On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 1:55:21 PM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 1:10:13 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 10:14:21 AM UTC+1, Len Wood wrote:
On Saturday, 8 August 2015 00:25:04 UTC+1,

Alastair,
It is net cooling by radiation you are talking about, as some on this thread have hinted.
You can call it cold radiation if you like, but that is not very scientific despite you finding it at odd places in the literature.

No, in that case, I am calling the absorbed radiation cold radiation. The net radiation is the emitted less the absorbed. Hence the object will cool.

Yes, but it doesn't cool other things!


On a clear calm night a land surface cools by radiation.
It loses more heat than it absorbs. Presumably you are calling this cold radiation.

It cools because the absorbed radiation is colder than that which it is emitting.

Utter rubbish

During a sunny day a land surface warms by radiation. Presumably you want to call this warm radiation.

It is just radiation, most from the sun, but some re-radiated from other surfaces.

A better name for solar radiation would be hot radiation rather than warm. If you call it warm then I should call my cold radiation cool.

Rubbish. It is just radiation. As you've been told by several people, every body whose temperature is above absolute zero will emit electromagnetic radiation. It doesn't cool anything, though. That's where your ideas become ridiculous.

Cold bodies radiate, but your body only feels cold because you are radiating more heat than you are absorbing from the cold body. Net cooling by radiation again.
There is no real need to talk about warm or cold radiation.

Agreed, but if you call the radiation emitted by cold bodies cold radiation then it makes sense to say that it will cool a warmer body which absorbs it.

In science it is important to understand the energy balance at the surface in question.

I fully understand energy balance, but a radiation balance requires an input and an output. I am saying if the input is less than the output then the input is cold radiation.

Utter tripe - and this is why no-one is agreeing with you and why you are making a fool of yourself by simply not learning from those trying hard to explain this to you.


I hope this helps.

It will, if my response causes you to ask yourself whether I am correct, and not where I am going wrong.

You are completely wrong and your ideas violate the second law of thermodynamics, which you do not understand. Why on earth should a response make someone ask whether you are right?

Putting it another way, if you call the radiation emitted by a cold body "cold radiation" then any warm body (i.e. at a higher temperature than our cold body) will cool when it absorbed the cold radiation. It does not need to be called cold radiation for this to happen. If you call it cool radiation the warm body will still cool when it absorbs that radiation. In fact you could give it any name, e.g. Darklight, but the effect would be the same. The warmer body would cool because its net radiation would be negative.

Hilarious. I'd rather you just learned the physics and accepted your silly mistake, but if you don't, it is fun watching you respond to absolute sense from many people by spouting unscientific garbage, because you are ignorant of the physics.


Cheers, Alastair.

What is the answer to those 4 questions?