Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[wirebender]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

Big surprise. konradv doesn't respond and doesn't demonstrate that he knows the science as he claims. Who would have thunk it?

 

[IanC]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

Just to be clear, are you saying in your analogy that light acts in a similar way to heat?

 

[wirebender]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.