# Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer. 

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

You're lying again, Frank.  Direct answers have been posted many times.  I'm not jumping through your hoop today.  You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> You're lying again, Frank.  Direct answers have been posted many times.  I'm not jumping through your hoop today.  You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?



See what I mean?


----------



## martybegan (Jun 6, 2011)

The basic premise is the relase of long term sequestered organic carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. 

Carbon in the form of oil, coal and natural gas is now stored in a form that is kept out of the atmosphere. By burning it we are returning it to the atmosphere.

By using it faster than it is sequestered you increase the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere, increasing the retention of heat in the atmosphere, and thus AGW. 

My issues arent with the general cycle, it is known. My issues are with

1) the true impact of increases in CO2 concentration, i.e. is it a functional increase or is there some sort of "buffer" or "dead-band" effect that mitigates increases.

2) The ability of models to appricate every sink and addition to a system this large. Also can some sinks be triggered by increased concentration.

3) The effects of AGW vs. normal background variation and changes.\

4) That the overall proposals put together to fight AGW basically consist of more government, and more sacrifice by certain groups of people.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> You're lying again, Frank.  Direct answers have been posted many times.  I'm not jumping through your hoop today.  You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?



There has never been any logic presented; only a blind faith.  In the past day or so, I gave you guys instructions to manufacture a very inespensive device that will prove that downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the AGW, and greenhouse hpothesies) simply does not exist.

It involves pointing a parabolic dish at the sky and producing a cooling effect.  (precisely what the second law of thermodynamics predicts).  In fact it produces such a cooing effect that during night time hours, one can actually produce ice when the ambient temperature is nearly 48 degrees and depending on altitude and relative humidity, maybe even at higher temperatures.  In addition, the dish can be used to realise some cooling during daylight hours.

If downdwelling radiation from greenhouse gasses existed, you could not point a parabolic dish into the sky and cool anything.  Day or night, the downdwelling IR would always cause warming.  Feel free to describe the physical law that would allow downdwelling IR from "greenhouse gasses" to warm the atmosphere and at the same time allow one to create ice by pointing a parabolic dish at that downdwelling radiation when the ambient temperature is nearly 48 degrees.

Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus.


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

*Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus. *

What hypothesis would that be?  Your posts are so disjointed and jump from topic to topic so erratically, you're going to have to be more specific.  To keep it simple for you, CO2 and the other GHGs act like a blanket, keeping in more heat.  It's easily demonstrated in a lab that they absorb IR and since statistically half would be re-emitted towards earth, the earth stays warmer.  Add another blanket(more GHGs) and the atmosphere would retain even more heat than if they weren't present.


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You're lying again, Frank.  Direct answers have been posted many times.  I'm not jumping through your hoop today.  You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?
> ...



"See, see" says the blind man!!!


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

BTW, what requires more "faith"?  The notion that since GHGs trap IR, they may be adding heat to the globe or the notion the earth is so large that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> *Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus. *
> 
> What hypothesis would that be?  Your posts are so disjointed and jump from topic to topic so erratically, you're going to have to be more specific.  To keep it simple for you, CO2 and the other GHGs act like a blanket, keeping in more heat.  It's easily demonstrated in a lab that they absorb IR and since statistically half would be re-emitted towards earth, the earth stays warmer.  Add another blanket(more GHGs) and the atmosphere would retain even more heat than if they weren't present.



You keep saying blanket, blanket, as if that meant something.  Do you have one of the new temporal thermometers for kids?  The sort that you touch the child's skin with to read a surface temperature?  If so, try this out.  Take the temperature of your skin.  Then put a blanket over your skin for a minute or so, then take the surface temperature of your skin.  Do you know what you will see?  The surface temperature of your skin will have dropped.  Heat will have flowed from your skin to the blanket, exactly as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts.  Putting a blanket over yourself actually cools your surface temperature.

As to downward emitted radiation, try the experiment I have provided with the parabolic dish.  If IR were being emitted downward, you could not achieve a cooler temperature than the surrounding air by pointing a dish upwards at the downdwelling radiation.  Do you have such a poor grasp of the science that you believe that downdwelling IR could actually warm the planet and promote cooling if one points a parabolic dish towards it?  What laws of physics do you suppose predict such a thing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Konrad is flailing badly from the get go, so let's help him out

"...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> 
> Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours



Neg rep for lying.  I have given you my theory on global warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> ...



Can you please take precious time away from trying to suck your own dick and post it up here?


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus. *
> ...



I say blanket because it DOES mean something.  What doesn't mean much is the explanation you give, especially without a cite from someone who has a better grasp of the science than you do.   I find it hard to believe what you've posted is anything more than made up gobble-de-gook and irrelevancies without back up from someone with certifiable credentials.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 6, 2011)

What I would like to know from the warmers is why is global warming a bad thing?

It happened several times in the past already.  There have been periods of time when earth had no ice caps, yet the Earth ended up cooling and forming them.  So please explain, why would it be the end of the world if the ice caps melt?  Please note, saying that someone's beach front property may end up going underwater doesn't constitute the end of the world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> ...



Where's your "Theory", Buckwheat?

Neg rep heading your way too while Im at it


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> 
> Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours



Crusader, has someone stolen your log in?  Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?

Must have.

As simply stated as i can:

Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

theHawk said:


> What I would like to know from the warmers is why is global warming a bad thing?
> 
> It happened several times in the past already.  There have been periods of time when earth had no ice caps, yet the Earth ended up cooling and forming them.  So please explain, why would it be the end of the world if the ice caps melt?  Please note, saying that someone's beach front property may end up going underwater doesn't constitute the end of the world.



It's because it's NOT about "the end of the world".  That's just skeptic gibberish intended to confuse the issue.  Those fluctuations occurred over 100s of thousands to millions of years, not the ~200 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  It's about the fact that humans and civilization evolved in a world of relatively moderate temperatures and the feeling that it should stay that way.  Who wants to go back to a world where the central US is an inland sea?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> ...



That's it? That's not a "Theory"!!

Try again


----------



## Grace (Jun 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> 
> Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours



I ain't no scientist, but....tell me this scenario doesn't fit:

Chickens. 5. Small section of yard, say 8 x 10. There is grass. An apple tree. Some greenery. I decide to get 5 more. I decide to get a rooster, too. 10 hens, 1 rooster. They have babies. They are still in the  8 x 10 section. The grass is almost gone now. The greenery has been eaten. The ground is no longer smooth but has pits and holes where they scratched to get bugs. The poop they generate can fill a large trash can in two weeks. They ran out of yard space.

Now picture the earth. It is not like it was 100 years ago, much less a few thousand years ago. It's polluted. Holes have been scratched in it. More people are being born. There is no more room, so things are getting worse as people progress. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect A to B.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Frank, i am not going to write u a scientific paper on climate models.  I make a good portion of my posts via cell while watching the kid or sitting on the throne.  Its difficult to jump through your hoops.

Perhaps you could use Google to dig up some links to scientific papers?

Sure it is you?

You seemed soo much more on top of it yesterday asking for experiments showing temp increases with realistic ppm changes.  

Does your wife share your log in and did u upset her? I share a password or two with mine for different photo sites.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Grace said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> ...



I posted the definition of a "theory"

Try again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



I realized none of the Warmers has every actually answered the question.

Still haven't.


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

Bullshit, frank.


----------



## Grace (Jun 6, 2011)

Um.ok. Nothing anyone says will be accepted by you anyway because your mind is set. So why bother?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

I was tired of negotiating against myself in the additional PPM of CO2 that is supposed to cause these changes.

In a way I can say your "Theory" is  

"Does an increase in CO2 from 280PPM to 300PPM cause cataclysmic changes in Earth weather, spawning killer tornadoes and Cat 5 hurricanes?"

because that's what you're claiming.

So, what is it? What's this "Theory"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Grace said:


> Um.ok. Nothing anyone says will be accepted by you anyway because your mind is set. So why bother?



Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."

Here's what you need to focus on

"Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it"

Pointing to some weather event and going, "See that? Global Warming!!" is NOT a Theory


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> Bullshit, frank.



That's not a "Theory" either


----------



## theHawk (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > What I would like to know from the warmers is why is global warming a bad thing?
> ...




And the current warming trend has been happening since the last ice age, 15,000 years ago.  So you're theory that this has only been happening for 200 years is a crock of shit.

We are not going to be able to control the Earth's tempatures, someday the ice caps will melt, and someday there will another ice age putting most of north America under ice.  

Unlike the warmers, I don't have an ulterior motive to use global warming as a fear tactic in order to support draconian laws and mandates that will help destroy America in favor of a new socialized world order, where the UN gets to manipulate the US economy through 'carbon credits'.

So, carry on, 'Komrad'.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> ...



Actually, that is quite impossible as global warming as a consequence of increased CO2 emissions by man is not a theory.  It is at best a hypothesis, a piss poor one, but a hypothesis.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> I say blanket because it DOES mean something.  What doesn't mean much is the explanation you give, especially without a cite from someone who has a better grasp of the science than you do.   I find it hard to believe what you've posted is anything more than made up gobble-de-gook and irrelevancies without back up from someone with certifiable credentials.



I have given you two sets of instructions for simple experiments that you can perform yourself to see that what you claim is simply not happening as it would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.

You need no credentials to perform the simple, and inexpensive experiments I have given you, and you certainly don't need credentials to see that they don't conform to either the AGW or greenhouse hypothesis.

Are you really so challenged that you can't do a simple experiment yourself?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> It's because it's NOT about "the end of the world".  That's just skeptic gibberish intended to confuse the issue.  Those fluctuations occurred over 100s of thousands to millions of years, not the ~200 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.



You keep saying that as well and it simply is not true.  Both the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period came on more rapidly than the present warming and climbed to higher temperatures.  In fact, in the past 10K years, there have been no less than 13 periods warmer than the present and all of them came on as rapidly as the present warming.








konradv said:


> It's about the fact that humans and civilization evolved in a world of relatively moderate temperatures and the feeling that it should stay that way.  Who wants to go back to a world where the central US is an inland sea?



Again, patently false.  If you believe the dates postulated by evolutionists, modern humans appeared on the scene somewhere betwen 200,000 years ago and 160,000 years ago.  As you can see if we appeared during that time, the earth was considerably colder than the present.  Temprate hardly describes the conditions early humans were adapted to.






Then about 130K years ago, temperatures climbed to a point considerably warmer than the present and the climb to warm was more rapid than the present.






The first graphic shows the fact that since the present interglacial began some 14K years ago, it has been considerably warmer than our earliest ancestors adapted to.  Logic should tell you that warm suits us better than cold.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

Grace said:


> I ain't no scientist, but....tell me this scenario doesn't fit:
> 
> Chickens. 5. Small section of yard, say 8 x 10. There is grass. An apple tree. Some greenery. I decide to get 5 more. I decide to get a rooster, too. 10 hens, 1 rooster. They have babies. They are still in the  8 x 10 section. The grass is almost gone now. The greenery has been eaten. The ground is no longer smooth but has pits and holes where they scratched to get bugs. The poop they generate can fill a large trash can in two weeks. They ran out of yard space.
> 
> Now picture the earth. It is not like it was 100 years ago, much less a few thousand years ago. It's polluted. Holes have been scratched in it. More people are being born. There is no more room, so things are getting worse as people progress. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect A to B.



Clearly, cause and effect are not part of your thinking.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You're lying again, Frank.  Direct answers have been posted many times.  I'm not jumping through your hoop today.  You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?
> ...



It does exist, it's been directly measured.

Humans have for a long time been able to measure infrared radiation. And humans have for a long time pointed such devices towards the sky and measured significant (hundreds of watts) of infrared radiation coming downwards. It aint coming from space, it must be coming from the atmosphere.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's because it's NOT about "the end of the world".  That's just skeptic gibberish intended to confuse the issue.  Those fluctuations occurred over 100s of thousands to millions of years, not the ~200 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
> ...



Based on what evidence?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's because it's NOT about "the end of the world".  That's just skeptic gibberish intended to confuse the issue.  Those fluctuations occurred over 100s of thousands to millions of years, not the ~200 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
> ...



Huh. You have done all that typing bit never done the CO2 in the fish tank experiment.  Weird and cocky.

I also think if you want to delay an ice age the best way to do it would be with greenhouse gasses.  Not that I would be cocky enough to risk knocking the balance earth has had out of whack but hey, sone folks are radical, some like me worry about future generations instead of liberally reading an experiment and finding some way it might not work in the real world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Has anyone seen anything resembling a "Theory"?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2011)

martybegan said:


> The basic premise is the relase of long term sequestered organic carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.
> 
> Carbon in the form of oil, coal and natural gas is now stored in a form that is kept out of the atmosphere. By burning it we are returning it to the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



*OK. This is a worldwide problem. Every nation, and especially those on an upward economic curve produces massive amounts of GHGs. How are we going to reduce the amount of GHGs produced without agreements between governments? And, of course, those in the business that produce fossil fuels will suffer if their businesses are shut down.

However, I do not see that happening until something such as a change equaling that of the Younger Dryas is experianced. And, of course, it will then be too late. 

*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's because it's NOT about "the end of the world".  That's just skeptic gibberish intended to confuse the issue.  Those fluctuations occurred over 100s of thousands to millions of years, not the ~200 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
> ...



Present your evidence!

Does it match this in credibility?

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The basic premise is the relase of long term sequestered organic carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.
> ...




Like the Rapture!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Has anyone seen anything resembling a "Theory"?



Yes, you stupid ass. It has been posted repeatedly. From the American Institute of Physics. Not wingding wingnuts with third grade educations.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect 

About the American Institute of Physics

About AIP 
Annual Report   |   News  |  Newsletter  |   Staff Directory

The American Institute of Physics (AIP) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit membership corporation created for the purpose of promoting the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and its application to human welfare. It is the mission of the Institute to serve the sciences of physics and astronomy by serving its member societies, by serving individual scientists, and by serving students and the general public.

As a "society of societies," AIP supports ten Member Societies and provides a spectrum of services and programs devoted to advancing the science and profession of physics. A pioneer in digital publishing, AIP is also one of the world's largest publishers of physics journals and produces the publications of more than 25 scientific and engineering societies through its New York-based publishing division.

Member Societies - American Institute of Physics


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2011)

There it is again..........Rocks posting up his Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect link for the 739th time in this forum. Always falls back on it when he's getting schooled.

The question is...........will he have posted it up over 1,000 times by years end?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2011)

OK, poor ol' short bus Kooky, that is where the best and most complete explanation of what we know and how we learned it is located. Explained by real scientists, not undegreed ex-TV weathermen.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 6, 2011)

Honestly what is wrong with the American Institute of Physics? It's hard science and being so should be based on hard data. Why is it so discredited in your minds????


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone seen anything resembling a "Theory"?
> ...



I don't see anything resembling a "Theory" in there, Sparky


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

"...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."

What's your "Theory"?

Can you please state it?

For consensus and "settled science" why is it so difficult to get you on record as to this "theory"


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 6, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Honestly what is wrong with the American Institute of Physics? It's hard science and being so should be based on hard data. Why is it so discredited in your minds????



Hard science has proven to be untrustworthy and subject to spin. That's a fact, Jack.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 7, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly what is wrong with the American Institute of Physics? It's hard science and being so should be based on hard data. Why is it so discredited in your minds????
> ...



I know. Folks selling cigarettes and other products bad for you and the environment keep dumping tons of money buying scientific "proof".


----------



## rdean (Jun 7, 2011)

konradv said:


> You're lying again, Frank.  Direct answers have been posted many times.  I'm not jumping through your hoop today.  You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?



The problem is you are talking to someone who is severely challenged and has been since birth.  Terrible and sad.  Just remember to be compassionate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 7, 2011)

rdean said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You're lying again, Frank.  Direct answers have been posted many times.  I'm not jumping through your hoop today.  You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?
> ...



Still haven't seen anything close to a theory here.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2011)

Still haven't seen evidence that you would recognize such if it bit you.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Still haven't seen evidence that you would recognize such if it bit you.



Like this


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Present your evidence!
> 
> Does it match this in credibility?
> 
> Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia



_The hockey stick?  You are presenting the broken, discredited, debunked hockey stick and calling it credible?  I am laughing in your face rocks.  Here is what the NAS had to say about mann's hockey stick:

"systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data "(p. 107).

"Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. "(p. 110)

"Manns results are strongly dependent on the strip-bark data" (pp. 106-107)," and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research" (p. 50).

" Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions."

"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium."_

Then in a congressional hearing, Mr. North, the chairman of the NAS panel that examined mann's work was asked if he disagreed with the Wegman findings which shreded mann's work.  The exhange went like this:


_CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegmans report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we dont. We dont disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report._

So are you sure you want to use the hockey stick as credible evidence of anything besides proof that climate scientists can't be trusted?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Honestly what is wrong with the American Institute of Physics? It's hard science and being so should be based on hard data. Why is it so discredited in your minds????



It is a fine, official sounding name for a tutoring service for kids who have a problem with math and science.  In addition, it is an indoctrination center.  One thing it is not, is a national institute of physics.  Visit the site and look beyond the first page.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

RWatt said:


> It does exist, it's been directly measured.



No it doesn't, and it has not been measured.  Measurements have been taken but they don't mean anything.  If you point an instrument at the sky and take a measurement, the reading it gives you, is based on something.  When you point a radiometer at the sky it gives you a reading based on Stefan-Boltzman calculations which assume you are measuring radiation from a blackbody radiating into space at a constant zero degrees Kelvin.  Measurements taken from the surface of the earth, which is warmer than the blackbody the instrument believes you are pointing at don't tell you anything at all about the real world.  The calculations the radiometer use aren't applicable to the measurements being taken.  It makes as much sense as using a thermometer to measure the air pressure in your tires.

Then there are the measurements taken with radiometers which are artificially cooled to a temperature far below that of the surface of the earth.  Again, they get readings but they have no applicability to the notion of downdwelling radiation in the atmosphere as seen from earth.

Look at your own propaganda:







According to this energy budget, downdwelling radiation accounts for nearly TWOI TIMES the amount of energy the earth's surface receives from the sun. Tell me, do you find that credible? And if the downdwelling radiation is greater than the energy from the sun, how do you explain being able to point a parabolic dish at that same radiation to achieve a cooling effect but when you point it at the sun, you can boil water in quicktime? Explain it to me. You are claiming the impossible and have absolutely no explanation that is supported by the laws of physics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2011)

Day 3:  Still no hypothesis, no theory.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 8, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Day 3:  Still no hypothesis, no theory.





Crusader bro......

Dont expect dick...........

Three weeks ago, I asked that even one k00k display for us a response for this question.............

*"Show me where the "real science" is mattering?"* on the "Predictions" thread.......

The only responses I got were..........

"You're a retard" and "'Ole KOOKY and  his lies........"


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 8, 2011)

At least wirebender has some thought going into his posts.  The type of thing you can read and say "huh interesting" or think this guy has SOME understanding of the topic but we disagree.

These posts on here demanding a theory or thesis paper are just.....odd.  I don't get it Frank. You used to be better.  The last guy I do not know.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> At least wirebender has some thought going into his posts.  The type of thing you can read and say "huh interesting" or think this guy has SOME understanding of the topic but we disagree.
> 
> These posts on here demanding a theory or thesis paper are just.....odd.  I don't get it Frank. You used to be better.  The last guy I do not know.



Why is it so difficult?

What exactly got "Settled"?

I'm an avid reader and way early on in the AGW Shell game I started asking for the Global Warming "Scientists" to clearly state exactly what their "theory" was.

It seems to be "does an increase of 100PPM of CO2 over a 150 year cause cataclysmic changes in Earth's climate?"  

But we "never can get to the one"

We get a weather event even where people die and the AGW Brigade goes, "See That?? ManMade Global Warming!!" And all I'm asking is...

Tell me what your theory, hypothesis, hunch or crazy notion is.

3 days and you'd think someone would have posted something from MIT or the American Institute of Marxists Physics even vaguely resembling a "Theory"

Don't you find that odd?

What was settled in the settled science of yours?

This is not science


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> At least wirebender has some thought going into his posts.  The type of thing you can read and say "huh interesting" or think this guy has SOME understanding of the topic but we disagree.
> 
> These posts on here demanding a theory or thesis paper are just.....odd.  I don't get it Frank. You used to be better.  The last guy I do not know.



The point is that while there is a claimed scientific consensus regarding AGW, there is no singular agreed upon hypothesis among even climate scientists regarding how man might be responsible for the changing climate.  None of the warmist will post a hypothesis, even a hypothesis copied and pasted from a seemingly credible warmist source because as soon as they do, we, the skeptics will be able to post a contradictory hypothesis from an equally credible warmist source.

Look for yourself.  Google AGW hypothesis, read the various papers and see for yourself how many variations on the topic you find.  Not only is there no consensus among scientists regarding manmade climate change, there isn't even a consensus among them on how the process might work.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 8, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> ...


So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?

That's some magical CO2 we produced.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> That's some magical CO2 we produced.



Was it ever determined whether or not CO2 could julienne fries?  It sure seems to be able to do anything else.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 8, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > That's some magical CO2 we produced.
> ...


Nope.  never was.  But that issue was run away from fairly quickly.


----------



## konradv (Jun 8, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



He's apparently blind, too!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



So it's the No-Theory Theory.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Present your evidence!
> ...



My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

By the way, Wegman seems to be in a world of hurt.

WHo you gonna believe,...me,...or your lying eyes?! - Global Warming and Nature - AOL Message Boards

Journal Retracts Disputed Network Analysis Paper on Climate
by Eli Kintisch on  | Permanent Link | 18 Comments  | Permanent Link | 18 Comments
Email Print | More
Previous Article Next Article
On 15 May, USA Today reported that a controversial 2008 study in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis (CSDA) was going to be retracted because parts of the article contain plagiarized material. Now, in an e-mail to ScienceInsider, the journal's editor in chief, Stan Azen of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, has passed along the official retraction notice. It says the article "contains portions of other authors' writings &#8230; without sufficient attribution" and that excerpts from Wikipedia and two textbooks appeared without citation in the paper's introduction. An official with Elsevier, which publishes CSDA, says the notice will be posted in a week or two.

The study, Social networks of author-co-author relationships, analyzed the different styles of such networks and their implications for peer review. It grew out of work done for a report to Congress by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason University. The so-called Wegman report said that paleoclimate studies done in 1998 and 1999 used poor statistical analyses. It also asserted that the authors may have benefited from favorable treatment by their peers who presumably reviewed the papers


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

To see you learn a single thing would be a source of amazement, Franky.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Sir or Madam,

Lets say the CO2 cycle consists of something like 750 gigatons annually.  Then the humans add say 30 gigatons annually to it.  After 10 years the humans have added 300 gigatons which should not be there.

I suppose the particulars of the numbers are up for debate but my idea seems sound.

Now there are some complicating issues to the pure math.  More CO2 means better breathing trees and more CO2 cycled though trees.  But you get the point, right?

Now this might all work out somehow.  I read during the Miocene temperatures were 3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than now and it all cycled back.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> To see you learn a single thing would be a source of amazement, Franky.



Yes, like what's this "ManMade Global Warming" Theory that got Settled?

By now even people with no background at all in any science must be starting to wonder, "Yeah, why hasn't Old Rocks put up his Theory yet?"


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Oh yes, it will all settle out. And there will some interesting times as it does. And not a few of our descendents are going to have some interesting names for this generation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.



To the contrary, I expect that someone will read the report.  That is why I gave page numbers.


As to duplicating mann's graph, you can plug in random phone numbers, baseball scores, or breast sizes and get the same hockey stick shape.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



You keep posting that same link as if it were some sort of bible verse.  Which part of it do you beleive expresses either the AGW or greenhouse gas hypothesis?  Simply stating that such a thing is happening does not constitute a hypothesis.  Do you even understand what your link is saying rocks?  Which part are you construing to be a statement of hypothesis?

Are you afraid to simply state the hypothesis?  Clearly, you are because you know that if you do, someone will post a different hypothesis from a different warming site.  You claim that CO2 is acting like some sort of blanket and not actually heating the earth, but your priests say otherwise.  Here rocks have a look:

Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona

Clip:  "In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere. 

However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! *Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere:* it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere -- for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model. 

Now like the atmosphere, the Earth's surface is near an equilibrium where it gains and loses energy at almost the same rate. Because the surface gains 480 Watts/meter2 (half from sunlight and half from the atmosphere), it also must radiate 480 Watts/meter2. Unlike the atmosphere, however, the ground can only radiate in one direction -- upward. Thus, the surface radiates 480 Watts/meter2 upward, and because the atmosphere is opaque to this infrared light, it is absorbed by the atmosphere rather than escaping to space. Notice that the atmosphere, the surface, and the planet as a whole each gain energy at exactly the same rate it is lost. "

Clearly there is a claim there that the surface of the earth is receiving more energy than it gets from the sun.  In order for that to happen, the atmosphere must be making energy.

Here, have another:

The Greenhouse Effect

Clip:  *Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earths atmospheric system*. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earths surface where it* once again is absorbed by the surface*. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.


Again, the claim of free energy.  Energy from no where.  More energy than comes from the sun.

Why do you claim that the atmosphere acts as a blanket when the documents from your high priests say that backradiation from CO2 is actually warming the earth?  Where do you get off disagreeing with climate scientists?  Is it that you know that the hypothesis as stated is really a load of crap and therefore you feel the need to make up your own?  

Both of the above statements violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because they claim that heat is flowing from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer earth.    They are describing a perpetual motion device caught in a positive feedback loop.  

Look at your own propaganda rocks:






The energy budget shown clearly states that downdwelling radiation from GHG's are providing nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun.  Tell me rocks, do you actually believe that?  Look at the backradiation.  It clearly states that that radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.  

If you don't buy this hypothesis (and you clearly don't) exactly where are you getting your blanket hypothesis?


----------



## RWatt (Jun 8, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Look at your own propaganda rocks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's true. Here are some graphs of backradiation measurements at various locations:




The Amazing Case of &#8220;Back-Radiation&#8221; « The Science of Doom


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



I'm still pitching a perfect game...another Warmer post, another swing and miss.

Still no theory.

"...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

RWatt said:


> It's true. Here are some graphs of backradiation measurements at various locations:



You don't seem to be able to grasp that those measurements don't relate to the real world.  They were taken with one of two types of radiometers.  They were either taken with an uncooled radiometer which means that the instrument believed it was reading blackbody radiation emitted into space at zero degrees kelvin or they were taken by an artifically cooled instrument which was pretending to be in a much colder environment than it was actually in.  In either case, the readings taken don't mean anything in the real world.

Backradiation is a myth.  It is not supported by the laws of physics.  Ignoring the molten center of the earth and gravity, the sun is the only source of energy source.  The earth and atmosphere are not energy sources which means that the 168 watts per square meter from the sun is the only energy available.  According to your theory, the atmosphere is nearly doubling the energy from the sun without the input of any work at all.  Like it or not, that is an impossibility and therefore your hypothesis is an imposibility.

You don't get energy from nothing no matter how hard you wish it were so.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



Did you read the article??

"At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible"

Even in the 1970's it was Global Coolingggggg Brrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 8, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


Your idea has one small problem.  while we produce only 0.4% of all yearly production of CO2, nature produces the other 99.6%.  

Secondly, you are not considering the rate that CO2 is coming out of the atmosphere.  For the last 40-60 years there has not been a significant increase in CO2 that could not be explained as natural fluxuation.  Nature is packed with negative feedback loops.  And if you want to consider your math technically we should be looking back 200 years then.  And with that, you have a possible increase in CO2 in total quantity of 6000 gigatons extra, but it's not showing up in any atmospheric samples.  and as well, nature then would have produced over 99 times that... so why isn't it all packed in our atmosphere making larger and larger quantities.  Are all other gases increasing at the same rate?  Is the atmosphere getting so much thicker?

This is why I question your theory.  There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Are you saying co2 is not 30 to 40 percent above pre industrial levels?  Or that you are amazed it is not higher?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

What ol' Fritz is doing is a fancy form of lying. He states the percentage of the annual carbon flux that is produced by man, as a part of the carbon that the ocean and biosphere puts into the atmosphere, without also pointing out that the ocean and biosphere actually absorb a larger amount than it emits.

Anyone can google Carbon Cycle and see this for himself. Liars like Fritz like to use half truths to create total lies.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh yes, it will all settle out. And there will some interesting times as it does. And not a few of our descendents are going to have some interesting names for this generation.



Our decendents will look back on warmists and snicker and claim confidently that their grandparents didn't buy into it just as we might claim that our grandparents didn't fall for eugenics.  To bad your grandkids are going to have to lie about good ole grandpa rocks if they want to put him on the right side of the science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> What ol' Fritz is doing is a fancy form of lying. He states the percentage of the annual carbon flux that is produced by man, as a part of the carbon that the ocean and biosphere puts into the atmosphere, without also pointing out that the ocean and biosphere actually absorb a larger amount than it emits.
> 
> Anyone can google Carbon Cycle and see this for himself. Liars like Fritz like to use half truths to create total lies.



Is this "Theory"

"Do incremental contributions by human activities to atmospheric CO2 cause "global warming?"

Day 4: Still no Theory

It's just not science, Sparky


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > What ol' Fritz is doing is a fancy form of lying. He states the percentage of the annual carbon flux that is produced by man, as a part of the carbon that the ocean and biosphere puts into the atmosphere, without also pointing out that the ocean and biosphere actually absorb a larger amount than it emits.
> ...



"It's not science" = hopes and dreams.

I mean hell, it could be wrong. Perhaps greenhouse gasses suspended in air behave differently than greenhouse gasses in fish tanks. And there is the whole ppm question of how much does what. 

Question is, do you feel lucky punk?

Sorry, just had to try to use a movie quote lol.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes, it will all settle out. And there will some interesting times as it does. And not a few of our descendents are going to have some interesting names for this generation.
> ...



Or they will look back like we look back at the folks who fought the switch to unleaded gas.

Or the guys who were pissed they could not use dirty coal burning ovens to heat their st louis homes last century.

Seems even less radical than that. I am not saying do not burn fossik fuels. Just watch it and lets try to be cleaner.  

Between my care for the environment and my dislike of the countries in the middle east my dream regulations would have hot rod cars stuck around 300hp.  I mean we are talking perhaps 13 sec out of the box cars here.  Nothing booring.  I am not coming to​ take away your car.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 9, 2011)

Wait... why is the burden of proof on us? 

What is YOUR theory Frank? That Cosmic Rays apparently are what cause clouds to form (nothing to do with evaportation and condensation), which of course do have a greenhouse effect,  and therefore it all depends on whether the Sunspots are present or not which would deflect the cosmic rays? I saw a video on this once, and if this is the only competing theory, then please, give up. 

The otherside has no explanation as to why this happens, or do they? Maybe if I actually heard it I might actually consider it, but all I ever here is how global warming is a conspiracy that people use to make money... Haha... Oil Companies  don't make any money *sarcasm* (and every company that produces anything with Oil, which is practically EVERYTHING). They don't have any vested interest in maintaining this infrastructure or anything so they can continue to profit... no, not at all!


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > It's true. Here are some graphs of backradiation measurements at various locations:
> ...



You seem to have a poor understanding of AGW theory.  No one says that we "get energy from nothing".  It's simply that more CO2 or other GHGs *slows down *the escape of heat, thereby raising temps.  The claim that the theory calls for a doubling of the sun's energy is just a red-herring that has NO basis in reality.


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

_This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, *and we still are an insignificant part. *_

But "Warmism" is a religion?!?!  I'm afraid, given other things man has done to the planet, I don't have as much "faith" as you do.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> _This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, *and we still are an insignificant part. *_
> 
> But "Warmism" is a religion?!?!  I'm afraid, given other things man has done to the planet, I don't have as much "faith" as you do.


yes less than 1% is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things.  And that's on a single component of the atmosphere that is even SMALLER than 1% while other greenhouse gases with much larger effects are in greater concentration.  (methane and water vapor leap to the front of the list), are casually ignored because they are inconvenient to the theory.

Because if your theory was applied to the other 99% created by nature, the response would be that many multiples more.  What you are confusing is local poisoning of the environment which CAN be accomplished very effectively by us.  Love Canal comes to mind, and now Chernobyl and Fukushima.  Neither of these are global catastrophes and the danger zone quickly dissipates by range.  Not to mention you are stating that because we are producing 'extra' CO2, that nature can't handle it and it's accumulating out of control.  Really?  less than 1% of an increase is equaling a reaction that is sending the climate of this planet spiraling out of control?  That's a lot of faith when one burp from a moderate volcano equals all the CO2 production of mankind throughout it's entire history.

Your faith is plenty sufficient to deny the fact your theory is popped by common sense.  But since the goal is to instill global fascism, why am I not surprised you'd ignore common sense for the sake of politics.

Compared to nature, man has ALWAYS been insignificant.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> Wait... why is the burden of proof on us?
> 
> What is YOUR theory Frank? That Cosmic Rays apparently are what cause clouds to form (nothing to do with evaportation and condensation), which of course do have a greenhouse effect,  and therefore it all depends on whether the Sunspots are present or not which would deflect the cosmic rays? I saw a video on this once, and if this is the only competing theory, then please, give up.
> 
> The otherside has no explanation as to why this happens, or do they? Maybe if I actually heard it I might actually consider it, but all I ever here is how global warming is a conspiracy that people use to make money... Haha... Oil Companies  don't make any money *sarcasm* (and every company that produces anything with Oil, which is practically EVERYTHING). They don't have any vested interest in maintaining this infrastructure or anything so they can continue to profit... no, not at all!


I believe his theory is that there IS no Anthropogenic global warming.  There is only the natural cycle which mankind can do nothing to influence. Hence, all AGW legislation is a fraud designed for a political end towards global fascism.

fair to say, Frank?


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, *and we still are an insignificant part. *_
> ...



You say 1%, which I agree is insignificant.  However, the rise in CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution CO2 is 25-35%, depending on whose numbers you use.  Since the effect of added CO2 is loigarithmic rather than linear, that would be a 10-13% increase in IR absorption.  That IS a a significant number and I categorically reject yours as the product of faulty logic.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> The otherside has no explanation as to why this happens, or do they? Maybe if I actually heard it I might actually consider it, but all I ever here is how global warming is a conspiracy that people use to make money... Haha... Oil Companies  don't make any money *sarcasm* (and every company that produces anything with Oil, which is practically EVERYTHING). They don't have any vested interest in maintaining this infrastructure or anything so they can continue to profit... no, not at all!



Oil companys stand to make trillions as the result of green regulation.  Follow the money and you can't help but find a hoax.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


And zero proof it's mankind except in mathematical THEORY, and even if you are correct it's still insignificant.  I leave the debunking of the stored energy to Wirebender and others who have done a masterful job of showing the science just ain't so.  What is a 25-30% increase of CO2, if this is actually true?  A change from 0.04% total atmospheric composition to 0.05%.  Really?  This is going to mean jack shit when water vapor fluctuates 3-5% total atmospheric composition an is a more powerful greenhouse gas?  Puhleeze!  Till you can disprove and count out water vapor, I think you need to start ignoring the insignificant increase in CO2 that cannot be linked to man except in theory.

Nature has produced more CO2 over the eons, and less as well.  But yet the only significant source of heat for this planet is still the Sun.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> You seem to have a poor understanding of AGW theory.  No one says that we "get energy from nothing".  It's simply that more CO2 or other GHGs *slows down *the escape of heat, thereby raising temps.  The claim that the theory calls for a doubling of the sun's energy is just a red-herring that has NO basis in reality.



It is you who doesn't understand the hypothesis.  It is you who has discounted the actual hypothesis in favor of your own version of some sort blanket mechanism.  Here, from warmist sources.  I have already posted this once in this thread, which you obviously ignored.

Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona

Clip:  "In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere. 

However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! *Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere:* it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere -- for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model. 

Now like the atmosphere, the Earth's surface is near an equilibrium where it gains and loses energy at almost the same rate. Because the surface gains 480 Watts/meter2 (half from sunlight and half from the atmosphere), it also must radiate 480 Watts/meter2. Unlike the atmosphere, however, the ground can only radiate in one direction -- upward. Thus, the surface radiates 480 Watts/meter2 upward, and because the atmosphere is opaque to this infrared light, it is absorbed by the atmosphere rather than escaping to space. Notice that the atmosphere, the surface, and the planet as a whole each gain energy at exactly the same rate it is lost. "

Clearly there is a claim there that the surface of the earth is receiving more energy than it gets from the sun.  In order for that to happen, the atmosphere must be making energy.

Here, have another:

The Greenhouse Effect

Clip:  *Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earths atmospheric system*. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earths surface where it* once again is absorbed by the surface*. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.


Again, the claim of free energy.  Energy from no where.  More energy than comes from the sun.

Why do you claim that the atmosphere acts as a blanket when the documents from your high priests say that backradiation from CO2 is actually warming the earth?  Where do you get off disagreeing with climate scientists?  Is it that you know that the hypothesis as stated is really a load of crap and therefore you feel the need to make up your own?  

Both of the above statements violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because they claim that heat is flowing from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer earth.    They are describing a perpetual motion device caught in a positive feedback loop.  

Look at your own propaganda







The energy budget shown clearly states that downdwelling radiation from GHG's are providing nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun AND being absorbed by the ground in addition to the energy from the sun.   The energy budget clearly shows 356 Watts per square meter of surface radiation emanating from the surface of the earth when the sun is providing only 166 watts per square meter.  Where is the other energy Do you actually believe that?  Look at the backradiation.  It clearly states that that radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.  

If you don't buy this hypothesis (and you clearly don't) exactly where are you getting your blanket hypothesis?


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory.  What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs.  You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir.  From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory.  What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs.  You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir.  From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.


  Riiiight, iAGW facty and chock full of truthiness.

I light a match the next time you crap such a big religious mess.


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



If you don't know the basics, should you really be commenting?  Sure water vapor is a more potent GHG, but if CO2 only raises temps a little, that would mean more moisture in the atmosphere and even higher temps, by your own admission on the power of water vapor.  If the extra CO2 isn't coming from man then where, considering that we emit more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year?!?!


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory.  What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs.  You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir.  From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.
> ...



Religious?!?!  Who's saying we must accept on faith the declaration that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate of something as large as earth?


----------



## RWatt (Jun 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.
> ...



But it's not statistically significant. That's the key thing. The actual hockey stick based on the input paleo records was statistically signficant. The result you get from feeding in random numbers is not.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Are you saying 1% or .5% a year is insignificant?  I agree a 1% increase in a trace gas does not sound like much and might not be.  

Here in America we have our short attention spans tuned to Wall Street's quarterly and monthly attention span if not hourly news updates.  Civilization HAS TO exist on this planet for the foreseeable future or at least I don't want to count on my grandchildren being able to fix problems I caused.

.5% a year over forty years is 20%.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory.  What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs.  You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir.  From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.



Did you even look at the energy budget upon which the whole AGW hoax is built?  Which part of it are you not grasping?  It clearly shows 166 watts per square meter from the sun being absorbed by the earth.  Then on the other side of the graphic it clearly shows 323 watts per square meter in back radiation being absorbed by the surface of the earth.  Then it shows 356 watts per square meter being emitted by the surface of the earth.  When you have only one energy source, and it is providing 166 watts per square meter and you are emitting 356 watts per square meter, somewhere you are making the claim of free energy.  

The graphic clearly shows and states that the 323 watts per square meter in so called backradiation is being absorbed by the earth and thus allowing the earth to radiate more than two times the amount of energy that it recieves from the sun.  Where is the energy beyond the 166 watts per square meter coming from?  There is only one energy source and that is the sun so the total amount of energy available at the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter.  Where does the rest fome from?  Explain in detail.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

RWatt said:


> But it's not statistically significant. That's the key thing. The actual hockey stick based on the input paleo records was statistically signficant. The result you get from feeding in random numbers is not.





The national academy stated pretty clearly that strip bark proxies were not appropriate for what mann was trying to show.  His hockey stick is a fraud.  It is the most debunked piece of pseudoscience of the modern era.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Which is why AGW "Science" just ain't science.

Again, we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, we can replicate the Sun, we can land men on the Moon, why can't any Warmer state his hypothesis that is supposedly "Settled"

What is it that's "Settled"?


----------



## RWatt (Jun 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > But it's not statistically significant. That's the key thing. The actual hockey stick based on the input paleo records was statistically signficant. The result you get from feeding in random numbers is not.
> ...



Strip bark proxies have nothing to do with whether hockey sticks can be made form random input. They can't be made from random input, unless you ignore statistical significance.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> The energy budget shown clearly states that downdwelling radiation from GHG's are providing nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun AND being absorbed by the ground in addition to the energy from the sun.   The energy budget clearly shows 356 Watts per square meter of surface radiation emanating from the surface of the earth when the sun is providing only 166 watts per square meter.



That's true, here are some ground measurements of backradiation:


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Strip bark proxies have nothing to do with whether hockey sticks can be made form random input. They can't be made from random input, unless you ignore statistical significance.



Strip bark proxies, are not suitable for the sort of work mann was doing.  They rendered meaningless results.  It is as if he took temperature readings to measure distance.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

RWatt said:


> That's true, here are some ground measurements of backradiation:



Again, the measurements are meaningless.  Which part of the fact that the calculations used by the instruments assume that the instrument is being pointed at a blackbody radiating into a space that is zero degrees kelvin that you don't understand?  

An uncooled radiometer will not indicate backradiation because the emitter (atmosphere) is warmer than the surrounding space.  A cooled radiometer will recieve an accurate radiation signal, but it doesn't tell you anything about the actual atmosphere because it, being cooled to a temperature lower than that of the emitter  is receiving energy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.  Of course, being cooled, it is much colder than the earth so again, you don't get any information about the actual atmosphere.

Aside from that, emission spectra from CO2, and any other gas are bar spectra, meaning that if you look at them with a spectrometer, you see the absorption and emission lines in the spectra.  Blackbody radiation has no such absorption and emission lines.  This also invalidates any sort of measurement that claims to indicate downdwelling radiation.

If back radiation existed, and was, in fact, radiating twice the energy of the sun towards the earth, as is claimed, do you believe that you could point a parabolic dish at that very radiation and achieve a cooling effect?  Do you really believe that?

By the way, did you look at the bottom of your graphic?  It says that the readings are W m -2  Not W m 2.  Tell me, what do you think that means?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> .5% a year over forty years is 20%.



And zero multiplied by 20% or 40% or 80% or 10,000% is what?  Carbon dioxide does not, and can not drive the planet's climate.  It doesn't store heat and it doesn't make the planet warmer.  It is, however, the subject of a politically expedient hoax.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2011)

Day 5

Still no sign of a theory, hypothesis, crazy notion or hunch.

Searchers are giving up hope that one will ever be posted.

We need a "Missing" poster we can put up at colleges, universities, IPCC and NOAA

*Missing: Have you see the Warmers Theory?*


----------



## sparky (Jun 10, 2011)

my theory is humans will live like a pig  in it's own feces and like it


----------



## konradv (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory.  What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs.  You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir.  From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.
> ...



I have never made a claim that could be construed as "getting free energy".  All the energy comes from the sun.  The only difference is to what degree GHGs slow the reflection of IR back to space.  The rest of your post just seems to be there to confuse rather than elucidate.  Why can't you argue about I did say and not make up things I didn't?  Failure to argue the point in question doesn't help your position, IMO.


----------



## konradv (Jun 10, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Day 5
> 
> Still no sign of a theory, hypothesis, crazy notion or hunch.
> 
> ...



Maybe it's with Frank's brain!  That hasn't been seen in years either!


----------



## konradv (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > .5% a year over forty years is 20%.
> ...



Seems we have to take that on faith!!!  Which side is supposed to be a religion, again?   I guess we just have to pray that every scientist that ever demonstrated that CO2 absorbs IR is wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Day 5
> ...



And yet I can still see that you've not posted a "theory"

Go figure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory.  What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs.  You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir.  From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.



Anyone can fool Fritz


----------



## konradv (Jun 10, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You never tire of lying, do you?  Everyone knows theories have been posted.  What the hell have we been discussing, anyway?  Anyone that buys your BS has to be as willfully blind as you are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



should be a piece of cake for you to repost it then, right?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> I have never made a claim that could be construed as "getting free energy".  All the energy comes from the sun.



OK.  lets take this real slow so that you might be able to get it.  Here is the energy budget upon which both the claim of AGW and a greenhouse effect are based.






If all the energy comes from the sun and 166 watts per square meter from the sun is being absorbed by the surface of the earth, how is it that the earth can radiate more than two times that amount of energy (396 watts per square meter) if there is no additional energy being put into the system?

See the yellow ray from the sun?  At the top it says incoming solar radiation 341.3.  That means, according to the graph 343.1 watts per square meter of energy is coming in from the sun.  Now look at the bottom.  It says, right there, as clear as can be made that 166 watts per square meter of the incoming radiation from the sun is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth.  

Since the sun is the only energy source, and the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter, the maximum amount of energy that can be radiated by the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter and that would be only if the surface of the earth were a perfect reflector and reflecting every bit of energy that it absorbs from the sun.  166 watts per square meter.  That is the amount absorbed by the surface of the earth from the only energy source and therefore that is all that is available to be radiated.

Now, look over on the right side of the graphic.  323 is the number and it is labeled back radiation.  That means, in case you are confused, that the claim is that 323 watts per square meter is being radiated back to the earth and the graphic clearly states that it is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.  Nearly double the amount of energy from the ONLY energy source is being reflected back to the surface of the earth and according the graph, allowing the earth to radiate 396 watts per square meter.  396 watts per square meter is more than double the amount of energy that is coming in from the sun.  

If you aren't claiming free energy, how does a surface that absorbs 166 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source manage to radiate more than double that amount?  Explain it.  Describe what phisical law would allow such a thing and for God's sake, tell me why, if the energy from the sun is being doubled, why we don't simply collect that magical excess and use it to satisfy our energy needs?




konradv said:


> The only difference is to what degree GHGs slow the reflection of IR back to space.



Sorry guy, you are off the reservation again and simply making up a senario that makes more sense to you than the actual hypothesis.  Look again at the 323 colum with the arrow pointing down labeled back radiation.  Look at the bottom of that colum.  In clear english, written in easily read contrasting letters, it says "*ABSORBED BY SURFACE*".  

Tell me konrad, is english a second or perhaps third language for you?  What do the words "*ABSORBED BY SURFACE*" mean to you?  How do you interpet ABSORBED BY SURFACE to mean something other than the energy is being absorbed by the surface?

Then right next to that colum labled 323 is a colum labeled 396 with an arrow pointing up and again, under the colum, in clear contrasting letters, it says surface radiation.  Once more, what do the words surface radiation with an arrow pointing up mean to you?

Now, before you forget, look back over on the left and see the yellow bar touching the earth labled 166 and at the bottom of it the words absorbed by surface.  Since you don't seem to accept that "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" on the right side of the graphic actually means energy absorbed by the surface, why do you believe that "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" on the left side actually means energy absorbed by the surface?  What is the difference.  Is there some secret code on the page that tells you that text that reads "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" on the left side of the page means the energy is being absorbed by the surface but on the right side of the page "ABSORBED BY SURFACE" means something else entirely?

Back to the yellow column that says 166.  Once again, that is all the energy available because that is all that is being claimed is reaching the surface of the earth from the sun.  Now look again at the column marked, again, in clear, easily read contrasting letters "SURFACE RADIATION" with an arrow pointing up into the sky and the number 396 right above the words.  That tells me that the graphic is indicating that 396 watts per square meter is being radiated from the surface of the earth back towards the sky.

But wait, only 166 watts per square meter are being absorbed by the surface from the sun.  How then, does the surface of the earth, which is by no stretch of the imagination a perfect reflector of the incoming energy manage to radiate 396 watts per square meter when it is only receiving 166 watts per square meter from its *ONLY* energy source.  Explain that to me konrad.  Explain it to me and explain why your hypothesis is not the hypothesis being put forward by the top dogs in the field of climate science?



konradv said:


> The rest of your post just seems to be there to confuse rather than elucidate.



Far from trying to confuse, I am describing precisely what the graphic is saying.  If I am missing something, by all means elucidate.  Describe in detail where I am diverging from what the graphic is saying.

I am sure that being confronted with what climate science is actually saying must be confusing to you becuase, in reality, it makes no sense at all.  In fact, it makes so little sense that folks like you and rocks, and many others are making up your own hypotheses and trying to pass them off as actual climate science.



konradv said:


> Why can't you argue about I did say and not make up things I didn't?  Failure to argue the point in question doesn't help your position, IMO.



Thus far, you have not said anything that makes any sense at all in the context of this graphic which is the energy budget upon which both the hypothesess of AGW and the greenhouse effect are based.  The whole point is that you are ignoring what climate science says in favor of your own fabricated greenhouse senario which completely destroys your position.  You don't even beleive the hypothesis yourself but politically you must hate industry so you make up your own version which, I suppose, in your own mind makes perfect sense.  

Explain yourself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2011)

Theory?

Here's the theory...see these tree rings...look closely...closely...you are getting sleepy..so sleepy...your eye lids are so heavy from ManMade Global Warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Lots of words, still nothing remotely resembling a theory.

Can't find one on Goggle either, right?


----------



## konradv (Jun 10, 2011)

What part of "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space" doesn't wirebender understand?!?!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2011)

Hey look, when you Google you can find a Global Warming Hypothesis

Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere...This suggested infrared radiation leakage was hypothesized to be a negative feedback which would have an* overall cooling effect*... A later 2007 study conducted by Roy Spencer, et al. using updated satellite data supported the iris hypothesis.[5]"


----------



## konradv (Jun 10, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hey look, when you Google you can find a Global Warming Hypothesis
> 
> Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere...This suggested infrared radiation leakage was hypothesized to be a negative feedback which would have an* overall cooling effect*... A later 2007 study conducted by Roy Spencer, et al. using updated satellite data supported the iris hypothesis.[5]"



You've been asking for a theory and we're supposed to congratulate you because you found a hypothesis?!?!  Not the same thing, but then actually knowing what they're talking about never means much to the deniers/skeptics, because their major concern is political rather than scientific.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hey look, when you Google you can find a Global Warming Hypothesis
> ...



Swing and a miss!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpT0D1V5VSg]YouTube - &#x202a;MLB 10 The Show - Rangers@Yankees: Joba Strikes out Hamilton with the Bases Loaded&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> What part of "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space" doesn't wirebender understand?!?!



Which part of the graph describes slowing down the escape of energy into space?  I see absorption and emission.  Show me on the graphic that describes greenhouse theory where it mentions "slowing" down the escape of energy into space.  That graph I gave you is the actual science that you are defending.  Do you agree with it or not?  Why do you need your own hypothesis revolving around "slowing down" IR escaping into space?  Is it because you find the actual science to rediculous to believe?

Here is the graph again.  I know you don't like looking at it but it represents the actual science as opposed to your "slow down radiation" story.


----------



## konradv (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > What part of "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space" doesn't wirebender understand?!?!
> ...



Not playing your games.  You may be able to fool the uninitiated, but not me.  Once again, what don't you understand about "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space"?  Where on your graph does it descibe photons leaving earth only to be intercepted by a GHG and then re-emitted back towards earth?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hey look, when you Google you can find a Global Warming Hypothesis
> ...



Yes, your major concern is political rather than scientific, that's why your 0 for the thread in posting anything resembling a theory, hypothesis, wild guess or crazy notion.

"we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC


----------



## IanC (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's. GHGs insulate the globe and the temp goes up until equilibrium is reached. it doesnt matter what numerical value is assigned to up/downwelling radiation, just the net effect. increased CO2 theoretically should cause 1C warming for doubling at this postion of the log curve. the whole AGW debate rests on feedbacks. IPCC says positive, history and common sense says negative. the world had liquid water when the sun's output was much less, the world didnt burn up when CO2 was much higher. water and clouds control the thermostat, reacting to changes in the system to keep the temp range dampened down. our research money should be spent on clouds rather than continue to waste it on CO2, which has produced little understanding after 25 years.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



What I understand is that according to the graphic that represents the basis for both AGW and greenhouse effect hypothesis, there is no "slowing down" the escape of energy mentioned.  Don't you think such an important distinction between slowing down the escape of energy into space and the actual absorption of energy by the surface of the earth might be mentioned?  Your claims don't match the climate science.  Clearly you are a fraud. 

So much a fraud, in fact, that you won't even engage on the actual science.  The only thing one can take out of the difference between the actual claims of climate science and your own personal "hypothesis" is that you don't believe the actual science any more than I do.  When you look at it, it is patently rediculous and completely indefensible.



konradv said:


> Where on your graph does it descibe photons leaving earth only to be intercepted by a GHG and then re-emitted back towards earth?
> :eusa_whistle



First, it isn't my graph.  It is the graph upon which the completely rediculous hypothoses of AGW and the greenhouse effect are based.  It is the graph that represents the basis of climate science.  As to where it describes photons leaving earth only to be intercepted and the re-emitted back towards earth:

ARE YOU KIDDING?

The 323 wm2 described as backradiation.  I have a low estimation of you konradv, but even I don't think for a second that you are that stupid.

Here, allow me to provide you with a definition of backradiation.  When you go to the Glossary of Meterology at the American Meterological Society's web site and do a search for backradiation, you are told that it is the same as counterradiation.  When you look up counterradiation you get the following definition:

_counterradiationThe downward flux of longwave radiation across a given surface, usually taken as the earth's surface.  *Counterradiation originates in emission by clouds and greenhouse gases at different heights and temperatures, and is modified by subsequent absorption before reaching the surface in question*. 

The long-term global average of counterradiation reaching the earth's surface is about 330 W m&#8722;2, *making it one of the largest terms in the surface energy balance*. _

So there you have it from the horse's mouth.  Backradiation is one of the largest terms in the surface energy balance of the earth.  Backradiation provides more energy to the surface of the earth than the sun according to climate science.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's.



My arguments have to be simple because konradv is obvously simple.  Believe what you want about CO2 but there is not one shred of observed evdience that proves that it can alter the temperature in an open system.


----------



## konradv (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's.
> ...



You're quite wrong about that.  If it absorbs IR in my spectrophotometer, it'll absorb IR in the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's.
> ...



do you really believe CO2 makes no difference in the overall equilibrium of the globe's climate? or are you just complaining about how it is presented? the earth is warmer with an atmosphere and in the big picture it doesnt matter what values are used to describe how much IR is emitted and bounced around. only the net escape matters for non specialists. I can understand you being pissed off at being sold a whacky diagram and theory based on climate models that are hardwired to show excess importance for CO2 but you seem to want to argue niggling mistakes and deny everything that the warmers say just on principal. do you deny CO2 affects the temp, even if we cant attach a specific number to it?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Check the emission spectrum of CO2 with your spectrometer.  You will see that it has emitted precisely the same amount of energy that it absorbed and has emitted the energy in a wave to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> do you really believe CO2 makes no difference in the overall equilibrium of the globe's climate? or are you just complaining about how it is presented? the earth is warmer with an atmosphere and in the big picture it doesnt matter what values are used to describe how much IR is emitted and bounced around. only the net escape matters for non specialists. I can understand you being pissed off at being sold a whacky diagram and theory based on climate models that are hardwired to show excess importance for CO2 but you seem to want to argue niggling mistakes and deny everything that the warmers say just on principal. do you deny CO2 affects the temp, even if we cant attach a specific number to it?



Here are the basic facts.  The greenhouse effect and AGW depend on backradiation from an atmosphere that is colder than the earth to heat the earth.  

Further fact:  CO2 is not, has not been, and never will be an energy source BUT all AGW and greenhouse effect scientific papers claim that more energy is being radiatied from the earth and atmosphere than is received from the sun.  This MUST involve the creation of energy somewhere as the sun is the only source of energy.

Further fact: Atmospheric CO2 has an average temperature of -20 degrees C and the surface of the earth has an average temperature of +15 degrees C.  It is therefore impossible for CO2 to cause the warming of a warmer earth as it would be a clear violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  

As I have already pointed out, and provided links to the experiment performed by the physics department of BYU, and you may perform it yourself for about 15 dollars and an hour and a half of your time; if you point a parabolic reflector at the sky during daylight hours but away from the sun, you can achieve a cooling effect.  If backradiation existed, it would warm any object inside the dish no matter which direction you point it.  Further, if you point the dish at the sky during the night, it is possible to get ice when the ambient temperature  is nearly 48 degrees.  According to climate science, backradiation is happening everywhere 24/7. 

Explain which law of phisics would allow CO2 to backradiate and warm the earth and yet allow ice to form when the temperature is nearly 48 degrees F by aiming a parabolic dish at that same radiation.

By the way, the earth is only warmer during nighttime hours because it has an atmosphere.  During the daylight hours, the atmosphere serves to dissipate and scatter incoming radiation and effectively keeps us from burining up.  Check the daytime temperature of the moon which receives roughly the same amount of energy from the sun per square meter as the earth.


----------



## IanC (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender- subtracting a negative number gives a positive result. slowing down the loss of heat results in more heat remaining.  the atmosphere dampens the temp swings in both direction, which doesnt happen on the moon.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> wirebender- subtracting a negative number gives a positive result. slowing down the loss of heat results in more heat remaining.  the atmosphere dampens the temp swings in both direction, which doesnt happen on the moon.



None the less, you want me to beleive that a cooler atmosphere can heat up a warmer earth.  

More facts:

Radiating IR is realized by propagating electromagnetic fields.  These fields are vector fields and they travel at, or very near the speed of light.  The earth radiates IR at a rate of about 390 watts per square meter.  This heats the atmosphere to an average of -20C.  The atmosphere in turn radiates about 324 watts per square meter in all directions.

Subtract the resultant EM field (390-324) and the remainder is 66 watts per square meter in favor of the earth so the radiation is up.  All of the energy radiated from the surface of the earth is radiated into cold space.  There is no slowing down of the rate of heat loss.  You simply can not store up more energy than is available.


----------



## IanC (Jun 10, 2011)

the sun produces highly energetic photons that take 1M years to bounce around and be converted to the average 4000C light that is emitted by the surface. I have no problem seeing Earth's atmosphere slowing down escaping IR until it is converted into wavelengths that easily escape. my problem with AGW is the presumed positive feedbacks that do not agree with actual measurements. 

you can argue little details and concoct scenarios which you imagine the laws of thermodynamics are being broken but you are hurting the anti-catastrophe side by acting like a lawyer trying to create doubt rather than a scientist trying to explain the evidence. CO2 back radiation doesnt 'warm' the Earth but slowing the cooling can, all other things being unchaged, which of course they are not. give the red herring of the second law of thermodynamics a rest. it doesnt apply in the manner that you say it does.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> the sun produces highly energetic photons that take 1M years to bounce around and be converted to the average 4000C light that is emitted by the surface. I have no problem seeing Earth's atmosphere slowing down escaping IR until it is converted into wavelengths that easily escape. my problem with AGW is the presumed positive feedbacks that do not agree with actual measurements.
> 
> you can argue little details and concoct scenarios which you imagine the laws of thermodynamics are being broken but you are hurting the anti-catastrophe side by acting like a lawyer trying to create doubt rather than a scientist trying to explain the evidence. CO2 back radiation doesnt 'warm' the Earth but slowing the cooling can, all other things being unchaged, which of course they are not. give the red herring of the second law of thermodynamics a rest. it doesnt apply in the manner that you say it does.



First, the myth that CO2 can warm, or cause the atmosphere to warm is not a "little" detail.

CO2 can not, does not, never has, nor never will drive the climate or cause the temperature of the planet to increase.  The "blanket" hypothesis is as bad as the backradiation hypothesis and just as implausible.  Let me try to explain.

_"Human Body Emission

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:






Applying the Stefan Boltzman Law






The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.[ Skin temperature is about 33 °C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 °C when the ambient temperature is 20 °C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about




_"

If you put a 20C blanket (which is colder) on a warmer 33C body, the surface temperature is going to reduce to about 28C.  Heat flowed from the warmer body to the cooler blanket just as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts.

It is true that the blanket will trap warm air between the body and itself, but that heat will not increase the temperature of the body.  The atmosphere as a blanket hypothesis just doesn't work because your blanket is -20C.

What do you think happens when you wrap a -20C blanket around a -18C earth?  Just as the surface temperature of a human body drops from 33C to 28C when you wrap a blanket around it, the earth's temperature will drop as well.  Wrapping a -20C atmospheric blanket around it certainly won't cause its temperature to increase by nearly 33C up to 15C.

In either case, the blanket on your body or the atmosphere around the earth, a temperature increase of the body, or the earth would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Now if you care to try, feel free to explain how any amount of atmospheric CO2 in an atmosphere that averages -20C can cause the earth's -18C temperature (with the sun as its only energy source) to warm by 33C to 15C?  

If you are going to try, provide some laws of physics to support your explanation.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> the sun produces highly energetic photons that take 1M years to bounce around and be converted to the average 4000C light that is emitted by the surface. I have no problem seeing Earth's atmosphere slowing down escaping IR until it is converted into wavelengths that easily escape.



Are you suggesting that the force of gravity of earth is approching the force of gravity to be found near the core of the sun?  

What sort of senario is playing out in your mind that lets you imagine the forces at the core of the sun that might cause a photon to take a very long time to escape might play out in the atmosphere of the earth?


----------



## RWatt (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > That's true, here are some ground measurements of backradiation:
> ...



No they don't assume that. They are measuring incoming infrared radiation.

Man can do that. We have the tech to do it. 

It isn't an impossible measurement to make as you seem to think.

Just as we can measure how much visible light is coming from a certain direction, so can we measure how much infrared light, or UV light or any other kind of light is coming from a certain direction.

And when scientists point instruments up at the sky, they detect large amounts of infrared coming down, and it's source must be the atmosphere itself.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2011)

The radiation at a longer wave from the surface of the earth then light waves being that earth is cooler then the sun as the sun is 11,000f and earth is 59f(sun mostly visible because is hotter) this radiation then hits the green house gases and get reflected in all directions, meaning some of it gets forced back the surface of the earth, which creates a surplus of "energy" within earth climate system then that otherwise would occur if allowed to all come from the sun. More or less 117% give or take at the surface to 100% coming from the sun.(maybe not the numbers, but close) Why because some of the energy is transported back to the surface of the earth because of green house gases. NOT made, but not allowed to escape into space. That is why water vapor and other green house gases cause a warming...Yes pressure=density of the Atmosphere and molecules close to each other=higher temperatures. You can have a shit load of energy, but if you don't have the density you have a mars. That is why mars is cold.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > do you really believe CO2 makes no difference in the overall equilibrium of the globe's climate? or are you just complaining about how it is presented? the earth is warmer with an atmosphere and in the big picture it doesnt matter what values are used to describe how much IR is emitted and bounced around. only the net escape matters for non specialists. I can understand you being pissed off at being sold a whacky diagram and theory based on climate models that are hardwired to show excess importance for CO2 but you seem to want to argue niggling mistakes and deny everything that the warmers say just on principal. do you deny CO2 affects the temp, even if we cant attach a specific number to it?
> ...



Backradiation exists. Not only observed fact, but it would defy physics if there wasn't backradiation. The atmosphere emits infrared radiation - you've said so yourself that greenhouse gases emit infrared radiation, so how are you proposing that none of that emitted infrared radiation intercepts the surface of the Earth?



> Further fact:  CO2 is not, has not been, and never will be an energy source BUT all AGW and greenhouse effect scientific papers claim that more energy is being radiatied from the earth and atmosphere than is received from the sun.  This MUST involve the creation of energy somewhere as the sun is the only source of energy.



It involves the reuse of energy not the creation of energy.



> Atmospheric CO2 has an average temperature of -20 degrees C and the surface of the earth has an average temperature of +15 degrees C.  It is therefore impossible for CO2 to cause the warming of a warmer earth as it would be a clear violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.



Without the CO2 there the Earth's average temperature would be a lot lower than 15C. Without the CO2 there would be less backradiation. Less backradiation means the surface is absorbing less energy. Less energy absorbed leads to cooling.



> As I have already pointed out, and provided links to the experiment performed by the physics department of BYU, and you may perform it yourself for about 15 dollars and an hour and a half of your time; if you point a parabolic reflector at the sky during daylight hours but away from the sun, you can achieve a cooling effect.  If backradiation existed, it would warm any object inside the dish no matter which direction you point it.



Backradiation will be warming the dish. But the reason it's cooled is that radiation from the ground is being shielded by the reflector. If the radiation from above could be blocked out too it would get even colder.



> Further, if you point the dish at the sky during the night, it is possible to get ice when the ambient temperature  is nearly 48 degrees.  According to climate science, backradiation is happening everywhere 24/7.



Without back-radiation it would be even colder.



> Explain which law of phisics would allow CO2 to backradiate and warm the earth and yet allow ice to form when the temperature is nearly 48 degrees F by aiming a parabolic dish at that same radiation.



Because an object is not only absorbing infrared from the atmosphere, but also infrared emitted from the surroundings (walls, trees, cars, the ground itself). To cause a cooling you only have to block out some of those, even if you leave one of them (eg backradiation) as is.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 10, 2011)

Konnie said:
			
		

> However, the rise in CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution  CO2 is 25-35%



Which cannot be proven to be man's fault, only THEORIZED is man's fault.  We do not know all the sources of and sequestering factors of CO2.  Only models of what we DO know about.



			
				Konnie said:
			
		

> If you don't know the basics, should you really be commenting?



I know you shouldn't be.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender- subtracting a negative number gives a positive result. slowing down the loss of heat results in more heat remaining.  the atmosphere dampens the temp swings in both direction, which doesnt happen on the moon.
> ...



You've answered your own question. The heat transfer is from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere 

390 - 324 = 64wm-2 in the direction from surface to atmosphere.

But look what happens if the back-radiation doesn't exist:

390 - 0 = 390.

The surface is now losing 390watts per square meter rather than just 65watts per square meter. As a result it will cool significantly.

It's only as warm as it is today because of that subtraction of 324wm-2


----------



## RWatt (Jun 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Konnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For it not to be man's fault we'd have to believe at least two preposterous things.

1) That this was just a coincidence:






CO2 just decided to do jump like it hasn't done in millions of years exactly in time with human emissions.

2) That the 15 billion ton increase in CO2 each year has nothing to do with our 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions each year. Which not only presents a preposterous accounting problem - how an input of 30 billion tons per year can't be held responsible for a rise of just 15 billion tons per year, but also beggars belief at how our 30 billion tons could be mysteriously vanished even as 15 billion tons from who knows where is left alone to accumulate.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 10, 2011)

Theory is gay


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Theory is gay



No it is not. If there was not for Theories( idea's that are supportrd by more then one scientist and backed up by data) thought up by scientist throughout the ages you wouldn't have that computer your typing on or anything. You likely would be in a cave somewhere freezing your ass off.


----------



## sparky (Jun 11, 2011)

i don't believe i've ever been witness to the dismantling of science in any issue , as i have with (the misnomer) global warming


----------



## wirebender (Jun 11, 2011)

RWatt said:


> No they don't assume that. They are measuring incoming infrared radiation.



Some are, some arent.  I have been through all this with Trakar before, but since it is short, I will cover it with you again.  First, lets look at the ones that don't.

An uncooled infrared radiometer pointed at the sky will measure the frequency of any incoming "light" and makes a calculation based on Wien's displacement law to determine the temperature of the "light" emitter or source of the radiation. Then using Stefan-Boltzmann's law Q = sigma T^4, suggests a downdwelling IR "flux" from the atmosphere. 

Based on this, climate "scientists" claim to be able to prove the effects of "greenhouse" gasses. The question is, are they? I don't believe they are and here is why.

Do you think it is proper to use Stefan-Boltzman in the form of Q = sigma T^4 in an attempt to measure downdwelling IR from greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? Stefan-Boltzman describes the radiant energy from a blackbody into a surrounding space at zero degrees Kelvin. The problem lies in the fact that the surface of the earth is not at zero degrees Kelvin and not only that, is warmer than the emitting source of the radiation. 

Then there are the radiometers that actually do measure downdwelling radiation but each and every one of them proves that downdwelling radiation is not a source of IR to the earth.

The radiometers that can actually measure downdwelling radiation have, each and every one, been cooled to a temperature far below the -20C temperature of the atmosphere in order to make it possible to take a direct measurement.  Just as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.  

For example:



Cryocooler Assembly
"Low vibration, long life focal plane operation near 58 K is critical to the success of AIRS.."


Dewar Assembly

"The focal plane assembly operates at 58 K for high sensitivity and is packaged in a permanent vacuum dewar which mates directly to the 155 K grating spectrometer."

58K = -215 deg C !!


Focal Plane Assembly

"The PV modules consist of 1, 2 or 4 bi-linear arrays of back-side-illuminated HgCdTe detectors"

"The AIRS FPA is unique in its hybrid PV/PC approach and required special care in the routing, shielding and grounding of very low noise (nV) PC signals in the presence of high level (V) PV signals. A total of 526 leads interconnect to the motherboard assembly using a series of 10 high-density, thin-film flex cables specifically designed for cryogenic operation

TES Instrument Specifications

"Individual detector array spectral coverage (cm-1) 1A (1900-3050), 1B (820-1150), 2A (1100-1950), 2B (650-900) All mercury cadmium telluride photo voltaic at 65 K "
65K = -208 deg C!

Each and every one of these instruments used to measure downdwelling radiation is cooled to a much lower temperature than the atmosphere so that the radiation will flow towards the instrument.  Every measurement that claims to have measured downdwelling radiation has been either deliberatly, or through ignorance, falsified.

You only need look as far as the second law of thermodynamics to see the truth.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. 


If they did not cool the radiometers, they would get no measurement as the downdwelling radiation would not flow to the warmer earth just as the 2nd law states.



RWatt said:


> Man can do that. We have the tech to do it.



Man does not have the technology to violate the laws of physics.  Th



RWatt said:


> It isn't an impossible measurement to make as you seem to think.



Then why do they have to cool the instruments to a temperature lower than the atmosphere in order to get a direct measurement?



RWatt said:


> Just as we can measure how much visible light is coming from a certain direction, so can we measure how much infrared light, or UV light or any other kind of light is coming from a certain direction.



Only if the insturument is cooler that the source because energy will not flow from cool to warm.  If you don't cool the instrument, you get nothing but noise.



RWatt said:


> And when scientists point instruments up at the sky, they detect large amounts of infrared coming down, and it's source must be the atmosphere itself.



They only detect that radiation if they cool their instruments to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.  If they don't cool the instruments, the radiation won't flow into the instrument.  Cool will not move spontaneously to warm.  The second law again.



I will have to get to the reset of your posts tomorrow.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 11, 2011)

sparky said:


> i don't believe i've ever been witness to the dismantling of science in any issue , as i have with (the misnomer) global warming



Thats because pointing to some local weather event and going, "See that? Do you see that?  ManMade Global Warming!" isn't science.

Watching Kaku describe the rigorous testing of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, he said that if there was even one data point out they'd have to discard the entire theory. You see how ridiculous it is that we can't even get this AGW "Theory" on record.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 11, 2011)

wirebender said:


> If they did not cool the radiometers, they would get no measurement as the downdwelling radiation would not flow to the warmer earth just as the 2nd law states.



Radiation is not heat, so the 2nd law doesn't cover it, hence there is no violation of the 2nd law from back-radiation.

You claim that molecules only radiate towards cooler objects. How could they possibly manage this feat?

First of all they'd have to know what object the light they emit will hit. Considering light doesn't propagate instantly they'd have to be capable of calculating the position of objects in the universe in the future to know what what the light would intercept. In many cases this would involve calculating positions of objects years in advance.

Second they'd also have to know what temperature that object would be at the moment of interception, not at the time of emission. So they'd have to be able to predict future temperature's of objects too.

Thirdly they'd need some kind of imbued intelligence to decide whether or not to emit based on the above.

Of course none of these abilities exist in nature, they defy and violate any number of properties of the universe (eg causality).

CO2 molecules in fact just emit infrared radiation in any random direction. It doesn't matter how warm or cold the object the light will hit will be.

There will be infrared radiation emitted by the Earth heading towards the Sun for example.



> They only detect that radiation if they cool their instruments to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.  If they don't cool the instruments, the radiation won't flow into the instrument.



Where will it go then?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 11, 2011)

"I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 11, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 12, 2011)

Still no theory.

And for those of you intimidated by an article from "MIT" here's what you need to know

"The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved* economic modeling* and newer *economic data* showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. "

They took their Wheel of Climate Change Model (yeah, I can't believe that the real scientists at MIT haven't thrown these fucking clowns off campus either) and doubled down on their losing bet






Why is AGW about economics?

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." IPCC


----------



## wirebender (Jun 12, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Radiation is not heat, so the 2nd law doesn't cover it, hence there is no violation of the 2nd law from back-radiation.



Dang RWatt.  I had no idea.  I knew that you were grasping in regards to the science; but I had no idea that the topic was this far over your head.

Tell me RWatt, if radiation and heat are unrelated, what is the problem? If downdwelling radiation is not carrying heat, why is it so important to you to try and prove that it exists?   Hell, according to you, no amount of IR matters because radiation is not heat.  According to you, 2,000 watts per square meter of IR from the sun to the surface of the earth would mean nothing as heat and radiation are different things.  If heat and radiation are not related, then no amount of backradition could possibly cause warming so why it it even an issue for you? 

Clearly, you really don't have a clue and it isn't my place to teach you the basics.  Here is a clue, radiation is one of the means by which heat is transported.  Here,  at least make an effort to learn the basics.

Radiation - The Physics Hypertextbook



RWatt said:


> You claim that molecules only radiate towards cooler objects. How could they possibly manage this feat?



Actually, I never made any such claim.  Are you now reduced to erecting strawmen to tilt against in an effort to win a point?  You lost any credibility you may believe you had with that first idiotic statement, now simply making up statments to attribute to me only further erodes your position.  Do feel free to bring forward any such statement by me if you like and provide a link to the post.

I won't even bother with your first second or third point, as I never made any such statment that would require such a response.



RWatt said:


> CO2 molecules in fact just emit infrared radiation in any random direction. It doesn't matter how warm or cold the object the light will hit will be.



What, precisely do you believe IR to be RWatt?  Are you familiar with the term thermal radiation.  How do you suppose a wave of IR might be separated from the heat that it is carrying?  



RWatt said:


> There will be infrared radiation emitted by the Earth heading towards the Sun for example.



So according to you the earth can warm the sun?  Are you saying that the earth, which depends on the sun for its energy can, in fact, warm the sun if even by a very small amount?  Tell me what law of physics you base that bit of jibberish on.



RWatt said:


> Where will it go then?



It spontaneously flows to cold, therefore it flows up towards cold space.  You can only measure downdwelling radiation if you cool the instrument to the point that it is colder than the upper atmosphere.  Heat will spontaneously flow from warm to cold but not from cold to warm.  If you don't cool the instrument, no radiation will flow to it to be measured.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 12, 2011)

Matthew said:


> The radiation at a longer wave from the surface of the earth then light waves being that earth is cooler then the sun as the sun is 11,000f and earth is 59f(sun mostly visible because is hotter) this radiation then hits the green house gases and get reflected in all directions, meaning some of it gets forced back the surface of the earth, which creates a surplus of "energy" within earth climate system then that otherwise would occur if allowed to all come from the sun.



Describe the physical law that you supppse allows surplus energy to be created.  We get X amount from the sun and that is all there is.  You can't get more energy out than was put in.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2011)

WireBender:

How's about...... you can't measure tiny amounts of crap -- if you're crapmeter is already full of crap??

Works for cameras measuring visible light, receivers measuring RF, or radiometers measuring IR..

This may also help from Wikipedia:



> Infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat" or sometimes known as "heat radiation", since many people attribute all radiant heating to infrared light and/or all infrared radiation to heating. This is a widespread misconception, since light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[11] of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths.



The Radiant modes described in Thermo are not same as EM modal travel. ANY EM radiation can cause heat. But heat in an object causes IR emission..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 12, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > The radiation at a longer wave from the surface of the earth then light waves being that earth is cooler then the sun as the sun is 11,000f and earth is 59f(sun mostly visible because is hotter) this radiation then hits the green house gases and get reflected in all directions, meaning some of it gets forced back the surface of the earth, which creates a surplus of "energy" within earth climate system then that otherwise would occur if allowed to all come from the sun.
> ...



I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but believe I've read that the "energy" comes into the climate system(the energy that is not reflected away from the Atmosphere, clouds, ect) so the energy that makes it to the surface is what is lefted over(70% for clear day, 25% for cloudy day with 3,000 feet of depth of the clouds) to heat the surface of the earth. This energy is radiated, yes a large part of this energy escapes to space, but what green house gases do is act as a trap for this energy, which readmits this energy in all directions. Being that some of this energy is forced back down to the surface, so that energy is now to be used to warm the surface. That is how you get a imbalance and with such get global warming. As you increase the ghg's the level of heat able to escape to space becomes less and less. Water vapor is also a ghg and works in this way.

I hope I'm not to far off. I'm learning.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 12, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation is not heat, so the 2nd law doesn't cover it, hence there is no violation of the 2nd law from back-radiation.
> ...



They are not unrelated, but they are not the same thing.

Heat is the transfer of energy between two bodies, as in the total net transfer. That includes all forms of energy transfer not just radiation.

Infrared light carries energy, not heat. 

So when I say 330wm-2 backradiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface I am citing a transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface. 

As well as that there is 350wm-2 infrared radiation from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. That is another transfer of energy. There is also about 100wm-2 energy transfered from the surface to the atmosphere by convection and evaporation.

Adding them all up (350 + 100 - 330), the net energy flow between the surface and atmosphere is about 120wm-2 from the surface to the atmosphere. That's the direction of heat transfer. It's from the surface to the atmosphere. That's expected because the  surface is warmer than the atmosphere.



> Hell, according to you, no amount of IR matters because radiation is not heat.



Radiation carries energy. The temperature of the surface moves toward a level proportional to the amount of energy it absorbs. That means, quite simply, that backradiation is contributing to the temperature of the surface. Without backradiation the surface would be absorbing less energy and hence would be cooler. Just as if less sunlight was being absorbed the surface would cool. Absorbed energy is absorbed energy. It doesn't mater whether it was carried by sunlight or infrared, once it's absorbed it's part of the pot that determines the objects temperature.



> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > You claim that molecules only radiate towards cooler objects. How could they possibly manage this feat?
> ...



You did make such a claim. You said: "Each and every one of these instruments used to measure downdwelling radiation *is cooled to a much lower temperature than the atmosphere so that the radiation will flow towards the instrument*."

Which means you are claiming infrared radiation from the atmosphere won't flow towards objects that are warmer than the atmosphere. Although now your response above suggests you do in fact think infrared radiation from the atmosphere will flow towards objects that are warmer. That's correct so lets go with that. There is still something missing.

You are proposing photons of infrared light are emitted downwards from the atmosphere towards a warmer object, but those photons never reach the warmer object.

The question then is what are you proposing happens to them mid-flight? 



RWatt said:


> There will be infrared radiation emitted by the Earth heading towards the Sun for example.



So according to you the earth can warm the sun?[/QUOTE]

Only by an irrelevantly small amount, lots of leading zeroes, but yes. The presence of the Earth means the Sun is absorbing more energy than it would do if the Earth wasn't there.



> Are you saying that the earth, which depends on the sun for its energy can, in fact, warm the sun if even by a very small amount?  Tell me what law of physics you base that bit of jibberish on.



The Earth emits infrared radiation into space. Some of that will head towards the Sun. It's light, it doesn't stop or bend round the Sun, it goes straight into it and is absorbed, not reflected. It means the Sun is gaining a little extra energy by the Earth being there. If it's gaining a little extra energy it means it's warmer.



> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > Where will it go then?
> ...



You said:
"If they don't cool the instruments, the radiation won't flow into the instrument."

You keep talking about radiation "flow". You are aware that infrared radiation is light right? Like visible light infrared radiation will travel in a straight line. It can't turn round or "flow" round. The direction it is emitted in determines which direction it will travel in a straight line until it hits something. If it's emitted downwards it will keep going downwards.

I can't seriously believe you are claiming that molecules in the atmosphere emit either up or down depending on the temperature of some instrument at the surface, so what are you claiming?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2011)

RWatt said:


> They are not unrelated, but they are not the same thing.
> 
> Heat is the transfer of energy between two bodies, as in the total net transfer. That includes all forms of energy transfer not just radiation.



What you don't seem to be grasping is that radiation is the vehicle by which heat moves if you are going to arbitrarily remove convection and conduction from the equation.  If the radiation is not moving in a given direction, the heat isn't moving in that direction either.

Stefan-Boltzman Law / Heat Radiation

Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. 

P = e(BC)A(T^4  Tc^4)

Where P = net radiated power in watts , e = emissivity, BC = Stefans constant, A = area, T = temperature of radiator or emitter and Tc = temperature of the surrounding space or another body

rearranging the equation gives you:

P/A = e(BC)T^4  e(BC)Tc^4 expressed in Wm2

This equation represents a subtraction of two EM fields.  The difference between the two fields will measure P/A and will move in the direction of the greater field.  In accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there is no energy flow from cooler to warmer.  This is precisely why instruments must be cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere in order to get a measuremet of downdwelling radiation.  It only happens if the instrument is cooler than the emitter, in this case, the atmosphere.  The radiation doesn't propagate in the direction of the earth because the earth is warmer than the atmosphere.



RWatt said:


> So when I say 330wm-2 backradiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface I am citing a transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface.



When you say that 330 Wm2 backradiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface, you are making the claim that the atmosphere is providing nearly double the amount of energy to the surface of the earth that the sun provides when the sun is the only source of energy.  The 330 Wm2 you claim is energy from nowhere.  Free energy.  The stuff of perpetual motion.

Do describe the law of physics that allows the atmosphere (not a power source) to radiate nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun (which is the only power source available).  Describe this law of physics in detail.




RWatt said:


> You did make such a claim. You said: "Each and every one of these instruments used to measure downdwelling radiation *is cooled to a much lower temperature than the atmosphere so that the radiation will flow towards the instrument*."



Then you should have no problem bringing such a statment forward.  Or are you now claiming that photons or EM fields are molecules?  What substance are photons and EM fields moleculse of?



RWatt said:


> Which means you are claiming infrared radiation from the atmosphere won't flow towards objects that are warmer than the atmosphere.



That is precisely what I am saying and have given you the means by which to prove it to yourself.  If the EM field is not moving towards the earth then the heat is not moving towards the earth.  The larger EM field determines in which direction the heat moves and according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat does not spontaneously move from cool to warm.




RWatt said:


> Although now your response above suggests you do in fact think infrared radiation from the atmosphere will flow towards objects that are warmer. That's correct so lets go with that. There is still something missing.



Clearly, this is way over your head.  I have never made any such claim and the fact that you must now deliberately fabricate falsehoods to attribute to me says about all that need be said about you and your argument.



RWatt said:


> The question then is what are you proposing happens to them mid-flight?



I am proposing that photons move in the direction of the EM wave that is carrying them.




RWatt said:


> Only by an irrelevantly small amount, lots of leading zeroes, but yes. The presence of the Earth means the Sun is absorbing more energy than it would do if the Earth wasn't there.



I am laughing in your face.  The sun doesn't absorb any energy at all from the earth because the EM field is propagating away from the sun.  You would need a larger EM field than the sun to move energy towards the sun.  Do the math or show me the math to prove that the earth is an energy source for the sun.




RWatt said:


> I can't seriously believe you are claiming that molecules in the atmosphere emit either up or down depending on the temperature of some instrument at the surface, so what are you claiming?



I can't believe that you are making the claim that EM fields, or photons are molecules.  Clearly you are unable to understand whatever it is that you are reading.

I have asked once before and you dodged the question.  If downdwelling radiation is a reality, how is it that you can achieve a cooling effect by pointing a parabolic dish towards that same radiation that you claim is heating the surface of the earth to a greater degree than the sun itself?  And if you are going to claim some insulating effect, show me the math, because if you turn that same dish towards the earth you get a heating effect which is precisely what the 2nd law of thermodynmamics predicts just as the 2nd law predicts that if you point the dish towards the sky but not in the direction of the sun, you will realise a cooling effect.  Downdwelling radiation or backradiation simply is not a reality and this is proven by the fact that you have to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere in order to achieve a measurement.


----------



## sparky (Jun 13, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"



well there's always that closed container theory Frank....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2011)

sparky said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"
> ...



Day 8: still no theory.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 13, 2011)

wirebender said:


> If the radiation is not moving in a given direction, the heat isn't moving in that direction either....This equation represents a subtraction of two EM fields.



Unnecessary detail. The disagreement is fundamental about the behavior of light. We don't need to talk about "EM fields".

Please explain what you are arguing in simple terms. Here's an example:

Two stars A and B a distance apart in space but with no obstructions between them.

Both stars are emitting light in all directions, as stars do. This is how energy is carried from stars. Star B is warmer than Star A so it is emitting more light (more energy) in all directions than star A.

I say that some of the light from the cooler star A _must_ reach the warmer star B and be absorbed, thus representing a flow of energy from star A to star B.

You say this is impossible. What you haven't made clear is why this is impossible. So I'll make it easy for you by giving you the choices and you can tell me which one you are arguing for:

1) Star A never emits light towards star B in the first place.

2) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction immediately after emission

3) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction before it reaches star B (say when)

4) Light from star A reaches star B, but bends round it

5) Light from star A reaches star B, but passes straight through it

Not a very good choice is it? There are massive problems with each of these. You have made for yourself a false dilemma because you won't accept the obvious, which is that the light from cooler objects will travel and be absorbed by warmer ones.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 13, 2011)

Even if they delivered their theory...........doesnt matter. Nobody cares anymore. Too, their "science" theories converge with their fcukked up economic theories that dont work for shit and never have in the history of the world. Their whole shit is on a steep decline and I couldnt be happier.

ps..........Obama was out on the campaign trail today talking about "jobs".........talked about Americans making windmills, solar panels, cfls, as a way of bringing our economy back!!!


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Unnecessary detail. The disagreement is fundamental about the behavior of light. We don't need to talk about "EM fields".



Of course you do but do feel free to describe the law of physics that says that IR may behave independently from EM fields.




RWatt said:


> I say that some of the light from the cooler star A _must_ reach the warmer star B and be absorbed, thus representing a flow of energy from star A to star B.



Of course you do.  You can say it till you are blue in the face but it will not make it true.  Describe the law of physics that allows heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm.  I note that you are big on "saying" but damned short on proof.  



RWatt said:


> You say this is impossible. What you haven't made clear is why this is impossible.



I have made it perfectly clear.  It is not my fault that the math is way over your head.  Now again, describe which law of physics supports your claim.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it perfectly clear that what you clam can not happen.  Upon which law of physics do you claim that it can happen?  Please be specific.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. 

I will try and explain in more simple terms why light from the cooler star will not be absorbed by the warmer star.  My explanation will hinge on the three following laws of nature.

1.  The Law of Conservation of energy - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

2.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Energy may only move from warm to cool.

3.  The Stephan-Boltzmann Law - Objects that absorb energy will increase in temperature and radiate all the energy that was absorbed.

Rather than try and make an example with stars, lets keep the same principles but move a bit closer to home.  Lets look at lightbulbs.  


Lets start with a light bulb.  Lets make it one of the clear ones so that we can see what is going on and not have to deal with the effect of frosted glass.  OK, our light is turned off but you can see the filament inside the bulb because the background light in the room is shining on it.  Now according to you, if you turn on the lightbulb, the background light in the room will still be shining on the filament and as such, the filament will be absorbing some amount of the background light.  

Sorry guy, but it isn't happening.  If it were, you would have a violation of both the Law of Conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.   It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because you have the cooler background light of the room being absorbed by the very hot filament in the light bulb.  

If the lightbulb were to absorb any of the background light from the room, then the filament would have to, in turn, heat up and radiate more energy according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law.  Now watch closely because here is where your argument falls apart.

If the filament absorbs light from the room it will heat up and radiates more energy, which would make the light in the room become brighter which, in turn, would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and as a result, burn brighter, which would cause the light in the room to become brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more light  from the room and burn brighter, which would make the light in the room brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more energy and burn brighter which would cause the room to be brighter *which would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and burn brighter which would cause the light in the room to be brighter*  *which would cause the light bulb to absorb more energy and burn brighter which would cause the room to be brighter.... *  Do you see where this is going?  If the warmer object can absorb energy from the cooler object, you make the warmer object even warmer which will in turn warm up the cooler object which then warms the warmer object which then warms the cooler object and you end up in a perpetual, ever growing loop moving towards infinity.

This is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy because clearly, energy has been created.  The light bulb would be putting out more energy than it was receiving from its light socket.  Left on long enough, the filament of the light bulb would increase to infinity and put out an infinite amount of light.  Do you really not see a problem with claiming that the less lightbulb can absorb light from the less bright (cooler) backround light of the room?  It would work the same way with stars.  Your claim requires that energy be created and you can not create energy.

The laws of nature are all tied to each other.  You can't violate just one.  When you violate one, violations of others soon follow.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 13, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Jesus Christ Frank, stop being so blind. The theory has been posted before you several times. It's simple... carbon dioxide and other man-made chemicals are greenhouse gases. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped out enough to create an artificial warming effect because heat radiation is allowed into our atmosphere but not allowed out. This property of greenhouse gases has been demonstrated in laboratories repeatedly . What more do you need to know? Use your brain, you can figure it out. It's a pretty simple concept. Then, when you get a handle on it, use Ocum's Razor to slice away that other fantasy theory you have. 

I asked you. What is YOUR theory on global warming? I don't mean to butt in, but it's just so annoying how you demand a theory as if we owe you an explanation that has already been stated to you by someone else on this board. It's like a misplaced narcissism that deniers have. The burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2011)

Matthew said:


> The radiation at a longer wave from the surface of the earth then light waves being that earth is cooler then the sun as the sun is 11,000f and earth is 59f(sun mostly visible because is hotter) this radiation then hits the green house gases and get reflected in all directions, meaning some of it gets forced back the surface of the earth, which creates a surplus of "energy" within earth climate system then that otherwise would occur if allowed to all come from the sun. More or less 117% give or take at the surface to 100% coming from the sun.(maybe not the numbers, but close) Why because some of the energy is transported back to the surface of the earth because of green house gases. NOT made, but not allowed to escape into space. That is why water vapor and other green house gases cause a warming...Yes pressure=density of the Atmosphere and molecules close to each other=higher temperatures. You can have a shit load of energy, but if you don't have the density you have a mars. That is why mars is cold.



Didn't mean to ignore you but I have not had a great deal of time to post.  Let me answer with a question.

Do you believe you can set a heater in a room in your home that is radiating 1000 watts of energy and take a reflector, or two reflectors, or 10 reflectors, or 1000 reflectors and put them around your heater and cause it to radiate more than 1000 watts of energy?  Do you believe you could get even 1001 watts of energy output without having to pay your electric company for that extra watt?  Do you believe you could gain a watt of energy that didn't show up on the meter outside your home?

If we could do such a thing, why don't we simply use reflectors and make use of that free energy to solve our energy needs?  The idea that greenhouse gasses could make the earth radiate more than twice as much energy as it receives from the sun makes about as much sense as claiming that you can get a surplus of energy that you don't have to pay for out of your heater by putting reflectors around it.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> It's simple... carbon dioxide and other man-made chemicals are greenhouse gases. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped out enough to create an artificial warming effect because heat radiation is allowed into our atmosphere but not allowed out.



And how is a gas that can not trap and hold energy going to prevent this radiation which is moving at the speed of light from getting out of the atmosphere?  Which law of physics do you base this belief on?  Describe the mechanism by which it happens in the context of the law of physics that you claim makes it possible.




newpolitics said:


> but it's just so annoying how you demand a theory as if we owe you an explanation that has already been stated to you by someone else on this board.



You can believe anything you want.  That is your right.  BUT when you expect me to go along, and more than that, to PAY for changes you want to see happen, you take a heavy burden of proof upon your shoulders.  If you can't prove your claims and back them up with iron clad physics, then you have no right to even expect that I might consider what you are saying, much less give up the fruits of my labor to help you make changes based on ideas that you are unable to prove.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 13, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Rather than try and make an example with stars, lets keep the same principles but move a bit closer to home.  Lets look at lightbulbs.



The star example is actually a lot simpler because there is nothing other than two bodies in a vacuum. All you have to do is tell me which numbered choice below you are arguing, because so far I have been left having to guess what you are claiming only to have you turn round and say I am misrepresenting you.

So why not make it crystal clear and explain why if colder star A is emitting light in all directions, light from star A is not absorbed by warmer star B? Here are the options:

1) Star A never emits light towards star B in the first place.

2) Star A does emit light towards star B, but the light changes direction immediately after emission

3) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction before it reaches star B (say when)

4) Light from star A reaches star B, but bends round it

5) Light from star A reaches star B, but passes straight through it




> OK, our light is turned off but you can see the filament inside the bulb because the background light in the room is shining on it.  Now according to you, if you turn on the lightbulb, the background light in the room will still be shining on the filament and as such, the filament will be absorbing some amount of the background light.



This exactly what I think. The background light will still be radiating light towards the bulb and that light travels in a straight line. A stream of photons is traveling in a straight line toward the bulb. It hits it. The energy of those photons now has to go somewhere. It's absorbed by the bulb. Where else would it go?

I guess I can reword the star example here and give you the options to explain what alternative you are arguing

1) The background light doesn't emit light towards the bulb in the first place

2) The background light does emit light towards the bulb, but the light changes direction immediately after emission

3) The background light does emit light towards the bulb, but it changes direction before it reaches the bulb (say when)

4) Light from the background light reaches the bulb, but bends round it

5) Light from the background light reaches the bulb, but passes straight through it



> Sorry guy, but it isn't happening.  If it were, you would have a violation of both the Law of Conservation of energy



Energy is conserved, all the energy in this system is coming from the background light and the bulb. I am not proposing any energy is created or destroyed. 



> and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.   It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because you have the cooler background light of the room being absorbed by the very hot filament in the light bulb.



The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't forbid that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only states that more energy will be flowing from the hot bulb to the background light than from the background light to the hot bulb. It doesn't state that no energy will be flowing from the background light to the hot bulb.



> If the lightbulb were to absorb any of the background light from the room, then the filament would have to, in turn, heat up and radiate more energy according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law.  Now watch closely because here is where your argument falls apart.
> 
> If the filament absorbs light from the room it will heat up and radiates more energy, which would make the light in the room become brighter which, in turn, would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and as a result, burn brighter, which would cause the light in the room to become brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more light  from the room and burn brighter....and you end up in a perpetual, ever growing loop moving towards infinity.




It doesn't run to infinity, it converges on a solution because the stefan-boltzmann law dictates that energy emitted is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, therefore each needed increase in energy output can be achieved with a smaller and smaller temperature rise.

Such like a series like this:

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ....etc 

goes on forever but it converges on 2 not infinity.



> This is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy because clearly, energy has been created.  The light bulb would be putting out more energy than it was receiving from its light socket.



Yet I am not creating any energy. It all comes from either the background light or the socket.



> The laws of nature are all tied to each other.  You can't violate just one.  When you violate one, violations of others soon follow.



Indeed and I am convinced your proposal violates the conservation of energy because you are destroying energy somehow. That's why I ask you to answer the star question so I can find out where you are proposing the energy is going.

I am sure you accept the cooler star emits light towards the warmer star. And I am sure you accept that light carries energy. What I want to know is if you claim it never reaches the warmer star, where does the energy go considering conservation of energy demands it must end up somewhere and cannot disappear.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



Why can't you get a copy of this "Settled Science" Theory from MIT or East Angelia?

So is your theory that a 100PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 causes measurable warming?  Has this ever been demonstrated experimentally even once to your knowledge?

The MIT Warmers have doubled down on this losing bet and seem to say that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will cause a 5-7 degree increase.

You owe us a Theory because you're the ones who tell us the science is "Settled" and you need to take control of civilization as a direct consequence and I'm saying, Not so fast"

My Theory is that the planet has been in a general Warming Trend for at least 14,000 years.  This didn't start with Tyndall and certainly didn't start when Al Gore declared Earth was in a balance. My Theory is that the Warmers are running a bluff.







Before Global Warming


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2011)

RWatt said:


> The star example is actually a lot simpler because there is nothing other than two bodies in a vacuum. All you have to do is tell me which numbered choice below you are arguing, because so far I have been left having to guess what you are claiming only to have you turn round and say I am misrepresenting you.



None of your numbered choices has anything to do with what I have said.



RWatt said:


> This exactly what I think. The background light will still be radiating light towards the bulb and that light travels in a straight line. A stream of photons is traveling in a straight line toward the bulb. It hits it. The energy of those photons now has to go somewhere. It's absorbed by the bulb. Where else would it go?



I have showed you precisely why it doesn't happen that way.  I have showed you by example and have showed you the math.  The fact that you don't get either pretty much ends the discussion.  I can't make it any more simple for you.  

The photons go in the direction in which the EM field is propagated, IE from warm to cool.



RWatt said:


> Energy is conserved, all the energy in this system is coming from the background light and the bulb. I am not proposing any energy is created or destroyed.



Of course yoiu are.  I showed you a clear example of how your claim is actually one of increasing energy.  Sorry you don't get it.



RWatt said:


> The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't forbid that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only states that more energy will be flowing from the hot bulb to the background light than from the background light to the hot bulb. It doesn't state that no energy will be flowing from the background light to the hot bulb.




Second Law of Thermodynamics - Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. 

Which part of that sounds like it is stating anything about more energy.  It states pretty clearly there that NO energy will flow spontaneously from a cold body to a warmer body.  The laws of physics are not up for compromize.  Either energy flows or it does not.  In the case of the 2nd law, no energy flows from cold to warm unless there is an input of work.




RWatt said:


> It doesn't run to infinity, it converges on a solution because the stefan-boltzmann law dictates that energy emitted is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, therefore each needed increase in energy output can be achieved with a smaller and smaller temperature rise.



Sorry guy, there is no built in "cut off" switch.  what you describe would result in what I described.  Sorry you are unable to get it.  And I am still waiting for you to describe a law of physics that allows a cold to flow to warm.  Not to worry, I knew before hand that you would not be able to cite any such law.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 13, 2011)




----------



## rdean (Jun 13, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
> 
> Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours



Doesn't matter.  Yours is better.  "God did it!".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2011)

RWatt said:


>



So the SUV is 12,000 years old?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 13, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > Unnecessary detail. The disagreement is fundamental about the behavior of light. We don't need to talk about "EM fields".
> ...



Perhaps I'm getting in the middle of someone saying something incorrectly but don't greenhouse gasses just slow the rate of heat loss?

If you somehow misunderstood me saying CO2 or water vapor creates heat my apologies for making you do all that typing.  Them font commands are not the easiest thing to type.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 13, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Frank, perhaps you are misunderstanding the debate.  No one is doubting the planet has warmed since the last ice age.  Folks are just concerned we are or will make it warm more than it should.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 13, 2011)

wirebender said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > It's simple... carbon dioxide and other man-made chemicals are greenhouse gases. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped out enough to create an artificial warming effect because heat radiation is allowed into our atmosphere but not allowed out.
> ...



It's the exact same idea as an actual greenhouse, except in Greenhouses the glass warms from Convection and not IR. The light comes in as visible radiation, and then dissipates as  heat radiation and is unable to pass through the glass in the same amount that it came through. Hence, you get HEATING in a greenhouse, which I am sure you are familiar with. 

 It is proven, and is farely simple in scope. Here ya go:

(I seriousy can't believe you are doubting this science. This is not what is usually called into question. It is usually the cause of rising carbon dioxide, not whether or not they produce the greenhouse effect. That is rather accepted)

Wikipedia:

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]

Solar radiation at the high frequencies of visible light passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[5

----

So basically, the visible light radiation (which contains thermal radiation) hits the earth and is dissipated as thermal radiation, like when you wear something black, and it gets really hot because black absorbs light. The thermal radiation is then blocked by the clouds. If you think a cloud can't block it because of the speed of the radiation, then you know absolutely nothing about phsyics or the electromagnetic spectrum.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Perhaps I'm getting in the middle of someone saying something incorrectly but don't greenhouse gasses just slow the rate of heat loss?



The heat (infrared radiation) at issue here is an electromagnetic wave travelling at the speed of light.  There is no "slowing down" of an EM wave.  Either the energy is trapped (as what happens with water vapor) or it is not in which case it moves on in the direction of the EM wave at the speed of light.



RWatt said:


> If you somehow misunderstood me saying CO2 or water vapor creates heat my apologies for making you do all that typing.  Them font commands are not the easiest thing to type.



If you are suggesting that radiation from CO2 reaches the surface of the earth, and is absorbed and therefore increases the amount of energy the earth radiates, then you are making the claim of created energy.  The sun is the only source of energy the earth has so it can radiate no more than it receives from the sun.  In order to radiate more energy than is received from the only source of power energy must be created somehow.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Frank, perhaps you are misunderstanding the debate.  No one is doubting the planet has warmed since the last ice age.  Folks are just concerned we are or will make it warm more than it should.



But without a shred of hard observed evidence that proves unequivocally that man is responsible for the changing climate, where does this concern come from?  What motivates it?  If there were hard evidence, that would be one thing, but there is none.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, perhaps you are misunderstanding the debate.  No one is doubting the planet has warmed since the last ice age.  Folks are just concerned we are or will make it warm more than it should.
> ...



While you wait for the hard evidence and neglect to use common sense, the world heats up and alters the conditions in which we were created... It must  be comfortable to believe humans can do whatever we want to this earth and it will all just 'be okay.' It's wishful thinking that allows no consideration or responsibility for our actions as a species, instead encouraging the indulgence on everything that benefits us short term.


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I'm getting in the middle of someone saying something incorrectly but don't greenhouse gasses just slow the rate of heat loss?
> ...



Wow... listen. The light radiation is transferred to heat radiation when it hits the surface of the earth, which can not penetrate clouds or greenhouse gases when it is deflected off the surface back into the sky. The heat STAYS. What don't you understand? 

Research it yourself instead of asking on here like we are scientists who study this stuff. Seriously. It's like you think that because we can't explain it perfectly, it is isn't explainable. google the damn topic, and study it, and maybe you'll see that it makes sense. Why are you relying on us? Obviously, you don't really want to know, you just want to argue and poke holes in our arguement. You don't have to be an expert to simply understand, but explaining it  to someone who doesn't want to listen requires utmost expertise.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> It's the exact same idea as an actual greenhouse, except in Greenhouses the glass warms from Convection and not IR. The light comes in as visible radiation, and then dissipates as  heat radiation and is unable to pass through the glass in the same amount that it came through. Hence, you get HEATING in a greenhouse, which I am sure you are familiar with.



Actually, a greenhouse warms via IR.  IR passes through the glass and warms any exposed surface within the greenhouse.  Floor, soils, plants, tools, etc.  Then those objects begin to radiate.  The glass however, prevents conduction of that energy into the open atmosphere.  The principles upon which a greenhouse operates have no analogy with an open atmosphere.



newpolitics said:


> The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]



It is difficult to believe that people actually believe this.  Here is the energy budget that shows what you claime to be happening.  It is the energy budget upon which the AGW and greenhouse effect hypotheses is built.







If all the energy comes from the sun and 166 watts per square meter from the sun is being absorbed by the surface of the earth, how is it that the earth can radiate more than two times that amount of energy (396 watts per square meter) if there is no additional energy being put into the system, and if there is additional energy, where is it being generated?  Describe the law of physics that you base this energy creation on.

See the yellow ray from the sun?  At the top it says incoming solar radiation 341.3.  That means, according to the graph 343.1 watts per square meter of energy is coming in from the sun.  Now look at the bottom.  It says, right there, as clear as can be made that 166 watts per square meter of the incoming radiation from the sun is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth.  

Since the sun is the only energy source, and the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter, the maximum amount of energy that can be radiated by the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter and that would be only if the surface of the earth were a perfect reflector, reflecting every bit of energy that it absorbs from the sun.  166 watts per square meter.  That is the amount absorbed by the surface of the earth from the only energy source and therefore that is all that is available to be radiated.

Now, look over on the right side of the graphic.  323 is the number and it is labeled back radiation.  The claim is that 323 watts per square meter is being radiated back to the earth and the graphic clearly states that it is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.  Nearly double the amount of energy from the ONLY energy source is being reflected back to the surface of the earth and according the graph, allowing the earth to radiate 396 watts per square meter.  396 watts per square meter is more than double the amount of energy that is coming in from the sun.  

How does a surface that absorbs 166 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source manage to radiate more than double that amount?  Explain it.  Describe what phisical law would allow such a thing and for God's sake, tell me why, if the energy from the sun is being doubled, why we don't simply collect that magical excess and use it to satisfy our energy needs?

If energy can be reflected back to its source and increase the output of that source, then we have no energy concerns whatsoever.  

Do you really believe that you can place a heater in a room in your home that radiates, say, 1000 watts of energy and place 1, 10, 100, or 1000 reflectors around that heater to reflect the energy it is emitting back to it and increase its output to more than 1000 watts?  Do you actually believe that you can gain energy, that you don't have to pay for by  placing a reflector near your heater?  Do you believe you can generate additional electricity, that is, get an output of more than 1000 watts that won't show up on your power bill by the use of reflectors?  If you do beleive this, are you doing it?  Can you show me any data that proves that your heater has an output of more than 1000 watts without increasing the amount of electricity you use by the use of reflectors?

And tell me, if you can actually get your heater to absorb some of this reflected heat and in turn, radiate more than 1000 watts of energy, what prevents your heater from eventually burning your home down?  If it can absorb some of this reflected energy and in turn radiate more than 1000 watts, then the reflectors will begin to reflect more energy which your heater will absorb and radiate even more energy which will cause the reflectors to reflect even more energy which will cause your heater to absorb more and in turn, radiate even more energy which will cause your reflectors to reflect more energy which will be absorbed by your heater which will, in turn, radiate even more energy which will cause your reflectors to radiate more energy....see where this is going?  You are describing the same sort of impossible phenomena in the atmosphere.



newpolitics said:


> Solar radiation at the high frequencies of visible light passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere.



Nice.  Except that it doesn't happen.  I have provided an inexpensive, and very easy experiment which anyone here can perform and prove to themselves that there is no downdwelling radiation heating the surface of the earth because the EM field of the earth is greater than the EM field of the atmosphere and therefore the energy moves in the direction propagated by the larger EM field.  The same principle that keeps your heater from heating to infinity just because you put a reflector in front of it.

In this experiment, you take a parabolic reflector (homemade solar oven) and point it towards the sky.  If you point it towards the sun, you can boil water in quick time.  Pretty cool little device that is cheap and easy to make.  If, however, you point it towards the sky (during daylight hours) but not towards the sun, it will produce a cooling effect just as the second law of thermodynamics predicts because it is warmer than the atmosphere and propagates an EM field which radiates heat away from it into the cooler atmosphere.

If downdwelling radiation were warming the surface of the earth, no matter which direction you pointed the dish, it would be collecting downdwelling radiation and would warm whatever you had placed in your dish and since downdwelling radiation is supposedly happening day and night, you could actually warm, if not cook, materials in your solar oven, even at night.  

At night, if the temperature is 47.5 degrees or less, your oven can actually make ice by pointing it towards the sky because it is warmer than the atmosphere and is propagating an EM wave which carries its heat towards the cooler atmosphere in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  If downdwelling radiation existed, even at night, you would be receiving it with your dish and could not cool anything, much less make ice because this downdwelling radiation would be warmer than the surface of the earth.  




newpolitics said:


> So basically, the visible light radiation (which contains thermal radiation) hits the earth and is dissipated as thermal radiation, like when you wear something black, and it gets really hot because black absorbs light. The thermal radiation is then blocked by the clouds. If you think a cloud can't block it because of the speed of the radiation, then you know absolutely nothing about phsyics or the electromagnetic spectrum.



Clouds and water vapor are the only substances in the atmosphere that can actually absorb, and retain energy.  Water, because of its phased nature can absorb energy that it does not emit.  CO2, and every other greenhouse gas, on the other hand absorb and immedieatly emit precisely the same amount of energy that they absorbed and the energy is emitted in a wave form that is to long to be absorbed by another like molecule.


----------



## sparky (Jun 14, 2011)

As i understand it CO2 has increased by 42% since 1900. 

There is now more CO2 in the air since 2 million years before the first humans. 

So how do we know the CO2 comes from human activity, or where this CO2 is generated is the main Q

 Can't  we can tell _'source'_ from the carbon isotopes?

If the ocean(s) are a source, how is it they are _naturally_ gaining CO2?  

If this increase is a _natural _cycle, shouldn't there be a theory on_ which _it might be, and how often it occurs?


here's the natural cycles i've found so far.....>



Info on the earths magnetic reversal and/or fading....

From Nova
If all the compasses in the world started pointing south rather than north, many people might think something very strange, very unusual, and possibly very dangerous was going on. Doomsayers would have a field day proclaiming the end is nigh, while more rational persons might head straight to scientists for an explanation. 
Fortunately, those scientists in the knowpaleomagnetists, to be exactwould have a ready answer. Such reversals in the Earth's magnetic field, they'd tell you, are, roughly speaking, as common as ice ages. That is, they're terrifically infrequent by human standards, but in geologic terms they happen all the time. As the time line at right shows, hundreds of times in our planet's history the polarity of the magnetic shield ensheathing the globe has gone from "normal," our current orientation to the north, to "reversed," and back again.
The Earth is not alone in this fickleness: The sun's magnetic shield appears to reverse its polarity approximately every 11 years. Even our Milky Way galaxy is magnetized, and experts say it probably reverses its polarity as well. Moreover, while a severe weakening or disappearance of the magnetic field would lay us open to harmful radiation from the sun, there's little evidence to date that "flips" per se inflict any lasting damage (see Impact on Animals).
It might sound as if scientists have all the answers regarding magnetic reversals. But actually they know very little about them. Basic questions haunt researchers: What physical processes within the Earth trigger reversals? Why do the durations and frequencies of both normal and reversed states seem random? Why is there such a disproportionately long normal period between about 121 and 83 million years ago? Why does the reversal rate, at least during the past 160 million years, appear to peak around 12 million years ago?
All these questions remain unanswered, though experts like Dennis Kent, the Rutgers University geologist who supplied NOVA with updated figures for the time line, are hard at work trying to answer them. In the meantime, not to worry. Reversals happen on average only about once every 250,000 years, and they take hundreds if not thousands of years to complete. 
Even the weakening currently under way may be a false alarm. The field often gets very weak, then bounces back, never having flipped. As Ron Merrill, a magnetic-field specialist at the University of Washington remarked when asked whether we're in for a reversal: "Ask me in 10,000 years, I'll give you a better answer." So hang on to your compass. For the foreseeable future, it should work as advertised





Magnetic reversals from Nova (interactive computer based flick there)





Magneticosphere - Earth's Magnetic Field
The earth's magnetic field strength was measured by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835 and has been repeatedly measured since then, showing an exponential decay with a half-life of about 1400 years. This could also be stated as a relative decay of about 10% to 15% over the last 150 years. 




Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
Without our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. 
A number of Earth's creatures, including some birds, turtles, and bees, rely on Earth's magnetic field to navigate. The field is in constant flux, scientists say. But even without it, life on Earth will continue, researchers say. 
 According to Earth's geologic record, our planet's magnetic field flips, on average, about once every 200,000 years. The time between reversals varies widely, however. The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was about 780,000 years ago.



info on the Mayan calendar....

THE HOW AND WHY OF THE MAYAN END DATE IN 2012 A.D.
How: Long Count and Seasonal Quarters
Long Count katun beginnings will conjunct sequential seasonal quarters every 1.7.0.0.0 days (194400 days). This is an easily tracked Long Count interval. Starting with the katun beginning of 650 B.C.: 
Long Count Which Quarter? Year 
6.5.0.0.0 Fall 650 B.C. 
7.12.0.0.0 Winter 118 B.C. 
8.19.0.0.0 Spring 416 A.D. 
10.6.0.0.0 Summer 948 A.D. 
11.13.0.0.0 Fall 1480 A.D. 
13.0.0.0.0 Winter 2012 A.D.
Note that the last date is not only a katun beginning, but a baktun beginning as well. It is, indeed, the end date of 2012.6 
The Long Count may have been officially inaugurated on a specific date in 355 B.C., as Edmonson suggests, but it must have been formulated, tried, tested, and proven before this date. This may well have taken centuries, and the process no doubt paralleled (and was perhaps instigated by) the discovery of precession. The Long Count system automatically accounts for precession in its ability to calculate future seasonal quarters - a property which shouldn't be underestimated. 
Summary
This has been my attempt to fill a vacuum in Mayan Studies, an answer to the why and how of the end date of the 13-baktun cycle of the Mayan Long Count. The solution requires a shift in how we think about the astronomy of the Long Count end date. The strange fact that it occurs on a winter solstice immediately points us to possible astronomical reasons, but they are not obvious. We also shouldn't forget the often mentioned fact that the 13-baktun cycle of some 5125 years is roughly 1/5th of a precessional cycle. This in itself should have been suggestive of a deeper mystery very early on. Only with the recent identification of the astronomical nature of the Sacred Tree has the puzzle revealed its fullness. And once again we are amazed at the sophistication and vision of the ancient New World astronomers, the decendants of whom still count the days and watch the skies in the remote outbacks of Guatemala. 
This essay is not contrived upon sketchy evidence. It basically rests upon two facts: 
1) the well known end date of the 13-baktun cycle of the Mayan Long Count, which is December 21st, 2012 A.D. and 
2) the astronomical situation on that day. Based upon these two facts alone, the creators of the Long Count knew about and calculated the rate of precession over 2300 years ago. I can conceive of no other conclusion. To explain this away as "coincidence" would only obscure the issue.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeE-3BBqG58&mode=related&search=]U tube Mayan Calendar[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6wI3Pbolbw&mode=related&search=]2012 Mayan Prophecy from the Hx channel[/ame] 
note the 26,000 yr alingment of the sun with the galaxy's core with the earth's presesonal cycle, and onto yet another positional oddity associated with the same date...
Jupiter's Dance correlates sunspots with gravitational influences, noting the Mayan date;
So what then is happening between the Sun and Jupiter to create the sunspots; a combined tidal effect, a focussing of magnetic fields on the Sun with the inner planet acting as a lens at the time of each synchronised pass of Jupiter and Earth, a shadow effect allowing the Sun's energies to rise to the surface. Let's look at the sky of December 21st 2012, mmmm. Jupiter, Earth, Sun in a line, Saturn, Venus, Sun in a line and Neptune, Mars, Sun in a line, auspicious wouldn't you say. It couldn't be they're all beaming their energy at our Sun simultaneously as a prelude to a mega rash of sunspots which in turn lead to...uulp!






info on an axial flip or pole shift.....
Pole shift theory
Recent work by scientists and geologists Adam Maloof of Princeton University and Galen Halverson of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, indicates that Earth indeed rebalanced itself around 800 million years ago during the Precambrian time period.[10] They tested this idea by studying magnetic minerals in sedimentary rocks in a Norwegian archipelago. Using these minerals, Maloof and Halverson found that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees  about the current distance between Alaska and the equator  in less than 20 million years. This reasoning is supported by a record of changes in sea level and ocean chemistry in the Norwegian sediments that could be explained by true polar wander, the team reports in the SeptemberOctober 2006 issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin.[11]


Charles Hapgood
In 1958 Hapgood published his first book, The Earth's Shifting Crust. The Foreword to this was written by Albert Einstein, shortly before his death in 1955. In this book, and two successive books, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966) and The Path of the Pole (1970), Hapgood proposed the radical theory that the Earth's axis has shifted numerous times during geological history. This theory is not widely accepted by orthodox geologists.
Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings used numerous archival maps, including the Piri Reis Map, which he claims show a vast southern continent roughly similar to Antarctica in shape, to propose that a 15 degree pole shift occurred around 9,600 B.C. (aprox. 11.600 years ago), and that a part of the Antarctic was ice-free at that time. By implication an ice-age civilization could have mapped the coast at that point in time.


When North Becomes South: New Clues to Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flops
In the past 15 million years, there have been four reversals every 1 million years, or about one shift each 250,000 years, Clement explained. The last one, however, was 790,000 years ago. That might suggest we're overdue for a big change. Not necessarily so, Clement says. The flips are not periodic, meaning they don't adhere to a schedule of even intervals. 
Yet the intensity of the magnetic field has been dropping for the last 2,000 years, and "it has dropped significantly" during the past two decades, Clement said. One recent study shows the decline in strength amounts to 10 percent over the last 150 years.




Pole Shifts
A pole shift theory is a hypothesis based on geologic evidence that the physical north and south poles of Earth have not always been at their present-day locations; in other words, the axis of rotation had been "shifted". Pole shift theory is almost always discussed in the context of Earth, but other solar system bodies may have experienced axial reorientation during their existences. 
Theory of Crystal Displacement - Hapgood 
One early popular proponent of a pole shift theory was Charles Hapgood in his books The Earth's Shifting Crust (1958) (which includes a foreword by Albert Einstein) and Path of the Pole (1970). Hapgood speculated that the ice mass at one or both poles over-accumulates which destabilizes the Earth's rotational balance, causing slippage of all or much of earth's outer crust around the earth's core, which retains its axial orientation. This happens either slowly (conservative version) or quickly (radical version). The results of the shift occurring every 12,000 to 20,000 years or so results in dramatic climate changes for most of the earth's surface as areas that were formally equatorial become temperate, and areas that were temperate become either more equatorial or more arctic.
Other theories which are not dependent upon polar ice masses include: 
A high-velocity asteroid or comet which hits Earth at such an angle that the lithosphere moves independent of the mantle 
An unusually magnetic celestial object which passes close enough to Earth to temporarily reorient the magnetic field, which then "drags" the lithosphere about a new axis of rotation. Eventually, the sun's magnetic field again determines the Earth's, after the intruding celestial object "returns" to a location it cannot influence Earth.

Theory of Crustal Displacement
The theory of Crustal Displacement states that the entire crust of the Earth can shift in one piece like the lose skin on an orange. 
By studying the carcasses of the woolly mammoth and rhino found in the northern regions of Siberia and Canada one can see the land these animals gazed on was suddenly shoved into a much colder climate. Their stomachs reveal food found in warm climates where they grazed just prior to their deaths. This was found frozen along with them suddenly. 
Thousands of animals were found to be frozen in a brief moment of geological time. Ancient maps of Antarctica suggests that it too was 'frozen over' in a brief moment in time. 
It has been suggested that approximately 12,000 years ago there was a displacement of the Earth's crust. The entire outer shell of the earth moved approximately 2,000 miles. When the Earth's crust shifted all of Antarctica was encapsulated by the polar zone. At the same time North American was released from the Arctic Circle and became temperate. 
This is based on the theory of Continental Drift - the continents of the earth have been slowly drifting apart over millions of years. This is possible because the outer crust of the Earth floats upon a semi-liquid layer. 



Info the scientific community has on planetary cycles, orbital forcing & ice ages...
Milankovitch cycles
Milankovitch cycles are the collective effect of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milankovi&#263;. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 21,000 year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit changes from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000 year cycle. Currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees.
Orbital forcing
Orbital forcing describes the effect on climate of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis and shape of the orbit (see Milankovitch cycles). These orbital changes change the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by up to 25% at mid-latitudes (from 400 to 500 Wm-2 at latitudes of 60 degrees). In this context, the term "forcing" signifies a physical process that affects the Earth's climate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K6CxpmyHIo]U-tube Animation showing the three Milankovitch Cycles[/ame]


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> While you wait for the hard evidence and neglect to use common sense, the world heats up and alters the conditions in which we were created...



Hysterical hand wringing is no substitute for evidence, or actual science.  Both the roman warm period, and the medieval warm periods were warmer than the present and warmed at a rate as rapidly or more rapidly than the present without the benefit of the internal combustion engine.

We know that in the past the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM with no runaway warming as predicted by climte science.  We also know that for the bulk of earth history, it has been so warm that no ice has existed at one or both of the poles.  We have no control over the earth's climate and no amount of twisting and torturing the laws of nature is going to give us control over it.



newpolitics said:


> It must  be comfortable to believe humans can do whatever we want to this earth and it will all just 'be okay.'



We can certainly degrade our environment, but the climate is out of our control except on the very local level via the heat island effect which is nothing more than making the surface a better absorber.


----------



## idb (Jun 14, 2011)

Umm...do you realise that you quoted an interpretation of the Mayan calendar to support your argument?
I hope your response will be "Oops!".


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> Research it yourself instead of asking on here like we are scientists who study this stuff. Seriously. It's like you think that because we can't explain it perfectly, it is isn't explainable. google the damn topic, and study it, and maybe you'll see that it makes sense. Why are you relying on us? Obviously, you don't really want to know, you just want to argue and poke holes in our arguement. You don't have to be an expert to simply understand, but explaining it  to someone who doesn't want to listen requires utmost expertise.



I have done the research and have provided the math, and the physics to back up my statements.  All I have seen from you guys is you spouting your opinions.  Your uncorroborated, unsupported opinions.  You don't say which law of nature supports your claims and you don't show the math that supports your claims.  You act as if just saying it will do and I am afraid that it won't.  You want to convince me, fine.  Prove to me that the 2nd law of thermodynamics actually says that a little energy can be transferred from a cool emitter to a warmer emitter rather than NO energy can be transferred.  Prove to me that you don't have to cool a radiometer to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to cause an EM wave to be propagated in the direction of the cooler reciever.  Prove to me that when I point my parabolic dish towards the sky that the downdwelling radiation that somehow warms the earth is the self same radiation that is now causing ice to form when the ambient temperature is less than 48 degrees and describe the law of physics that makes such a thing possible.

And do show your work.


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, perhaps you are misunderstanding the debate.  No one is doubting the planet has warmed since the last ice age.  Folks are just concerned we are or will make it warm more than it should.
> ...




I am really confused about why you ignore evidence and common sense.

a beam of IR with the wavelength that interacts with CO2 will be absorbed and deflected when it goes through CO2. this is an experiment that has been done many times, with replicable results. I cant remember what the extinction rate is for earth's atmosphere, a few tens of meters at most. all of the IR (that CO2 absorbs) is sent pinballing around until gets high enough to escape, or gets 'converted' into a wavelength that is not absorbable and exits (if it doesnt return to the earth). I dont know what the average travel time is for one of those pinballing photons but it is certainly more than if it were travelling straight out at the speed of light. 

I can understand argueing that the increased CO2 doesnt make much difference, ~1C for this doubling, less for subsequent ones. I can understand argueing that natural factors are the main drivers of climate and overwhelm the puny contributions of man. I can even understand argueing that a significant portion of the last hundred years' warming is due to artificial 'adjustments'. but I cant understand how you can dismiss CO2 out of hand as having no role in warming. 0.5%, 5%, 50%. I dont know which one is closest to being right but it has to be one of them.

your bullshit claims of 2nd law violation are getting old. you are just as in love with your pet theory as any of the warmers are with theirs. well, maybe not Chris and his temperature record highs or Old Rocks and his strange weather, but close.


----------



## sparky (Jun 14, 2011)

idb said:


> Umm...do you realise that you quoted an interpretation of the Mayan calendar to support your argument?
> I hope your response will be "Oops!".



the chronologically obsessed Mayans proposed _natural _cycles , which was the jist of my querie idb

i.e.- if we are being subjected to one, which would it be?


----------



## idb (Jun 14, 2011)

sparky said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Umm...do you realise that you quoted an interpretation of the Mayan calendar to support your argument?
> ...



Sorry, it went over my head.
My irony detector is clearly malfunctioning.


----------



## sparky (Jun 14, 2011)

> Sorry, it went over my head.
> My irony detector is clearly malfunctioning.



well we really do need _industrial _grade ones for this sort of issue idb....


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2011)

IanC said:


> I am really confused about why you ignore evidence and common sense.



You are the one who seems to be ignoring the hard, observed, repeatable evidence.



IanC said:


> a beam of IR with the wavelength that interacts with CO2 will be absorbed and deflected when it goes through CO2. this is an experiment that has been done many times, with replicable results.



Actually a beam of IR is absorbed and emitted, not deflected.  Emission and deflection are two entirely different things.



IanC said:


> I cant remember what the extinction rate is for earth's atmosphere, a few tens of meters at most. all of the IR (that CO2 absorbs) is sent pinballing around until gets high enough to escape, or gets 'converted' into a wavelength that is not absorbable and exits (if it doesnt return to the earth).



Pinballing?  Here is the thing.  Once your beam of IR is absorbed and emitted by a CO2 molecule, that is it.  The emission is in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule and the emitted IR certainly doesn't go about bouncing off of CO2 molecules.  



IanC said:


> I dont know what the average travel time is for one of those pinballing photons but it is certainly more than if it were travelling straight out at the speed of light.



There are no "pinballing" photons because the emission of one CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another. 



IanC said:


> I can understand argueing that the increased CO2 doesnt make much difference, ~1C for this doubling, less for subsequent ones.




It makes no difference.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy are not open to compromize.  They either are, or they are not.  Energy either passes from cool to warm or it does not.  The 2nd law says that it does not.



IanC said:


> I can understand argueing that natural factors are the main drivers of climate and overwhelm the puny contributions of man. I can even understand argueing that a significant portion of the last hundred years' warming is due to artificial 'adjustments'.



All true and valid arguments, but they don't get to the heart of the issue; that being that CO2 does not, can not, has not, and never will drive the climate of the earth by even a tiny fraction of a degree. 




IanC said:


> but I cant understand how you can dismiss CO2 out of hand as having no role in warming. 0.5%, 5%, 50%. I dont know which one is closest to being right but it has to be one of them.



Describe the law of physics that says it "has" to be one of them.  Show me the math.  Explain to me which law of physics states that if you wrap a -20 degree C atmosphere around a -18 degree earth the temperature will increase by 33 degrees to 15 degrees C.



IanC said:


> your bullshit claims of 2nd law violation are getting old. you are just as in love with your pet theory as any of the warmers are with theirs. well, maybe not Chris and his temperature record highs or Old Rocks and his strange weather, but close.



To date, I have seen no law of physics presented that supports the idea that either the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy allow "pinballing" photons, or heat to travel on an EM wave against the stream, so to speak, of the direction of a stronger EM wave propagated in a different direction.  I have seen no law of physics in any form cited that supports and predicts any of the phenomena that you are claiming.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> None of your numbered choices has anything to do with what I have said.



Why don't you just answer it?

Here it is again, I'll keep posting until you decide to answer the question.

Two stars A and B. Star B is warmer than star A. Both stars emit light in all directions.

You claim light from the cooler star A doesn't reach star B. But given that star A is radiating light in all directions, explain how your claim works. Here are the options:

 1) Star A never emits light towards star B in the first place.

 2) Star A does emit light towards star B, but the light changes direction immediately after emission

 3) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction before it reaches star B (say when)

 4) Light from star A reaches star B, but bends round it

 5) Light from star A reaches star B, but passes straight through it

This cuts the heart of your mistake. THe reason you won't answer is because you can't think of an answer. You realize all those 5 options are absurd.

The problem is you are dogmatically sticking to your misinterpretation of the 2nd law and then trying to fit reality to that. That's why you are avoiding answering the star question.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 14, 2011)

RWatt said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > None of your numbered choices has anything to do with what I have said.
> ...



It is clear that you simply don't understand electromagnetic forces.  The first thing is that you don't seem to understand that photons don't generate themselves.    Electromagnetic fields carry photons and when more than one electromagnetic field is involved, those fields (and the photons they carry) move in the direction propagated by the stronger field. 

Of all your answers, 1 is the closest to reality (except that this isn't a matter of light, or photons, but EM fields and the direction in which they are propagated) assuming that star A is the warmer of the two but I am sure that you don't grasp why it is true but I will try again to show you and then I would like to see you do the math to prove that 1 is not true.

In the case of your two stars, the brighter star is propagating the stronger field so all photons within that field move in the direction dictated by the brighter star.  Photons can't swin upstream (so to speak) agains the stronger EM field generated by the brighter star.  EM fields carry photon energy.  Photons have no mass so why is it so difficult for you to grasp that the photons would be carried in the direction of the EM wave propagated by the brighter (warmer) star, that is to say in the direction of the larger force?

Lets go through the math again and examine your suggestion that photons can move from cool to warm.  This isn't that tough and after we are done, you do the math and prove that energy can move from cool to warm.

To keep this simple, lets say that the ability of each star to emit energy (e) will equal 1, and the Tc (thermal time constant) will be zero.  That is to say that the energy moves from one star to the other instantaneously.  It makes no difference what the Tc is as the effect on the EM field or wave is the same.  I am just using zero to keep it simple.  So we have e=1 and Tc=0.  The Stefan-Boltzman constant (BC), as always  5.67 X 10^-8.

So far we have:

e=1
Tc = 0
BC = 5.67 X 10^-8

Lets let the warmer star have a temperature (T) of 100 degrees.  If you want to make your stars a million degrees when you take your turn at the math feel free but the results won't change.  The warmer star will radiate 5.67 Wm2 and will propagate an EM field of  BC *(100^4)= 5.67 Wm2.

Lets let your cooler star be half the temperature of the warmer star.  50 degrees.  This star will propagate an EM field of BC *(50^4)= 0.35 Wm2.

Subtract the two EM fields 5.67 &#8211; 0.35 = 5.32 Wm2 and the field will be moving in the direction of the cooler star.  None of the energy from the cooler star will reach the warmer star and the temperature of the warmer star will remainat 100 degrees.  This is precisely what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics predicts.  

Now lets look at what is happening with the cooler star.  It is receiving 5.32 Wm2 from the field that resulted when you subtracted the two EM fields.  The cooler star will absorb energy from the warmer star and as a result, its temperature will increase.  Once it absorbs the 5.32Wm2 from the warmer star it will radiate the 5.32 Wm2 plus the 0.35 Wm2 that it was already radiating.  Your cooler star is now radiating  5.67 Wm2.

Since it is now radiationg 5.67 Wm2, we can assume that its temperature is 100 degrees.  The two stars are now in equilibrium.  They each are 100 degrees and radiating 5.67 Wm2.  At this point, if you subtract the two EM fields, you get  5.67 &#8211; 5.67 = 0 Wm2.  There is now no energy transfer between them and they will remain at 100 degrees and continue to radiate 5.67 Wm2.  If there is no EM field moving from one towards the other then no photons can move from one to the other either because they can only move if an EM field is moving them. 

If you suddenly "turn off" your stars they will both cool down at the same rate and if you "turn up" the thermostat on one of them a stronger EM field will be propagated by the now warmer star which will result in the cooler star absorbing energy till equilibrium is once again achieved.

Now its your turn.  Show me the math that results in the cooler star warming up the warmer star by even the smallest increment.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



It doesn't require math to prove that 1 is not true. Simple example is more effective.

If there is no radiation emitted from star A towards star B then there is no light from star A towards star B.

So we have a spacecraft moving through space. Everyone inside can see both stars because both stars have long ago emitted light towards the space the ship occupies.

Then the spacecraft crosses the path between the two stars. I say that the people on the spacecraft can still see both stars, because those stars have both emitted light towards each other.

But if what you are saying was true and there was no light emitted from star A towards star B, then as soon as the spacecraft moved between the two stars, star B would become invisible to everyone on the ship.

That's obviously not how the universe works!



> In the case of your two stars, the brighter star is propagating the stronger field so all photons within that field move in the direction dictated by the brighter star. Photons can't swin upstream (so to speak) agains the stronger EM field generated by the brighter star.



Once photons have left their source they carry on. Photons emitted later are independent of photons emitted earlier. There is no all encompassing field governing them. 

Otherwise what happens if this field changes direction (ie the colder star becomes the warmer one) - does all the light suddenly switch round 180 degrees and start flying the otherway? Again that isn't how the universe works, light can't reverse itself like that.



> Now its your turn.  Show me the math that results in the cooler star warming up the warmer star by even the smallest increment.



If the warmer star absorbs 0.35wm-2 from the cooler star, because the light from the cooler star reaches it and is absorbed by it, then that's 0.35wm-2 extra energy absorbed by the warm star. Your own math shows that extra energy absorbed will leave it warmer.

The issue of disagreement is not about what happens when light is absorbed by a body, but you disagreeing that light from a colder body will even reach a warmer body in the first place.

How can it not?

There are so many problems with what you are advocating.

There is no "field" spanning light years between stars in space that dictates the direction of travel of photons within that field. The direction bodies emit light in is not influenced at all by the temperature of objects in their path. That would be impossible. It would require faster than light communication for a start as photons would have to somehow "know" how hot a star 500 million light years away was warmer than it.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2011)

RWatt said:


> It doesn't require math to prove that 1 is not true. Simple example is more effective.



Yeah, that's what all climate scientists say.  Unfortunately, it does require math to prove.  Show me that the laws of physics and the math prove that you are right or admit that you can't.  Either way, you have effectively lost the argument because I know that the math and science doesn't support your claim and your opinion which is what you are voicing if you don't have the math and science to back you up, doesn't stand against the math and science.



RWatt said:


> So we have a spacecraft moving through space. Everyone inside can see both stars because both stars have long ago emitted light towards the space the ship occupies.



Have yu ever been on a space ship travelling between stars?  Have you ever stood on a star and looked out towards another star?  If you could stand on a star and look into space, you would see no other stars because no photons would be swimming upstream along your star's stronger EM field.

If that is not true, then show me the math and the laws of science that back you up.  A flawed thought experiment is no substitute for hard mathematical proof which is what I have provided for you.  If you can't do the math, then simply state as much but shucking and jiving and providing thought experiments in the face of a mathematical equaion is just silly.



RWatt said:


> Once photons have left their source they carry on. Photons emitted later are independent of photons emitted earlier. There is no all encompassing field governing them.



Photons only travel on an EM wave.  They are not free agents.  If a stronger EM wave is washing over wherever you are standing, you will only see light (photons) from the source of the stronger EM field.  Do you believe you can't see the stars during the daytime simply because the sun is shining?  You can't see the stars because the EM field propagated by the surface you are standing on is greater in magnitude than any of the EM fields coming in except one.  If you were standing on the sun looking towards earth, you would not be able to see earth as no photons from earth could travel the wrong way against the EM field of the sun.



RWatt said:


> Otherwise what happens if this field changes direction (ie the colder star becomes the warmer one) - does all the light suddenly switch round 180 degrees and start flying the otherway? Again that isn't how the universe works, light can't reverse itself like that.



As I have shown you, using the laws of physics, when one star becomes brighter than the other, the EM wave propagated by the brigher star dictates the direction photons are travelling.  If you believe otherwise, show me the math and back it up with laws of science.  A thought experiment isn't a substitute for either.  If it were, why would one have to take so much math in order to be a scientist?  (except for climate scientists who need take almost no math).



RWatt said:


> If the warmer star absorbs 0.35wm-2 from the cooler star, because the light from the cooler star reaches it and is absorbed by it, then that's 0.35wm-2 extra energy absorbed by the warm star. Your own math shows that extra energy absorbed will leave it warmer.



As I have already shown you when you stubtract the two EM fields, the balance has the warmer star propagating the EM field that reaches the cooler star.  The cooler star doesn't radiate anything towards the warmer star as the weaker EM field can not overcome a stronger EM field.  Since photons travel on EM fields, they can only travel in the direction of the stronger EM field.   And my own math showed no such thing.  If you believe that, then you have admitted that the math is beyond you.



RWatt said:


> The issue of disagreement is not about what happens when light is absorbed by a body, but you disagreeing that light from a colder body will even reach a warmer body in the first place.



That is preciisely the disagreement.  That is at the heart of the hypotheses of AGW and the greenhouse effect.  The math and laws of science prove quite elegantly that neither is happening.  As the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states no energy transferrs spontaneously from one object to a warmer object.  That is because energy from an object can't move against the stream of a stronger EM field of another object.  If you were somehow standing on the surface of your warm star and your cooler star were the only other object in the universe, you would not be able to see the cooler star because none of its photons could travel from it, against the "current" of the stronger EM field propagated by your warmer star.

Try to imagine a high pressure fire hose and a garden hose aimed so precisely at each other than the allignment were perfect and the nature of the hoses was such that a solid stream of water were flowing out and you were in zero gravity so that there would be no arc in the respective streams.  If you turn on the hoses the stream from the firehose will be such that the volume of water is so great that when it strikes the garden hose, either no water at all will come out of the garden hose or the dribble that makes it to the nozzle will blow backwards.  Of course, garden hoses don't have the ability to spray in every direction but if you like you can try to imagine that your stars are radiating water if that helps you picture what is happening.  The water from the high pressure star will overwhelm the water from the low pressure star and the low pressure star will spray in every direction except in the exact direction the water from the high pressure star is coming.



RWatt said:


> How can it not?



I have shown you how it can not.  The fact that you can not grasp the math or the laws of physics is not my problem.  Right now, your problem is that the best you can manage is a thought experiment against actual math and the laws of physics.  



RWatt said:


> There are so many problems with what you are advocating.



So show me the math errors.  Show me the error in the Stefan-Boltzman law.  Show me what physicists have been missing for hundreds of years.



RWatt said:


> There is no "field" spanning light years between stars in space that dictates the direction of travel of photons within that field.



Yes there is.  If there were no EM fields, there would be no light because photons require an EM field in order to travel.  And if you are standing on an EM field emitter which is producing a more powerful field than any of those coming in, you will not be able to see the emitters of the other fields in any direction in which your EM field is the most powerful as no photons from the weaker emitters will reach you.

I am truely sorry that you aren't able to grasp this to the point that you can get an image in your head.  You apparently believe that photons are free agents and are able to travel independent of an EM field.  Sorry, but they can't.  That is why if an object is at zero degrees K, it can not be seen because at zero degrees K it does not emit any EM field and therefore no photon can leave from it.



RWatt said:


> The direction bodies emit light in is not influenced at all by the temperature of objects in their path.



Yes it is and I have shown you the math.  Photons can only move along an EM field, and they can not move against a more powerful EM field.



RWatt said:


> That would be impossible.



I have shown you the math and backed it up with the laws of physics and you still claim impossible.  The only thing that is impossible right now is for you to grasp what is actually happening.  Clearly you don't understand the mechanism and it is so far away from the model you have in your head that it is incomprehensible to you.  

Arthur C. Clark stated it very elegantly when he said:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I have described what is happening and supported my claim with both math and the laws of physics and you are claiming magic.  There is no doubt that the math backs me up, and that the laws of physics state that the math is correct and yet, you are accusing me of describing sorcery.  At this point, the reality is beyond your ability to grasp so you claim magic, or impossibility.

If you believe it is impossible, then show me the math and the laws of science that support your math. 



RWatt said:


> It would require faster than light communication for a start as photons would have to somehow "know" how hot a star 500 million light years away was warmer than it.



More evidence that the topic is, at present, beyond you.  You still have this image in your head that photons are free agents.  They are not.  They have zero mass and their movement is at the whim of EM fields.  

Say that you have a ball sitting on a table and on one side of the ball you have a stick of spaghetti touching the ball and on the other side you have a pool que.  You apply force to the pool que and at the exact same time, you apply a weaker force to the stick of spaghetti.  The ball on the table doesn't need to "know" which force is stronger or which direction it should be moving; it simply goes in the direction of the greater force.  The same is true for photons.

If you are standing on an emitting surface facing a body 500 million light years away and the surface you are standing on is emitting a greater EM field in the direction of the body you are facing you will not see the body because no photons from that body are coming towards you.  Now if you can move and stand on a surface or empty space where you are not in an EM field that is moving towards the body 500 million light years away, you will see the object if enough photons from it reach you to allow you a visual.

It isn't magic RWatt.  Picture it like the blind spot you have in the middle of your field of vision.  You have probably lived your whole life completely unaware of it but it is there none the less.

I really feel like I am doing you a disservice RWatt.  I am overlooking some key example that would allow you to form a model in your head that would allow you to visualize what is happening but I am trying to keep it simple.  I wan't to bring in vectors but you aren't getting it now, further complicating the model can't help.  Here, let me give you a definition of vector, and tell you that EM fields are vectors.

vector -a quantity possessing both magnitude and direction, represented by an arrow the direction of which indicates the direction of the quantity and the length of which is proportional to the magnitude.

Does it help if you imagine your warm star and your cold star with arrows extending from them in every direction and in the places where the arrows from your warm star meet the arrows from your cool star head on, the arrows from your warm star overcome the arrows from your cool star and extend all the way to the surface of your cooler star?  That being the case, no arrow extends from your cool star in those particular directions so no energy from your cool star can leave it in the direction of the arrows coming in from the warmer star.  

That is as simple as I can make it guy and the math and the laws of physics support the statement.  If you can't grasp it, I apologize for not having the language necessary to help you form a visual.


----------



## sparky (Jun 15, 2011)

so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 15, 2011)

sparky said:


> so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?



Can you show us even one time in a lab how 200PPM addition CO2 will raise temperature 5-7 degrees like the Insane Clown Posse Warmers at MIT claim it does?


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2011)

> More evidence that the topic is, at present, beyond you. You still have this image in your head that photons are free agents. They are not. They have zero mass and their movement is at the whim of EM fields.
> 
> Say that you have a ball sitting on a table and on one side of the ball you have a stick of spaghetti touching the ball and on the other side you have a pool que. You apply force to the pool que and at the exact same time, you apply a weaker force to the stick of spaghetti. The ball on the table doesn't need to "know" which force is stronger or which direction it should be moving; it simply goes in the direction of the greater force. The same is true for photons.



hahahahaha, wirebender has gone totally wacko! hahahahaha

my flashlight is stronger than yours, and the photons are afraid to come out of your filament!


----------



## sparky (Jun 15, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?
> ...





Right after you explain which natural cycle or phenomenon has resulted in an increase of CO2 Frank.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 15, 2011)

sparky said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



Again, Warmers are claiming they need to destroy the American economy to save the planet so the Warmers have the burden of proof.

Try this, the planet has been getting warmer relatively recently.

Before Recent Global Warming






The Vostok Ice cores show that CO2 increases lag warming so the recent increase is due to the recent natural warming.

Now can you show me how a 100PPM increase in CO2 melt glaciers?


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2011)

here is Dr Roy Spencer's simple experiment to straighten out some of your bizarre beliefs about back radiation, wirebender. actually, I know it wont make a difference to a _true believer_ like yourself but others may find it enjoyable to read a 'skeptic' finding common ground with the 'warmers'

Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard! « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

a lot of the basic science is agreed upon, at least in principle


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2011)

IanC said:


> hahahahaha, wirebender has gone totally wacko! hahahahaha
> 
> my flashlight is stronger than yours, and the photons are afraid to come out of your filament!



Perhaps you should take a few moments and inform yourself on the topic of vector stubtraction of electromagnetic fields.  When two EM fields collide "head on" so to speak, you must subtract the two vectors and the result determines which direction the field is propagated.  

As far as flashlights are concerned, it is only the filament that you need concern yourself with.  If you could stand on the filament of the bulb in a flashlight and look towards another flashlight pointing at you, if the flashlight pointing at you produced a weaker EM field than the one you were standing on, you would not see the other light.

You subtract the two EM fields and the larger field will have a value of P/A and will propagate in the direction of the larger field.  Photons can only move along EM fields and therefore can only move in the direction in which the larger field is propagated.


If you believe I am wrong, then show me the math.  I asked before for you to show me the math to prove that your claims are correct and to date, I have seen no math.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2011)

sparky said:


> Right after you explain which natural cycle or phenomenon has resulted in an increase of CO2 Frank.....



Actually a great deal of the increase in CO2 since the beginning of the present interglacial is due to outgassing from the ocean because warm water can hold much less CO2 than cold water.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2011)

IanC said:


> here is Dr Roy Spencer's simple experiment to straighten out some of your bizarre beliefs about back radiation, wirebender. actually, I know it wont make a difference to a _true believer_ like yourself but others may find it enjoyable to read a 'skeptic' finding common ground with the 'warmers'
> 
> Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard! « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
> 
> a lot of the basic science is agreed upon, at least in principle



Yeah, I followed it as the discussion was in progress.  In the end, Dr. Spencer proved nothing.  His experiment failed to prove anything so he moved on to a thought experimet which proved even less.  But hey, if you believe he is right, and downdwelling radiation from a cooler atmosphere can be absorbed by the surface of the warmer earth, lets see the math.

It comes down to this Ian.  Either you can do the math and show that you are right and I am wrong or you can't.  If you can then do it.  If you can't then you are left taking someone's word for it and have no idea whether what you believe is true or false and a fallacious appeal to authority is as close to proving your belief as you will ever get until such time as you can prove your claim via the laws of science.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2011)

sparky said:


> so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?



The EM field generated by the atmosphere is weaker than the EM field generated by the earth.  Therefore the direction of the propagation of the field is away from the earth.  No radiation from the cooler atmosphere is being absorbed by the earth.

I hate to keep going back to the parabolic dish experiment that I have provided but it is an easy, and inexpensive way for you to prove to yourself that there is no downdwelling radiation warming the earth.  Again, if you point your parabolic dish at the sun, you can use it to boil water or cook food or heat up anything you wish.  If you point your parabolic reflector away from the sun into clear sky, you will cool off whatever is in the reflector by several degrees, even during the daytime.  If downdwelling radition were coming from the atmosphere and warming the earth, pointing a parabolic dish at that radiation could not result in a cooling effect.  

The cooling effect is predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.  It is radiating the heat, of whatever is in the dish out to the cooler atmosphere.

If you point that same parabolic reflector into a clear sky at night, you will see ice form if the ambient temperature is 47.5 degrees or cooler.  According to climate science, downdwelling radiation is happening day and night.  If downdwelling radiation sufficient to warm the earth were happening at night, how is it that ice forms if the temperature is 47.5 degrees or less?

Which law of physics allows downdwelling radiation from the cooler atmosphere to warm the earth but form ice in a parabolic dish if it is pointed at that radiation and the temperature is 47.5 degrees or less?  Name the law and show me the math to support the claim.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 15, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > So we have a spacecraft moving through space. Everyone inside can see both stars because both stars have long ago emitted light towards the space the ship occupies.
> ...



Photons cannot reverse direction in a vacuum. Photons have a velocity. They are particles governed by laws of motion.

You also haven't taken into account the inverse square law (Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which now I think of it is a death knell for your theory.

I emphasize that it's your theory. You won't find any textbooks or any scientific laws backing up your assertion that the direction of photons is governed by an "EM field". Photons cannot reverse in a vacuum.

The inverse square law in this case means that the energy flux drops with distance from the emitting star, because the energy spreads out. So even though the cold star was emitting 0.35wm-2, as the light travels from it that flux drops. This is why 1366wm-2 sunlight reaches Earth but only 590wm-2 sunlight reaches Mars. Same star, but the flux drops with distance. This means the flux at any given point from any given direction does not tell you the temperature of it's source.

Here's the killer scenario. A very cold planet sits midway between two equally warm stars. Both stars emit 100wm-2 towards the planet. By the time the light approaches the planet it's dropped to 10wm-2.

Your version of physics accepts this.

But just before the light reaches the planet, the planet moves. Now 10wm-2 from both stars is heading towards the other star. Where does the light go now? My version of physics, which is the true version, says that the light carries on in the same direction.

Your version of physics however is broken because it says that the light should be stuck there as it cannot go either backwards nor forwards because in both directions lies a 100wm-2 emitter which is greater than the 10wm-2 flux carried by the light.

of course light can't be "stuck", it travels at the speed of light. Neither can it disappear (violation of conservation of energy). So where do you propose it goes now? 



> If that is not true, then show me the math and the laws of science that back you up.



Conservation of energy. Inverse square law. Stefan-boltzman law. It goes on.

I can even show you my shoes at high noon. With the Sun right above in the sky, if you look down you will see my shoes. How can photons be moving upwards from my shoes with the Sun right above? My version of physics finds this obvious. Your theory of physics is challenged by shoes.



> A flawed thought experiment is no substitute for hard mathematical proof which is what I have provided for you.



You haven't provided a mathematical proof. All you did was calculate the emission of two objects using stefan-boltzmann law. All that proves is that warm objects emit radiation towards each other, something which is actually key to my argument.

All you did then was subtract those emissions. All that proves is that you can subtract two numbers. Your interpretation of the result is wrong.



> Photons only travel on an EM wave.  They are not free agents.  If a stronger EM wave is washing over wherever you are standing, you will only see light (photons) from the source of the stronger EM field.  Do you believe you can't see the stars during the daytime simply because the sun is shining?



Photons are free agents. They are particles and have their own velocity and follow laws of motion.

This EM wave idea you have is completely wrong and creates a number of absurd situations. Here's another one:

A ring of equal stars. Your physics says that if I shine a torch in the center of this ring the light from it will not travel in a straight line, instead it will be stuck in the middle of the ring forever unable to move because all around it are stronger incoming "EM fields".

As for not being able to see stars during the day, that's because the brightness of those stars is less than the brightness of the sky. The star light is there, but it's bright on a bright background.



> That is preciisely the disagreement.  That is at the heart of the hypotheses of AGW and the greenhouse effect.  The math and laws of science prove quite elegantly that neither is happening.  As the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states no energy transferrs spontaneously from one object to a warmer object.



The 2nd law reads that no _net_ energy flows from an object to a warmer object. It doesn't say no energy moves from the colder object to the warmer object at all.



> If you were somehow standing on the surface of your warm star and your cooler star were the only other object in the universe, you would not be able to see the cooler star because none of its photons could travel from it, against the "current" of the stronger EM field propagated by your warmer star.



If this were true it would imply that anything in front of me would be invisible, not just the colder star. That's clearly wrong.

If someone walks 100 meters in front of me, I will see them, that's even more certain with a giant burning star behind me! But your physics implies that they will be invisible because the light coming from behind me will be greater than the light being reflected back from them.



> So show me the math errors.  Show me the error in the Stefan-Boltzman law.  Show me what physicists have been missing for hundreds of years.



Wow. It's you who are disagreeing with physicists. The greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years. Why don't you explain why physicists have missed the obvious?

The reason is you've got it wrong. The reason physicists stubbornly accept the existance of downwelling radiation from thea tmosphere, is because it's real. If it was an obvious violation of physics it wouldn't have survived 100 years of scrutiny.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Photons cannot reverse direction in a vacuum. Photons have a velocity. They are particles governed by laws of motion.



Who ever said that the could.  If a photon is moving along an EM field and encounters a larger EM field moving in the opposite direction, it ceases to exist adding its energy to the energy of the more powerful EM field.



RWatt said:


> You also haven't taken into account the inverse square law (Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which now I think of it is a death knell for your theory.



So do the math and prove me wrong.  In the example I gave I made the time constant zero so we didn't have to get into distance.  Adding distance to the equation only makes the calculation more complex, it does not alter the laws of science.  Of course if you think otherwise, feel free to do the math and prove your claim.



RWatt said:


> I emphasize that it's your theory. You won't find any textbooks or any scientific laws backing up your assertion that the direction of photons is governed by an "EM field". Photons cannot reverse in a vacuum.



To the contrary, I have provided links to physics textbook sites to support every claim I have made.  How could you have missed that.

And I never made any assertion that a photon could reverse direction.  The fact that you think I said any such thing only serves to highlight how far out of your depth you are.

Clearly, you have never read a textbook on the subject if you don't thnk that the direction of photons is governed by an EM field.  That fact is one of the bare bones basics RWatt.  If you don't know that, then you really need to apply yourself to doing some very basic research if you expect to discourse on the subject at even the most elementary level.

Photon

_"The photon is massless, has no electric charge and does not decay spontaneously in empty space. A photon has two possible polarization states and is described by exactly three continuous parameters: *the components of its wave vector, which determine its wavelength &#955; and its direction of propagation.* "_

HowStuffWorks "The Electromagnetic Spectrum"

_"Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is a stream of photons, traveling in waves. The photon is the base particle for all forms of EM radiation"_




RWatt said:


> The inverse square law in this case means that the energy flux drops with distance from the emitting star, because the energy spreads out. So even though the cold star was emitting 0.35wm-2, as the light travels from it that flux drops. This is why 1366wm-2 sunlight reaches Earth but only 590wm-2 sunlight reaches Mars. Same star, but the flux drops with distance. This means the flux at any given point from any given direction does not tell you the temperature of it's source.



And that doesn't say anything at all about which star is absorbing energy from which.  You are only telling me that with increased distance the strenght of the EM field and its associated electrons weakens.  When the two fields meet, no matter what the distance, the more powerful field will be the direction of propgagation and the electrons will move in that direction.



RWatt said:


> Here's the killer scenario. A very cold planet sits midway between two equally warm stars. Both stars emit 100wm-2 towards the planet. By the time the light approaches the planet it's dropped to 10wm-2.
> 
> Your version of physics accepts this.
> 
> But just before the light reaches the planet, the planet moves. Now 10wm-2 from both stars is heading towards the other star. Where does the light go now? My version of physics, which is the true version, says that the light carries on in the same direction.



Do you understand the concept  wave interference  as it applies to wave propagation?  

Here is a link.  It describes what happens and even has an animation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)



RWatt said:


> Your version of physics however is broken because it says that the light should be stuck there as it cannot go either backwards nor forwards because in both directions lies a 100wm-2 emitter which is greater than the 10wm-2 flux carried by the light.



I have no version of phisics.  I just have the laws of physics and the math that supports and proves them.  



RWatt said:


> You haven't provided a mathematical proof. All you did was calculate the emission of two objects using stefan-boltzmann law. All that proves is that warm objects emit radiation towards each other, something which is actually key to my argument.



Of course I have.  Sorry you don't understand.



RWatt said:


> Photons are free agents. They are particles and have their own velocity and follow laws of motion.



Sorry, simply not true and as a result "your version" of physics is wrong.



RWatt said:


> As for not being able to see stars during the day, that's because the brightness of those stars is less than the brightness of the sky. The star light is there, but it's bright on a bright background.



And "brightness" is just another term for the strength of an EM field.  You can't see them because their light can not come to your eye.




RWatt said:


> The 2nd law reads that no _net_ energy flows from an object to a warmer object. It doesn't say no energy moves from the colder object to the warmer object at all.



Object to a warmer object.  That says pretty clearly that one of the objects is cooler than the other and energy doesn't flow from the cooler to the warmer.  Geez guy, are you really unable to understand such a basic statement?



RWatt said:


> If this were true it would imply that anything in front of me would be invisible, not just the colder star. That's clearly wrong.



If the surface you were standing on were emitting the strongest EM field, then yes, you would be able to see nothing.



RWatt said:


> Wow. It's you who are disagreeing with physicists. The greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years. Why don't you explain why physicists have missed the obvious?



Oddly enough, few physicists accept the greenhouse theory.



RWatt said:


> The reason is you've got it wrong. The reason physicists stubbornly accept the existance of downwelling radiation from thea tmosphere, is because it's real. If it was an obvious violation of physics it wouldn't have survived 100 years of scrutiny.



And in the end, you are left with nothing but a fallacious appeal to authority.  Sorry guy, but I don't have it wrong.  Feel free to do the math yourself and prove that you are right.  Your opinion simply isn't going to carry the argument.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Who ever said that the could.  If a photon is moving along an EM field and encounters a larger EM field moving in the opposite direction, it ceases to exist adding its energy to the energy of the more powerful EM field.



This claim is unsupported. And wrong.

Also note that you haven't explained what happens if the photon encounters an equal EM field moving in the opposite direction. In that case there wouldn't be a more powerful EM field to add it's energy to, so what are you proposing happens here?

There will always be a location between two objects where the flux from both equals out, because the flux drops from all emitters over distance. 

That means in every case there will be a "dead zone" in your theory where photons can't go in either direction. You've been arguing that light from a cooler star can't reach a warmer star, but in fact _your version of physics even prevents light from a warmer star reaching a cooler star_, because as light from a warmer star approaches a cooler star the flux decreases while the flux coming from the opposite direction increases.

That means before the light reaches the colder star there will come a position where the incoming flux from the colder star is equal or greater to the flux from the warmer star.

Eg our Sun emits 64,000,000wm-2, but by the time it reaches Earth the flux is just 1366wm-2. Replace Earth with a small star emitting 2000wm-2.

Because 1366wm-2 from the Sun is less than 2000wm-2, therefore the energy from the 64,000,000wm-2 emitting Sun would not reach the 2000wm-2 star under your version of physics.

Again I emphasize this is yet another problem with your version of physics. We've already been through about half a dozen examples where weirdly absurd stuff would happen in the universe if your version of physics was the case. 

The example where having a bright light behind me means everything in front of me becomes invisible has to take the cake though.



> So do the math and prove me wrong.  In the example I gave I made the time constant zero so we didn't have to get into distance.  Adding distance to the equation only makes the calculation more complex, it does not alter the laws of science.  Of course if you think otherwise, feel free to do the math and prove your claim.



You keep telling me to do the math, but my math is very simple I am not suggesting any exotic behavior as you are having to do to try and fix your theory in the face of insurmountable problems.

My math is simply to calculate the emission of both stars, then I say that light from each star reaches the opposite star and is absorbed. That's all there is too it. A 200wm-2 star and a 100wm-2 star in space are both receiving energy from the other star in an amount that can be calculated from the distance between them. That's it.

Adding distance to the equation is critical. For a start light has a finite speed, so by ignoring distance you are allowing light to travel instantly. That allows you to ignore the problem for your version of physics that the temperatures of objects can change _after_ light has been emitted.

Second distance makes a huge difference because the flux drops off with distance. Even though your star is emitting 5.35wm-2 towards the cooler star, by the time the light gets there it can be much reduced, perhaps as low as 0.1wm-2 if the cooler star is far enough away.

So if the cooler star is emitting 0.35wm-2, how does that 0.1wm-2 reach the cooler star? Your version of physics says it can't. What you haven't realized is that 5.35wm-2 emitter doesn't mean the light that reaching a target a distance away is 5.35wm-2.



> To the contrary, I have provided links to physics textbook sites to support every claim I have made.  How could you have missed that.



You've linked to stuff that I agree with, stuff supporting stefan boltzmann law for example, but not anything that is central to your claims that photon direction is governed by an all encompassing field or that photons "cease to exist" if they meet a greater flux coming from the other direction.



> [And I never made any assertion that a photon could reverse direction.  The fact that you think I said any such thing only serves to highlight how far out of your depth you are.



The fact that I think you said that is that you weren't being very clear. You haven't once before mentioned that photons cease to exist if they encounter a larger flux coming from the opposite direction. And no this isn't in any textbooks because it isn't true. So how am I supposed to guess what you will dream up next?



> Photon
> 
> _"The photon is massless, has no electric charge and does not decay spontaneously in empty space. A photon has two possible polarization states and is described by exactly three continuous parameters: *the components of its wave vector, which determine its wavelength &#955; and its direction of propagation.* "_



Nothing about a field there. All it's saying is what I've been telling you: photons have their own velocity. 



> HowStuffWorks "The Electromagnetic Spectrum"
> 
> _"Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is a stream of photons, traveling in waves. The photon is the base particle for all forms of EM radiation"_



Again this is no different to what I've been telling you.



> And that doesn't say anything at all about which star is absorbing energy from which.  You are only telling me that with increased distance the strenght of the EM field and its associated electrons weakens.  When the two fields meet, no matter what the distance, the more powerful field will be the direction of propgagation and the electrons will move in that direction.



There are no electrons here! Photons are not electrons!



> Do you understand the concept  wave interference  as it applies to wave propagation? Here is a link.  It describes what happens and even has an animation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)



Yes I do understand destructive interference. It doesn't mean a destruction of energy, it's a temporal canceling out when two waves cross, the wave still carries on. Your version of physics is proposing waves stop when they meet an opposing "stronger wave". That's at odds with the very link you post.



> And "brightness" is just another term for the strength of an EM field.  You can't see them because their light can not come to your eye.



No the light does come to your eye, but it's indistinguishable from the light from the rest of the sky. It's like trying to see a green shape on a green background. That you can't spot the shape doesn't mean light from it is not reaching your eye.



> Object to a warmer object.  That says pretty clearly that one of the objects is cooler than the other and energy doesn't flow from the cooler to the warmer.  Geez guy, are you really unable to understand such a basic statement?



It doesn't say this. In fact I recommend you look up the actual classical wording of the 2nd law. The law implies that the net flow of energy cannot be from a cooler to warmer object without work being done. That's the _net flow_.



> Oddly enough, few physicists accept the greenhouse theory.



The vast majority do. 



RWatt said:


> And in the end, you are left with nothing but a fallacious appeal to authority.



What? You just appealed to authority by claiming few physicists accept the greenhouse effect. You are wrong. Most physicists accept it, short of the customary few mad ones you get on any subject. If it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics it wouldn't have withstood over 100 years of scientific scrutiny.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2011)

RWatt said:


> This claim is unsupported. And wrong.



Actually, it is supported and quite accurate.



RWatt said:


> Also note that you haven't explained what happens if the photon encounters an equal EM field moving in the opposite direction. In that case there wouldn't be a more powerful EM field to add it's energy to, so what are you proposing happens here?



Where do you get this idea of "encountering" an equal EM field?  Are you claiming that stars suddenly spring into existence?  The fact is that photons have zero mass and either require an electromagnetic field to move or make up an electromagnetic field (depending on which physics textbook you read).  In either case, they require a field in order to move.  If two equal fields are present, then electrons don't move as there is no field propagated in either direction.



RWatt said:


> That means in every case there will be a "dead zone" in your theory where photons can't go in either direction. You've been arguing that light from a cooler star can't reach a warmer star, but in fact _your version of physics even prevents light from a warmer star reaching a cooler star_, because as light from a warmer star approaches a cooler star the flux decreases while the flux coming from the opposite direction increases.



So lets see the math.  Prove it.  And again, I don't have a version of physics.

As to your claim that light from a warmer star can never reach a cooler star, lets see the math.



RWatt said:


> Eg our Sun emits 64,000,000wm-2, but by the time it reaches Earth the flux is just 1366wm-2. Replace Earth with a small star emitting 2000wm-2.
> 
> Because 1366wm-2 from the Sun is less than 2000wm-2, therefore the energy from the 64,000,000wm-2 emitting Sun would not reach the 2000wm-2 star under your version of physics.



Lets see the math, and show your work.



RWatt said:


> The example where having a bright light behind me means everything in front of me becomes invisible has to take the cake though.



In your example where you have a bright light behind you, you, yourself are absorbing the energy from the light.  It isn't passing through you.  You don't seem to grasp that EM fields are vectors and move in straight lines.  None of your "if I stand here" examples have any meaning because you are absorbing the energy coming from any greater energy source behind you.  You can't put yourself in a place where you are not absorbing energy from a source behind you.



RWatt said:


> You keep telling me to do the math, but my math is very simple I am not suggesting any exotic behavior as you are having to do to try and fix your theory in the face of insurmountable problems.



Yeah.  Your math is simple alright.  So simple it is non existent.  As I said to IanC , either you can do the math and prove me wrong or you can't.  If you can, then do it.  If you can't, then you don't know whether you are right or wrong and have no idea whether the science you accept as true is true or not and in the end, a fallacious appeal to authority is as close as you will ever get to proving your claims.



RWatt said:


> My math is simply to calculate the emission of both stars, then I say that light from each star reaches the opposite star and is absorbed. That's all there is too it. A 200wm-2 star and a 100wm-2 star in space are both receiving energy from the other star in an amount that can be calculated from the distance between them. That's it.



Yep.  Your math doesn't figure EM fields.  Your math doesn't figure the subtraction of vectors.  Your math assumes that a massless particle can move about the universe as a free agent, and your math does not take into consideration what happens when two waves meet going in exactly opposite directions.  That, my friend, is why your math doesn't prove anything at all and is supported with "thought experiments" rather than equations.



RWatt said:


> Adding distance to the equation is critical. For a start light has a finite speed, so by ignoring distance you are allowing light to travel instantly. That allows you to ignore the problem for your version of physics that the temperatures of objects can change _after_ light has been emitted.



It doesn't change the fact that when the two fields meet, no matter how weak, you MUST subtract them and the difference determines the direction of propagation of the resulting field.  If the resulting field is to weak to reach the cooler star then the end result is still that the warmer star didn't absorb any energy at all from the cooler star.  There is no law of nature that says that a cool star, no matter how far a way must absorb energy from a warmer star.  The law of nature only says that the object won't absorb energy from the 
cooler object.



RWatt said:


> Second distance makes a huge difference because the flux drops off with distance. Even though your star is emitting 5.35wm-2 towards the cooler star, by the time the light gets there it can be much reduced, perhaps as low as 0.1wm-2 if the cooler star is far enough away.



Once more with emphasis.  The laws of science don't say that the cooler object must absorb energy from the warm object.  Distances can certainly reduce the strength of a field to the point that it can't overcome the field from a cooler object.  But by the same token, the field from the cooler object will, with distance, find itself unable to overcome the field from the warmer object.  At that point, motion stops.  Feel free to do the math and prove me wrong.



RWatt said:


> You've linked to stuff that I agree with, stuff supporting stefan boltzmann law for example, but not anything that is central to your claims that photon direction is governed by an all encompassing field or that photons "cease to exist" if they meet a greater flux coming from the other direction.



Then you fail to understand the material.  Depending on which textbook you are reading (generally a difference between physics and astrophysics) photons either require an EM field to travel on or are the basic quantim ("substance") of the EM wave or field.  Here is a definition of quantum:

quantum -A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles. See also quantum state. plural - quanta

Whether the photon requires the EM field to move or is the field itself, they only move in EM fields.  They are not free agents that go zipping about the universe independent of the emitters that propagate EM fields.  They are subject to the forces that govern EM fields.  When two fields are in opposition, you must subtract the two to determine the direction of propagation of the resultant field.  



RWatt said:


> The fact that I think you said that is that you weren't being very clear. You haven't once before mentioned that photons cease to exist if they encounter a larger flux coming from the opposite direction. And no this isn't in any textbooks because it isn't true. So how am I supposed to guess what you will dream up next?



I thought that was clear when I ponted out that photons require an EM field to move forward.  When you subtract the two and propagate the field in the direction of the more powerful field, what did you think happend to the photons?



RWatt said:


> It doesn't say this. In fact I recommend you look up the actual classical wording of the 2nd law. The law implies that the net flow of energy cannot be from a cooler to warmer object without work being done. That's the _net flow_.



Here is the classical wording:

_Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:

 No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1] 

Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor._

I dont' see anything there about net energy flows or even an implication of net energy flows.



RWatt said:


> The vast majority do.



Prove it.


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2011)

I see wirebender is still on his quixotic rant.

I have a suspicion that he is taking some weird quantum effect that is only applicable to highly constrained circumstances and applying it across the board in areas where it is inapplicable. photons are created from energy, fly in a straight line until they find something to interact with, and the energy that was carried as momentum is converted into some other form. but photons rarely interact with each other.

on another note- a container of water will evaporate if the air is less than saturated (actually even fully saturated air will take new molecules as soon as others return). but even as energetic H2O molecules break free others in the air will dive in. IR radiation does the same thing. most of the radiation will be from the surface but some will come back from molecules in the air. this doesnt break the 2nd law and wirebender's em fields dont stop the molecules in the atmosphere from emitting photons of IR


----------



## RWatt (Jun 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Lets see the math, and show your work.



Okay fine. The Sun has a surface emission of about 63 million wm-2 (Sun Fact Sheet)

That's because it has an effective temperature of 5780K, so stefan boltzmann:
5780K ^ 4 * sbconstant = ~63 million wm-2

10,000 kilometers from the Sun the flux has dropped from ~63 million wm-2 to ~61 million wm-2

One million kilometers from the Sun the flux has dropped further to about 11 million wm-2.

And by the time it reaches Earth (about 150 million kilometers), the flux is now about 1370wm-2:

Solar flux at Earth (wm-2) = Emission of sun (wm-2) * Solar radius ^ 2 / Earth distance from Sun ^ 2

Solar flux at Earth (wm-2) = 63000000wm-2 * 700000000^2 / 150000000000^2

Solar flux at Earth = ~1370wm-2
(eg http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/browse/b_tsi_erbs_8410_9912.gif)

If Earth was instead a cold star of just 500K temperature then it's emission would be about 3500wm-2, more than the 1370wm-2 flux from the Sun at that distance. Similarly that flux of 3500wm-2 would also drop with distance.

The "dead zone" in this case is 4000 kilometers from the cold star. At this location in space the flux from the the cold star has dropped to 1370wm-2. And at that distance the flux from the Sun is also 1372wm-2.

A dead zone means in your version of physics light cannot pass in either direction. The flux in both directions is equal so the "EM field" has no direction. If there's no light coming across this plane then anything on the otherside of it will be invisible to the observer.

That's just one problem for you to explain. 

Another problem is going on elsewhere. 2000 kilometers from the cold star the sun's flux is still 1372wm-2, but the flux from the cold star is 2000wm-2. That means the EM field 2000 kilometers from the cold star is heading towards the Sun. That means photons carrying energy are traveling towards the dead zone.

The problem there is of course what happens to all this energy. Every second the dead zone is filling up with photons from both stars. Energy is increasing, yet you've got it stuck there because the "EM fields" subtract to zero and therefore photons once they reach the dead zone have nowhere else to go.



> None of your "if I stand here" examples have any meaning because you are absorbing the energy coming from any greater energy source behind you.  You can't put yourself in a place where you are not absorbing energy from a source behind you.



Light takes time to travel through space. For example it takes about 8 minutes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth. That poses yet another falsification of your version of physics.

In the above example the cold star is radiating 3500wm-2, but that light isn't making it past the dead zone, just 4000 kilometers from the cold star. If I stood even midway between the Sun and the cold star, your version of physics now says that light from the cold star can reach me. Except it won't reach me for a full 4 minutes....

Which means at first the cold star will be invisible to me. Then suddenly it will appear.

This is yet another weird consequence of your version of physics. Interestingly enough if I jump out of the way of the light before the 4 minutes is up, according to your physics it will then meet the stronger light coming from the Sun, the photons will "cease to exist" and the energy will be transfered to the photons going towards the cold sun.

Effectively by standing midway between the two stars for 3 minutes and then moving asside I have amplified the light going in the direction of the cold star! Your version of physics just makes no sense!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Right after you explain which natural cycle or phenomenon has resulted in an increase of CO2 Frank.....
> ...



Bentwire, you do realize that businesses keep records, do you not? Records like how many tons of coal and barrels of oil have been produced? And it is simple math to extrapolate from that how much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere from those sources.

Thus far, the oceans are net sinks for CO2. When they become net emitters, game over.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



Are you claiming he oceans were warmer when the North American continent north of the Ohio River was under an ice sheet several miles thick?


----------



## RWatt (Jun 16, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



The oceans emit more CO2 as the temperature rises, but also absorb more CO2 as CO2 level rises. When CO2 level rises in the atmosphere that causes both effects. The ocean is currently a net sink of CO2. That's why our 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year are causing only 15 million ton rise in CO2 in the atmsphere per year. 

The bulk of the rest is being absorbed by the oceans, leading to the problem of ocean acidification. Both the rate of pH drop in the oceans and the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere are probably unprecedented in our planet's long history.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Okay fine. The Sun has a surface emission of about 63 million wm-2 (Sun Fact Sheet)
> 
> That's because it has an effective temperature of 5780K, so stefan boltzmann:
> 5780K ^ 4 * sbconstant = ~63 million wm-2
> ...



Sorry to take so long to respond but during the summer when the offshore forecast looks good, I go fishing.

You are unbelievable RWatt.  You did the math, got the answer and are simply unable to accept that answer even though you did the math.  When you reached the point where the two EM fields subtracted to zero, what did you think you were subtracting?  x Wm2 - y Wm2 = z Wm2.  When z=0, then there is no more energy.  No energy, no photons, no Em field.  The energy is all used up.  The numbers mean something RWatt and in this case, they mean that the energy is expended.  If there were any energy left, which ever field had an excess would continue to propagate in the direction it came from.



RWatt said:


> A dead zone means in your version of physics light cannot pass in either direction. The flux in both directions is equal so the "EM field" has no direction. If there's no light coming across this plane then anything on the otherside of it will be invisible to the observer.



Your dead zone is a fiction.  That point where the two fields subtract to zero is simply the point where the available energy is used up.  Light doesn't pass becasue there is no more light.  The flux in both directions has reached zero.  What did you think that zero means?




RWatt said:


> Another problem is going on elsewhere. 2000 kilometers from the cold star the sun's flux is still 1372wm-2, but the flux from the cold star is 2000wm-2. That means the EM field 2000 kilometers from the cold star is heading towards the Sun. That means photons carrying energy are traveling towards the dead zone.



Of course the field is moving towards the point where the two fields subtract to zero.  And it is diminishing as well.  What did you think was diminishing?  When you did the math and saw that the EM field diminished from 63 million Wm2 down to 1370 Wm2 between the sun and earth, what did you think was diminishing?  Did you think that the EM field was diminishing but carrying the same amount of photons?




RWatt said:


> The problem there is of course what happens to all this energy. Every second the dead zone is filling up with photons from both stars. Energy is increasing, yet you've got it stuck there because the "EM fields" subtract to zero and therefore photons once they reach the dead zone have nowhere else to go.



You have already shown what happens to all the energy.  It has diminished as it moved away from its respective star and at the point where the two fields subtract to zero, the energy is used up.  That zero means no more energy.  No more EM field.  No more photons.  It is all gone.  That zero doesn't represent a dam in space that blocks the flow of the fields.  It represents the point at which the fields dimish to zero.  That is the point where the creeks dry up.  You don't need a dam when the water dries up.

You did the math, saw the answer and simply couldn't accept its meaning.  Did you think you did the math wrong?  Again, what do you think that zero represents?  The zero represents energy so when the energy is zero, what energy do you think is increasing?  Where do you think the photons are coming from if there is no energy?  Your argument demonstrates that you don't understand what a photon is so perhaps that is why you think you need to create energy to fill up a place where the energy equals zero.  Here are some definitions for photon from various standard and scientific dictionaries.

_photon - The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime._

For your reference, here is also a definition of quantum.

_quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation._

You should be able to read that definition and grasp that a photon is not a free agent but is the smallest part of the electromagnetic fields that you just subtracted to zero.  When yuo were subtracting, you were subtracting energy, photons; the whole of the EM field.

photon - a unit of energy in the form of light.

photon - a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation, including light

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

photon - quantum (smallest possible unit) of electromagnetic radiation, considered as an elementary particle with zero charge and rest mass

If at this point, you still don't get it, I am afraid that you are just doomed to never get it.




RWatt said:


> In the above example the cold star is radiating 3500wm-2, but that light isn't making it past the dead zone, just 4000 kilometers from the cold star. If I stood even midway between the Sun and the cold star, your version of physics now says that light from the cold star can reach me. Except it won't reach me for a full 4 minutes....



Do you believe you can block the EM field of a star?  Even a cold one?  If you are in the field at a point before it subtracts to zero, the EM field you generate can not overcome that of the cold star so the EM field of the star continues to propagate in the direction it was going until it either reaches the other star and is absorbed or subtracts to zero in which case, there is no more energy.  You did the math yourself, why can't you accept the answer?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

RWatt said:


> The oceans emit more CO2 as the temperature rises, but also absorb more CO2 as CO2 level rises. When CO2 level rises in the atmosphere that causes both effects. The ocean is currently a net sink of CO2. That's why our 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year are causing only 15 million ton rise in CO2 in the atmsphere per year.



The oceans don't absorb as much as they outgas.  If they did, then the net would be zero.  This should tell you that the oceans held more CO2 during the depths of the ice age we are exiting and did not kill the corals.  Further, paleohistory tells us that at times the oceans have held far more CO2 than the present with no ill effect to the oceans or the life they hold.


----------



## Douger (Jun 21, 2011)

Planet earth is a living breathing organism. It has a virus( that would be us).
It is getting an infection and a fever. Just like when you get a virus.The fever will assist in killing most of the parasites.( with a little assist from the Nazi's that think they own this planet)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

RWatt said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



We add 15 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually? Are you absolutely sure?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

Need confirmation from the Warmers.  Does mankind really add 15 billions tons of CO2 annually to the atmosphere because that sounds like an awful lot?


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Need confirmation from the Warmers.  Does mankind really add 15 billions tons of CO2 annually to the atmosphere because that sounds like an awful lot?



It IS a lot, Frank, but you're LOW by half!!!

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Need confirmation from the Warmers.  Does mankind really add 15 billions tons of CO2 annually to the atmosphere because that sounds like an awful lot?
> ...



Did you know that half of the 30B tons is supposedly absorbed by the ocean?  I intentionally asked the question the way I did for that reason.

Are you confirming that mankind add a net of 15B tons of CO2 to Earth atmosphere, because, again, that sounds like a really big number.

Are you sure?


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The important question remains, "Is CO2 in the atmosphere rising?"  The exact amount that doesn't get re-absorbed into the ocean or plants, while interesting, isn't the bottom line.  That place belongs to the % change and the effect that has on climate.  As long as it isn't all re-absorbed into the carbon cycle and atmospheric concentrations continue to rise, logic tells us that warming is inevitable, given its IR absorption properties.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



So you want double credit for CO2 both in the atmosphere and lowering the Ph of the ocean?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

Why do they always disappear rather than answer simple questions like "Can you state your hypothesis?"


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Of course, the half you say gets absorbed by the ocean would tend to lower pH and the half in the atmosphere would trap more IR.  I think you're FINALLY getting it, Frank!!!


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why do they always disappear rather than answer simple questions like "Can you state your hypothesis?"



Because the skeptics/deniers don't have a hypothesis, their objection being political, rather than scientific.  You can ask over and over again and they just won't come up with one.  AGW on the other hand has the backing of most of the scientific community, theories, hypotheses, data out the wazoo and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics ALL backing it up.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



OK, just to confirm you're saying, and it seems to be supported by the article you linked to, that mankind's annual net CO2 contribution to Earth atmosphere is 15B tons. (WOW!)

So AGW is the net 15B tons, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Why do they always disappear rather than answer simple questions like "Can you state your hypothesis?"
> ...



And yet you still cannot put forth the simple hypothesis that is the foundation for this "Settled science"

That says a lot


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You're LYING again, Frank.  Anyone who's been reading the board regularly knows the hypotheses and the fact that you keep repeating this mantra is ludicrous.  If no hypothesis has been given, what have we been talking about?  I could post one, but tomorrow you'd just LIE again and say it's never been done.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> Of course, the half you say gets absorbed by the ocean would tend to lower pH and the half in the atmosphere would trap more IR.  I think you're FINALLY getting it, Frank!!!



Still waiting for you to describe the mechanism by which CO2 can "trap" IR.  It absorbs IR and immediately emits precisely the same amount in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.  All this is happening at the speed of light.  Even though you can't describe a mechanism by which it is trapped, how long do you suppose this IR remains in the atmosphere considering that it is travelling at the speed of light?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> You're LYING again, Frank.  Anyone who's been reading the board regularly knows the hypotheses and the fact that you keep repeating this mantra is ludicrous.  If no hypothesis has been given, what have we been talking about?  I could post one, but tomorrow you'd just LIE again and say it's never been done.



Actually, anyone who has been reading this thread knows perfectly well that none of you have proposed the hypothesis that climate science claims.  None of you have stated that downdwelling radiation is being absorbed by the earth and that the atmosphere is responsible for delivering nearly twice the Wm2 in energy to the earth's surface as the sun and as a result, the earth is emitting twice the Wm2 from its surface that it recieves from the sun.  All you warmers seem to know instinctively that the actual hypothesis is little more than a steaming pile of excrement so you make up your own hypotheses that are not supported by climate science.


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the half you say gets absorbed by the ocean would tend to lower pH and the half in the atmosphere would trap more IR.  I think you're FINALLY getting it, Frank!!!
> ...



Even if it doesn't get absorbed by another CO2 molecule, it could get absorbed by the earth and statistically half would, thereby heating it.  The fact that it's happening at the speed of light is neither here nor there.


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You're LYING again, Frank.  Anyone who's been reading the board regularly knows the hypotheses and the fact that you keep repeating this mantra is ludicrous.  If no hypothesis has been given, what have we been talking about?  I could post one, but tomorrow you'd just LIE again and say it's never been done.
> ...



The only "steaming pile of excrement" I see is the contention that AGW believers think there's some sort of increase of energy like you describe.  Honestly, something so inherently false makes you look kooky.  How about discussing the facts and theories as they are, instead of creating a "strawman"?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> Even if it doesn't get absorbed by another CO2 molecule, it could get absorbed by the earth and statistically half would, thereby heating it.  The fact that it's happening at the speed of light is neither here nor there.



Didn't you claim that the atmosphere is not backradiating to the surface of the earth?  We all know that the cooler atmosphere can't warm the warmer surface of the earth.  I have provided you an inexpensive experiment whereby you can prove to yourself beyond any doubt that backradiation is not warming the earth.  

When you point a parabolic dish into the sky, away from the sun, during daylight hours, whatever is in the antenna cools.  That is because, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics, heat is radiated from the surface to the cooler atmosphere.  How could backradiation which you now claim is warming the surface of the earth also cause whatever is in your parabolic dish to cool by several degrees?  Which law of science is the basis for your claim?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> The only "steaming pile of excrement" I see is the contention that AGW believers think there's some sort of increase of energy like you describe.  Honestly, something so inherently false makes you look kooky.  How about discussing the facts and theories as they are, instead of creating a "strawman"?



The only energy source is the sun.  The sun raidates 161 watts per square meter of energy to the surface of the earth.  If the earth were a perfect reflector, which it certainly is not, the most energy it could radiate if climate science is to be beleived is 161 watts per square meter.  Climate science, however, claims that the earth is radiating 356 watts per square meter.  If there is no magical increase in energy, how do you explain a surface absorbing 161 watts per square meter radiating 356 watts per square meter?  

Explain it, show the math, and describe the law(s) of physics that support the claim.

Here is the energy budget that climate science is working on.  The numbers I state are clearly shown.  You explain them if you believe them.






You say that my statements are untrue.  That must mean that you are able to do the math, and describe the laws of physics upon which you base your cliams.  If you can't do those things, then your claims that my statements are untrue are no more than your opinion which carries little weight.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I've stated what I think your hypothesis in several different ways.

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Hypothesis: Deminimus annual increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 can cause cataclysmic changes in Earth's climate


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



How often to we have to go over this?  30-40% ISN'T deminimus.


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it doesn't get absorbed by another CO2 molecule, it could get absorbed by the earth and statistically half would, thereby heating it.  The fact that it's happening at the speed of light is neither here nor there.
> ...



Don't care about your parabolic dish.  If a CO2 molecule releases energy towards earth, there will be an increase of energy on earth.  THAT'S the bottom line.  More CO2, more energy reflected, more heat.  The rest of what you have to say seems to have more to to with confusing the issue, than elucidating the topic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



But I thought you said that we're adding 15B tons of CO2 annually?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> Of course you don't care because the experiment proves your claim wrong.  The energy of the earth only increases if the molecule is abosrbed and it isn't being absorbed because the EM field emitted by the earth is of a greater magnitude than that being emitted by the atmosphere.  There is no transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the earth.  If you beleive there is, by all means lets see the math.  RWatt did the math and proved that there was no transfer of energy from cool to warm and isn't able to accept his own results.  Do you fall into that catergory as well?
> 
> Clearly the topic is over your head.  How do you explain a surface absorbing 161 watts per square meter of energy from its only power source radiating 356 watts per square meter of energy?
> 
> Rather than shuck and jive, how about you answer the question.  How do you explain it?


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yeah, is 15B suddenly "deminimus", too?  I thought you said that sounded very high?  I think you need to take a break.  Your questions are making even less sense than usual.


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you don't care because the experiment proves your claim wrong.  The energy of the earth only increases if the *molecule *is abosrbed and it isn't being absorbed because the EM field emitted by the earth is of a greater magnitude than that being emitted by the atmosphere.  There is no transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the earth.  If you beleive there is, by all means lets see the math.  RWatt did the math and proved that there was no transfer of energy from cool to warm and isn't able to accept his own results.  Do you fall into that catergory as well?
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



15Billion tons! Eek! What a big number! Surely there is no way Mother Gaia could absorb that punishment!

Here's the math.

Earth atmosphere in tons: 5E+15 tons

Mankind net annual contribution: 1.5E + 10 tons

Divide 15 BILLION TONS!!! by Earths atmosphere and you get 3E-6, or .0003%. 

It's not even a rounding error, genius.


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So what?  As you've been told repeatedly, the absolute values aren't as important as the delta.  The 30-40% change seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is the important number, not the one you cherry-picked because it was small.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



LOL

So what is a terrific answer, Gomer.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Sloppy science isn't accurate science.  And now we're going to try and play off something that isn't even the size of the margin of error is suddenly critical elsewhere?  And speaking of cherrypicked.  How about the 3 Siberian tree samples out of thousands as the basis for the fraudulent hockey stick?  That's good cherry picking versus bad?

Wow... talk about desperate religion in action.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> Now molecules are getting absorbed?!?!  I thought we were talking photons!  How does an emitted photon "know" whether it's traveling from a hot-to-cold or vice versa?  I think your point is ludicrous.  If a photon gets re-emitted in the direction of earth, that IS transfer of energy.  Did you expect us not to realize that?  Your conception of AGW theory gets goofier by the minute!!!



Sorry.  I was running out of time at lunch and failed to proof read my post.  Clearly I didn't intend to say molecule.  As to photons, they go nowhere on thier own.  Depending on which text you read, they are either unable to move unless it is upon an electromagnetic field or they are the actual "stuff" that makes up the field.  Here, I gave RWatt the definition of photon but as you clearly don't grasp what a photon is, I will provide them for you as well.

photon - The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.

For your reference, here is also a definition of quantum.

quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.

You should be able to read that definition and grasp that a photon is not a free agent but is the smallest part of the electromagnetic fields that you just subtracted to zero. When yuo were subtracting, you were subtracting energy, photons; the whole of the EM field.

photon - a unit of energy in the form of light.

photon - a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation, including light

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

What you clearly don't grasp is that an EM field can not travel upstream against a stronger EM field.  When you calculate the strength of the EM field emitted by the atmosphere and the strenght of the EM field emitted by the earth, it is clear that the field emitted by the earth is stronger.  You must subtract the two fields and the stronger determines which direction the resulting field will be propagated.  In the case of atmosphere vs earth, the earth has the stronger field so all energy is moving away from the earth except that which is coming in from the sun which is arriving as a stronger EM field than the earth emits.

If the weaker field from the atmosphere can not travel against the stronger field emitted from the earth then no photons from the atmosphere reach the earth.  The definitions I gave you clearly indicate that photons are not free agents.  They only go where the EM field they are associated with go.

Now feel free to do the math for yourself to prove that no energy transferrs from the atmosphere to the earth.  Look back through the thread and you will find all the formulas, physical laws, and quantities necessary in both my own and RWatt's posts.  He did the math and found that no energy transfer is possible between a cooler object and a warmer object.    Your faith is no match for actual science or mathematics.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> So what?  As you've been told repeatedly, the absolute values aren't as important as the delta.  The 30-40% change seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is the important number, not the one you cherry-picked because it was small.



Sure, we have all been told that.  But to date, even your climate priests have not proved it.  Show me the math.  Show me that the delta is more important than the absolute when the fact is that the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has no bearing on either the temperature of the earth or of its climate.

30 to 40 % of a trace gas doesn't change the fact that CO2 is still a trace gas that doesn't change the temperature or the climate.

How about you quit dodging and explain how it is that you believe that a surface that is absorbing 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate more than twice that amount of energy.  If that can happen, why don't we put reflectors on our heaters and create twice as much energy as we get from the electric company?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 22, 2011)

A question---

What would effect the earth climate more.
1# 200 ppm increase in co2
2# .5% increase of solar output

thanks


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 22, 2011)

Matthew said:


> A question---
> 
> What would effect the earth climate more.
> 1# 200 ppm increase in co2
> ...



At present, the understanding is that there was a 0.25% decrease in TSI during the Maunder Minimum.

Causes of Millennial-Scale Climate Change

So, an increase of 0.5% in the TSI would have very significant effects. As will an increase of 200 ppm of CO2. Would a decrease of 0.5% TSI balance an increase of 200 ppm?  I don't really know, and have never seen anyone do the projections on such a situation. However, for sure, and increase of 0.5% TSI and 200 ppm of CO2 would definately be catastrophic.


----------



## idb (Jun 22, 2011)

I really wish I had the time to read this thread properly!
This is supposed to be the most pressing issue of our age and I'm too busy keeping myself and my staff employed.

Is it too lazy to trust in the advice of the majority of experts?
That's what we educate and pay them for, so that we don't have to become experts ourselves.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 22, 2011)

Matthew said:


> A question---
> 
> What would effect the earth climate more.
> 1# 200 ppm increase in co2
> ...



Any change in solar output would effect the climate more than any amount of a trace gas that has no mechanism by which to trap heat or cause warming.  A great deal of math has been done on this thread in the past week or so and it proves that there is no energy transfer from a cooler object to a warmer object.  The cooler atmosphere does not, can not, never has nor never wil warm the earth.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 22, 2011)

idb said:


> I really wish I had the time to read this thread properly!
> This is supposed to be the most pressing issue of our age and I'm too busy keeping myself and my staff employed.
> 
> Is it too lazy to trust in the advice of the majority of experts?
> That's what we educate and pay them for, so that we don't have to become experts ourselves.



First, the claims of climate science are not supported by a "majority" of experts.  There is a small clique of highly financed experts that are claiming that small increases in CO2 have a great effect on the climate.  Second, as far as time goes, it takes almost no time at all to examine the hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate.  It takes no time because there is no such evidence.  The claims of climate science are based on computer models and highly massaged observed data.  Third, when politics cozies up this close to any science, you have to know that it stops being science and becomes a pseudoscience driven by political and monetary factors.

Look back over history at the number of times the claimed majority has been completely wrong but continued on because they had the support of the political powers of the time.  History, and the dictionary tells us that consensus is a matter of politics, not science.

If you must worry about climate, concern yourself about the claimed grand minimum the sun is supposed to be going into.  If that happens, the warmers will find out in quick time that cold is far far far worse for human beings as well as other species than warm.


----------



## idb (Jun 22, 2011)

wirebender said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish I had the time to read this thread properly!
> ...



For every opinion there's a dissenting one, I'm a complete layman on matters of climate so how to sift through it?

My limited research would suggest that the consensus of climatologists is that there is climate change occurring and that anthropogenic causes are involved.

On the other hand I admit to having a problem over the quality of understanding of the processes involved.
I don't know...maybe the earth is warming due to solar effects and this is what's causing the sea to warm and shed CO2? Not the other way around?

Some say that co2 isn't even a 'greenhouse gas'.

Measuring is easily compromised making records unreliable...and on and on...

But, as I said, there are people that study these things for a living, it seems to me that the majority of them accept that there is anthropogenic climate change happening...why shouldn't I trust them?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 22, 2011)

idb said:


> For every opinion there's a dissenting one, I'm a complete layman on matters of climate so how to sift through it?



It really isn't that tough.  Climate science is, in large part, based on little more than a fallacious appeal to complexity.  The actual science (hard science - physics / chemistry) that defines what is and is not possible isn't that complicated.  There was a pretty good exchange between myself and RWatt on this thread.  It goes into what can and can not happen based on they physics.  RWatt has not responded to the final post even though he has been posting on the board.  I don't know if that means that he has convinced himelf that he has been mistaken or not, but it is interesting that he hasn't been back.  Here are links to the specific posts.  As you can see, the math isn't that tough.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739629-post138.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3747723-post160.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3749183-post165.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3752896-post193.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757921-post208.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757983-post209.html

The crux of the issue where RWatt proves to himself that the foundation upon which climate science is built is false.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3758427-post211.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3774581-post215.html

and RWatt has not responded since.  These posts go through the basic math.  If the math says it can't happen, no amount of appeal to complexity will ever make it happen.


----------



## idb (Jun 22, 2011)

wirebender said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > For every opinion there's a dissenting one, I'm a complete layman on matters of climate so how to sift through it?
> ...



The individual processes might not seem that hard to understand, but the relationship between them is surely where the complexity comes in.
I have some difficulty accepting that we can have total confidence in our understanding of the interactions between the drivers of the earth's climate.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 22, 2011)

idb said:


> The individual processes might not seem that hard to understand, but the relationship between them is surely where the complexity comes in.
> I have some difficulty accepting that we can have total confidence in our understanding of the interactions between the drivers of the earth's climate.



I am afraid that it isn't.   At the heart of AGW claims is downdwelling radiation from atmospheric CO2.  Without that, you don't have a greenhouse hypothesis and without that you don't have man made climate change.

Downdwelling radiation is supposedly IR emitted from the earth being "diverted" in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and some of that diverted energy being sent back towards the earth and, in fact, warming the surface of the earth causing the earth to emit more IR.

The simple fact is that heat doesn't flow from a cool object to a warm object.  Electromagnetic fields are the means of energy flow.  Oppose two EM fields and the stronger field determines the direction of energy flow.  Energy can not flow "upstream" against the stronger "current" of a more powerful EM field.  The EM field emitted by the earth is stronger than that emitted by the atmosphere, therefore energy does not flow from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed.

The list of links above is a progression through the math that proves that downdwelling radiation is not happening.  Without that, there is no greenhouse effect and no man made global warming.  If the foundation upon which the warmist claims is flawed, the rest of the claims mean nothing no matter how complex they might be, and the fact is that the complexity is deliberate as it serves to detract from the foundational error espoused by climate science.

If you simply want to beleive, go ahead but know that that belief is the result of a particular political mindset and not due to any hard, observable scientific evidence.


----------



## idb (Jun 22, 2011)

wirebender said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > The individual processes might not seem that hard to understand, but the relationship between them is surely where the complexity comes in.
> ...



I can follow the maths if I screw up my face and concentrate but, as I have more of an engineering background, I like to be able to visualise the concepts.
Your explanation above is compelling.

I like to ski.
I imagine standing in a snowy ravine on a cloudless day with the sun shining on one side of the ravine only.
I am equidistant from both sides of the ravine.
I am in the shade and there is no wind.
The question is, would I feel warmer on the side of me that is facing the side of the ravine that has the sun on it?
Would there be reflected heat?
I suspect not.
At least not until the sunburn set in!


----------



## konradv (Jun 22, 2011)

wirebender said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > The individual processes might not seem that hard to understand, but the relationship between them is surely where the complexity comes in.
> ...



Your analysis is faulty.  There's no "current" which would prevent a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule from reaching earth, regardless of temperature.  You seem to inventing new laws of nature!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2011)

Matthew said:


> A question---
> 
> What would effect the earth climate more.
> 1# 200 ppm increase in co2
> ...



A more realistic choice would be

1. 200PPM CO2 or
2. Bumblebee farts


----------



## wirebender (Jun 22, 2011)

idb said:


> I can follow the maths if I screw up my face and concentrate but, as I have more of an engineering background, I like to be able to visualise the concepts.
> Your explanation above is compelling.
> 
> I like to ski.
> ...



What you "feel" is not relavent to what is happening.  The only factor at work with regards to manmade global warming is EM fields.  The EM field emitted from the earth is greater in magnitude than the EM field emitted by the atmosphere.  Therefore, no energy is transferred from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth.  Without downdwelling radiation, there can be no manmade global warming and the math simply does not support the claims of downdwelling radiation because no amount of wishing can make energy from a weaker EM field overcome and move "upstream" of the direction of propagaion of a more powerful EM field.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> Your analysis is faulty.  There's no "current" which would prevent a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule from reaching earth, regardless of temperature.  You seem to inventing new laws of nature!!!



A basic misunderstanding of what photons are is at the heart of your argument.  You, like RWwatt view photons as free agents that can go zipping around independent of EM fields.  

As I have pointed out, and substantiated, photons are not independent agents.  Depdinding on which science textbook you read (physics vs astrophysics) photons either are dependent on EM fields for movement or are the actual "stuff" that the field is made of.  In either case, photons do not move independently of EM fields.  

I provided them before, but you clearly failed to grasp their meanings, so again, let me give you some definitions of photon:

_photon - The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime._

The quantum of electromagnetic energy.  Try real hard to understand what that means.  Here is the definition of quantum:

_quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation._

How much more clear can it be made to you.  Photons are electromagnetic radiation and are part and parcel of any electromagnetic field.  If an EM field does not reach a place, neither do photons.  

You should be able to read that definition and grasp that a photon is not a free agent but is the smallest part of the electromagnetic fields that you just subtracted to zero. When yuo were subtracting, you were subtracting energy, photons; the whole of the EM field.

_photon - a unit of energy in the form of light.

photon - a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation, including light

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation_

Till you are able to grasp how photons and EM fields are inextricably connected, the concept will remain over your head and you will simply never be able to wrap your mind around what is actually happening when two EM fields are in opposition.


----------



## konradv (Jun 22, 2011)

You and your made up science are just goofy, wirebender.  A photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards earth will go there REGARDLESS of temp or EM fields.  CASE CLOSED.  Come back when you've recovered some semblance of reality.  I really don't have time for your foolishness, anymore.  Maybe you can fool Frank and skooks, but I actually know science.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 22, 2011)

idb said:


> I really wish I had the time to read this thread properly!
> This is supposed to be the most pressing issue of our age and I'm too busy keeping myself and my staff employed.
> 
> Is it too lazy to trust in the advice of the majority of experts?
> That's what we educate and pay them for, so that we don't have to become experts ourselves.


Trust me, if you're ignoring global warmists, you're being the smart one.  There is no truth to be found therein.  Know they are lying and be happy you do not truck with them.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> You and your made up science are just goofy, wirebender.  A photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards earth will go there REGARDLESS of temp or EM fields.  CASE CLOSED.  Come back when you've recovered some semblance of reality.  I really don't have time for your foolishness, anymore.  Maybe you can fool Frank and skooks, but I actually know science.


Translation:

WAHHHHAAAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAGAHABILAFLOGAFLAPPADAPPADOOOOSHARKBAITHOOHAAHAAABLIGHTABAGABOOTABOOLI!!!!!!!
Beef Jerky Time!

Alterboy Konnie has lost his friggen mind to Chicken Littleism.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 22, 2011)

konradv said:


> You and your made up science are just goofy, wirebender.  A photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards earth will go there REGARDLESS of temp or EM fields.  CASE CLOSED.



The case is far from closed.  Perhaps someone making such an idiotic statement is good enough for you, but I prefer to see some proof.  Lets see the math.  Describe the physical law that you believe makes such a thing possible.  

Let me guess.  You can't do the math and have not the slightest idea of what any physical law predicts.  You simply believe.  The case is closed for you because your faith is strong.  Right?



konradv said:


> Come back when you've recovered some semblance of reality.  I really don't have time for your foolishness, anymore.  Maybe you can fool Frank and skooks, but I actually know science.



Step on up to the plate and prove your claim konradv.  Lets see the math.  Lets see the proof.  Hell, lets see some evidence that photons are free agents that can go zipping about independently of EM fields.  Lets see any hard proof of any claim that you care to make.

And I see that in typical fashion, you are now going to run away claiming that you know science even though you can't even do the basic math even when it has already been done for you on this very thread.  You looked at the math and the formulas and proclaimed them to be fake science.  

How about you step up to the plate and describe which part of the math RWatt and I did is fake and which physical laws described and referenced don't apply.  Step on up to the plate and prove that you know science smart boy.  Step on up.  

Anyone want 10 to 1 odds that knoradv won't do the math and won't prove that he knows the science in any way shape or form?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 22, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> WAHHHHAAAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAGAHABILAFLOGAFLAPPADAPPADOOOOSHARKBAITHOOHAAHAAABLIGHTABAGABOOTABOOLI!!!!!!!
> Beef Jerky Time!
> 
> Alterboy Konnie has lost his friggen mind to Chicken Littleism.



Good thing his mother is calling him to dinner or he would really kick my ass.  Pardon me for a moment while I tremble in relief.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 22, 2011)

idb said:


> I really wish I had the time to read this thread properly!
> This is supposed to be the most pressing issue of our age and I'm too busy keeping myself and my staff employed.
> 
> Is it too lazy to trust in the advice of the majority of experts?
> That's what we educate and pay them for, so that we don't have to become experts ourselves.



If the Climate "Experts" weren't the scientific equivalent of Bernie Madoff, you'd be right.

They have been caught manipulating the data on multiple occasions and the more you learn you more you have to wonder when real scientists will start booting these frauds off campus


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

Big surprise.  konradv doesn't respond and doesn't demonstrate that he knows the science as he claims.  Who would have thunk it?


----------



## IanC (Jun 23, 2011)

wirebender- are you saying that you dont believe that CO2 has an effect on temperature via the poorly named 'greenhouse effect'? or are you just arguing semantics?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

IanC said:


> wirebender- are you saying that you dont believe that CO2 has an effect on temperature via the poorly named 'greenhouse effect'? or are you just arguing semantics?



I don't think that CO2 has an effect on temperature.  CO2, and a few other molecules have been gloamed onto as "greenhouse" gasses because they absorb IR.  True enough, but they also immediately emit precisely the same amount of IR in a wavelenght that is to long to be reabsorbed by another molecule.  There exists the claim that CO2 ( and other "greenhouse" gasses I suppose) emit a portion of this radiation down towards the earth but in the posts linked to below, is mathematical evidence that this does not happen.  The EM field emitted by the earth is more powerful than the EM field emitted by the atmosphere.  When the two EM fields are subtracted (and they must be subtracted) the direction of energy flow is determined by the more powerful EM field generated by the earth.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739629-post138.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3747723-post160.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3749183-post165.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3752896-post193.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757921-post208.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757983-post209.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3758427-post211.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3774581-post215.html

I have provided a simple and inexpensive experiment that any of us can do that demonstrates the 2nd law of thermodynamics pretty convincingly and provides hard observable and repeatable evidence that heat is not being radiated from the atmosphere back towards the earth.

The laws of science are what they are.  If you can name a law of science that suggests that CO2 is a source of energy, or can trap energy, and do the math to prove your claim, I am listening.  I have done the math and have arrived at an answer that indicates that CO2 is not responsible.  To date, I have seen no math from climate science that is supported by any law of physics that supports the claim that CO2 is driving the temperature of the earth to even a small degree.  If you know of such a law and can support it mathematically, I am all ears.


----------



## IanC (Jun 23, 2011)

OK, I'll play your semantics game. the EM field from the atmosphere applies a force on the EM field radiating from the surface and cancels out a fraction of IR that otherwise would have been emitted. the more CO2, the more cancelled surface IR. is that more to your liking?

personally, I think that the largest portion of the Earth is covered with water so any energy that is cancelled or backradiated simply goes into producing more water vapour which then rises, forms clouds, emits the phase change energy towards the sky and effectively pumps the heat away. not to mention the albedo effects of the clouds. the energy leaks out, change one route and another one takes up the difference.

I think you mentioned the wavelength of re-emitted IR. that is a very interesting topic and there is not enough easily accessible info on that. my understanding is that moelcules most often re-emit at the same wavelength they absorbed but not always, that is why energy gets through windows no matter how much GHGs there are. if you have some good articles on the subject I would be pleased if you would share them.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

IanC said:


> OK, I'll play your semantics game. the EM field from the atmosphere applies a force on the EM field radiating from the surface and cancels out a fraction of IR that otherwise would have been emitted. the more CO2, the more cancelled surface IR. is that more to your liking?



Subtracting the fields doesn't just cancel out some energy.  More importantly it determines in which direction the energy is flowing and the energy is flowing at the speed of light.  If you can add enough CO2 to the atmosphere to overcome the EM field propagated by the earth, then you can get IR from the atmosphere back to the earth.  

Can you tell me at what level atmospheric CO2 might have to be in order to overcome the EM field propagated by the earth?




IanC said:


> personally, I think that the largest portion of the Earth is covered with water so any energy that is cancelled or backradiated simply goes into producing more water vapour which then rises, forms clouds, emits the phase change energy towards the sky and effectively pumps the heat away. not to mention the albedo effects of the clouds. the energy leaks out, change one route and another one takes up the difference.



Water vapor, clouds, etc. require energy for formation.  There is only one energy source.  The sun is responsible for their formation.  Back to the laws of physics.

aerosols I think you mentioned the wavelength of re-emitted IR. that is a very interesting topic and there is not enough easily accessible info on that.[/quote]

Sure there is.  Vist any college libary.  Any non liberal arts library I mean.



IanC said:


> my understanding is that moelcules most often re-emit at the same wavelength they absorbed but not always, that is why energy gets through windows no matter how much GHGs there are. if you have some good articles on the subject I would be pleased if you would share them.



If a molecule emitted at the same wavelenght that it absorbs, the emission spectrum would look just like the absorption spectrum.  The absorption spectrum, however, is the opposite of the emission spectrum.  There is no physical way the two spectrums can be of the same wavelength.

I don't know of any "articles" on the topic.  I suppose you might visit the chemistry section of the same university library and look at some texts on spectra.  I don't depend a great deal on the internet for useful material as anyone can put anything up there.  When I reference science, I try to always reference peer reviewed materials and topics like spectra aren't generally the subject of peer review as they are pretty settled science.  I don't even think climate scientists are trying to say that IR emitted by a CO2 molecule is then absorbed by another CO2 molecule.


----------



## IanC (Jun 23, 2011)

> If a molecule emitted at the same wavelenght that it absorbs, the emission spectrum would look just like the absorption spectrum. The absorption spectrum, however, is the opposite of the emission spectrum. There is no physical way the two spectrums can be of the same wavelength.



now I am sure you havent taken any higher chem or physics classes. I thought your bizarre EM theory was just an aberration but you are self taught with a bunch of crazy fundemental errors that no one has set you straight on.


----------



## idb (Jun 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > Unnecessary detail. The disagreement is fundamental about the behavior of light. We don't need to talk about "EM fields".
> ...



Just to be clear, are you saying in your analogy that light acts in a similar way to heat?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

IanC said:


> now I am sure you havent taken any higher chem or physics classes. I thought your bizarre EM theory was just an aberration but you are self taught with a bunch of crazy fundemental errors that no one has set you straight on.



Step on up and prove me wrong.  Be sure to show your work.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

idb said:


> Just to be clear, are you saying in your analogy that light acts in a similar way to heat?



In my analogy, I am talking about electromagnetic fields.  All EM fields are governed by the same laws of physics.  It doesn't matter whether the EM field is visible light, UV light, IR, or microwaves or any other wavelength or combination of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum.


----------



## konradv (Jun 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, are you saying in your analogy that light acts in a similar way to heat?
> ...



True, but they just don't work the way you say they do.  If a photon is heading towards earth, it doesn't matter whether it's hot or cold, it's going to transfer whatever energy it has to whatever it hits or be reflected.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender- are you saying that you dont believe that CO2 has an effect on temperature via the poorly named 'greenhouse effect'? or are you just arguing semantics?
> ...



So you are saying the CO2 experiment where the one fishtank holds more heat than the other is wrong?

Frank's point about them needing to do it at a200ppm increase is valid.  I have seen this too many times at science fairs to disbelieve.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

konradv said:


> True, but they just don't work the way you say they do.  If a photon is heading towards earth, it doesn't matter whether it's hot or cold, it's going to transfer whatever energy it has to whatever it hits or be reflected.



Clearly you can't read.  I provided you multiple definitions from standard and scientific dictionaries.  They clearly stated that photons are not separate from EM fields and some clearly stated that photons are the "stuff" that make up EM fields.  In either case, photons do not travel except in the direction that their associated EM field travels.  If the field is not reaching the earth, then neither is any photon in that field.

If you believe I am wrong then by all means prove it.  I laid out my position.  Described the laws of physics upon which I base my position and did the math in support of it.  To date, no one has pointed out any math error, or misapplied law of physics.  That you don't like the answer doesn't mean squat to me.  If you can prove me wrong, or prove that I misapplied a law of physics, then prove it.  Otherwise you are merely spouting opinion and in the face of proof, opinion doesn't carry much weight.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> So you are saying the CO2 experiment where the one fishtank holds more heat than the other is wrong?



You must first understand what you are seeing for it to have any real meaning.  In the fish tank experiment, you are proving that the emission spectrum of one CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule and if you remove conduction and convection from the equation, you can achieve a buildup of heat.  The experiment is not analogous to the atmosphere because it is performed in a closed system.



Toronado3800 said:


> Frank's point about them needing to do it at a200ppm increase is valid.  I have seen this too many times at science fairs to disbelieve.



 Since you seem to hang out at science fairs, next time you see the experiment, ask about the relative humidity in the different tanks. Even a small difference can make a considerable difference in heat accumulation as water vapor actually does have the ability to trap and store heat. Not that it makes any difference with regard to the experiment's validity because experiments performed in a closed system are not analogous to open systems.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

IanC said:


> now I am sure you havent taken any higher chem or physics classes. I thought your bizarre EM theory was just an aberration but you are self taught with a bunch of crazy fundemental errors that no one has set you straight on.



I have laid out my position.  I have told you what I think, I have provided and described the laws of physics upon which I base my position and have done the math to prove my claims.  I even got a warmer to go through the math for himself and he proved my claims.

To date, you have done nothing more than voice an opinion that I am wrong and now you are questioning my eductation based on a description that you don't like?  Tell you what Ian; you tell me which law of physics I am misrepresenting, or misapplying, or where my math error is or put a disclaimer in your posts that states clearly that you are voicing nothing more than an opinion that you can not support in any way other than an appeal to authority.

I have laid my entire position out for anyone on this board to look at.  To date, no one has pointed out any error at all.  If you see an error, then name it and prove it by the same method that I laid out my position.  Describe the law of physics that supports your claim and show me the math.  

You are unbelieveable to question my education when you aren't prepared to show the scientific basis upon which you come to your conclusion.  If you haven't done the math or taken time to learn the laws of physics upon which the claims of climate science must adhere then in your belief regarding CO2, you are no different than any warmist believer who simply takes the word of anyone who says what they want to hear.

I showed you my math.  Do you have a mathematical rebuttal to my position. Yes or no?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying the CO2 experiment where the one fishtank holds more heat than the other is wrong?
> ...



Ah, the old closed vs open system debate.

Seems the values of a glass case vs the earth's gravity are to be compared now.

The hard math end looses me to be honest.  Computer upgrades at work taking most of my time.

So you are saying co2 works different in a closed environment where heat can bleed off through glass into the atmosphere vs in the earth's atmosphere where heat can bleed off into space?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 23, 2011)

Relative humidity should stay similar or go down if you are not using dry ice as a co2 source.  Pressure/density can be a more likely issue i would think


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Relative humidity should stay similar or go down if you are not using dry ice as a co2 source.  Pressure/density can be a more likely issue i would think






Exactly!  The only thing being demonstrated in that type of experiment are ideal gas laws.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 23, 2011)

westwall said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Relative humidity should stay similar or go down if you are not using dry ice as a co2 source.  Pressure/density can be a more likely issue i would think
> ...



But the gasses are staying the same....there is no physical property change in the co2 when u let it out of the tank.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > now I am sure you havent taken any higher chem or physics classes. I thought your bizarre EM theory was just an aberration but you are self taught with a bunch of crazy fundemental errors that no one has set you straight on.
> ...



These people already have.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)   




<=Other gases

<=Simple models 

Greenhouse Speculations: Arrhenius and Chamberlin 
TOP OF PAGE   
The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2 greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperaturebut that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planets long-term equilibrium temperature. (Again, for fuller discussion follow the link at right


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...






Think about it a minute or two.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Ah, the old closed vs open system debate.
> 
> Seems the values of a glass case vs the earth's gravity are to be compared now.



Gravity is not the issue.  Conduction and convection are the most efficient means of moving energy at low altitudes.  Remove them from the equation and you remove any similarity to the open system of the earth's atmosphere.



Toronado3800 said:


> So you are saying co2 works different in a closed environment where heat can bleed off through glass into the atmosphere vs in the earth's atmosphere where heat can bleed off into space?



No.  The laws of physics work the same whether the system is closed or open.  The difference between closed and open systems with regard to atmosphere is that you remove the most efficient means of moving heat (conduction and convection) from the system.  Radiation doesn't become the most expedient means of moving energy until you get into the upper atmosphere where it is really the only means of moving energy into cold space.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> These people already have.



Again I ask rocks, which part of that scripture do you believe represents proof of anything?  I keep asking and you remain unable to answer the question.

Why not just admit that the science is way over your head and for you it is a matter of faith.


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2012)

wirebender- is _this_ the thread where you explained everything? this is where I joined the subject.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



How does quoting the work of a Eugencisist who claimed that, at a time when homeopathy and phrenology were real sciences, warming would be good, help your cause?

How?

Can you show us how adding 50PPM CO2 causes temperatures to increase in a lab setting or are there too many other variables at play?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 23, 2012)

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/projects/globalclimatechange/CO2andTemperatureEffects.pdf

Read this, when you get a chance.  I keep wondering, how to simulate 40 miles of atmosphere, with any several GHGs, not just CO2.  Most experiments prove plants grow, which I'd expect; they don't have to produce more stomata, to metabolize CO2, so they grow.


----------

