1. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

  2. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Minor heating effect, yes, The 1995 study showed a 0.03 degree F effect worldwide.

    I can see why this fantasy might be thought of though. We notice quite easily here in the frozen center of Canada, that clear nights are colder than overcast nights. This is accentuated at night since the sun, even in Late Dec/early Jan. will slightly warm the interior of your car even at -35C ambient temp, at night though your car interior rapidly becomes the same as the ambient temp outside. The amount of cloud at night is most easily noticed during a full/near full Moon.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    I mean new moon+/- a couple weeks so you can have a clear night sky with no moonlight at all. Hence, objects cooling can be compared moon/no moon as well as clouds/no clouds. Radiative cooling would suggest you would get the same cooling (almost - well within the accuracy of all but the best tools) under a clear sky, moon or not, but slightly less under clouds.
     
  4. mik

    mik Member

  5. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    What is the difference between a moonless night 2 hours before the (waning) moon rises and a moonless night 6 hours before the new moon rises?
    Anyway the FLIR I use will give the same <-40°C in both cases I'm afraid.
     
  6. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    upload_2016-12-15_21-17-48.
    There's the moon.
    upload_2016-12-15_21-18-40.
    Four (!) coins. The moonlight concentrated on the second one
    upload_2016-12-15_21-20-29. upload_2016-12-15_21-20-55.
    upload_2016-12-15_21-22-1. upload_2016-12-15_21-22-32.
    Highly inconclusive. I can't make any chocolate out of it. Perhaps the coins wasn't such a good idea.:rolleyes:
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, you are just getting reflections there. You'd bet better off getting rid of the coins and focussing the light on that black book cover (?). Then let it heat a spot for a while and see if anything is detectable when you block the moonlight entering the telescope.
     
  8. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    That's what I did a few minutes ago
    upload_2016-12-15_22-18-59.
    The moonlight is concentrated in the middle (where the circle is) but you can't see any difference.
    I'm also a bit troubled by the appearance of the book in the FLIR picture. I wonder if it is not still reflective (shiny), perhaps partly caused by condensed water (it feels wet) on a black plastic cover.
    One thing is clear: there are quite a few snags to this method...
     
  9. Abishua

    Abishua Member


    Hmm.. interesting.. coin in the shade is warmest by far but so are the surroundings.. also the coin under the magnified moonlight is surrounded by higher temps then ones on the right, so it should have looked more like the coin on the left.. yet the middle of it where the moonlight is focused shows deep blue cold like coins on the right.. only the ring surroundings of the coin show higher temps.. the spot where the moonlight is focused should show higher reflective temp.. and the yellow surroundings should have warmed it also.. How long did the coins sit like that before pic was taken? the book does seem interesting also.. I would lean towards possible cooling effect.. but agree with you this looks inconclusive enough.. we need to do more tests..
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2016
  10. Abishua

    Abishua Member

    If you look at the middle of the coin under focused moonlight that focused spot is cooler then the red surrounding ring.. it is still inconclusive though because all coins do seem to be cooler in the middle..
     
  11. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Just checking.... everyone recognizes that If, if, if moon light causes a cooling effect, it would require a complete re-write of physics? This is EMR being absorbed but rather than adding energy to the object it removes energy.

    Also not quite sure how this would bolster a flat Earth claim (perhaps it was explained in a previous post. If so may I ask for a post number.)
     
  12. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    Yes we do realise that:). FE's don't care about that, all science is fake anyway. I find it amusing to try and show that there is no such effect with about same means as those FE vid's. And playing around with a nice camera (that isn't mine btw. I actually use it to develop a demonstration for class room about IR absorpyion by CO2)
     
  13. Abishua

    Abishua Member

    Well.. if moon gives off its own light then sure.. it's a major game changer.. we need to reconsider everything we know.. then we can look a "bit more closley" at stars.. and consider they might not be nuclear reactors.. but sonoluminescence.. because that is what we can test and observe on our own.. take a look at "star in a jar".. also it opens up questions.. like.. is it watter up there causing lunar waves? is sun much closer? etc.. so far these remain mere possibilities.. but we need to test.. observe.. try to disprove.. etc.. thats what science does in order to reach major breakthroughs.. and through this process valid facts get further empowered and cemented with more information..
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    None of the coin/copper measurements by IR thermometer or IR camera are relevant, as they just show reflected radiation.
     
  15. Abishua

    Abishua Member

    Yes.. seems so.. Thats why I considered using two units like this guy used may be the solution..



    expose one to focused moonlight and leave other one close by.. this guy put the other one in shadow beneath the chair.. but not sure that is a good thing to do.. it may be blocking radiative cooling or something..


    he also did a control test just like this just without moonlight and then temp under char was lower.. but he did move the glass so.. I don't like this test that much.. could be done better..



    or just measure some other material using IR.. this lady measured her carpet..o_O:D:D

     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2016
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, really the point of this thread is really to look at the experiments and see what they did wrong, and see if that can be explained to believers.

    I've also learnt something as I did not realize a dull penny would reflect as much radiation as it does - I'd assumed it would have to be shiny.

    And on that topic, IR thermometers work really well for water (emissivity coefficient 0.95+ vs. 1.00 for ideal black body) so really the OP's glasses of water would make the best experiment if using IR.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, because that's not show local temperature variations. Use an IR camera with water, as I just said.
     
  18. Abishua

    Abishua Member

    that makes sense.. but I don't have one so its up to Henk and you I guess.
     
  19. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    None of what you just said in any way addresses what I posted.
     
  20. PermanentWave

    PermanentWave New Member

    I hope that I'm not repeating something already covered, but the initial post read "So, if moon is trully reflecting suns light, the quality of light should remain the same, that is warm..." This immediately invalidates the whole thing (perhaps). Who believes that the Moon reflects 100% of the radiation from the sun? The albedo is only 0.12%, and that's mostly visible light (I think). Moonlight is NEVER "warm." Or am I way off on this?

    This doesn't even begin to address the flaws in the experimental design or "reasoning" behind it.
     
  21. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    It surely was a wrong penny. You should have used coins minted in the King Arthur's Camelot by Merlin himself. They would be really cool :cool: (in the moonlight;))!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's a little bit warm. i.e. there is some infrared radiation (and other radiation) that's sunlight reflected off the Moon. There just isn't very much. 1/4000000 the visible brightness. We can SEE that small amount of visible radiation (i.e. we can see the moon), but the heat portion is just too small to detect except with incredible sensitive instruments.
     
  23. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    Haven't got much time but here is a result voor a partly cloudy sky (the patches are the clouds;))
    upload_2016-12-16_21-58-44. upload_2016-12-16_21-59-15.
    (moon was up and about 90° off)
     
  24. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Which is a bit off from the claim which is that Moon light will cool anything it lands on.

    One wonders at the limit to this.
    OK, let's say that it will 'cool' an object in southern California on a winter's night. What would be a common ambient temperature? 40 degrees F?
    How about where I live, where last night the ambient temperature was down to -23C Would Moonlight still reduce an object's temperature. What of where I was in the High Arctic in the early 80s, Mould Bay N.W.T where the coldest I recall was -49C. No worries about the sun warming things up since it hadn't been seen at that time, for several weeks, and would not bee seen again for at least another few weeks. (full dark from early Nov. to , iirc, early Feb). Would Moonlight again reduce an object's temperature?
    How is such a cooling effect's physics explained by those who promote it?
     
  25. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    So my best guess for the results of the youtube experiments is that the shade being used to create an area without moonlight is affecting the amount of radiative cooling at that area, resulting in it being less cold.

    If that's what's happening, I guess the key then is to ensure that the shade is at a sufficient distance from the areas being measured - making use of a mountain, for example.

    In any case, here's a couple of videos (from the same poster) (and the last of these videos I'll be posting in this thread) that again show the same results.

    The first one begins at 2:35, showing a metal motorcycle ramp that has been left for around 3 hours:



    It shows, at around 4:00, that the area that has been in the moonlight has a temperature of around 53.6F, while, at around 4:15, the other end of the ramp has a temperature of around 56.1F.

    There is a shade and a light that he's using, which can be seen at 2:37. The light is slightly closer to the moonlit side, while the shade is slightly closer to the non-moonlit area:

    Screen Shot 2016-12-16 at 3.07.16 PM.

    Could this proximity of the shade to the left-hand side of the motorcycle ramp account for the ~2.5F change in temperature?

    In his second video he places three objects on the ramp: a leather jacket, a metal ruler, and a piece of wood. He begins to take his readings at 3:30:



    His results are as follows:

    Leather jacket: about 1 degree colder in the moonlight (49 to 50F)
    Piece of wood: ditto (51.5 to 52.5F)
    Metal ruler: about 4 degrees colder (52.5F to 56.5F)

    Again, he is using shades to block off the moonlight, as shown at 1:15:

    Screen Shot 2016-12-16 at 3.23.57 PM.

    Does the proximity of these shades account for the differences in temperature? I suppose one way to test for that would be to use the same set-up on a no-moon night and see if the differences were still the same.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2016
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, none of the experiments show any effect from shading moonlight. They show differences in different complex situations, nothing really to indicate anything odd going on - just poorly designed experiments.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Greylandra

    Greylandra Member

    The first part of this post reads like a warning to me? I don't belive a dogmatic assumptions should ever inhibit scientific enquiry. Who cares if it would require a re-write of everything you think is established fact within the realm of physics? The most notable scientists throughout history did precisely that.

    Having said that, I believe that there is an assumption here in regards to the radiant trasfer of heat (or cooling) as being a first order effect when moonlight is demonstrably relatively devoid of that... So what are the effects of such a white colored light (moonlight) having on changing the surface reflectivity/absorption of heat of the test objects? What other sources of visible and invisible light might be reflected by a brilliantly lit white object compared to a dark one? I've feeling that should these tests be done in near complete darkness and isolation, excluding all but moonlight we should see the test object exposed to moonlight will be nearly the same or slightly warmer then one in total darkness.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That outcome should certainly inform what you think is a probable explanation for what we see. If you've got something like:

    A) Bad experiment showing 30° difference in moonlight vs. shadow
    B) Moonlight almost instantly cools copper 30° and nobody has noticed until now

    Then it's hardly "dogma" to go for the latter.

    The science here IS almost entirely settled. The burden of proof on someone claiming otherwise is fairly high. But not at all insurmountable. Just do an experiment with good controls.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So I'm up early enough to catch the moon, and the weather is clear, around 30°F air temperature, here's my car in moonlight, no artificial lights, no streetlights for a mile, just moonlight (and a tiny bit of starlight).
    20161217-060754-o5w1e.

    It has been there since 8PM yesterday, so is not particularly warm. Notice the shadow it is casting behind.

    20161217-061047-7n8un.

    20161217-061117-9p618.

    Slider comparison:

    20161217-061047-7n8un. 20161217-061117-9p618.


    So there's no detectable thermal effect from moonlight.

    The temperature range of the concrete is from 41°F under the car
    20161217-061649-ovdkz.

    To 32 some distance away
    20161217-061741-f0185.

    However the important point is there was no difference between moonlight and shadow at points equidistant from the car.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's another, a plant, with some fallen leaves, in moonlight, on concrete:

    20161217-062358-idkzy. 20161217-062429-ryfyk.


    Again there are significant variations just based on the proximity of the house, but there's zero variations from the moon shadow. Notice especially the leaves on the ground are the same temp in or out of shadow.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The problem with this experiment again is just taking a series of spot readings, which does not give you any clear idea of the temperature gradients of the area or the objects.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  32. Abishua

    Abishua Member

    The area behind the car where the shadow is does seem warmer.. but it's close to the car so.. nothing usable here.. the object casting the shadow should be further away..
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You miss the point. There are areas that are equally far from the car, one in shadow, on in moonlight, both the same temperature. Hence the moon is not warming or cooling the ground measurably (i.e. more than 0.1°C)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  34. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    The warmer areas under and very close to the car are expected AFAIAC. During the day the ground heated up, not from direct sunlight but from air temp being warmer, the car itself heated up due to the sun on it. When the sun went down the area under the car cooled slower than the ground further away because radiant heat from the ground under the car was absorbed and re-radiated by the underside of, the still warmer, car.
     
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, totally expected. The focus here is on areas equidistant from the car in and out of shadow. The heat area actually gives a good outline of the car (as it's directly below it).

    20161219-081041-44fc3.


    20161219-081125-yw55z.

    i.e. there is no significant (0.1°C or more) difference in heat radiation between shadow and moonlight.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
  36. Tom Binney

    Tom Binney New Member

    After looking through this whole thread, I have to say the most convincing thing I saw was post #89 by Henk001- the FLIR shot of the moon clearly showing it as a hot spot in the night sky and not a cooler spot would seem to settle the debate as well as anything else (I can think of a few nonsensical arguments someone could make, but only in a true attempt to troll, not to actually get an answer).

    While I would fully expect moonlight to have an overall heating effect, I suspect it to would so minor that a slight breeze could negate it. I imagine this "theory" *cough* probably comes from the fact that generally clear cloudless nights (where you're more likely to see the moon) are cooler than cloudy nights which have an insulating effect. People are getting the explanation backwards (the moonlight is cooling instead of the clouds are insulating).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This came up again on Facebook, so I did a more detailed explanation of how aluminum, like copper, reflects heat:

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfe5QoESNh4


    The results were basically:
    20170611-154144-vk3lc.

    The foil reflecting the plastic box read 70°, the foil reflecting the sky read 1° (Fahrenheit)

    I also tried it with a shiny kettle boiling water outdoors:

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zho8yGGCk48


    Similar results again, except with slightly warmer reflections of the sky. I'm not sure if this is because the kettle was emitting a low level of IR, or if it was just too cloudy. Funnily you'll get colder erroneous results on a clear sunny day.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  38. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Senior Member

    There's a reply to your video.



    You used a reflective teapot under the open sky. He boils water in a non-reflective teapot inside a van, and uses his IR thermometer gun in two ways: On the reflection of the teapot in a mirror and on the surface of the teapot. The reflection temp is measured as 97 F and the direct measurement is just over 200 F.

    As hinted at in the comments section...

    -The reflective surface he uses is a glass mirror. A mirror has an aluminum backing but the surface is glass.

    https://thermometer.co.uk/content/19-infrared-thermometer-guide

    The table provided in the article lists the emissivity of glass as 0.92 - a poor "thermal mirror." Although the table lists aluminum (anodized) as having an emissivity of 0.77, it's important to go to the linked PDF to find that the emissivity of aluminium (polished) is 0.05 - a very good thermal mirror.

    He is actually measuring the reflection of the teapot on the surface of the glass, not on the aluminum backing, and in truth this is no different than if he were using an ordinary clear pane of glass.

    The distance from the teapot to the surface of the glass is rather large, and this is complicated by the additional distance of the thermometer from the surface of the glass and the angle of the thermometer to the surface of the glass. The thermometer measures a rather large area, not just the area covered by the the dot of the laser, which is just there to use as a pointer. There's also the problem of the exact path of the light.

    So it's not clear how much the teapot would influence the reading anyway. The sky is so large that the entire surface of the foil in your test is a reflection of the sky.

    His test is not a valid comparison to your use of aluminum foil. And also not valid as a comparison to his earlier use of aluminum foil in his moonlight experiment. He should have used aluminum foil, not a mirror.

    (Alternatively he should use a mirror to test the temp of moonlight.)

    (And he should repeat his moonlight temp experiment when there is no moon in the sky.)


    -The teapot has a non-reflective surface, and is not under the open sky. This does not reproduce the conditions of your experiment.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I did an experiment to confirm this. A glass coated mirror is very different to a sheet of aluminum.

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey0VyXGZFwA
     
  40. Apologies for going back to a much older post, but I did some digging on this point to answer a question on another forum (some of which I reproduce here).

    The actual Lancet article is from the previous week's edition and not the one commonly cited. The moonlight claims appear in an article discussing insanity in general in a section discussing the 'Morbid phenomena of lunar light'. It mentions unsourced hearsay reports about such experiments as well as those that contradict it.

    The article mentions François Arago, an eminent French astronomer who did pioneering work on the nature of light.

    In Popular Astronomy Volume 2, published in 1858, Arago refers to comments made by Louis XVIII to French scholar Laplace about the influence of 'red moons' on harvests. Arago went to discuss this with the king's Parisian gardeners and found them to have a number of observations about the moon on plants - the same observations mentioned in the Lancet article. Arago, however, found such observations to be unfounded and contradicted by evidence from experiments with thermometers. Rowbotham's statements appear to be a misinterpretation of Arago's findings.