Radiance of the sun

The radiance is about the same as in the equator just like RET predicts.

Quote from: jargo on April 12, 2009, 10:02:34 AM

The radiance is about the same as in the equator just like RET predicts.

Wrong. It's hotter on the equator than it is in Finland.

Quote from: jargo on April 12, 2009, 10:02:34 AM

The radiance is about the same as in the equator just like RET predicts.

Wrong. It's hotter on the equator than it is in Finland.

You do not seem to know what radiance means. It is colder in Finland because the intesity of solar radiation per m^2 is lover in Finland than in equator this is same both in the FE and RE. But radiance and intensity are not the same thing.
If FET were true radiance in Finland should be about one quarter that of the equator but it is not.

So I repeat my point FET predicts that radiance should be lot lover in Finland than in equator and RET predicts that it should not be.
Neither RET or FET predicts that it should be just as warm in Finland as in the equator.

More light = More heat.

What kind of data do you have demonstrating that Finland receives the same intensity or radiance of light as the equator?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2009, 03:05:08 PM

What kind of data do you have demonstrating that Finland receives the same intensity or radiance of light as the equator?

A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

Quote from: bennjerry on April 12, 2009, 04:38:56 PM

A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

This is only valid evidence if you can show that the Sun has constant intensity per unit surface area.

Nope, there's no conditions attached to the indicator. A principle of FE theory is that the sun moves across the earth, moving to and then away from any given point. This would cause the observable size of the sun, and the radiance from the sun, to diminish.

Quote from: bennjerry on April 12, 2009, 05:14:15 PM

Nope, there's no conditions attached to the indicator. A principle of FE theory is that the sun moves across the earth, moving to and then away from any given point. This would cause the observable size of the sun, and the radiance from the sun, to diminish.

Oh, I see what you mean. Fair point, but irrelevant in this thread.

A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

Quote from: bennjerry on April 12, 2009, 04:38:56 PM

A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Please provide evidence that Finland receives the same amount of radiance as the equator.

Quote from: jargo on April 12, 2009, 01:12:23 PM

You do not seem to know what radiance means. It is colder in Finland because the intesity of solar radiation per m^2 is lover in Finland than in equator this is same both in the FE and RE. But radiance and intensity are not the same thing.
If FET were true radiance in Finland should be about one quarter that of the equator but it is not.

So I repeat my point FET predicts that radiance should be lot lover in Finland than in equator and RET predicts that it should not be.
Neither RET or FET predicts that it should be just as warm in Finland as in the equator.

From the Wiki: "Radiance and spectral radiance are radiometric measures that describe the amount of light that passes through or is emitted from a particular area, and falls within a given solid angle in a specified direction."

More light = More heat.

What kind of data do you have demonstrating that Finland receives the same intensity or radiance of light as the equator?

Please provide evidence that Finland receives the same amount of radiance as the equator.

Quote

Please provide evidence that Finland receives the same amount of radiance as the equator.

Are you saying that the equation for radiance is not true?

Quote

Are you saying that the equation for radiance is not true?

What does an equation have to do with proof?

If the equation is true then there is no difference in radiance between equator and Finland. If you are claiming there is a large difference then you are also claiming that that experimentally verifiable equation is not true.

Quote

If the equation is true then there is no difference in radiance between equator and Finland. If you are claiming there is a large difference then you are also claiming that that experimentally verifiable equation is not true.

Who verified that equation?

None can doubt that the North Pole receives less light and radiance than the Equator. Whenever a light source is shining in at an angle, the destination is receiving less light.



When sunlight shines from overhead (on left), one square foot of sunlight falls on one square foot of ground. When it shines at a shallow angle (on right), each square foot of sunlight spreads out over many feet of ground.

Quote

If the equation is true then there is no difference in radiance between equator and Finland. If you are claiming there is a large difference then you are also claiming that that experimentally verifiable equation is not true.

Who verified that equation?

None can doubt that the North Pole receives less light and radiance than the Equator. Whenever a light source is shining in at an angle, the destination is receiving less light.



When sunlight shines from overhead (on left), one square foot of sunlight falls on one square foot of ground. When it shines at a shallow angle (on right), each square foot of sunlight spreads out over many feet of ground.

For example I did at least when used in Finland.

If you are standing on that red spot and want to measure radiance from the sun you project a plane 90 degree from the direction of the sun and measure suns radiation hitting that plane. As you can see from the picture the amount of sunlight hitting that plane is the same amount if you are on the equator or in the northpole.

And thanks again for ignoring rest of my evidence.

And thanks again for ignoring rest of my evidence.

Quote from: jargo on April 13, 2009, 08:48:38 AM

For example I did at least when used in Finland.

So when you were in Finland you confirmed that it receives exactly the same amount of radiance as the equator and North Pole? 

Quote

If you are standing on that red spot and want to measure radiance from the sun you project a plane 90 degree from the direction of the sun and measure suns radiation hitting that plane. As you can see from the picture the amount of sunlight hitting that plane is the same amount if you are on the equator or in the northpole.

And thanks again for ignoring rest of my evidence.

When the sun is at an angle to the observer the observer receives less light and radiance, which is why different parts of the earth are warmer than others. When the sun is directly overhead the amount of incoming light and radiance surrounds the observer, which is why it's haotter at the equator than at any other area.

Radiance is often, confusingly, called intensity in other areas of study, especially heat transfer, astrophysics and astronomy. Intensity has many other meanings in physics, with the most common being power per unit area. The distinction lies in the area rather than the subtended angle of the observer, and relative area of the source.

The equation states that radiance does not change with latitude. Are you saying that it really does and that equation is wrong but it just randomly happened to produce the right result?

Quote

The equation states that radiance does not change with latitude. Are you saying that it really does and that equation is wrong but it just randomly happened to produce the right result?

Did you collect data to prove that that equation holds true at every latitude? Who did?

And again for example solar panels produce the same amount energy in Finland and in the equator when pointed directly to the sun.
The power output of solar panel is dependent on radiance.

By the way I have personally tested that Panasonic BP-376634 rated to produce 5,5 V and 33mA in radiance of 1000W/m^2 produces just that in direct sunlight here in Finland. If radiance in Finland is 1000W/m^2 then the radiance in equator would be about 4000W/m^2 in FE which would be lethal. Are you saying that staying in direct sunlight for more than about five minutes in equator is lethal?

And here is proof that the BP-376634 solar panel is rated to produce the same amount of power in Australia much closer to equator.
http://www.araa.asn.au/acra/acra2003/papers/34.pdf

Quote

The equation states that radiance does not change with latitude. Are you saying that it really does and that equation is wrong but it just randomly happened to produce the right result?

Did you collect data to prove that that equation holds true at every latitude? Who did?

Why, yes he did. Right here:

I don't see the part where he takes the solar panel to the equator or to the north pole to measure output. In an experiment you have to, you know, have more than one variable.