Moonlight is not going to cool anything down. If you truly are getting a warmer result in shadow, you are probably putting your thermometer in a sheltered place, where the residual heat radiation from the soil and plants and structures, that was accumulated during the day, can affect the reading.

Oh, and about the magnifying glass making the moonlight cool more -- I don't believe it. I have to call bullshit on it.

I don't believe it.

That is not how science works. You have to perform an actual experiment to disprove the hypothesis. So I call bullshit on your comment.

You have to perform an actual experiment to disprove the hypothesis.

Typically the initial experimenter thoroughly documents his procedure first, so that the "peer review" process can attempt to reproduce the experiment.

Let's see the specific procedure used, documented in proper fashion. Then I will attempt to reproduce it, assuming there aren't any glaring issues with the procedures.

documented in proper fashion

The information given by OP suffices to replicate the experiment and to falsify or verify the hypothesis (edit: or observation) or to point out which variables he left unaccounted for.

Not even close.

For example, it doesn't document the equipment used, the specific layout of the thermometers relative to each other, the manner in which the light from the moon was obstructed, the prevailing weather conditions at the time and the specific procedures used to mitigate them or factor them into calculations, and many more details that could impact a replication attempt, all of which would ultimately be called out as discrepancies to the original experiment were the replication attempt to produce a different result.

In this world (and sub) of youtube-as-evidence, why not at least break out the phone and post the clip showing everything?

Just go out and fucking try it instead of arguing how many teeth are in a horses mouth.

Learn what scientific method means. Proper documenting is important and you know that.

Do you understand the saying i am refering to?

Yes. You think small details aren't important.

They are when we're talking about science.

I never said small details weren't important. I am saying get up and do the experiment yourself. You are just trying to create a problem so you yourself don't have to do the experiment.

I can't replicate the experiment if I don't know the small details. Things like location, weather, the times experiment was repeated, the equipment used, and, exact time of day can affect the results signifcantly.

Besides, only experiments done using the scientific method should be taken seriously.

You can do it the way you see fit. You're just lazy.

No I can't because the results might be affected by those small details.

Do your own experiment with your own controls.

I could but the results couldn't be compared to OPs results.

You could disprove the op with better documented results.

I could but I wont because I don't care enough and OP appears to be a geocentrist lunatic.

Sounds like science. Good job for holding up the standards.

it doesn't document the equipment used,

A thermometer.

the specific layout of the thermometers relative to each other

If it makes a difference, it is up to you to show so.

the manner in which the light from the moon was obstructed,

Vide supra.

the prevailing weather conditions at the time

Cloudless, presumably.

and the specific procedures used to mitigate them or factor them into calculations, and many more details that could impact a replication attempt, all of which would ultimately be called out as discrepancies to the original experiment were the replication attempt to produce a different result.

Vide supra.

In this world (and sub) of youtube-as-evidence, why not at least break out the phone and post the clip showing everything?

"lol do you believe everything you see on youtube?" <== this is not how it works. Get two thermometers, test their measurement spread, then put one into moonlight and one into the moonlight shadow.

This isn't how actual science is done. Go to a university website and pull one of their peer-reviewed scientific papers. There's a specific format you have to follow for ALL of them, and then more specific formats for different branches of science. You need to document with very precise details EVERYTHING you do and use. For example:

"I placed the eT650D thermometer 'A' in the moonlight for ~30.0 min. eT650D thermometer 'B' was placed in the shade for ~30.0 min. After allowing a sufficient time for the thermometers to adjust to the correct temperature and reach approximate thermodynamic equilibrium, readings were taken. The readings for thermometer 'A' were 28.9°C and the readings for thermometer 'B' were 23.5°C. This experiment was repeated 4 more times for precision and the following results were acquired: list of results for 4 separate experiments for both thermometers). From these results, we can conclude that the moonlight affects the ambient temperature by x°C on average. This means that (an explanation of what these results mean is needed).

You will also need, at the very least, VERY detailed diagrams of what your experiment set up was. Preferably you would have high resolution photographs. This is to back up that you have done this experiment according to your claims, and anyone who wanted to could replicate the experiment EXACTLY how you did.

That's an extremely basic overview of what an actual scientific experiment with an accompanying report is. OP has not done much of the report, or proof of his experiment, so we can't replicate it. Since we can't replicate it, we throw it out. And in the scientific community, OP would be shunned for proposing his ideas like this.

Your comment is what is wrong with the world.

OP is obviously a layman. His instructions are simple enough to follow for laypeople and experts alike and surely do not require the format of a formal peer-reviewed paper to verify or falsify his findings. Your dismissal based on form constitutes a logical fallacy.

OP is obviously a layman.

"Layman" and "I get to spew unsubstantiated bullshit and it's on you to prove me wrong" are two different things.

We don't necessarily need a properly formatted formal peer-review ready document, but we do need more information than what the OP gave us else, as the flat-earth morons are wont to do, they will call us out on perceived differences in procedure that they weren't willing to quantify in the first place.

I'm actually interested in this experiment. I don't believe the OP's hypothesis to be correct, but if I knew how the OP actually conducted it, I might be willing to attempt something similar myself.

"Layman" and "I get to spew unsubstantiated bullshit and it's on you to prove me wrong" are two different things.

But "I get to spew unsubstantiated bullshit and it's on you to prove me wrong" and "Guys, I think I found something, please try for yourself" are the same thing to you?

We don't necessarily need a properly formatted formal peer-review ready document,

Thank you.

but we do need more information than what the OP gave us

Get two thermometers, test their measurement spread, then put one into moonlight and one into the moonlight shadow. Pretty straightfoward. What else do you need?

as the flat-earth morons are wont to do

Why the insult? What has the shape of the earth to do with the temperature of moonlight? Do you fear it becomes flat again if someone verifies his experiment?

they will call us out on perceived differences in procedure that they weren't willing to quantify in the first place.

Then the smart thing to do would be to ask for additional information, then to replicate the experiment, and then to report on different or same observation, and then to try and find out which parameters account for the differences.

I'm actually interested in this experiment.

So am I.

I don't believe the OP's hypothesis to be correct

I reserve some skepticism myself.

but if I knew how the OP actually conducted it, I might be willing to attempt something similar myself.

That's a sad excuse. The description of the experiment is straightforward. All I need now are two, preferably four, thermometers and a piece of cardboard -- and a cloudless day once full moon approaches again.

But "I get to spew unsubstantiated bullshit and it's on you to prove me wrong" and "Guys, I think I found something, please try for yourself" are the same thing to you?

They would be different had the OP included more information about how he performed the experiment in his initial post or upon request.

Then the smart thing to do would be to ask for additional information

Which I am doing and you are arguing against. WTF?

had the OP included more information about how he performed the experiment

You still have not explained which part of "Get two thermometers, test their measurement spread, then put one into moonlight and one into the moonlight shadow" is unclear to you.

Then the smart thing to do would be to ask for additional information

Which I am doing and you are arguing against.

I am not arguing against asking for additional information. In fact, I did so myself. I am arguing against the claim that OPs pretty straightforward description of his experiment is insufficient to replicate it. Get two thermometers, test their measurement spread, then put one into moonlight and one into the moonlight shadow. You still have not explained which part of that is unclear to you, or open to interpretation, or, if followed even in the most crude manner, would yield a decisively different result.

No, its a dismissal based on methods. You learn the scientific method in grade school, and even if you don't remember it you can look it up. OPs post was blatantly unscientific, and its not up to the person calling it out to provide the evidence to base their claims, it's up to the experimenter to provide evidence for theirs.

No, its a dismissal based on methods

I said it is a dismissal based on form, which it is if the complaint is that a post on /r/conspiracy does not satisfy the standard of a formally peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a respectable journal.

Nobody pointed out what is wrong with getting two thermometers and putting one into the moonlight and one into the shade, which would be a complaint about methodology.

OPs post was blatantly unscientific, and its not up to the person calling it out to provide the evidence to base their claims, it's up to the experimenter to provide evidence for theirs.

The way I see it, OP reported on his findings and invited everyone to do the same.

Has anyone else tried measuring the temperature of moonlight during a full moon? I've been measuring for the last 6 months or so, and I get a consistent temperature difference of about 5-7 degrees Fahrenheit.

If we all get different results, OP is a moron, or made a mistake, or is trolling on purpose. Complaining about "unscientificallyness" at this point, when nobody else had the opportunity yet to conduct such an experiment to verify or falsify the findings, is pure nonsense and flies in the face of scientific curiosity. It is like refusing to look through the telescope because it could refute the bible.

We don't need to test this. I have spent enough time actually outside that I know for a fact that moonlight doesn't cool you, especially not five degrees. It's a very soft light, there isn't anything else going on there, and light of that intensity isn't going to warm you up, but it's certainly not going to cool you down. I trust in my knowledge of science enough to know that before testing it.

We don't need to test this

Precisely as I said: it is like refusing to look through the telescope because it could refute the bible.

No, its like something I've experienced so often that it's second nature to me what I'd find. Like I said, I actually go outside at night.

I actually go outside at night.

And so will I, with two thermometers and a piece of cardboard, at full moon, to test OPs claim and do some actual fucking science.

Ok. Let me know how it goes.

How's that "actual fucking science" coming?

I ordered two thermometers of the same type, and both have arrived. One is broken however, so I must either improvise or wait another month or hope that the replacement arrives in time. Moon is still only at 68%, so one must wonder which part of "full moon +/-48h", as specified by OP, you did not understand. Full moon will be on 21st this month, hence, the experiment can be replicated on 19th earliest as per OPs instructions.

Hilarious. Everyone complained about how OPs experiments aren't precise and "scientific" enough, yet they don't even understand the most simple instructions. Full moon +/-48h. That means the experiment must be conducted between May 19th and May 23rd. We have May 15th and you ask how the experiment is coming. That is how we know you are an anal ourorobos.

So how bout them results?

What can I say, I got similar results as OP. 1K difference between moonlight and shade. Thermometers side by side. Control experiment the second night by putting them into Haribo boxes to exclude windchill, same results. Even switched the thermometers - one cooled, the other warmed, 1K difference again.

Yours?

Could not reproduce results.

Zero difference.

More details if you want people to believe you.

Why would I want people to believe me.

It gives you magic powers.

Not interested.

My powers tell me you are lying.

Don't be scared.

Which only proves what your powers are worth.

Bye.

Magic powers don't lie.

You do.

I'm the guy who went out at night with thermometers.

You're the guy selling magical powers over the internet.

You forget, we both went out at night with thermometers.

One of us lied about our results.

Magic powers tells me it was you.

Assuming you did, the results being different does not mean either one is lying. Your provocation attempt failed.

You misunderstand.

My powers tell me you lie.

Not my results.

I know better, so you should not overestimate your "magical powers". Or did they also tell you why I would lie about an experiment anyone can try for himself?

Yup.

It's because you smell.

Lol no my dismissal is based on the fact that OP has done nothing to prove his experiment. He could be trolling for all we know. And I can't replicate it because variables such as humidity, barometric pressure, time during the night, the type of shade (a box, under a tree, etc) aren't given, or taken into consideration.

If you think actually providing information is what's wrong with the world, you need to go live under a rock where you'll be more comfortable.

Lol no my dismissal is based on the fact that OP has done nothing to prove his experiment.

How would OP go about "proving his experiment"? Carry the moon to your place?

He could be trolling for all we know.

Of course he could. The only way to be sure is to perform the experiment ourselves, yes or no?

And I can't replicate it because variables such as humidity, barometric pressure, time during the night, the type of shade (a box, under a tree, etc) aren't given, or taken into consideration.

More poor excuses. Pressure and humidity seem to be completely inconsequential. OP stated he performed the experiment over six months. Time during the night would depend on the moon, obviously. You are talking out of your hat.

The only interesting thing is the type of shade. As he doesn't specify it, it does not seem to be too important either.

Sad excuses is what you are forwarding, nothing more.

If you think actually providing information is what's wrong with the world

Don't twist my words.

You cannot be serious.

You obviously either didn't read the full response and just chose to pick what you could throw in a comment that would look good at first glance to someone who didn't fully read the thread, or you're trolling.

I already said, twice actually, how he could prove his experiment. Learn to read.

Poor excuses? I'm sorry, my education in EARTH SCIENCE with a focus on METEOROLOGY kind of keeps certain things about experiments like this in the forefront of my mind. Things I KNOW effect things such as temperature. These would include the barometric pressure, the humidity, the time of the day/night, where in the fucking world it even is.

Let me see if I can dumb this down for you sufficiently.

If I try to do OP's experiment, I'm going to take one thermometer and put it on the top of a white roofed house where light will be reflected everywhere like crazy with very little absorption. The other thermometer I will put in a charcoal grill (low light emission, and shaded, no?). Think my results would be a bit fucked up? Yeah, because I have no clue how OP set his shit up.

And before you start saying "hurrdurr of course OP wouldn't set it up like that, ur dumb", it's hyperbole.

Lol pressure and humidity seem to be completely inconsequential. So you've never taken the most basic chemistry class available? You know, where they teach you all about Boyle's Law and the Ideal Gas Law? Hell, even some physics courses would teach it to you. Here's a formula for you:

PV=nRT (ideal gas law)

P=Pressure

V=Volume

n=moles of substance

R=universal gas constant

T=Temperature

Considering the thermometer would be taking ambient (air) temperature, and air is a fucking gas, you kind of need that formula.

Read a science book, then get back to me.

If I try to do OP's experiment, I'm going to take one thermometer and put it on the top of a white roofed house where light will be reflected everywhere like crazy with very little absorption. The other thermometer I will put in a charcoal grill (low light emission, and shaded, no?).

Yes, of course, that is totally how OP conducted his experiments.

And before you start saying "hurrdurr of course OP wouldn't set it up like that, ur dumb", it's hyperbole.

No, it's an evasion.

Lol pressure and humidity seem to be completely inconsequential.

You obviously either didn't read the full response and just chose to pick what you could throw in a comment that would look good at first glance to someone who didn't fully read the thread, or you're trolling.

I said: "Pressure and humidity seem to be completely inconsequential. OP stated he performed the experiment over six months."

Over those six months, pressure and humidity can be assumed to have varied greatly, yet OP reports consistent observations. Hence, pressure and humidity seem to be completely inconsequential. For the fucking observation at hand. In the words of a wise man: "learn to read."

If, and only if other experimenters report different observations is it useful to wonder which variables determine the outcome.

Read a science book, then get back to me.

Now that's a strong argument, I really can't refute that.

You can call it evasion all you'd like. If you knew what actual science was and how it's done, you'd agree with me. Given that it's obvious you've never taken a science course, or didn't care in your courses, I can see why you'd think OP's experiment is valid.

If his experiment is valid, PLEASE go replicate it. Get the same results OP got. For the sake of the argument, take some pictures of it. You know, that way we know you did it, instead of just hopping on a computer and saying you did and typing some numbers down.

I will bet you any amount of money you want, that if you do OP's experiment with just the information OP gave, you'd have a worthless experiment with results that are all over the place and tell you absolutely nothing. Seriously. Let's do this if you're so confident in OP's 'experiment'. If even ANY of your results don't match OP's, even one, your experiment is wrong and must be thrown out. That's how science is done. The reason the theory of gravity still holds up to this day is because we test it millions of times and EVERY SINGLE TIME the results are the same. If even one result one time were different, the ENTIRE theory would be considered wrong and would have to be reworked.

Pressure and humidity are not inconsequential over any amount of time. Jesus. Every reading taken had some sort of factors that come into play. It could be as big as OP holding the metallic part of the thermometer, and it could be as small as a slight breeze when OP took his/her measurement. Again, if you knew science, you'd know these things matter as EVERYTHING will affect your results. That's why you have a control group. So you know what you're baseline is and any deviations from that can be identified. Otherwise, you just have random numbers.

Over those six months, pressure and humidity can be assumed to have varied greatly,...

Can be assumed? Sorry, science does not assume. Science is precise and EVERYTHING must be known. If you can't accept that, then stay away from science. Feel free to keep arguing with me about this. I'm sure you feel good about it behind your computer screen in your room in your 'safe space'. But for your own sake, go to a university and go talk to some of the science professors. Go ahead and try to argue with them with the same thought process you're using now. I guarantee you every single one will either A) laugh you out of the building; or B) think you're too dumb to even elicit a response.

I can see why you'd think OP's experiment is valid.

Nice strawman you are building there. It would be a shame if someone came to knock it over. I never said his experiment is valid. I am saying that the arguments against replicating it are feeble and invalid.

PLEASE go replicate it.

I will. But I already said that in a different branch of this thread. I already ordered two thermometers.

Get the same results OP got.

Can't promise I will. Maybe I won't. Then - only THEN - I will have to ask OP what he did so we can compare our parameters and, step by step, exclude methodological errors.

For the sake of the argument, take some pictures of it.

Of course I will.

You know, that way we know you did it, instead of just hopping on a computer and saying you did and typing some numbers down.

You mean like all those self-styled experts do? "I have an education in such and such, that is why I don't have to prove my claims."

I will bet you any amount of money you want, that if you do OP's experiment with just the information OP gave, you'd have a worthless experiment with results that are all over the place and tell you absolutely nothing. Seriously. Let's do this if you're so confident in OP's 'experiment'.

I have no clue how OP came to his results. I already asked him. I know how I will conduct mine. It will be utterly unfavorable towards his conclusion, I promise. But WHAT I will do is what he said he did: take two thermometers, put one into the moonlight, and one into the shade.

If even ANY of your results don't match OP's, even one, your experiment is wrong and must be thrown out. That's how science is done.

That is not necessarily true, but I get your meaning, arguendo. If that is how science were always done, the world would be a much better place. But such science is rare these days.

The reason the theory of gravity still holds up to this day is because we test it millions of times and EVERY SINGLE TIME the results are the same. If even one result one time were different, the ENTIRE theory would be considered wrong and would have to be reworked.

Typically, scientists are (or should be) curious about the exception from the rule, but I get your meaning, arguendo.

Additionally, not every exception of the rule triggers widespread re-thinking of "conventional wisdom". When the Twin Towers fell, no civil engineer raised an eyebrow, for example.

Pressure and humidity are not inconsequential over any amount of time. Jesus.

Why is it you skeptopaths always invoce judeo-christian deities when you run out of arguments? My point stands. If OP is correct, and telling the truth, he took at least six measurements. If he consistently made the same observation, that means pressure and humidity can be excluded as factors influencing the outcome, because it would be a rare thing if there was no variance in pressure and humidity over the course of six months. Get it? Odin.

Every reading taken had some sort of factors that come into play. It could be as big as OP holding the metallic part of the thermometer, and it could be as small as a slight breeze when OP took his/her measurement.

My experiment will exclude these factors, but I already promised you that.

Again, if you knew science, you'd know these things matter as EVERYTHING will affect your results. That's why you have a control group. So you know what you're baseline is and any deviations from that can be identified. Otherwise, you just have random numbers.

...and that is why OP invites us to be the control group and replicate the experiment so we can discuss which factors affect the results. What is your problem, dude?

science does not assume.

Vide supra.

Science is precise and EVERYTHING must be known. If you can't accept that, then stay away from science. Feel free to keep arguing with me about this. I'm sure you feel good about it behind your computer screen in your room in your 'safe space'. But for your own sake, go to a university and go talk to some of the science professors. Go ahead and try to argue with them with the same thought process you're using now. I guarantee you every single one will either A) laugh you out of the building; or B) think you're too dumb to even elicit a response.

You are pretty angry just because I'm saying let's take OPs challenge and replicate his experiment. Really funny to watch how you work yourself up over such a small thing, for being genuinely scientifically curious and taking a true Socratic approach. I don't know whether OP is right or wrong. But I know the dismissal which I originally addressed, upon which this whole hellhole of a thread developed, was wrong, unscientific and plain religious. And I intend on actually verifying or falsifying OPs claim with diligent methodology to the best of my knowledge. I want to check. That makes me a better scientist than you are, who cries "bullshit" at heliocentrism before he even had an opportunity to look through the telescope. Because you are so learned in the scriptures already,

Feel free to keep arguing with me about this. I'm sure you feel good about being such an expert in your ivory tower. But for your own sake, don't believe everything some "authority" or "conventional wisdom" tries to tell you.

If it makes a difference, it is up to you to show so.

That's not how science works. It's not my hypothesis to test. It's the OP's, and he should (properly) publish his procedures and findings if he wants to be taken... seriously.

It's not my hypothesis to test.

Then you have no business making any statement about the veracity of OPs claim.

It's the OP's, and he should (properly) publish his procedures and findings

That's what he did.

Then you have no business making any statement about the veracity of OPs claim.

Did I do that?

That's what he did.

We have vastly different definitions of "properly" as it relates to publishing information about experiments.

Did I do that?

You called bullshit without any qualification whatsoever. You speculated and flat-out stated "I don't believe it". So yes, you made a statement about the veracity of OPs claim.

We have vastly different definitions of "properly" as it relates to publishing information about experiments.

Obviously I don't need a technical drawing for the instruction "put two calibrated thermometers outside at night, one into the moonlight, one into the shade, observe temperature difference, repeat." Only if your experiment yields a different result do you have any reason to control additional variables or ask OP to give additional information.

Don't they teach the scientific method at school anymore?

You called bullshit without any qualification whatsoever.

Show me where.

You speculated and flat-out stated "I don't believe it".

You're confusing me with another poster.

Obviously I don't need a technical drawing for the instruction "put two cal... Don't they teach the scientific method at school anymore?

Hilarious you asked that.

See the post that ought to be right below this one that describes just a bit more about properly documenting a scientific experiment... user /u/whyd_you_kill_doakes

Akareyon is either a young kid that hasn't reached the age where anything close to real science is done, is from a country where education is not important, he's a troll, or just very dumb.

I'm leaning more towards the latter 2. Seriously, if you've taken any chemistry or physics course, you'd know this experiment hardly qualifies as an experiment. More "hey guys, I just did this, what do you think?"

Blows my mind Akareyon says simple things such as the environment of the thermometers (one could be in a goddamn lead lined refrigerator that's placed outside and would still be technically in the shade) aren't needed.

Show me where.

I apologize, luckinator did, not you.

You're confusing me with another poster.

Yes.

See the post that ought to be right below this one

See my reply.

You speculated and flat-out stated "I don't believe it".

Excuse me... but isn't that the default position in science? We don't believe a claim until it is proved...

Saying "I don't believe it" is not the same as saying "this claim is false".

You need some remedial English lessons.

You need some remedial English lessons.

I would greatly welcome them, as I am not a native speaker and find my English terrible myself. My reading comprehension is quite fine, though, and the claim "I don't believe it" is found in the same post (not thc's, but luckinator's) that said "I have to call bullshit on it", which caused the debate I'm having with thc right now. So stick your feeble, pathetic, passive-agressive insult somewhere neither moonlight nor sunlight shine.

but isn't that the default position in science? We don't believe a claim until it is proved...

It should be. But that is not what happened here. OP's claim was dismissed before anyone on this beautiful planet had a chance to replicate the experiment. The moon is at 41% at the moment I am typing this. OP specified full moon +/-48 hours.

Handwaving and dodging the point, I'd never would have expected it.

That's not how science works, the OP has to provide compelling evidence for their claim that the moonlight causes cooling.

However, I have aimed my telescope at the moon and found no cooling effect on my eyeball, so as far as experiments go, OP's claim is absolute nonsense.

the OP has to provide compelling evidence for their claim that the moonlight causes cooling.

OP made a claim and gave instructions on how to falsify or verify his observation.

I have aimed my telescope at the moon and found no cooling effect on my eyeball,

Much science!

Pretty much.

OP has no evidence, I do. What else would you like to know?

OP has no evidence

OP has proposed a simple experiment, which can easily be replicated to verify or falsify his claim.

Which i've already done.

NEXT!

So you did not replicate the experiment, like, at all. You fail.

How so? OP said magnifying the moonlight would make things cooler, it doesn't, as i've already used a telescope to look at the moon.

So you did not replicate the experiment OP proposed. You haven't even tried.

Based on what little info you've given of the experiment, I don't think enough was done to mitigate mundane variables that could account for the variances seen. How were the thermometers mounted/what were they resting on? Different materials conduct heat differently and can retain residual heat from during the day that can affect the readings. How close together were the thermometers? What were the weather conditions like during the experiment? What was producing the shade?

Refuting these kinds of nitpicks are why science papers are so meticulously detailed in their methods; because correlation =/= causation and you want to be sure that there is positively no other explanation for why things turned out as they did. I'm not saying that you need a 50page report on it, something even on the level of a grade school science fair project would be an improvement.

Think about it this way, if I replicate the experiment and come up with a different conclusion than you, wouldn't your first thought be "what did he do differently than me?". And if I didn't detail it or record it you would have no way of knowing if I fucked something up or even made the experiment up, and would rightfully disregard it as unverifiable.

I think you're having some issue with your experimental set up. The error you're getting is probably due to inaccurate thermometers or their position. For example if I had 2 thermometers and placed one in front of a window and one several inches away behind a wall first would read cooler. Windows are terrible insulators and you could be losing heat there. I would way to a very small degree you are losing heat through radiation of the moon thermometer as well. Try to set them directly next to eachother <1" apart. Position them some distance away from the window > 10'. Place a piece of cardboard on the window to block the moon light and they will read nearly identical. The moon does not reflect sufficient light to measure with inaccurate equipment, and cooling by light has no factual basis.

So you say.... now where is the proof of your claim?

A simple video showing the difference in temperature along with the experimental setup will suffice. You flat earth goons love to make videos, so why not make one that proves you aren't just making shit up?

How else could he troll the sub and link to SRD with an alt?

You expect the temperature on Earth to spike during a full moon?

moonlight is cooling while sunlight is obviously heating

http://i.imgur.com/X465sFl.png

Isn't the night cooler than the day because the sun isn't shining on that part of the Earth?

You can magnify this effect with a magnifying glass just like sunlight.

So if I get a telescope and point it at the moon, my eyes should freeze?

Of course

Well I have a telescope and i've used it to look at the moon and my eyes felt just fine.

So I think you're full of it.

You never answered how moonlight could have cooling properties

Because it doesn't.

If the moonlights cooling powers can be amplified with a mere magnifying glass, a telescope would surely create a greater, far more noticeable effect.

Have you tested this with a telescope? If not, then i've already experimented more than you have and are therefore more suited to speak on the topic - And I conclude it is nonsense.

why does the moonlight have different properties?

Because the moon isn't reflecting all ranges of the spectrum of light / radiation that the sun emits. Visible light is different from infrared light is different from ultraviolet light.

Would you like to learn more?

the earth isnt flat. get over it and move on.

Moonlight is cooling

No, no it isn't. /thread

I would recommend using an identical experiment during a new moon to test your hypothesis. If moon light in cooling, you can test your methodology during the new moon, when we should only expect environmental factors to change your results. This could be used to ensure there are not any unforeseen effects clouding the results.

Also, partly moon lit nights should be expected to show intermediary results, right? Testing all across the lunar cycle could be useful.

The duration of your experiment is laudable, and certainly lends more credence to your results.

My gut reaction follow up questions would be: since you are claiming moon light is like no other light we know of, what other properties does it exhibit? What objects does it pass through, and what blocks it? How is it affected by weather? What would happen if you split it with a prism?

I hope these recommendations help your future experimentation.

I'm curious that you chose to post this to r/conspiracy instead of r/askscience? Don't know whether to take you seriously...

Kudos to you for trying out the experiment, but I suspect that your results might be skewed by a separate phenomena known as radiative cooling.

See Wikipedia link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling#Radiative_cooling_on_Earth.27s_surface_at_night

Basically, the idea is that any surface exposed to a clear night sky is going to cool down. If, during your experiment, your shaded thermometer was also shaded from the night sky, while your moonlit thermometer was exposed to the night sky, your moonlit thermometer will be losing heat to the sky and will be thus cooler.

I'm not sure how you might amend your experiment to account for this effect. Is there a way to shade your shaded thermometer from the moon but not from the rest of the sky?

not a thermo guy, but wouldnt this be the same concept as a mirror, it reflects like, but not heat. Maybe im dense and wrong.

Mirrors reflect heat in the form of infrared. Hold a mirror up to your toaster, you'll feel reflected heat.

does a planetary body or moon's surface reflect infrared?

Yeah but the moon only reflects like 10% of the sunlight that hits it and it's very very small so it's many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times more dim than the sun. Imagine shining a mirror into your house during the early morning before the sun comes up, yet there is ambient light.

Yeah but that wouldn't explain why surfaces that receive direct moonlight would actually be cooler than surfaces that are in the shade. The point is that the moon actively cools.

ahh, i see, thats very interesting

not a thermo guy, but wouldnt this be the same concept as a mirror, it reflects like, but not heat. Maybe im dense and wrong.

Well, you're wrong. Whether you're dense or not is not for me to say.

ha, well im dense in this area, but not necessarily in others

OP, I have no clue whether you are right or wrong. It's not the first time I heard about that allegation.

But WHAT I find interesting is how all the armchair experts hurry to call bullshit without even doing the experiment themselves, or without even having had the opportunity to verify or falsify your findings.

Please explain what type of thermometer you used, how you generated the shade for the control thermometer, and give other additional information that might influence the results of the experiments.

I have no clue whether your claim is bullshit or not, but where such strong opposition and dismissal abounds, I'm curious. Thermometers are quite cheap.

Yes this is scientific evidence that the moon is luminescent.

If the moon were reflecting the light from the sun, moonlight and sunlight would have the same properties.

If the moon were reflecting the light from the sun, moonlight and sunlight would have the same properties.

Because the reflective material doesn't change the property of the light or the range(s) of the spectrum reflected?

Question: Why, in the sunlight, is my shirt green instead of reflecting the entire spectrum and intensity of the sun's light, blinding the fuck out of everyone who dares cast their gaze upon me?

How does a flat earth model predict this behaviour?

Can you post your recordings? I assume you wrote down date/time/temperature for each measurement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSUMBBFjxrY

Nope I haven't found any explanation. If I find one I'll post it here.

ha, well im dense in this area, but not necessarily in others

Your comment is what is wrong with the world.

OP is obviously a layman. His instructions are simple enough to follow for laypeople and experts alike and surely do not require the format of a formal peer-reviewed paper to verify or falsify his findings. Your dismissal based on form constitutes a logical fallacy.

But "I get to spew unsubstantiated bullshit and it's on you to prove me wrong" and "Guys, I think I found something, please try for yourself" are the same thing to you?

They would be different had the OP included more information about how he performed the experiment in his initial post or upon request.

Then the smart thing to do would be to ask for additional information

Which I am doing and you are arguing against. WTF?

You can do it the way you see fit. You're just lazy.

Which only proves what your powers are worth.

Bye.