house.

On the Global Warming problem I will have more to say tomorrow, but I will say now I think I have it ciphered (a la Jethro Bodine from The Beverly Hillbillies).

Not sure I understand about Beverly Hillbilly but I guess you missed the reference to Flanders and Swann. I am glad you understand a heat pump does not break the second law, that's a start. Perhaps you know there are dozens of different types of heat pump including ones with no moving parts... see Thermoelectric effect. Perhaps it would help you here to think of the combination of solar radiation and radiative forcing as a form of heat pump. The analogy is a bit limited but at present the problem isn't at the detailed level is seems to just be that you see a non-existent contradiction. Perhaps the next thing is for you to state the second law in the terms in which you understand it? Or perhaps explain what does break the second law. Equations are fine but if it is words in your head use words. --BozMo talk 07:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hotflashhome (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I loved the Second Law quote you gave and it gave rise to the quote I gave. I am kind of pressed for time right now so I will get back to you later today or tomorrow. I have some suggestions that have helped to enlighten me on this and would love to share them with you and get your comments. Thank you for your time. BillHotflashhome (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

History

Just so you know, articles on Wikipedia are hardly ever deleted. It takes an administrator to actually remove information on Wikipedia. On the other hand, anyone can edit (pages that aren't protected) and remove information. However, that information is still available in the history of the page. You can read the history of any page by clicking on the "History" button (one of the tabs near the top of the page). All of the information you posted on Talk:Global warming can still be read - for example, at this [7] link. - Enuja (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank youHotflashhome (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A Little Help Please if you don,t mind.

Hello again.

I have done a series of thermographs which calculate the power output of various surfaces at the sky. These thermographs are run through a Word Template and then converted to a PDF file. I do not want to post these in Word because the formula would then be exposed so that others can see it and possibly copy the idea. This is part of the work I published last year.

I can post these in a format similar to the one used in the blog page but my art work is poor. The PDF file complete with thermograph, would be much more effective.

If you would like to see what I have to post please let me know. I would probably have to email them to you. It would really be nice to copy them here. My email address is hotflashhome@aol.com. thanks again. BillHotflashhome (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:2009atmospherics.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:2009atmospherics.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)