How far have we already gone?

[IanC]

I cant believe you have taken any physics courses. atoms and molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. it is the principle used in spectography.

Then ian, you know exactly jack about spectrography. Tell me ian, how do you suppose the energy that a CO2 atom absorbs causes a vibration within the molecule without expending some small bit of the energy? Do you believe that vibration happens without the loss of any energy at all? And if there is some energy expended in causing the vibration, how could the molecule emit exactly the same frequency as it absorbed.

Again, you are so far off here that I am becoming embarassed for you.

I suggest that you read this and try your best to actually learn something from it.

Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

it really is interesting trying to deduce what your understandings and misunderstandings are.

perhaps we should find out what we agree upon first. quantum mechanics is based on the principle that electrons can only occupy certain energy states in the atom, otherwise the electron would radiate its energy and collapse into the nucleus. next, an incident photon with the correct amount of energy can knock an electron into a higher orbital (quantum state) but that electron wants to shed energy so it emits one or more photons as it jumps back down to groundstate in one or more individual steps. the various paths that electrons can take match up to the emission and absorption spectra. are we OK so far?

with molecules it is more complex. CO2 has three vibrational modes that are activated by incident IR photons. the molecule either vibrates or it doesnt, there is no half vibration, no 'leaking' of energy. I am unaware of one vibrational state transforming to another but it is possible.

molecular collisions also add to the complexity. polar bear had an interesting analogy to bumper cars that deform the electron envelope storing energy, then release it. I will not agree or disagree with that possibility although it seems like an interesting way to produce blackbody radiation.

your link says that the radiation going into CO2 is followed by radiation coming out at longer wavelengths and lower energy. I have no problem with that. it is to be expected, entropy increases. what I do have a problem with is you stating that an atom or molecule can emit radiation that cannot be accepted by the same type of molecule or atom. some wavelengths will be less preferencially absorbed, especially if they are partial early steps down the quantum ladder to groundstate when a higher energy photon is transformed into two or more lower energy photons.

my question to you is this. any normal energy reaction is reversible although the reaction rates are effected by entropy as the arrow of time. so even if the reaction goes 99% one way it is incorrect to say that the other way is impossible. and yet you keep proclaiming all sorts of things are impossible just because they are less likely. the SLoT is a numerical description of systems. even if something is only slightly more favoured it is close to a statistical certainty when multiplied by 100 iterations, or a trillion, or ten to the 24th power.

quite often what you have to say is somewhat correct in reality but your stated reasons for what happened are totally wrong. sometimes your assumptions are just wrong. for instance you state that the radiation absorbed by CO2 is released so quickly that it doesnt matter but any slowing down of radiation from the speed of light is still slowing down. I dont really care why you think the way you do but I am concerned that other people are being misinformed by your obviously wrong explanations that you proclaim so loudly and confidently.

 

[wirebender]

it really is interesting trying to deduce what your understandings and misunderstandings are.

I am afraid that is impossible for you ian since you are laboring under about as profound a misunderstanding of what is actually happening with energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere as is possible.

perhaps we should find out what we agree upon first. quantum mechanics is based on the principle that electrons can only occupy certain energy states......

blah blah blah.... Yeah, I get that you can cut and paste and perhaps even paraphrase. What you don't seem to be able to do is understand that which you cut and paste and paraphrase.

your link says that the radiation going into CO2 is followed by radiation coming out at longer wavelengths and lower energy. I have no problem with that. it is to be expected, entropy increases.

You can't possibly understand that because you followed it with a complete contradiction.

what I do have a problem with is you stating that an atom or molecule can emit radiation that cannot be accepted by the same type of molecule or atom.

ian, the man told you what frequencies CO2 molecules absorb and emit. The emissions are at different frequencies than the emissions. How difficult is it to grasp? Geez ian, you say you get it that the radiation exists the molecule at a longer wavelength at a lower frequency and then suggest that the rest of the CO2 molecules somehow start absorbing at the wavelengths emitted by that molecule even though the wavelength isn't one to be found within the CO2 absorption bands.

With that statement you have said as clearly as possible that you didn't grasp the meaning of your first statement. You can say the words but aren't able to put what they say into practice in your brain. Perhaps it is because to actually acknowledge what is being said and what is happening would crack your faith and that would be worse than admitting you are wrong. We both know that if you acknowledge that if CO2 can't absorb the emission of other CO2 molecules, your luke warmer fantasy about CO2 somehow holding IR in the atmosphere as if it were some sort of blanket would crumble.

Well step on up and prove professor Nahle wrong. He didn't just pull those numbers out of his ass. They are derived from experiment.

my question to you is this. any normal energy reaction is reversible although the reaction rates are effected by entropy as the arrow of time.

Geez ian, did you even read what you were given. In nature, no reversible processes happen. In other words, no reversible process happens in nature:

CLIP: "All the spontaneous processes occurring in nature are irreversible processes 7, 8. Absolutely-reversible processes do not exist in the natural world 9, while absolutely-irreversible processes do exist in the natural world."

He backs up the statement with the following:

7. What are Reversible and Irreversible Processes in Thermodynamics?

8. The second law and entropy. II. Irreversible processes - Journal of Chemical Education (ACS Publications and Division of Chemical Education)

9. Thermodynamics eBook: The Carnot Cycle

so even if the reaction goes 99% one way it is incorrect to say that the other way is impossible. and yet you keep proclaiming all sorts of things are impossible just because they are less likely.

Which part of "all the spontaneous process in nature are irreversible is it that you fail to grasp? Which part of that suggests less likely to you? Therein lies the bulk of your problem ian. You read words and fail to grasp their meaning if they don't mesh with your belief. Irreversable. Look up the word and try to get it through your head. And yet one more example of how wrong you are comes to the surface. Reversible process in the open atmosphere. What a laugh.

the SLoT is a numerical description of systems. even if something is only slightly more favoured it is close to a statistical certainty when multiplied by 100 iterations, or a trillion, or ten to the 24th power.

I am sure that you actually believe that but the fact remains that there exists not one single example of the second law being wrong or meaning anything other than what it says. The second law is a statement made in absolute terms. If it were no more than a general statement, first, it wouldn't be a law, and second it would not exist in absolute terms. Your belief that it is nothing more than a description of a set of statistics is best defined as MENTAL MASTURBATION

quite often what you have to say is somewhat correct in reality but your stated reasons for what happened are totally wrong.

Pardon me if I am not complimented. The fact is ian, that you know exactly squat. Your understanding of the topic is so flawed that it has become pointless to talk to you. You made that abundantly clear when you acknowledged that the emission of a CO2 molecule is of a different wavelength than its absorption band but then turn around and cliam that it can still be absorbed even though it is outside of the absorption band. How much more flawed could your understanding possibly be?

sometimes your assumptions are just wrong. ]

I don't assume anything ian. That is your MO. You assume that a photon is something other than that which every scientific dictionary I can lay my hands on defines it as. You assume that the second law of thermodynamicis means something other than it states. Hell, you even assume the existence of photons when the fact is that not a single photon has ever been detected in flight. Every bit of "evidence" of photons is the result of emergy exchange at the final destination of the theorized photon.

Here, look at this at the risk of having your faith cracked:

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf

Note the assorted and assundry problems associated with the existence of photons that modern science doesn't seem to want to examine.

for instance you state that the radiation absorbed by CO2 is released so quickly that it doesnt matter but any slowing down of radiation from the speed of light is still slowing down.

First, who said it is slowing down? Second, how much would it have to slow down in order to cause the effect you ascribe? Third, does it slow down anywhere near that amount?

I dont really care why you think the way you do but I am concerned that other people are being misinformed by your obviously wrong explanations that you proclaim so loudly and confidently.

The real problem would be that people might believe you and aquire your crazy notions on photons and the second law and all manner of other fantasies and delusions under which you labor. I don't describe any process that isn't backed up by the various laws of physics or recognized definitions while you remain unable to square what you believe with any law of physics or scientific dictionary.

 

[IanC]

it really is interesting trying to deduce what your understandings and misunderstandings are.

I am afraid that is impossible for you ian since you are laboring under about as profound a misunderstanding of what is actually happening with energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere as is possible.

perhaps we should find out what we agree upon first. quantum mechanics is based on the principle that electrons can only occupy certain energy states......

blah blah blah.... Yeah, I get that you can cut and paste and perhaps even paraphrase. What you don't seem to be able to do is understand that which you cut and paste and paraphrase.



You can't possibly understand that because you followed it with a complete contradiction.




ian, the man told you what frequencies CO2 molecules absorb and emit. The emissions are at different frequencies than the emissions. How difficult is it to grasp? Geez ian, you say you get it that the radiation exists the molecule at a longer wavelength at a lower frequency and then suggest that the rest of the CO2 molecules somehow start absorbing at the wavelengths emitted by that molecule even though the wavelength isn't one to be found within the CO2 absorption bands.

With that statement you have said as clearly as possible that you didn't grasp the meaning of your first statement. You can say the words but aren't able to put what they say into practice in your brain. Perhaps it is because to actually acknowledge what is being said and what is happening would crack your faith and that would be worse than admitting you are wrong. We both know that if you acknowledge that if CO2 can't absorb the emission of other CO2 molecules, your luke warmer fantasy about CO2 somehow holding IR in the atmosphere as if it were some sort of blanket would crumble.

Well step on up and prove professor Nahle wrong. He didn't just pull those numbers out of his ass. They are derived from experiment.



Geez ian, did you even read what you were given. In nature, no reversible processes happen. In other words, no reversible process happens in nature:

CLIP: "All the spontaneous processes occurring in nature are irreversible processes 7, 8. Absolutely-reversible processes do not exist in the natural world 9, while absolutely-irreversible processes do exist in the natural world."

He backs up the statement with the following:

7. What are Reversible and Irreversible Processes in Thermodynamics?

8. The second law and entropy. II. Irreversible processes - Journal of Chemical Education (ACS Publications and Division of Chemical Education)

9. Thermodynamics eBook: The Carnot Cycle




Which part of "all the spontaneous process in nature are irreversible is it that you fail to grasp? Which part of that suggests less likely to you? Therein lies the bulk of your problem ian. You read words and fail to grasp their meaning if they don't mesh with your belief. Irreversable. Look up the word and try to get it through your head. And yet one more example of how wrong you are comes to the surface. Reversible process in the open atmosphere. What a laugh.



I am sure that you actually believe that but the fact remains that there exists not one single example of the second law being wrong or meaning anything other than what it says. The second law is a statement made in absolute terms. If it were no more than a general statement, first, it wouldn't be a law, and second it would not exist in absolute terms. Your belief that it is nothing more than a description of a set of statistics is best defined as MENTAL MASTURBATION




Pardon me if I am not complimented. The fact is ian, that you know exactly squat. Your understanding of the topic is so flawed that it has become pointless to talk to you. You made that abundantly clear when you acknowledged that the emission of a CO2 molecule is of a different wavelength than its absorption band but then turn around and cliam that it can still be absorbed even though it is outside of the absorption band. How much more flawed could your understanding possibly be?




I don't assume anything ian. That is your MO. You assume that a photon is something other than that which every scientific dictionary I can lay my hands on defines it as. You assume that the second law of thermodynamicis means something other than it states. Hell, you even assume the existence of photons when the fact is that not a single photon has ever been detected in flight. Every bit of "evidence" of photons is the result of emergy exchange at the final destination of the theorized photon.

Here, look at this at the risk of having your faith cracked:

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf

Note the assorted and assundry problems associated with the existence of photons that modern science doesn't seem to want to examine.

for instance you state that the radiation absorbed by CO2 is released so quickly that it doesnt matter but any slowing down of radiation from the speed of light is still slowing down.

First, who said it is slowing down? Second, how much would it have to slow down in order to cause the effect you ascribe? Third, does it slow down anywhere near that amount?

I dont really care why you think the way you do but I am concerned that other people are being misinformed by your obviously wrong explanations that you proclaim so loudly and confidently.

The real problem would be that people might believe you and aquire your crazy notions on photons and the second law and all manner of other fantasies and delusions under which you labor. I don't describe any process that isn't backed up by the various laws of physics or recognized definitions while you remain unable to square what you believe with any law of physics or scientific dictionary.

wow! so you really are just a crackpot. no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though.

 

[wirebender]

wow! so you really are just a crackpot. no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though.

That statement cuts to the core of your problem ian. You obviously remain blithely unaware that Einstein himself was not comfortable at all with the ramifications of photons. What you believe with all your heart that you know is little more than a piss poor patchwork of assumptions held together with a few declarations. Much like the claims of climate science.

Do you have any idea what Einstein himself had to say about the idea of photons? He said:

"All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built." -Albert Einstein 1949

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken" - A. Einstein, 1951

Among the many unresolved problems with the of light as photons the following are near the top of the list:

• The particles of light quanta should have mass = E/c2, yet by his own theories, no matter can obtain the speed of light

• Light quanta couldn't account for interference of light

• Particulate light quanta could not be split, and had no way to account for partial reflection

• A helically travelling photon would have to exceed the speed of light on its helical path

Physics as a science, over time, attempted to reconcile those problems by simply declaring, without the least bit of evidence that photons had no mass and that wave particle duality was simply the way things are. Again, very much the approach climate science has taken with its AGW claims.

So in the end, rather than address the fact that what you think you know doesn't jibe with reality, namely even a small change in wavelength would preclude one CO2 molecule's emission from being absorbed by another CO2 molecule, you call me a crackpot because I don't blindly accept a declaration made by a branch of science over time based on nothing that even begins to approach actual evidence.

no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though

That idiot statement sounds exactly like rocks, konradv, et. al. with their claims that because some scientists have said it, that it must be true. You, like they, also assume that "every" scientist including Einstein said it as if it must be true. That is as big a lie as rocks and konrad and the gang claiming that 97% of scientists are onboard with the hypothesis of AGW. You are obviously unaware that Einstein himself was never comfortable with the idea of photons because of the obvious conflicts that photons had with observable reality. The fact that you believe he said photons exist as a declarative statement backed up by his theory is evidence of the distortion the truth has experienced at the hands of physicists over the years.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf

 

[IanC]

wow! so you really are just a crackpot. no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though.

That statement cuts to the core of your problem ian. You obviously remain blithely unaware that Einstein himself was not comfortable at all with the ramifications of photons. What you believe with all your heart that you know is little more than a piss poor patchwork of assumptions held together with a few declarations. Much like the claims of climate science.

Do you have any idea what Einstein himself had to say about the idea of photons? He said:

"All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built." -Albert Einstein 1949

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken" - A. Einstein, 1951

Among the many unresolved problems with the of light as photons the following are near the top of the list:

• The particles of light quanta should have mass = E/c2, yet by his own theories, no matter can obtain the speed of light

• Light quanta couldn't account for interference of light

• Particulate light quanta could not be split, and had no way to account for partial reflection

• A helically travelling photon would have to exceed the speed of light on its helical path

Physics as a science, over time, attempted to reconcile those problems by simply declaring, without the least bit of evidence that photons had no mass and that wave particle duality was simply the way things are. Again, very much the approach climate science has taken with its AGW claims.

So in the end, rather than address the fact that what you think you know doesn't jibe with reality, namely even a small change in wavelength would preclude one CO2 molecule's emission from being absorbed by another CO2 molecule, you call me a crackpot because I don't blindly accept a declaration made by a branch of science over time based on nothing that even begins to approach actual evidence.

no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though

That idiot statement sounds exactly like rocks, konradv, et. al. with their claims that because some scientists have said it, that it must be true. You, like they, also assume that "every" scientist including Einstein said it as if it must be true. That is as big a lie as rocks and konrad and the gang claiming that 97% of scientists are onboard with the hypothesis of AGW. You are obviously unaware that Einstein himself was never comfortable with the idea of photons because of the obvious conflicts that photons had with observable reality. The fact that you believe he said photons exist as a declarative statement backed up by his theory is evidence of the distortion the truth has experienced at the hands of physicists over the years.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf

now you are just resorting to the 'we dont know everything so we dont know anything gambit'. in fact we know a tremendous amount about photons and it is an integral part of many of our technologies. we dont have to know how gravity works to be able to predict its effects, especially in commonplace conditions such as on earth.

science often moves forward by studying the paradoxes or slight inconsistencies at the edge of our knowledge base. I am all for continuing the quest for knowledge but the esoteric details are not necessary to describe the mundane effects of physics on most earth systems. Newton was supplanted by Einstein but that didnt much of a difference to most of our real world functions.

why dont you describe in your own words how EM fields make photons disappear without interacting with matter? I have described different scenarios and how they are mediated by photons but all you ever do is say that I am wrong. time for you to step up to the plate. for instance, it is my opinion that every particle in two opposing magnetic or electric fields affects every particle opposite it and that the sum of the forces is seen in the net effect. we never see the multitudes of photons involved but that doesnt mean that they arent there. why dont you explain the physical mechanism of how the photons 'disappear' rather than just apply their forces leaving only the residual net effect that can be measured? it certainly seems much more straight forward to me that every photon just does its job rather than magically disappearing (to some other dimension, some other universe, we dont know because you wont tell us).

 

[HUGGY]

How far have we already gone?



In my lifetime ?.. Around 38 trillion miles.

 

[wirebender]

now you are just resorting to the 'we dont know everything so we dont know anything gambit'. in fact we know a tremendous amount about photons and it is an integral part of many of our technologies.

Of course I'm not; and in fact, we know exactly jack about photons. To date, we don't have the slightest bit of hard, observable evidence that they exist. What we do have is a theoretical explanation for an observed phenomenon. A theoretical explanation which, by the way, the man who came up with the theory wasn't very convinced of because of the glaring problems it created but had no anwer for.

we dont have to know how gravity works to be able to predict its effects, especially in commonplace conditions such as on earth

No, but if you want to make specific claims about the effects you observe, you do. As you "should know" being able to predict an effect does not necessarily mean that you understand the cause.

science often moves forward by studying the paradoxes or slight inconsistencies at the edge of our knowledge base.

The problems with photons are far more than "slight" inconsistencies at the edge of our knowledge base. For example, light as particles can't account for interference. By Einstein's own theory, photons should have mass, but no matter (according to him) could ever reach the speed of light. Light as photons can't be split, so the phenomenon of partial reflection can't be explained. And then there is the business of a photon having to exceed the speed of light if it were travelling in a helical.

The notion of wave/particle duality is not based on any sort of actual knowledge or observation; it was a declaration which served no other purpose than to brush obvious problems with the idea of photons to the side rather than simply admit a lack of knowledge. And the whole idea of photons not actually existing till they get to where they are going is as laughable as anything climate science has ever come up with.

I am all for continuing the quest for knowledge but the esoteric details are not necessary to describe the mundane effects of physics on most earth systems.

The problems associated with the questionable existence of photons are not mundane effects. Those problems go right to he heart of the physics and call into question the present explanation for said physics and that doesn't even begin to speak to your personal misconceptions of what photons are, how they behave, and what brings their possible existence to an end.

Newton was supplanted by Einstein but that didnt much of a difference to most of our real world functions.

why dont you describe in your own words how EM fields make photons disappear without interacting with matter?

I have, over and over ian. The explanation is not going to change so feel free to refer back to one of the many times I have already described what happens in my own words. Why don't you try to explain how the magnitude of an EM field can be diminished or cancelled entirely by another EM field without "disappearing" photons.

I have described different scenarios and how they are mediated by photons but all you ever do is say that I am wrong. time for you to step up to the plate.

Already have ian. Over and over. And my explanation jibes with the laws of physics. Your senarios, on the other hand, require mutilation of both the laws of physics and completely new definitions of what photons are in order for them to make sense.

 

[IanC]

why dont you describe in your own words how EM fields make photons disappear without interacting with matter?

I have, over and over ian. The explanation is not going to change so feel free to refer back to one of the many times I have already described what happens in my own words. Why don't you try to explain how the magnitude of an EM field can be diminished or cancelled entirely by another EM field without "disappearing" photons.

I have described different scenarios and how they are mediated by photons but all you ever do is say that I am wrong. time for you to step up to the plate.

Already have ian. Over and over. And my explanation jibes with the laws of physics. Your senarios, on the other hand, require mutilation of both the laws of physics and completely new definitions of what photons are in order for them to make sense.

if you have stated where when and how photons magically disappear into thin air (and I havent seen it to the best of my recollection), then simply repeat it or bump the relevent quote up to the top. I have asked to see it dozens of times and yet you can't or won't produce it.

 

[bobgnote]

Here's how the hockey stick players fall down, without all this Lord of Light review (as we all know, A Song of Fire and Ice refrains, with no more of that ice, in Wilding territory:

CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.

The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW. Since the plankton bloom rides the O2 cold-water up-welling, since cold water bears carbonic acid more efficiently, the sub-Alaskan food chain is in big trouble. Cod are not recovering. When reefs, eggs, and little fish all die, lock and load!

The land food chain can be affected, in unpredictable ways. Bees are dying, some say from pesticides. Will acid rain ruin forests, so the rising CO2 must be absorbed, by waters?

We re-green, or else. See if anybody can get over to search, and hit 'ford, diesel, hemp,' like a bolt of lightning.

 

[bobgnote]

Here's how the hockey stick players fall down, without all this Lord of Light review (as we all know, A Song of Fire and Ice refrains, with no more of that ice, in Wilding territory):

CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.

The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW. Since the plankton bloom rides the O2 cold-water up-welling, since cold water bears carbonic acid more efficiently, the sub-Alaskan food chain is in big trouble. Cod are not recovering. When reefs, eggs, and little fish all die, lock and load!

Carbonic acidification is accelerating.

The land food chain can be affected, in unpredictable ways. Bees are dying, some say from pesticides. Will acid rain ruin forests, so the rising CO2 must be absorbed, by waters?

We re-green, or else. See if anybody can get over to search, and hit 'ford, diesel, hemp,' like a bolt of lightning.

 

[wirebender]

if you have stated where when and how photons magically disappear into thin air (and I havent seen it to the best of my recollection), then simply repeat it or bump the relevent quote up to the top. I have asked to see it dozens of times and yet you can't or won't produce it.

Sorry ian, not inclined to help you. You were party to the conversation (I went back and checked) and had nothing whatsoever intelligent to say then and nothing you have said lately has convinced me that you would have any more to say now.

 

[wirebender]

CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.

So describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2, or any other so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor can cause warming.

The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW.

Predators and pollution are the problem there, not CO2. Learn something; don't be a shill.

 

[westwall]

Here's how the hockey stick players fall down, without all this Lord of Light review (as we all know, A Song of Fire and Ice refrains, with no more of that ice, in Wilding territory:

CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.

The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW. Since the plankton bloom rides the O2 cold-water up-welling, since cold water bears carbonic acid more efficiently, the sub-Alaskan food chain is in big trouble. Cod are not recovering. When reefs, eggs, and little fish all die, lock and load!

The land food chain can be affected, in unpredictable ways. Bees are dying, some say from pesticides. Will acid rain ruin forests, so the rising CO2 must be absorbed, by waters?

We re-green, or else. See if anybody can get over to search, and hit 'ford, diesel, hemp,' like a bolt of lightning.

Sooooo, what happened during the Holocene Thermal maximum when temps were at least 6 degrees warmer than today. Why didn't the world end back then? All evidence says the globe thrived. Absolutely thrived. During the PETM when temps were likewise much warmer the planet thrived. Other than some localised species of foraminifera all other species (including those that we have today like horses, camels, etc.) either evolved or bloomed to unhear of levels.

The PETM is as far from the extinction event you claim as it is possible to be. How is that?

 

[westwall]

CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.

So describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2, or any other so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor can cause warming.

The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW.

Predators and pollution are the problem there, not CO2. Learn something; don't be a shill.

Can't. It's yet another olfraud sockpuppet. He's got a million of 'em cha cha cha.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's how the hockey stick players fall down, without all this Lord of Light review (as we all know, A Song of Fire and Ice refrains, with no more of that ice, in Wilding territory:

CO2 is accompanied by methane release, from glacial ice, warming waters, and land, formerly covered by permafrost, to accelerate warming.

The CO2 exchanges with acid, in water, so kindly notice all the die-offs, in oceanic areas, like oysters in the Pacific NW. Since the plankton bloom rides the O2 cold-water up-welling, since cold water bears carbonic acid more efficiently, the sub-Alaskan food chain is in big trouble. Cod are not recovering. When reefs, eggs, and little fish all die, lock and load!

The land food chain can be affected, in unpredictable ways. Bees are dying, some say from pesticides. Will acid rain ruin forests, so the rising CO2 must be absorbed, by waters?

We re-green, or else. See if anybody can get over to search, and hit 'ford, diesel, hemp,' like a bolt of lightning.

Sooooo, what happened during the Holocene Thermal maximum when temps were at least 6 degrees warmer than today. Why didn't the world end back then?

Oh wow, walleyedretard, your denier cult myths are just too funny for words. You must be an absolute idiot to believe in those anti-science fantasies and lies.

Holocene climatic optimum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal. This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.

Global effects

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]

 

[IanC]

if you have stated where when and how photons magically disappear into thin air (and I havent seen it to the best of my recollection), then simply repeat it or bump the relevent quote up to the top. I have asked to see it dozens of times and yet you can't or won't produce it.

Sorry ian, not inclined to help you. You were party to the conversation (I went back and checked) and had nothing whatsoever intelligent to say then and nothing you have said lately has convinced me that you would have any more to say now.

hahahaha. pretty cowardly of you then. I assume that you went back and found out that your position is simply muddled garbage that did not explain the where, when and how of photons magically disappearing. you are a pathetic joke.

the last time you even came close to explaining it you said something to the effect of "the process is not well understood".

hahahaha

 

[wirebender]

hahahaha. pretty cowardly of you then. I assume that you went back and found out that your position is simply muddled garbage that did not explain the where, when and how of photons magically disappearing. you are a pathetic joke.

Psychology isn't your thing either ian. That wasn't even a good try.

And I don't subscribe to magic. As I have told you before, if you wan't to know where the photons go, you need look no further than the subtraction of EM fields. Sorry your faith interferes with your ability to think critically ian. It is sad.

 

[IanC]

hahahaha. pretty cowardly of you then. I assume that you went back and found out that your position is simply muddled garbage that did not explain the where, when and how of photons magically disappearing. you are a pathetic joke.

Psychology isn't your thing either ian. That wasn't even a good try.

And I don't subscribe to magic. As I have told you before, if you wan't to know where the photons go, you need look no further than the subtraction of EM fields. Sorry your faith interferes with your ability to think critically ian. It is sad.

OK, it is too embarrassing for you to bump up your explanation for anyone to see. how about linking up to some source that says EM fields subtract by photons disappearing rather than simply measuring the net effect of the combined fields?

 

[wirebender]

OK, it is too embarrassing for you to bump up your explanation for anyone to see. how about linking up to some source that says EM fields subtract by photons disappearing rather than simply measuring the net effect of the combined fields?

Nope, it is simply more effort than I am willing to expend on you. And again, psychology isn't your thing.

Feel free to explain how one might reduce the magnitude of an EM field without reducing the number of photons if EM fields are, indeed, made of photons. Add critical thinking to the list of things that simply aren't your thing.

When destructive interference reduces the magnitude of an EM field, the measurable strength of the field is smaller.

Your instinct of measuring the net effect of combined fields is fine if the fields are travelling in the same direction along the same vector because when you combine fields you are only adding. (see constructive interference - the interference of two or more waves of equal frequency and phase, resulting in their mutual reinforcement and producing a single amplitude equal to the sum of the amplitudes of the individual waves. )

When, through destructive interference, both EM fields are reduced, or one field is cancelled and the other is reduced, or both are cancelled entirely, where do those photons go if the fields are indeed made of photons? The concept is so simple ian, I doubt that you will ever find a serious text that feels the need to explain it in terms simple enough for you to accept.

By definition, an EM field is composed of photons:

photon - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits a transfer of matter or energy across it.

If EM fields are made of photons, then by definition, the reduction of, or cancellation of an EM field is the reduction of, or cancellation of photons.

destructive interference - the interference of two waves of equal frequency and opposite phase, resulting in their cancellation where the negative displacement of one always coincides with the positive displacement of the other.

Describe how an EM field might be cancelled without losing any of the "stuff" of which it is made?


If you can't look at the definitions and grasp the implications of what is happening, I can only offer you condolences as your knowledge base is to small to make effective use of any serious text I might offer you as reference. You would simply read the words and continue to fail to understand what they mean. It is interesting that you readily, and instinctivly accept constructive interference and the associated ramifications, but the same instinct leads you to completely reject destructive interference and its obvious results.


And again, the second law is stated in absolute terms. Nothing at all like the ethereal flexible "as needed" definition you assign to it. Why do you suppose that might be.

 

[IanC]

OK, it is too embarrassing for you to bump up your explanation for anyone to see. how about linking up to some source that says EM fields subtract by photons disappearing rather than simply measuring the net effect of the combined fields?

Nope, it is simply more effort than I am willing to expend on you. QUOTE]

irebender
Registered User
Member #29079 Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,547
Thanks: 46
Thanked 533 Times in 376 Posts
Rep Power: 65



Quote: Originally Posted by IanC
if you have stated where when and how photons magically disappear into thin air (and I havent seen it to the best of my recollection), then simply repeat it or bump the relevent quote up to the top. I have asked to see it dozens of times and yet you can't or won't produce it.
Sorry ian, not inclined to help you. You were party to the conversation (I went back and checked) and had nothing whatsoever intelligent to say then and nothing you have said lately has convinced me that you would have any more to say now.

you just admitted you know where it is.

like I said. cowardly