Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

[wirebender]

Just quick point... A year ago if you googled the term "physics of greenhouse effect" all you would get for several pages would be the list of usual suspects; IPCC, NOAA, et al. And in all of those links you will find very little actual mathematical evidence just a few elementary school graphics and a lot of talk about it being true and so on. Nothing in the manner of science or actual scientific evidence just a lot of "we know this is true and we are smarter than you so trust us"..

Now you do the same search and you get a few listings that actually debate or even contradict or outright deny the accepted greenhouse effect theory. And that number is growing... The true scientists have begun to question the math lately, and they are finding one by one that the physics and mathematics used are flawed. So far the list of those who will risk such scrutiny and ridicule from the presenters and backers of this false science is relatively small. But that number grows by the day.

Your emperor is naked boys... He doesn't have the new clothes he was scammed... Soon this will be another one of those little things we laugh about in the history side notes, like so many other theories that did not stand up to scrutiny over time...

You are right. In matters of the basic science that either supports or denies warmists claims, it is only skeptics who are doing the math. Those on the warmist bandwagon are either being deliberately dishonest or are simply taking the basics on faith.

If you look at the course schedule for a climate scientist these days, it is clear that it isn't a hard science. They only have to take one semester of calculus, a general chemistry course and a general physics course. They simply aren't equipped to test the claims made by the priests and these days, output from computer models that aren't constrained by any laws of physics passes for actual data with them.

 

[konradv]

Just quick point... A year ago if you googled the term "physics of greenhouse effect" all you would get for several pages would be the list of usual suspects; IPCC, NOAA, et al. And in all of those links you will find very little actual mathematical evidence just a few elementary school graphics and a lot of talk about it being true and so on. Nothing in the manner of science or actual scientific evidence just a lot of "we know this is true and we are smarter than you so trust us"..

Now you do the same search and you get a few listings that actually debate or even contradict or outright deny the accepted greenhouse effect theory. And that number is growing... The true scientists have begun to question the math lately, and they are finding one by one that the physics and mathematics used are flawed. So far the list of those who will risk such scrutiny and ridicule from the presenters and backers of this false science is relatively small. But that number grows by the day.

Your emperor is naked boys... He doesn't have the new clothes he was scammed... Soon this will be another one of those little things we laugh about in the history side notes, like so many other theories that did not stand up to scrutiny over time...

That's BS. The scientific basis for GW has always been comprehensive. The "Greenhouse Effect" wouldn't have lasted the last 150 years as an accepted theory, if flawed physics and mathematics were at its foundation. Are you seriously backing up wirebender in his contention that CO2 cannot trap energy and then re-emit it towards earth?!?!

 

[JWBooth]

Great!

Plant life will flourish.

 

[Old Rocks]

Great!

Plant life will flourish.

Especially in Texas, as we have seen this past year.

 

[gslack]

Just quick point... A year ago if you googled the term "physics of greenhouse effect" all you would get for several pages would be the list of usual suspects; IPCC, NOAA, et al. And in all of those links you will find very little actual mathematical evidence just a few elementary school graphics and a lot of talk about it being true and so on. Nothing in the manner of science or actual scientific evidence just a lot of "we know this is true and we are smarter than you so trust us"..

Now you do the same search and you get a few listings that actually debate or even contradict or outright deny the accepted greenhouse effect theory. And that number is growing... The true scientists have begun to question the math lately, and they are finding one by one that the physics and mathematics used are flawed. So far the list of those who will risk such scrutiny and ridicule from the presenters and backers of this false science is relatively small. But that number grows by the day.

Your emperor is naked boys... He doesn't have the new clothes he was scammed... Soon this will be another one of those little things we laugh about in the history side notes, like so many other theories that did not stand up to scrutiny over time...

That's BS. The scientific basis for GW has always been comprehensive. The "Greenhouse Effect" wouldn't have lasted the last 150 years as an accepted theory, if flawed physics and mathematics were at its foundation. Are you seriously backing up wirebender in his contention that CO2 cannot trap energy and then re-emit it towards earth?!?!

Kornhole, I am tired of having to coddle your silly juvenile ass. Home schooling is not for you. Tell your mom or grandma (whoever takes care of you) to send your ignorant ass to school now, before you start to grow hair in funny places and your voice changes. If you wait too long, its harder to learn...

The greenhouse effect is real, the problem is the way it is misrepresented in the AGW theories. They have flaws in their current theory and those flaws are at the core physics of the concept. They do not go into the physics of it deep enough to show it, thankfully today people are taking the initiative and following the numbers to their ultimate end. And when they do they find the flaws do not match reality.

If you can't keep up please go play elsewhere...

 

[wirebender]

That's BS. The scientific basis for GW has always been comprehensive. The "Greenhouse Effect" wouldn't have lasted the last 150 years as an accepted theory, if flawed physics and mathematics were at its foundation. Are you seriously backing up wirebender in his contention that CO2 cannot trap energy and then re-emit it towards earth?!?!

theory (thē'ə-rē, thîr'&#275 - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

hypothesis (hī-pŏth'ĭ-sĭs) - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.


Clearly the greenhouse effect as described by warmists is not a theory as there exists no experimental evidence in support of it and it is obviously of little use in making predictions.

As a hypothesis, it is piss poor because it has not formed a basis for any type of real world experiment that might confirm its viability as a theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, lordy. Ol' Walleyes once again states that all the physicists for the last 150 years haven't the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. It could not possibly be that Walleyes is the one without a clue, could it?

 

[wirebender]

Lordy, lordy. Ol' Walleyes once again states that all the physicists for the last 150 years haven't the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. It could not possibly be that Walleyes is the one without a clue, could it?

The foundational flaw in your statement is that it isn't "all" of the physicists. It is a very small minority of the physists.

 

[Liability]

Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990
* * * *

AGW Faithers' nocturnal emissions remain level.

 

[Big Fitz]

Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990
* * * *

AGW Faithers' nocturnal emissions remain level.

I refuse to clean that up.

 

[IanC]

if a GHG molecule was interacting with an electric or magnetic field then there would be photons carrying the force to deflect it according to the cumulative energy of the field but that is not what we are examining, we dont care about the speed or direction of the molecule we care about the radiation it emits.

Geez Ian, is your understanding really this far off base? Hell, you may as well jump on the CAGW bandwagon.

GHG's don't interact with EM fields. Only the energy they radiate interacts with EM fields. The energy they radiate is EM radiation. The photon that you imagine as a tiny free agent zipping around the universe is nothing more and nothing less than the smallest possible unit of EM radiation. That's it.

The radiation it emits, if radiated upward is added to the magnitude of the vector it is moving with and since the EM field radiating from the surface of the earth is radiating from every possible vector, if the photon is radiating up, it is moving along a vector that is moving energy away from the surface. If the radiation it emits is down, then it is subtracted from the magnitude of the EM field along that vector. It's energy is expended in opposition to the opposing EM field radiating from the earth. That is as simple as it can be made for you Ian.

please explain where and when the addition or subtraction takes place. at the GHG before the photon leaves the influence of its matter, or at the earth within its matter? or perhaps some other molecule or atom between the two. if you say it just happens please reference some source that says photons can interact in the absence of matter. you seem very sure of your understanding but it runs counter to what I was taught. perhaps the basic laws of physics have changed in the last few decades.

 

[wirebender]

please explain where and when the addition or subtraction takes place. at the GHG before the photon leaves the influence of its matter, or at the earth within its matter? or perhaps some other molecule or atom between the two. if you say it just happens please reference some source that says photons can interact in the absence of matter. you seem very sure of your understanding but it runs counter to what I was taught.

How many times do I have to explain this Ian? I have explained it over and over. The EM field radiating from the surface of the earth does not prevent the CO2 molecule from emitting radiation. It does, however prevent that radiation from reaching earth. When you subtract vectors, the subtraction begins at the point at which two EM fields moving in opposite directions (or even oblique directions to a certain degree) "collide).

If the two fields are close in magnitude then the distance they have travelled comes into play when determining the ultimate direction of propagation, but when one compares the magnitude of the EM field radiating from the earth to the EM field of a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule, the EM field of the earth simply overwhelms the EM field (photon) emitted by the CO2 molecule as soon as they "collide".

perhaps the basic laws of physics have changed in the last few decades

And perhaps you didn't get them the first time. You clearly never got the nature of photons as the term is applied to EM fields which is what we are dealing with here.

 

[IanC]

please explain where and when the addition or subtraction takes place. at the GHG before the photon leaves the influence of its matter, or at the earth within its matter? or perhaps some other molecule or atom between the two. if you say it just happens please reference some source that says photons can interact in the absence of matter. you seem very sure of your understanding but it runs counter to what I was taught.

How many times do I have to explain this Ian? I have explained it over and over. The EM field radiating from the surface of the earth does not prevent the CO2 molecule from emitting radiation. It does, however prevent that radiation from reaching earth. When you subtract vectors, the subtraction begins at the point at which two EM fields moving in opposite directions (or even oblique directions to a certain degree) "collide).

If the two fields are close in magnitude then the distance they have travelled comes into play when determining the ultimate direction of propagation, but when one compares the magnitude of the EM field radiating from the earth to the EM field of a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule, the EM field of the earth simply overwhelms the EM field (photon) emitted by the CO2 molecule as soon as they "collide".

perhaps the basic laws of physics have changed in the last few decades

And perhaps you didn't get them the first time. You clearly never got the nature of photons as the term is applied to EM fields which is what we are dealing with here.

would you care to post up some web site that explains this mysterious cancelling out of photons under real world conditions? preferably in a vacuum with no matter present. just think of the fun you will have making a fool of me. it would be worth it just to shut me up, right?

 

[wirebender]

would you care to post up some web site that explains this mysterious cancelling out of photons under real world conditions? preferably in a vacuum with no matter present. just think of the fun you will have making a fool of me. it would be worth it just to shut me up, right?

Ian, tell me. Just what the hell do you think you are subtracting when you subtract vectors? EM fields are made of photons. When you subtract the magnitude of EM fields, what might you be subtracting? If the magnitude of an EM field diminishes, what do you suppose it might have less of? There is nothing mysterious about it Ian unless you don't understand what photons are then I suppose it might be terribly confusing.

You seem unwilling to be aware of, or willing to consider the wave - particle duality of EM fields. You are stuck on particles but where EM fields are concerned, and even visible light for that matter, the particle theory can't adequately explain certian observable phenomena.

For example, interference, diffraction, and polarization can not be explained or calculated using the particle theory. The formulae just don't make sense when the EM field is assumed to be made of particles (photons). Reflection and refraction make sense whether one assumes the EM field to be a wave, or particles. The photo electric effect alone only makes sense if one assumes the field to be composed of particles.

You are being deliberately obtuse, or you are simply unable to grasp what is going on because you are stuck on a single definition when any quantum physicist will tell you that one definition simply won't do the trick when you are trying to understand what is going on with EM fields. If you have any interest at all in learning what is going on with EM fields even if it means giving up your lukewarmers faith, read a bit about wave-particle duality.

And I don't need to make a fool of you Ian, you have already done the job yourself.

 

[IanC]

have you figured it out yet wirebender?

had the Eureka!!! moment, when it all makes sense?

how do you reconcile in your head the photon from another star hitting your eye basically unchanged with the photon from an EM field that drops to a quarter of the energy when the distance doubles? hahaha, think about it! it will come to you.

 

[zonly1]

The equation for a charge particle and the equation for gravitational force are the inverse square of the diff.

 

[wirebender]

have you figured it out yet wirebender?

had the Eureka!!! moment, when it all makes sense?

There is a eureka moment to be had Ian, but you are so afraid of it, that I doubt that you will ever have it.

how do you reconcile in your head the photon from another star hitting your eye basically unchanged with the photon from an EM field that drops to a quarter of the energy when the distance doubles? hahaha, think about it! it will come to you.

The photon that hits your eye from another star is visible light and the wave it is part of has diminshed considerably since it was initially radiated from the star. The photon that diminishes over distance is part of an EM field whether it is visible light or EM radiation. Ian, the photon from a distant star is part of a wave that has dimished considerably from the time it radiated out from that star just as the EM field that reaches the earth from a distance has dimished. The photons that make up both the EM field, and the light wave are the same as when they left. The overall magnitude of the field is what has weakened and if they are made of photons, what do you suppose they might be losing if they are diminishing?

You can stick your head as deep in the sand (or a bodily orifice of your choice) as you like, but you are not going to be able to alter physics by doing it.

 

[wirebender]

The equation for a charge particle and the equation for gravitational force are the inverse square of the diff.

Photons have no charge.

 

[zonly1]

The equation for a charge particle and the equation for gravitational force are the inverse square of the diff.

Photons have no charge.

and the relationship of emf's and gravitational forces follow the square of the distance

 

[Chris]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4&feature=related]Global Warming in a Jar - YouTube[/ame]