From ice core analysis to temperature curves

IBdaMann wrote:
This was a totally stupid thing to write.

Visible light is electromagnetic radiation.

Might you be conflating "radiation" with "radioactivity"?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
This was a totally stupid thing to write.

Visible light is electromagnetic radiation.

Might you be conflating "radiation" with "radioactivity"?

Let's look at an LED light as another example.

It can emit lots of light, but almost no radiation.



In the above example, I don't think the holes and electrons emit any radiation. I think there is just slight radiation from the wires and battery. But the holes and electrons are where the light comes from, right?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
This was a totally stupid thing to write.

Visible light is electromagnetic radiation.

Might you be conflating "radiation" with "radioactivity"?

Let's look at an LED light as another example.

It can emit lots of light, but almost no radiation.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:

Visible light is electromagnetic radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:Intensity is brightness, like visible light.

Spongy Iris wrote:Frequency is wavelength, like radiation.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Intensity is brightness, like visible light.

Nope. Intensity and Brightness are separate things.

Intensity is a measure of power, i.e. energy/time

Brightness, on the other hand, is a subjective measure of human perception. Brightness "Contrast" can be manipulated to fool people's perception. Ask gfm7175.

In software applications such as GIMP and Photoshop, adjusting the "Brightness" merely shifts the K values (amount of black) along the greyscale (to lighter or darker shades of grey) which make the overall image "brighter" or "darker." Also, adjusting the "Contrast" simply "spreads out" or "draws in" the span/range of K values

Spongy Iris wrote:Frequency is wavelength, like radiation.

... except that we just covered the major difference between Frequency and Wavelength, besides them being inverses. Frequency does not change depending upon the meduim through which the light is traveling whereas Wavelength does vary per the medium because the speed of light varies per the medium.

Let's just keep our terms straight.

Spongy Iris wrote: In the context of the discussion of visible light, intensity refers to brightness.

Spongy Iris wrote:The human eye can detect brightness intensity.

Spongy Iris wrote: And the shutter speed of a camera could be a scientific way of measuring brightness intensity.

Spongy Iris wrote: Anyway regarding wavelength, which appears to be a separate matter, can you please give another example of how Wavelength does vary per the medium?

HarveyH55 wrote:'Brightness' and 'intensity', are also a little subjective, when measured by the human eye. We all don't perceive colors exactly the same. Our eyes are also more sensitive to some wavelengths, than others. Consider our vision at nighttime. Some people can see quite well at night, where others are nearly blind. 'Sight', isn't entirely our eyes either, it's a brain function.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:

Visible light is electromagnetic radiation.

Regarding the "photo electric effect..."

From Brittanica, "the maximum kinetic energy of the released electrons did not vary with the intensity of the light, but was proportional instead to the frequency of the light. What the light intensity did determine was the number of electrons released from the metal (measured as an electric current)."

Intensity is brightness, like visible light.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Frequency is wavelength, like radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[/center]

Spongy Iris wrote:Intensity is brightness, like visible light.

Nope. Intensity and Brightness are separate things.

Intensity is a measure of power, i.e. energy/time

Brightness, on the other hand, is a subjective measure of human perception. Brightness "Contrast" can be manipulated to fool people's perception. Ask gfm7175.

In software applications such as GIMP and Photoshop, adjusting the "Brightness" merely shifts the K values (amount of black) along the greyscale (to lighter or darker shades of grey) which make the overall image "brighter" or "darker." Also, adjusting the "Contrast" simply "spreads out" or "draws in" the span/range of K values

Spongy Iris wrote:Frequency is wavelength, like radiation.

... except that we just covered the major difference between Frequency and Wavelength, besides them being inverses. Frequency does not change depending upon the meduim through which the light is traveling whereas Wavelength does vary per the medium because the speed of light varies per the medium.

Let's just keep our terms straight.

In the context of the discussion of visible light, intensity refers to brightness.

The human eye can detect brightness intensity. And the shutter speed of a camera could be a scientific way of measuring brightness intensity.

Anyway regarding wavelength, which appears to be a separate matter, can you please give another example of how Wavelength does vary per the medium? An experiment that can be replicated in a household perhaps...

James___ wrote:Light from a distant star is considered in terms of "intrinsic brightness".

James___ wrote:Emission divided by the inverse square law diminishes the brightness of intrinsic light.

James___ wrote: A toaster radiates heat based on E = hv

James___ wrote: As per IBDM's request, I am a nuisance here. I am simply ignorant. It was the Kiev Roosk who created what became known as Russia. And Ukrainian is considered as the 3rd most beautiful language in the world after French and Italian. Thank you for correcting me IBDM.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:Light from a distant star is considered in terms of "intrinsic brightness".

Light from a distant star is considered in terms of the distance it has travelled.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: A toaster radiates heat based on E = hv

Nope. A toaster radiates per Stefan-Boltzmann. A microwave's magentron radiates per the power of its resonance cavities.

James___ wrote: As per IBDM's request, I am a nuisance here. I am simply ignorant. It was the Kiev Roosk who created what became known as Russia. And Ukrainian is considered as the 3rd most beautiful language in the world after French and Italian. Thank you for correcting me IBDM.

I have no recollection of any of this. Could you refesh my memory regarding this conversation?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I will presume that you are so defining Brightness.

Were you paying attention? The human eye can be fooled. Ergo, human perception is hardly ever a good measure.

No. Just, no.

Hint: A camera's shutter speed is not a measure of anything ... it is the value for the speed of a shutter only.

Sure. Stick a pencil in a glass of water. Notice that the pencil appears to distort/bend. This is the effect of light passing through different mediums, i.e. water, glass and air.

Any given medium will affect the speed of the light. Since you can see that the frequency remains the same, i.e. the color isn't changing, then the wavelength must be changing since the speed is changing but the frequency is not.

Note: Wavelength * Frequency = Speed_of_Light

This demonstration can be performed anywhere.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I will presume that you are so defining Brightness.

Were you paying attention? The human eye can be fooled. Ergo, human perception is hardly ever a good measure.

No. Just, no.

Hint: A camera's shutter speed is not a measure of anything ... it is the value for the speed of a shutter only.

Sure. Stick a pencil in a glass of water. Notice that the pencil appears to distort/bend. This is the effect of light passing through different mediums, i.e. water, glass and air.

Any given medium will affect the speed of the light. Since you can see that the frequency remains the same, i.e. the color isn't changing, then the wavelength must be changing since the speed is changing but the frequency is not.

Note: Wavelength * Frequency = Speed_of_Light

This demonstration can be performed anywhere.

You probably have a manual option on your cell phone camera, where you can use shutter speed and ISO to see the sun is brighter at 5:30 p.m than 2:30 p.m. in the summer time.



The top pictures were at 5:30 p.m. The bottom pictures were at 2:30 p.m on Aug 1.

The left pictures were at 1/1600 shutter speed and ISO 50.

The right pictures were at 1/3200 shutter speed and ISO 50.

Those are both very fast shutter speeds, and if you pointed the camera away from the sun at those shutter speeds, everything would look dark.

Don't the pictures at 5:30 p.m. look brighter?

But on the contrary, the radiation is less, not more at 5:30 p.m compared to 2:30 p.m.

Visible light can pass through water more than radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
As an example, I could submerge myself in an outdoor pool at high noon and block any burn from radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But if I open my eyes underwater, I'm still going see lots of sunlight. (though the water distorts the visible light, it doesn't block it as effectively as it does radiation)

Spongy Iris wrote:... to see the sun is brighter at 5:30 p.m than 2:30 p.m. in the summer time.

Spongy Iris wrote:Don't the pictures at 5:30 p.m. look brighter?

Spongy Iris wrote:Visible light can pass through water more than radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote: As an example, I could submerge myself in an outdoor pool at high noon and block any burn from radiation. But if I open my eyes underwater, I'm still going see lots of sunlight.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I will presume that you are so defining Brightness.

Were you paying attention? The human eye can be fooled. Ergo, human perception is hardly ever a good measure.

No. Just, no.

Hint: A camera's shutter speed is not a measure of anything ... it is the value for the speed of a shutter only.

Sure. Stick a pencil in a glass of water. Notice that the pencil appears to distort/bend. This is the effect of light passing through different mediums, i.e. water, glass and air.

Any given medium will affect the speed of the light. Since you can see that the frequency remains the same, i.e. the color isn't changing, then the wavelength must be changing since the speed is changing but the frequency is not.

Note: Wavelength * Frequency = Speed_of_Light

This demonstration can be performed anywhere.

James___ wrote:This would show that the Earth's atmosphere can act as a prism.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:This would show that the Earth's atmosphere can act as a prism.

That's what rainbows do ... and you know what rainbows are. That's right, they are God's promise to never raise the ocean level again, which is why the ocean has never risen since b.c.

... and God's promise includes never again killing all the people via extreme weather, which is why there has never been any spikes in extreme weather events outside of regular, normal extreme weather activity.

I think I learned this at the church gfm7175 and I attend if I'm not mistaken.

IBdaMann wrote:

The point about absolute values vs. human perception was already made and reemphasized.

Absolute: The sun's brightness is treated as constant. The sun sits there in the barycenter of our solar system and is not changing in brightness to any discernible extent.

Human Perception: The sun appears brighter/less bright to our human perceptions here on earth depending on atmospheric factors, angle of view, state of our eyes and other relative cues that play on our human senses.

Your claim that the sun appears brighter at 5:30 pm than at 2:30 pm is not my experience. My human perception perceives the sun as brighter at 2:30 pm and less bright at 5:30 pm.

The camera's limiter is restricting more of the light from the 2:30 sun so that it won't be too bright.

Visible light is radiation. You need to get over this hump. What is the point of having this conversation if you refuse to get educated on the subject matter?

Visible electromagnetic radiation is not UV electromagnetic radiation. Green visible light effectively passes through oxygen whereas UV-C has a much more difficult time, as one example.

Spongy Iris wrote:But the sun appears measurably brighter at 5:30 p.m than 2:00 p.m. You can rely on a camera for this if you don't trust your human perception.

Spongy Iris wrote:I figured I should repeat the experiment, as I noticed the white balance and focus were still set to auto in the last pictures I shared. I set them to manual, and kept them the same settings for all 4 pictures.

See. It's still brighter at 5:30 than 2:00. This was 8/11/21 in NorCal.

Spongy Iris wrote:I still don't believe you can measure a degree of radiation for visible light...

Spongy Iris wrote: A main difference between radiation and visible light is

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

The point about absolute values vs. human perception was already made and reemphasized.

Absolute: The sun's brightness is treated as constant. The sun sits there in the barycenter of our solar system and is not changing in brightness to any discernible extent.

Human Perception: The sun appears brighter/less bright to our human perceptions here on earth depending on atmospheric factors, angle of view, state of our eyes and other relative cues that play on our human senses.

Your claim that the sun appears brighter at 5:30 pm than at 2:30 pm is not my experience. My human perception perceives the sun as brighter at 2:30 pm and less bright at 5:30 pm.

The camera's limiter is restricting more of the light from the 2:30 sun so that it won't be too bright.

Visible light is radiation. You need to get over this hump. What is the point of having this conversation if you refuse to get educated on the subject matter?

Visible electromagnetic radiation is not UV electromagnetic radiation. Green visible light effectively passes through oxygen whereas UV-C has a much more difficult time, as one example.

The sun may not be changing in brightness on its own.

But the sun appears measurably brighter at 5:30 p.m than 2:00 p.m. You can rely on a camera for this if you don't trust your human perception. You seem to be confusing brightness with temperature. It is hotter at 2:00 p.m than 5:30 p.m, but not brighter.

I figured I should repeat the experiment, as I noticed the white balance and focus were still set to auto in the last pictures I shared. I set them to manual, and kept them the same settings for all 4 pictures.





See. It's still brighter at 5:30 than 2:00. This was 8/11/21 in NorCal.

I can stare at the Sun and focus clearly enough, to see the actual ball of the Sun always looks the same in brightness on a clear day. But when I do that, I lose focus on the corona of light around the sun.

The camera cannot focus that intensely. The camera will see the sun and the corona of light around it as the same color of white. In that sense the camera can more objectively measure the brightness around the sun than I can with my perception.

The reason it appears brighter at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m. I think is due to greater reflection and/or refraction of sunlight in the atmosphere at this time.

I still don't believe you can measure a degree of radiation for visible light...

A main difference between radiation and visible light is radiation appears to behave like a wave, but visible light appears to behave like a particle.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

The point about absolute values vs. human perception was already made and reemphasized.

Absolute: The sun's brightness is treated as constant. The sun sits there in the barycenter of our solar system and is not changing in brightness to any discernible extent.

Human Perception: The sun appears brighter/less bright to our human perceptions here on earth depending on atmospheric factors, angle of view, state of our eyes and other relative cues that play on our human senses.

Your claim that the sun appears brighter at 5:30 pm than at 2:30 pm is not my experience. My human perception perceives the sun as brighter at 2:30 pm and less bright at 5:30 pm.

The camera's limiter is restricting more of the light from the 2:30 sun so that it won't be too bright.

Visible light is radiation. You need to get over this hump. What is the point of having this conversation if you refuse to get educated on the subject matter?

Visible electromagnetic radiation is not UV electromagnetic radiation. Green visible light effectively passes through oxygen whereas UV-C has a much more difficult time, as one example.

The sun may not be changing in brightness on its own.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But the sun appears measurably brighter at 5:30 p.m than 2:00 p.m. You can rely on a camera for this if you don't trust your human perception.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I can stare at the Sun and focus clearly enough, to see the actual ball of the Sun always looks the same in brightness on a clear day. But when I do that, I lose focus on the corona of light around the sun.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The camera cannot focus that intensely. The camera will see the sun and the corona of light around it as the same color of white. In that sense the camera can more objectively measure the brightness around the sun than I can with my perception.

The reason it appears brighter at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m. I think is due to greater reflection and/or refraction of sunlight in the atmosphere at this time.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I still don't believe you can measure a degree of radiation for visible light...

Spongy Iris wrote:
A main difference between radiation and visible light is radiation appears to behave like a wave, but visible light appears to behave like a particle.

duncan61 wrote:
Interesting theory James.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi James,

On clear summer days, it is often not warmer at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m., and radiation is always less powerful at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m. In my experience of these kinds of summer days, the temperature usually plateaus around 1 to 4 p.m. and then starts cooling off after 4 p.m. Today in Des Moines high noon is about 1 p.m. That's when radiation peaks, then plateaus. The radiation power feels pretty close to the same from 1 to 4 p.m. In Des Moines today, the temperature climbs a bit from 1 to 4 p.m., then dips by 5 p.m., which I think shows there is a lag time between when the most radiation hits, and when temperature climbs in response. There is also a lag time between when radiation decreases, and when temperature decreases. Of course in Des Moines, the temperature doesn't instantly drop to 60 F as soon as the sun sets.

Unlike the radiation on summer days, which starts decreasing after 4 p.m., and is noticeably quite less by 5:30 p.m., the visible corona of sunshine around the Sun appears to increase.

I think the increase in the visible corona of sunshine around the Sun is due to greater reflection and refraction when the Sun shines through greater thickness of our Sky.

The question I'm wondering, does more Nitrogen and Oxygen reflect and refract more visible light? I thought these particles act like a veil, and absorb sunshine more than they reflect and refract sunshine...

Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi James,

On clear summer days, it is often not warmer at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m., and radiation is always less powerful at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m. In my experience of these kinds of summer days, the temperature usually plateaus around 1 to 4 p.m. and then starts cooling off after 4 p.m. Today in Des Moines high noon is about 1 p.m. That's when radiation peaks, then plateaus. The radiation power feels pretty close to the same from 1 to 4 p.m. In Des Moines today, the temperature climbs a bit from 1 to 4 p.m., then dips by 5 p.m., which I think shows there is a lag time between when the most radiation hits, and when temperature climbs in response. There is also a lag time between when radiation decreases, and when temperature decreases. Of course in Des Moines, the temperature doesn't instantly drop to 60 F as soon as the sun sets.

Unlike the radiation on summer days, which starts decreasing after 4 p.m., and is noticeably quite less by 5:30 p.m., the visible corona of sunshine around the Sun appears to increase.

I think the increase in the visible corona of sunshine around the Sun is due to greater reflection and refraction when the Sun shines through greater thickness of our Sky.

The question I'm wondering, does more Nitrogen and Oxygen reflect and refract more visible light? I thought these particles act like a veil, and absorb sunshine more than they reflect and refract sunshine...

The question I'm wondering, does more Nitrogen and Oxygen reflect and refract more visible light? I thought these particles act like a veil, and absorb sunshine more than they reflect and refract sunshine

James___ wrote:@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry.