Remember me
▼ Content

Where are the numbers?


Where are the numbers?31-01-2019 17:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(560)
They say average global temperature increased 0.6C in the 20th century. Where's the proof? Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers, without proof, why should anyone believe their claim?
Edited on 31-01-2019 17:37
31-01-2019 20:12
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(288)
I don't think anyone really knows where the IPCC pulls their numbers. They would be meaningless anyway, no standardized equipment, no standard for taking readings, and no where near enough thermometers to cover even a fraction of the world. Are they only looking a daytime highs. Do they include all the recorded temperatures available, or just pick the ones that fit best on the Hockey-stick graph? We know there were some manipulations, to get those smooth curves. Don't recall any margin of error ever noted along with their graphs. Really doesn't matter, Since there were no CO2 measurements to go with the pseudo-temperature readings, until 1958, and only one location (Hawaii). As this thing progresses, it really looks like they made their conclusion the CO2 was going to cause Global Warming, before they had any data to support it. Their 'research' seems more like a search through published papers, for anything they could use parts of, to patch together a convincing argument. There is so much argument and debate, it should be obvious to most, that it's not the truth, or factual. There is no real data, just computer simulations, of what some think, could be possible, but nothing real to support it. The controversy is good advertising, keeps it in the news, and on everyone's mind.
31-01-2019 21:02
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
..... Where's the proof? Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers......


Proof....A word used by lawyers. Seldom used by scientists or engineers.

Where is the evidence? That is a more reasonable question.

The actual original evidence would be in the millions of individual temperature records kept over the decades. Not the sort of thing easily looked over by an individual person.

The "100 annual average global temperatures" would be some sort of summary, not actual original evidence. Actually the literal "average global temperature" wouldn't be useful anyway since you'd be including the hot interior of the Earth. Mean global near-surface air temperature maybe? As reported in a standardized way?
Maybe read here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

Or here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

NOAA and NASA and UK Met Office all maintain datasets you can access.
31-01-2019 21:13
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
31-01-2019 21:24
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(288)
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/


I haven't used google earth in many years, but the satellite images were several years old. Definitely not a live view, or updated regularly. Maybe it's improved some since then.
31-01-2019 23:34
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(105)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They say average global temperature increased 0.6C in the 20th century. Where's the proof?

There is none. Science doesn't make use of proofs, and global warming isn't even science; it is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword.

We don't know how much the global temperature has increased, since there is no way to measure global temperature. How many thermometers would one use? Where would they be placed? How would they be spaced out? When would they be read?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers, without proof, why should anyone believe their claim?

Nowhere to be found, unless someone pulls some random numbers from their ass. Global temperature cannot be measured. Even the temperature of a particular US State cannot be measured, let alone the whole globe.
31-01-2019 23:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/


I haven't used google earth in many years, but the satellite images were several years old. Definitely not a live view, or updated regularly. Maybe it's improved some since then.


I was talking about the resolution.
01-02-2019 00:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
still learning wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
..... Where's the proof? Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers......


Proof....A word used by lawyers.

No, they misuse the word too. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems, like mathematics or logic.
still learning wrote:
Seldom used by scientists or engineers.

They are used by both, when working in those closed systems.
still learning wrote:
Where is the evidence? That is a more reasonable question.

Good question.
still learning wrote:
The actual original evidence would be in the millions of individual temperature records kept over the decades. Not the sort of thing easily looked over by an individual person.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers.
still learning wrote:
The "100 annual average global temperatures" would be some sort of summary, not actual original evidence. Actually the literal "average global temperature" wouldn't be useful anyway since you'd be including the hot interior of the Earth. Mean global near-surface air temperature maybe? As reported in a standardized way?

The standardized way would be statistical mathematics. Unfortunately, there is no raw data to work with that is sufficient to overcome the observed variance, and the thermometers we DO have are grouped by locale, a biasing factor, and are not read at the same time, another biasing factor. Also statistical mathematics is incapable of the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to it's use of random numbers.
still learning wrote:
Maybe read here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

Insufficient data. Biased data. Using it would be a math error, since selection would not be by randN. Further, much of this data is cooked, rendering it utterly useless.
still learning wrote:
Or here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Berkeley can't measure the temperature of the Earth's surface either.
still learning wrote:
NOAA and NASA and UK Met Office all maintain datasets you can access.

Manufactured numbers. There is no dataset.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2019 00:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2019 00:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
gfm7175 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They say average global temperature increased 0.6C in the 20th century. Where's the proof?

There is none. Science doesn't make use of proofs, and global warming isn't even science; it is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword.

We don't know how much the global temperature has increased, since there is no way to measure global temperature. How many thermometers would one use? Where would they be placed? How would they be spaced out? When would they be read?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers, without proof, why should anyone believe their claim?

Nowhere to be found, unless someone pulls some random numbers from their ass. Global temperature cannot be measured. Even the temperature of a particular US State cannot be measured, let alone the whole globe.

Even if we somehow WERE able to manufacture that many thermometers, the starting and ending times of measurement are unspecified. Thus, the term 'global warming' itself is unspecified. It is a meaningless buzzword, just like 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2019 00:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/


I haven't used google earth in many years, but the satellite images were several years old. Definitely not a live view, or updated regularly. Maybe it's improved some since then.


Satellite imagery has improved quite a lot. Resolution is pretty find these days. Commercially available images are good enough to see people and larger signs. Some military stuff can read the title off a golf ball from orbit.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2019 00:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.
01-02-2019 03:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.


Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2019 21:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.


Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?


It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Valtsu-image-02.gif
Edited on 01-02-2019 21:22
01-02-2019 22:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.


Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?


It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.


No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-02-2019 22:56
02-02-2019 00:02
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(288)
That's a really good example of how global warming works... Looks like a catastrophe on the package, but just another sunny day, like any other of the past 10,000 years or so.
02-02-2019 00:25
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(105)
Into the Night wrote:
No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.


Wake is way too angry of a person to have a sense of humor of any sort... he needs to resolve his anger issues first...
02-02-2019 18:42
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.


Wake is way too angry of a person to have a sense of humor of any sort... he needs to resolve his anger issues first...

I am not angry with anyone here save Nightmare who is delusional. There isn't a single thing that he knows about science. That would be fine save for the fact that he is always telling everyone else how they are uninformed but he is in the know.

Have you even been reading him? Spectroscopy is a science almost two hundred years old and he is telling us that you cannot tell the temperature of something using spectroscopy which all of our weather satellites are based upon. He is convinced that what is being said about CO2 is that it warms the Earth rather than slows the exit of heat from absorbed from the Sun. He claimed that visible light doesn't heat anything - that it causes chemical changes only. Then he calls upon the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which totally contradicts what he just said.

Why aren't you angry with him?
Edited on 02-02-2019 19:22
02-02-2019 19:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.


Wake is way too angry of a person to have a sense of humor of any sort... he needs to resolve his anger issues first...

I am not angry with anyone here save Nightmare who is delusional.

Yes you are, Wake. Don't lie. You don't even remember who you are angry with!
Wake wrote:
There isn't a single thing that he knows about science.

Bulverism fallacy.
Wake wrote:
That would be fine save for the fact that he is always telling everyone else how they are uninformed but he is in the know.

Bulverism fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Have you even been reading him?

Lots of people read me here and on other forums, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Spectroscopy is a science almost two hundred years old and he is telling us that you cannot tell the temperature of something using spectroscopy
No, you cannot tell the temperature of anything using spectroscopy, Wake. It doesn't matter how old it is.
Wake wrote:
which all of our weather satellites are based upon.

Weather satellites don't measure temperature, Wake.
Wake wrote:
He is convinced that what is being said about CO2 is that it warms the Earth rather than slows the exit of heat from absorbed from the Sun.

To warm the Earth, you need additional energy, Wake. Where's that energy coming from? The Sun is the same.

You cannot slow or trap heat, Wake. Heat is not absorbed from the Sun, either. You still need to learn what 'heat' is.
Wake wrote:
He claimed that visible light doesn't heat anything - that it causes chemical changes only.

That's basically what I said, yes. You still deny quantum theory, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Then he calls upon the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which totally contradicts what he just said.

No, it doesn't Wake. It doesn't even talk about heat at all.
Wake wrote:
Why aren't you angry with him?

You are angry with a lot of people, not just me. Your own memory seems to be quite faulty these days.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2019 22:53
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(105)
Wake wrote:
I am not angry with anyone here save Nightmare who is delusional.

Odd to be angry at someone who you dont even know... maybe even "delusional"


Wake wrote:There isn't a single thing that he knows about science. That would be fine save for the fact that he is always telling everyone else how they are uninformed but he is in the know.

He knows much more about science than you do...

Wake wrote:Have you even been reading him?

For many months on numerous forums... Have had plenty of direct correspondence with him as well...

Wake wrote:Spectroscopy is a science almost two hundred years old and he is telling us that you cannot tell the temperature of something using spectroscopy which all of our weather satellites are based upon.

Because you can't...

Wake wrote:He is convinced that what is being said about CO2 is that it warms the Earth rather than slows the exit of heat from absorbed from the Sun.

That IS what is being said, and what is being said denies various laws of science... and heat cannot be trapped, Wake...

Wake wrote:He claimed that visible light doesn't heat anything - that it causes chemical changes only. Then he calls upon the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which totally contradicts what he just said.

No, it doesn't contradict him... the SB law supports him.

Wake wrote:Why aren't you angry with him?

Because I dont get angry at people I correspond with online, and because I dont have anger issues...
02-02-2019 23:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
gfm7175 wrote:
For many months on numerous forums... Have had plenty of direct correspondence with him as well...


Well that is all we needed to know. Either you are Nightmare with another registration of a moronic science denier just like him.
03-02-2019 01:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.


Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?


It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.


No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?
Yes - the color of the light does indeed report the temperature of that very tiny piece of silicon and the extremely low power that is causing the light. Because of the inefficiency, the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates you have to calculate the emission in order to know exactly HOW much heat is generated since any addition power is emitted as IR over a larger section of the device. LED's have extremely low bandpass and the colors are essentially pure. But that doesn't mean that they are very efficient.
03-02-2019 22:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.


Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?


It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.


No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?
Yes - the color of the light does indeed report the temperature of that very tiny piece of silicon and the extremely low power that is causing the light.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Put your finger on that thing, Wake! It's barely warm to the touch! Even after operating for hours a hours! LED Christmas lights won't even melt snow!
Wake wrote:
Because of the inefficiency,
LED's are efficient, Wake. That's one reason why we use them! A LED that puts out the same light as a an incandescent 100w bulb uses only 13 watts, Wake! Most blue indicator LED's use a whopping 60mW or less!
Wake wrote:
the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates you have to calculate the emission

The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't the only way to produce light, Wake.
Wake wrote:
in order to know exactly HOW much heat
There is very little heat in an LED, even at the junction itself. A junction at 8500 deg F will no longer be a junction! That's WAY beyond the melting point of silicon or germanium!
Wake wrote:
is generated since any addition power is emitted as IR over a larger section of the device.
LED's don't emit infrared unless they are doped to do so, Wake! The only infrared coming off the device is from the temperature of the device housing!
Wake wrote:
LED's have extremely low bandpass
LED's put out pure light, Wake. There is no 'low bandpass'. There is nothing to 'pass'. Buzzword fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and the colors are essentially pure.
Not 'low bandpass', Wake.
Wake wrote:
But that doesn't mean that they are very efficient.

LEDs are very efficient, Wake! The amount of power put into them produces light more efficiently than almost any other method. The only other method more efficient bioluminescence, which is produced chemically. Do you know what 8500 deg F would do to the insides of a worm or a firefly???

You obviously are completely clueless how light can be produced. It does not necessarily require high temperatures at all. Indeed, light can be produced at very LOW temperatures indeed. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not cover the only way to produce light!

Then again, you deny quantum physics as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-02-2019 22:29
03-02-2019 22:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
For many months on numerous forums... Have had plenty of direct correspondence with him as well...


Well that is all we needed to know. Either you are Nightmare with another registration of a moronic science denier just like him.


Inversion fallacy, compositional error fallacy. Why do you deny science, Wake?


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2019 22:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.


Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?


It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.


No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?
Yes - the color of the light does indeed report the temperature of that very tiny piece of silicon and the extremely low power that is causing the light.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Put your finger on that thing, Wake! It's barely warm to the touch! Even after operating for hours a hours! LED Christmas lights won't even melt snow!
Wake wrote:
Because of the inefficiency,
LED's are efficient, Wake. That's one reason why we use them! A LED that puts out the same light as a an incandescent 100w bulb uses only 13 watts, Wake! Most blue indicator LED's use a whopping 60mW or less!
Wake wrote:
the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates you have to calculate the emission

The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't the only way to produce light, Wake.
Wake wrote:
in order to know exactly HOW much heat
There is very little heat in an LED, even at the junction itself. A junction at 8500 deg F will no longer be a junction! That's WAY beyond the melting point of silicon or germanium!
Wake wrote:
is generated since any addition power is emitted as IR over a larger section of the device.
LED's don't emit infrared unless they are doped to do so, Wake! The only infrared coming off the device is from the temperature of the device housing!
Wake wrote:
LED's have extremely low bandpass
LED's put out pure light, Wake. There is no 'low bandpass'. There is nothing to 'pass'. Buzzword fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and the colors are essentially pure.
Not 'low bandpass', Wake.
Wake wrote:
But that doesn't mean that they are very efficient.

LEDs are very efficient, Wake! The amount of power put into them produces light more efficiently than almost any other method. The only other method more efficient bioluminescence, which is produced chemically. Do you know what 8500 deg F would do to the insides of a worm or a firefly???

You obviously are completely clueless how light can be produced. It does not necessarily require high temperatures at all. Indeed, light can be produced at very LOW temperatures indeed. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not cover the only way to produce light!

Then again, you deny quantum physics as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


I lost you at your scientific method of measuring temperature - "stick your finger on it." Hey stupid - it isn't just heat - it is total area that's that hot and an LED is about 10 micrometers across the semiconductor itself. the LED's have a higher light output per watt than a florescent or filament bulb but do not have a particularly high efficiency but rather a very low power use so that the pin point of light that you see will not feel particularly warm.

It never surprises me that your ideas of "science" go systematically against the laws of science.
03-02-2019 23:05
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(288)
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.
03-02-2019 23:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

The LED itself inside of the 5 mm case is tiny. The cathode wire is almost large enough to block the light output and that has to be handled. That is why they are so badly current limited. That cathode attachment will burn out long before the LED chip.

Also - the LED output is unidirectional so it is only a dot that has to be enlarged using lenses. The tops of those LEDs are the lense. When they originally came out we did all sorts of experiments to discover how much of the hyoe was true and most of it was. When you pass the LED light through a lense, the plastic isn't the proper color and so you lose quite a bit of power into the plastic.

The last project I worked on have several units and one of them was battery powered and used the LED color to signal the state of the battery. So I would measure the battery voltage and time the flashes of a double Red/Green with mixed wavelength so that the color would go Green for good, then Yellow for needs a charge, to Red - none of the results are reliable. I would use the time off on the flashes to control the amount of power that they used because power usage was important.
Edited on 03-02-2019 23:25
03-02-2019 23:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...


But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.


The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.


Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?


It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.


No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?
Yes - the color of the light does indeed report the temperature of that very tiny piece of silicon and the extremely low power that is causing the light.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Put your finger on that thing, Wake! It's barely warm to the touch! Even after operating for hours a hours! LED Christmas lights won't even melt snow!
Wake wrote:
Because of the inefficiency,
LED's are efficient, Wake. That's one reason why we use them! A LED that puts out the same light as a an incandescent 100w bulb uses only 13 watts, Wake! Most blue indicator LED's use a whopping 60mW or less!
Wake wrote:
the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates you have to calculate the emission

The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't the only way to produce light, Wake.
Wake wrote:
in order to know exactly HOW much heat
There is very little heat in an LED, even at the junction itself. A junction at 8500 deg F will no longer be a junction! That's WAY beyond the melting point of silicon or germanium!
Wake wrote:
is generated since any addition power is emitted as IR over a larger section of the device.
LED's don't emit infrared unless they are doped to do so, Wake! The only infrared coming off the device is from the temperature of the device housing!
Wake wrote:
LED's have extremely low bandpass
LED's put out pure light, Wake. There is no 'low bandpass'. There is nothing to 'pass'. Buzzword fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and the colors are essentially pure.
Not 'low bandpass', Wake.
Wake wrote:
But that doesn't mean that they are very efficient.

LEDs are very efficient, Wake! The amount of power put into them produces light more efficiently than almost any other method. The only other method more efficient bioluminescence, which is produced chemically. Do you know what 8500 deg F would do to the insides of a worm or a firefly???

You obviously are completely clueless how light can be produced. It does not necessarily require high temperatures at all. Indeed, light can be produced at very LOW temperatures indeed. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not cover the only way to produce light!

Then again, you deny quantum physics as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


I lost you at your scientific method of measuring temperature - "stick your finger on it."

Then stick your nuts on it, numbnuts.
Wake wrote:
Hey stupid - it isn't just heat - it is total area that's that hot and an LED is about 10 micrometers across the semiconductor itself.

8500 deg F VAPORIZES silicon, Wake. There would BE NO JUNCTION!
Wake wrote:
the LED's have a higher light output per watt than a florescent or filament bulb

That's what makes them efficient, Wake.
Wake wrote:
but do not have a particularly high efficiency

WRONG. That IS what makes them efficient, Wake.
Wake wrote:
but rather a very low power use

WRONG. LEDs are made to handle anything from milliwatts to several hundred watts, Wake. The size of junctions vary widely too, Wake.
Wake wrote:
so that the pin point of light that you see will not feel particularly warm.

8500 deg F VAPORIZES silicon, Wake. There would BE NO JUNCTION!
Wake wrote:
It never surprises me that your ideas of "science" go systematically against the laws of science.

Inversion fallacy again. It is YOU that denies science, Wake. You are denying quantum physics and electromagnetic theories. You are actually going so far as to deny light itself, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2019 23:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink.

The junction temperature of a typical LED is around 120 deg F or so. It is nowhere near 8500 deg F! That would vaporize the entire LED, case and all!
HarveyH55 wrote:
They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed.

True. The junction is larger, and the resulting power of the entire device must be dealt with. Usually ambient air is fine across a heatsink is fine for most headlights, landing lights, etc. The little 5mm LEDs only use about 60mW. That's easily handled by the casing of the LED itself.
HarveyH55 wrote:
LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves.

True again. LED's must be current limited. Every power supply has an internal resistance as well. That's why you can just hook a white LED directly across a couple of AA batteries. The internal resistance of the battery itself is enough.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

They are indeed very efficient. The produce a better ratio of light against waste heat than any other lighting source that we make today.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2019 00:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

The LED itself inside of the 5 mm case is tiny. The cathode wire is almost large enough to block the light output and that has to be handled. That is why they are so badly current limited. That cathode attachment will burn out long before the LED chip.

Academic, Wake. 8500 deg F DESTROYS the LED, the chip, the circuit board it's mounted in, EVERYTHING any where near it!
Wake wrote:
Also - the LED output is unidirectional so it is only a dot that has to be enlarged using lenses.

Nope. Goes out in any directions, Wake. The lens is used to concentrate it or make the light produced more uniformly spread across a wider area. Some LEDs have no lens at all. They use the spot of light itself and that's fine, such as your computer display you are staring at right now (assuming you've gotten rid of those CRT type displays!).
Wake wrote:
The tops of those LEDs are the lense. When they originally came out we did all sorts of experiments to discover how much of the hyoe was true and most of it was. When you pass the LED light through a lense, the plastic isn't the proper color and so you lose quite a bit of power into the plastic.

Nope. ALL the power that goes into the plastic comes out again, Wake. Remember the conservation of energy law?? Oh, that's right, you deny science.
Wake wrote:
The last project I worked on have several units and one of them was battery powered and used the LED color to signal the state of the battery.
So I would measure the battery voltage and time the flashes of a double Red/Green with mixed wavelength so that the color would go Green for good, then Yellow for needs a charge, to Red - none of the results are reliable.

Understandable, since you have no idea how a battery works or how to tell how much charge one has remaining.
Wake wrote:
I would use the time off on the flashes to control the amount of power that they used because power usage was important.

Did you buy your 555 and red/green LED from Radio Shack?


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2019 00:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

The LED itself inside of the 5 mm case is tiny. The cathode wire is almost large enough to block the light output and that has to be handled. That is why they are so badly current limited. That cathode attachment will burn out long before the LED chip.

Academic, Wake. 8500 deg F DESTROYS the LED, the chip, the circuit board it's mounted in, EVERYTHING any where near it!
Wake wrote:
Also - the LED output is unidirectional so it is only a dot that has to be enlarged using lenses.

Nope. Goes out in any directions, Wake. The lens is used to concentrate it or make the light produced more uniformly spread across a wider area. Some LEDs have no lens at all. They use the spot of light itself and that's fine, such as your computer display you are staring at right now (assuming you've gotten rid of those CRT type displays!).
Wake wrote:
The tops of those LEDs are the lense. When they originally came out we did all sorts of experiments to discover how much of the hyoe was true and most of it was. When you pass the LED light through a lense, the plastic isn't the proper color and so you lose quite a bit of power into the plastic.

Nope. ALL the power that goes into the plastic comes out again, Wake. Remember the conservation of energy law?? Oh, that's right, you deny science.
Wake wrote:
The last project I worked on have several units and one of them was battery powered and used the LED color to signal the state of the battery.
So I would measure the battery voltage and time the flashes of a double Red/Green with mixed wavelength so that the color would go Green for good, then Yellow for needs a charge, to Red - none of the results are reliable.

Understandable, since you have no idea how a battery works or how to tell how much charge one has remaining.
Wake wrote:
I would use the time off on the flashes to control the amount of power that they used because power usage was important.

Did you buy your 555 and red/green LED from Radio Shack?


Still another demonstration that you're an idiot. There's no point in explaining it to you since it is so far over your head the Goodyear Blimp could fly through the space.
04-02-2019 21:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

The LED itself inside of the 5 mm case is tiny. The cathode wire is almost large enough to block the light output and that has to be handled. That is why they are so badly current limited. That cathode attachment will burn out long before the LED chip.

Academic, Wake. 8500 deg F DESTROYS the LED, the chip, the circuit board it's mounted in, EVERYTHING any where near it!
Wake wrote:
Also - the LED output is unidirectional so it is only a dot that has to be enlarged using lenses.

Nope. Goes out in any directions, Wake. The lens is used to concentrate it or make the light produced more uniformly spread across a wider area. Some LEDs have no lens at all. They use the spot of light itself and that's fine, such as your computer display you are staring at right now (assuming you've gotten rid of those CRT type displays!).
Wake wrote:
The tops of those LEDs are the lense. When they originally came out we did all sorts of experiments to discover how much of the hyoe was true and most of it was. When you pass the LED light through a lense, the plastic isn't the proper color and so you lose quite a bit of power into the plastic.

Nope. ALL the power that goes into the plastic comes out again, Wake. Remember the conservation of energy law?? Oh, that's right, you deny science.
Wake wrote:
The last project I worked on have several units and one of them was battery powered and used the LED color to signal the state of the battery.
So I would measure the battery voltage and time the flashes of a double Red/Green with mixed wavelength so that the color would go Green for good, then Yellow for needs a charge, to Red - none of the results are reliable.

Understandable, since you have no idea how a battery works or how to tell how much charge one has remaining.
Wake wrote:
I would use the time off on the flashes to control the amount of power that they used because power usage was important.

Did you buy your 555 and red/green LED from Radio Shack?


Still another demonstration that you're an idiot. There's no point in explaining it to you since it is so far over your head the Goodyear Blimp could fly through the space.

You really need to get hold of your anger problem, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2019 23:18
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(288)
LEDs also work as regular diodes, they can be used to detect light, and the can also be used as solar cells. The lens is for focus, a small angle, gives a brighter, smaller spot. A wide angle, spreads it out, but you lose brightness, but cover more area.

The color temperature, is a comparison of the light given off some metal heated until it incandescents. Don't remember the metal or the details, but it's just one of those standards things.
05-02-2019 00:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
HarveyH55 wrote:
LEDs also work as regular diodes,
Yes they do, although they have a high Vf.
HarveyH55 wrote:
they can be used to detect light,

Also true, just any diode in a transparent case.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and the can also be used as solar cells.

Not very good ones. The same doping that gives the diode it's color tends to limit what light the diode is sensitive to.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The lens is for focus, a small angle, gives a brighter, smaller spot.
There are different lenses for different diodes (if they have a lens). Some concentrate the viewing angle into more of a beam, others diffuse the light for a more even glow.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A wide angle, spreads it out, but you lose brightness, but cover more area.
True.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The color temperature, is a comparison of the light given off some metal heated until it incandescents.

The metal you are thinking of is iron. Turns out, it doesn't matter the metal, or whether the material is a metal at all. ALL materials will glow the same color at the same temperature. This is why the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Wien's Law, and Planck's law does not specify a material.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't remember the metal or the details,
Iron was the metal most studied, since it's temperature reached determines a lot of the different properties of iron and how it behaves while handling it when hot.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but it's just one of those standards things.

Yup. Commonly used by ironworkers, welders, machinists, etc. There are also charts for aluminum, since those properties can quite drastically change the properties of the aluminum as it cools, just like iron.

There are also charts for various stars. This is what Wake is using. They can show how hot a star is to within a thousand degrees or so.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Where are the numbers?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Funny Numbers2716-02-2017 04:10
human contribution by the numbers6121-12-2015 20:17
Polar Bears: sharp decline in numbers and health2205-10-2015 19:45
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact