Descending Infrared Radiation

Spongy Iris wrote: The birds would be vaporized without the protective frigid glass shield.

Spongy Iris wrote:Do microwaves violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics when they heat up food?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Yes I addressed it. The Sun's UV rays hit the Sky, then the Sky emits IR.

Meaning ... an uber-powerful UV beam cooks all the birds in the sky and now they are all extinct?

Spongy Iris wrote: I didn't say the UV changes to IR.

Yes, you did ... or do you deny the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

The birds would be vaporized without the protective frigid glass shield.

Do microwaves violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics when they heat up food?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I doubt that I can convince you that most of the radiant energy from the sun that reaches the top of the atmosphere is VISIBLE light, and ultraviolet is only a small fraction of the energy reaching the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:
YES, ultraviolet light creates heat near the top of the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
It starts when ultraviolet light (of appropriate frequency) strikes an ozone molecule. A wavelength of 254 nanometers is PEAK ozone destroying UV. The range between 240 and 280 nanometers is where all ozone destroying UV happens. That leaves out UV between 10 and 240 nm, and between 280 and 400 nm. Ultraviolet is defined as light between 10 and 400 nanometers wavelength. The ultraviolet light energy gets absorbed as it breaks the ozone (O3) into two molecules, one regular oxygen O2, and one oxygen RADICAL (O*).
O3 + UV = O2 + O*.

That oxygen radical (O*) is highly reactive and very short lived. HEAT is created when a NEW CHEMICAL BOND is formed, by the oxygen radical combining with an oxygen molecule to form a new ozone molecule. O2 + O* = O3. "Heat" might mean it bounces around faster for higher temperature. But "heat" can also mean the heat from the formation of a chemical bond to make ozone gets emitted as a photon of infrared electromagnetic radiation.

Im a BM wrote:
Ultraviolet doesn't instantly turn to heat upon reaction with the upper atmosphere. There is a delay between when UV energy is absorbed to break a chemical bond (tearing apart an ozone molecule), and when infrared energy can be emitted. A new ozone molecule has to form before the heat is released.

Im a BM wrote:
Spongy Iris, I doubt that you really want to steer the discussion a little closer to... let's call it "conventional", "traditional", or "classic" science, because not everyone responds well to the term "mainstream". Well, maybe there is no high altitude glass transforming ultraviolet to infrared, but there is a high altitude OZONE layer that effectively transforms UV light energy into heat, in a two-step process.

Im a BM wrote:
If the only electromagnetic radiation from the sun were coming in as UV light, but the Earth somehow had an ozone layer thick enough to intercept it all... Well, there would be no VISIBLE light created. Ozone reactions are not what make the sky blue. But there would be HEAT generated way up high, as UV keeps breaking ozone apart, and ozone keeps reforming from new oxygen radicals.

Im a BM wrote:
Some people like to call that O* atom a "free radical".

Imagine the political controversy, attempting to reassure the public that we NEED "free radicals". In fact, we can't survive without them high in the sky.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, "free radicals", including O*, can be very harmful to the tissue of plants or animals. A good "free radical scavenger", such as a polyphenol, can take those dangerous guys out before they burn your tissue.

Im a BM wrote:
Before they got the Los Angeles smog problem somewhat under control in the final decades of the 20th century, there was thin line of a "bathtub ring" of dead trees, all at the same elevation, in the hills around LA. That was the precise elevation where the ozone was being created.

Im a BM wrote:
Not all stratospheric "free radicals" qualify as "good chemical".

Chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) create free radicals in the stratosphere that are not good chemicals, and can get recycled thousands of times to take out thousands of ozone molecules before they transform to something harmless.

Im a BM wrote:
Free radicals of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine can destroy ozone.

Im a BM wrote:
Nitrogen oxide "NOx" (NO and NO2 in particular) can destroy ozone through cyclical free radical reactions. The relatively new discovery of "stratospheric denitrification" is heavily debated in regard to its role in ozone destruction. Some say it is the greatest threat remaining to the ozone layer. Others say it is what saved the ozone layer, back when we were still emitting CFCs like there was no tomorrow.

Im a BM wrote:
Ronald Reagan is credited where credit is due, for finally coming around and following the advice of the scientists about protecting the ozone layer. But that effort might have been in vain without stratospheric denitrification.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I doubt that I can convince you that most of the radiant energy from the sun that reaches the top of the atmosphere is VISIBLE light, and ultraviolet is only a small fraction of the energy reaching the Earth.

I'm convinced!

Come to think of it, seems like Infrared and Visible Light are like brother and sister.

They are both distant relatives to the light from the other side, such as Gamma, UV, X, Micro, and Radio. I shall dub it, the light from That side.

But let's call IR and VL, the light from This side.

It's probably best to think of the light from That side as the cause, and the light from This side as the effect.

It seems, much like as there is no heat in outer space, there is also no sight in outer space.

Side note: there is also no sound in outer space.

Im a BM wrote:YES, ultraviolet light creates heat near the top of the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote: It starts when ...

Im a BM wrote:Ultraviolet doesn't instantly turn to heat

Im a BM wrote: Spongy Iris, I doubt that you really want to steer the discussion a little closer to... let's call it "conventional", "traditional", or "classic" science, because not everyone responds well to the term "mainstream".

Im a BM wrote: Well, maybe there is no high altitude glass transforming ultraviolet to infrared,

Im a BM wrote: But there would be HEAT generated way up high,

Im a BM wrote: That was the precise elevation where the ozone was being created.

Im a BM wrote: Edit: upon review, I notice a glaring error.

Im a BM wrote:Not all stratospheric "free radicals" qualify as "good chemical".

Im a BM wrote: Chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) create free radicals in the stratosphere

Im a BM wrote: Free radicals of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine can destroy ozone.

Im a BM wrote: Nitrogen oxide "NOx" (NO and NO2 in particular) can destroy ozone through cyclical free radical reactions.

Im a BM wrote: The relatively new discovery of "stratospheric denitrification" is heavily debated in regard to its role in ozone destruction.

Im a BM wrote: Some say it is the greatest threat remaining to the ozone layer.

Im a BM wrote: Others say it is what saved the ozone layer, back when we were still emitting CFCs like there was no tomorrow.

Im a BM wrote: Ronald Reagan is credited where credit is due, for finally coming around and following the advice of the scientists about protecting the ozone layer. But that effort might have been in vain without stratospheric denitrification.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I doubt that I can convince you that most of the radiant energy from the sun that reaches the top of the atmosphere is VISIBLE light, and ultraviolet is only a small fraction of the energy reaching the Earth.

I'm convinced!

Come to think of it, seems like Infrared and Visible Light are like brother and sister.

They are both distant relatives to the light from the other side, such as Gamma, UV, X, Micro, and Radio. I shall dub it, the light from That side.

But let's call IR and VL, the light from This side.

It's probably best to think of the light from That side as the cause, and the light from This side as the effect.

It seems, much like as there is no heat in outer space, there is also no sight in outer space.

Side note: there is also no sound in outer space.

Go learn what the different frequency bands of light are called. You have your 'sides' mixed up.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I doubt that I can convince you that most of the radiant energy from the sun that reaches the top of the atmosphere is VISIBLE light, and ultraviolet is only a small fraction of the energy reaching the Earth.

I'm convinced!

Come to think of it, seems like Infrared and Visible Light are like brother and sister.

They are both distant relatives to the light from the other side, such as Gamma, UV, X, Micro, and Radio. I shall dub it, the light from That side.

But let's call IR and VL, the light from This side.

It's probably best to think of the light from That side as the cause, and the light from This side as the effect.

It seems, much like as there is no heat in outer space, there is also no sight in outer space.

Side note: there is also no sound in outer space.

Go learn what the different frequency bands of light are called. You have your 'sides' mixed up.

Oh is This the cause and That the effect?....

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I doubt that I can convince you that most of the radiant energy from the sun that reaches the top of the atmosphere is VISIBLE light, and ultraviolet is only a small fraction of the energy reaching the Earth.

I'm convinced!

Come to think of it, seems like Infrared and Visible Light are like brother and sister.

They are both distant relatives to the light from the other side, such as Gamma, UV, X, Micro, and Radio. I shall dub it, the light from That side.

But let's call IR and VL, the light from This side.

It's probably best to think of the light from That side as the cause, and the light from This side as the effect.

It seems, much like as there is no heat in outer space, there is also no sight in outer space.

Side note: there is also no sound in outer space.

Go learn what the different frequency bands of light are called. You have your 'sides' mixed up.

Oh is This the cause and That the effect?....

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I can't resist telling you how close you are to actual reality here.

YES, ultraviolet light creates heat near the top of the atmosphere.

It starts when ultraviolet light (of appropriate frequency) strikes an ozone molecule. A wavelength of 254 nanometers is PEAK ozone destroying UV. The range between 240 and 280 nanometers is where all ozone destroying UV happens. That leaves out UV between 10 and 240 nm, and between 280 and 400 nm. Ultraviolet is defined as light between 10 and 400 nanometers wavelength. The ultraviolet light energy gets absorbed as it breaks the ozone (O3) into two molecules, one regular oxygen O2, and one oxygen RADICAL (O*).
O3 + UV = O2 + O*.

That oxygen radical (O*) is highly reactive and very short lived. HEAT is created when a NEW CHEMICAL BOND is formed, by the oxygen radical combining with an oxygen molecule to form a new ozone molecule. O2 + O* = O3. "Heat" might mean it bounces around faster for higher temperature. But "heat" can also mean the heat from the formation of a chemical bond to make ozone gets emitted as a photon of infrared electromagnetic radiation.

Ultraviolet doesn't instantly turn to heat upon reaction with the upper atmosphere. There is a delay between when UV energy is absorbed to break a chemical bond (tearing apart an ozone molecule), and when infrared energy can be emitted. A new ozone molecule has to form before the heat is released.

Spongy Iris, I doubt that you really want to steer the discussion a little closer to... let's call it "conventional", "traditional", or "classic" science, because not everyone responds well to the term "mainstream". Well, maybe there is no high altitude glass transforming ultraviolet to infrared, but there is a high altitude OZONE layer that effectively transforms UV light energy into heat, in a two-step process.

If the only electromagnetic radiation from the sun were coming in as UV light, but the Earth somehow had an ozone layer thick enough to intercept it all... Well, there would be no VISIBLE light created. Ozone reactions are not what make the sky blue. But there would be HEAT generated way up high, as UV keeps breaking ozone apart, and ozone keeps reforming from new oxygen radicals.

Some people like to call that O* atom a "free radical".

Imagine the political controversy, attempting to reassure the public that we NEED "free radicals". In fact, we can't survive without them high in the sky.

On the other hand, "free radicals", including O*, can be very harmful to the tissue of plants or animals. A good "free radical scavenger", such as a polyphenol, can take those dangerous guys out before they burn your tissue.

Before they got the Los Angeles smog problem somewhat under control in the final decades of the 20th century, there was thin line of a "bathtub ring" of dead trees, all at the same elevation, in the hills around LA. That was the precise elevation where the ozone was being created.

Stratospheric "free radicals"? Good chemical.

Ground level "free radicals"? Bad chemical.

Edit: upon review, I notice a glaring error.

Not all stratospheric "free radicals" qualify as "good chemical".

Chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) create free radicals in the stratosphere that are not good chemicals, and can get recycled thousands of times to take out thousands of ozone molecules before they transform to something harmless.

Free radicals of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine can destroy ozone.

Nitrogen oxide "NOx" (NO and NO2 in particular) can destroy ozone through cyclical free radical reactions. The relatively new discovery of "stratospheric denitrification" is heavily debated in regard to its role in ozone destruction. Some say it is the greatest threat remaining to the ozone layer. Others say it is what saved the ozone layer, back when we were still emitting CFCs like there was no tomorrow.

Ronald Reagan is credited where credit is due, for finally coming around and following the advice of the scientists about protecting the ozone layer. But that effort might have been in vain without stratospheric denitrification.

Im a BM wrote:
Sometimes, even world famous scientists make mistakes.

Im a BM wrote:
I was taught a long time ago that most radiant energy arriving to the Earth's surface (ground or sea level) was within the VISIBLE part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. I assumed this was also true at the top of the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Google inquiry: "How many joules per day arrive to the top of the Earth's atmosphere as radiant energy from the sun, and what percentage of that is within the infrared part of the spectrum?"

Google kicked my ass and reminded me to update my data base.

Google say: "Approximately 1.50 (10 to the 22nd power) joules (or 15 zettajoules) of radiant energy arrive at the top of the Earth's atmosphere from the sun every day, with roughly 49% to 55% of that energy falling within the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum."

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, maybe I was wrong that visible light is the lion's share. Looks like we get more IR than visible light hitting whatever is at the top of the atmosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They say the Sun emits UVA and UVB and UVC radiation all at the same time!

Spongy Iris wrote:
I am tempted to ask, to make an equivalent analogy, can you walk, jog, and run all at the same time?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Are there 3 different Suns that would make such a feat possible? Or maybe is the Sun made of 3 separate compartments, each one radiating at a different frequency?

Spongy Iris wrote:
I don't think any of this sounds very plausible. So I'm gonna say, the Sun is only emitting UVC radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It is indeed possible to transform UVC light into UVB light, by passing it through 2 glass barriers which have been coated with a fluorescent compound called: a phosphor (not to be confused with phosphorus (as if I need to tell you that

)). It seems the glass enveloping Earth is coated with the phosphor called: zircon. When zircon is baked, it turns into that universally known color: Sky Blue.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Indeed, we can see traces of zircon baked into the Libyan desert glass, although most has faded from the obliterated glass shards found in the Sahara.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Next we must determine how UVB is transformed into UVA. This is where the ozone layer comes into play. Before you ask ,

, NO the process of forming ozone from UV rays won't transform UVB to UVA.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Moving along, in addition to Heaven, (The Sky), there exists Heaven's Fence. These are the mesh of copper dipole needles enveloping Earth at just about the same spot where the micro thin (millimeters thick!) ozone layer exists.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If those mesh of copper needles are coated with a phosphor, buffered with a layer of silica, then they will transform some of the UVB into UVA.

Spongy Iris wrote:
While the ozone layer will act as somewhat of a barrier, destroying some UVA and UVB that it comes into contact with, transforming it to heat (IR), it is just too thin to make a significant impact. A lot of UVA and UVB get through.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Of course, "mainstream science" credits the ozone layer for blocking all UVC. What a joke. This is why ITN will never acknowledge there was ever a hole in the ozone layer. Because then he would have to admit it let UVC light through it. And this UVC light would vaporize the world.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Now to close the post with another joke, could you imagine if Hoover Dam had been built with fishing nets?

Spongy Iris wrote:
No surprise that ITN continues to bang his head against the wall. He is not alone. I'd like to offer my gratitude, on behalf of the scientific community, to ITN, IBDM, and sealover / Im a BM, for their unwavering support to the pursuit of ignorance.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
No surprise that ITN continues to bang his head against the wall. He is not alone. I'd like to offer my gratitude, on behalf of the scientific community, to ITN, IBDM, and sealover / Im a BM, for their unwavering support to the pursuit of ignorance.

I do not agree with your characterization that what I do in any way represents "unwavering support to the pursuit of ignorance."

It is unlikely you will ever comprehend the opportunity you missed, to make inquiries about these things with someone who has actually studied them.

It is somewhat tragic that you are unwilling to see the magic and beauty of the universe as it actually exists, and prefer to make up fairy tales.

My past efforts in the pursuit of ignorance have made a lasting impression among those who actually study these things. That will be my immortality, at least for a few more centuries...

The magic and beauty of how plants physically and chemically alter the environment through their "extended" phenotype, acting as ecosystem engineers. It is so much more amazing than the most creative fairy tale our ancestors could have ever invented.

No, you won't ever have that horrifying realization that you missed your chance to learn something based in reality about the natural world.

Im a BM wrote:I do not agree with your characterization that what I do in any way represents "unwavering support to the pursuit of ignorance."

Im a BM wrote: My past efforts in the pursuit of ignorance have made a lasting impression among those who actually study these things. That will be my immortality, at least for a few more centuries...

Im a BM wrote:The magic and beauty of how plants physically and chemically alter the environment through their "extended" phenotype, acting as ecosystem engineers.

Im a BM wrote: It is so much more amazing than the most creative fairy tale our ancestors could have ever invented.

Spongy Iris wrote:... as did observations made by scientists.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:... as did observations made by scientists.

Why limit yourself to the observations made by scientists? There are vastly more observations made by everyone else.

Spongy Iris wrote:
No surprise that ITN continues to bang his head against the wall. He is not alone. I'd like to offer my gratitude, on behalf of the scientific community, to ITN, IBDM, and sealover / Im a BM, for their unwavering support to the pursuit of ignorance.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
No surprise that ITN continues to bang his head against the wall. He is not alone. I'd like to offer my gratitude, on behalf of the scientific community, to ITN, IBDM, and sealover / Im a BM, for their unwavering support to the pursuit of ignorance.

I do not agree with your characterization that what I do in any way represents "unwavering support to the pursuit of ignorance."

Im a BM wrote:
It is unlikely you will ever comprehend the opportunity you missed, to make inquiries about these things with someone who has actually studied them.

Im a BM wrote:
It is somewhat tragic that you are unwilling to see the magic and beauty of the universe as it actually exists, and prefer to make up fairy tales.

Im a BM wrote:
My past efforts in the pursuit of ignorance have made a lasting impression among those who actually study these things. That will be my immortality, at least for a few more centuries...

Im a BM wrote:
The magic and beauty of how plants physically and chemically alter the environment through their "extended" phenotype, acting as ecosystem engineers. It is so much more amazing than the most creative fairy tale our ancestors could have ever invented.

Im a BM wrote:
No, you won't ever have that horrifying realization that you missed your chance to learn something based in reality about the natural world.

Spongy Iris wrote:
My creative fairy tales, as you like to call them, are what helped me out of the abyss of ignorance, as did observations made by scientists.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:... as did observations made by scientists.

Why limit yourself to the observations made by scientists? There are vastly more observations made by everyone else.

Sure. I was making a philosophical comment about the complementary nature between scientific study and religious riddles.

Spongy Iris wrote:Sure. I was making a philosophical comment about the complementary nature between scientific study and religious riddles.

Into the Night wrote:

Do you know what 'ignorance' means?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Do you know what 'ignorance' means?

Your comments feign ignorance. It seems you love to play dumb.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Do you know what 'ignorance' means?

Your comments feign ignorance. It seems you love to play dumb.

Okay. You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Do you know what 'ignorance' means?

Your comments feign ignorance. It seems you love to play dumb.

Okay. You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

If evidence is received, which should alter an observer's view of reality, but rather than receive the evidence, the observer chooses to ignore the evidence, this displays ignorance. You demonstrate such ignorance repeatedly.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Do you know what 'ignorance' means?

Your comments feign ignorance. It seems you love to play dumb.

Okay. You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

If evidence is received, which should alter an observer's view of reality, but rather than receive the evidence, the observer chooses to ignore the evidence, this displays ignorance. You demonstrate such ignorance repeatedly.

Redefinition fallacy.
You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Do you know what 'ignorance' means?

Your comments feign ignorance. It seems you love to play dumb.

Okay. You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

If evidence is received, which should alter an observer's view of reality, but rather than receive the evidence, the observer chooses to ignore the evidence, this displays ignorance. You demonstrate such ignorance repeatedly.

Redefinition fallacy.
You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

Lame Inversion Fallacy. LIF

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Do you know what 'ignorance' means?

Your comments feign ignorance. It seems you love to play dumb.

Okay. You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

If evidence is received, which should alter an observer's view of reality, but rather than receive the evidence, the observer chooses to ignore the evidence, this displays ignorance. You demonstrate such ignorance repeatedly.

Redefinition fallacy.
You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

Lame Inversion Fallacy. LIF

No, it won't work to blame your illiteracy on me or anybody else, Spongy.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Do you know what 'ignorance' means?

Your comments feign ignorance. It seems you love to play dumb.

Okay. You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

If evidence is received, which should alter an observer's view of reality, but rather than receive the evidence, the observer chooses to ignore the evidence, this displays ignorance. You demonstrate such ignorance repeatedly.

Redefinition fallacy.
You don't know what 'ignorance' means.

Lame Inversion Fallacy. LIF

No, it won't work to blame your illiteracy on me or anybody else, Spongy.

What does it matter if you are playing dumb or truly ignorant, as far as this message board is concerned?