Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's not cooling, it's not getting hotterWhy is the planet cooling?
It's going crazy
The energy the backradiated photons represent is expended in opposition to the EM field being radiated by the surface of the earth. The magnitude of the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth is, in turn, diminished by the magnituded of the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. The EM field being radiated by the earth, being larger than that being radiated by the atmosphere determines the direction of propagation and therefore the direction of energy flow.
Those things happen in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. If any of that energy reached the surface, it would be a violation of both those laws as energy would have to move from a cool object (the atmosphere) to a warm object (the earth) and if the earth absorbed any of that energy, its radiation output would have to increase even though its energy source (the sun) was not putting out more energy. That would represent the creation of energy and that, according to the law of conservation of energy simply can't happen.
The energy the backradiated photons represent is expended in opposition to the EM field being radiated by the surface of the earth. The magnitude of the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth is, in turn, diminished by the magnituded of the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. The EM field being radiated by the earth, being larger than that being radiated by the atmosphere determines the direction of propagation and therefore the direction of energy flow.
Those things happen in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. If any of that energy reached the surface, it would be a violation of both those laws as energy would have to move from a cool object (the atmosphere) to a warm object (the earth) and if the earth absorbed any of that energy, its radiation output would have to increase even though its energy source (the sun) was not putting out more energy. That would represent the creation of energy and that, according to the law of conservation of energy simply can't happen.
How is energy "expended"? That sounds like 'destroyed', if not, it's still there. Unless you're creating matter, you've violated Conservation of Energy. Not only that, you've doubled-down on the error by postulating a second "anti-photon?", which also disappears! If it doesn't disappear, where does the energy go?
Are you people really trying to pinpoint what's making the average world temp go up?
With so many variables?
Fellow, on terms of decades, there are only two variables. How much energy we get from the sun, and how much of that energy is retained on earth. All else is just minor redistributions from ocean, atmosphere, and cryosphere.
What about all the methane being released?
Along with other gases?
Geothermal and volcanic activity?
That is not true. My turn is simply to observe what is actually happening in the real world and wonder why you don't seem to notice it.
Conservation of Energy may demand what ever you say it demands, but it apparently does not demand enough of anything to drive the climate. Until you show that what you are asserting is actually doing something that can be demonstrated by actual proof in the real world, you are only moving hot air in your own immediate vicinity.
Conservation of Energy demands you tell me what happens to the energy of back-scattered photons. If you can't, the only logical inference is that it contributes to warming. That's all the proof one should need. What's YOUR deduction from the evidence presented? Do you have an alternate theory of what happens to the energy? If not, your opinion isn't worth much.
Let's concede that what you are saying is absolutely correct and all of what you say is contributing all of what you suppose to the warming of the planet.
Why is the planet cooling?
Old Rocks- you are worried about global warming right? wouldnt it be more fruitful to look at which 5 year periods showed the most warming? there wouldnt be many in the 2000's, if any.
How is energy "expended"? That sounds like 'destroyed', if not, it's still there. Unless you're creating matter, you've violated Conservation of Energy. Not only that, you've doubled-down on the error by postulating a second "anti-photon?", which also disappears! If it doesn't disappear, where does the energy go?
he doesnt have an answer konradv, or at least he has never answered in the past. the only response you will get is another insult about how stupid you are for not just believing him.
Methane is a GHG. It retains energy. Geothermal and volcanic activity contribute very little in the way of GHGs or heat compared to what we humans put into the atmosphere.
Old Rocks said:Why are you telling lies once again?
Ten Warmest 12-month consecutive periods of the CONUS Record
These are the warmest 12-month periods on record for the contiguous United States. The record begins January 1895.
2012 Warmth | Ten Warmest 12-month consecutive periods of the CONUS Record
I have seen figures for the decades with the most warming....this is from those biased commies at National Geogrphic magazine!!
"The past decade has been the hottest on record, according to new global warming data released today at the Copenhagen climate conference by the World Meteorological Organization.
The climate research revealed today in Copenhagen says that that global combined air surface and sea surface temperatures for 2009 have so far hit 14.44°C (57.99°F). This is 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the average annual temperature of 14.00°C (57.20°F) recorded between 1961 and 1990, which is used as a reference period, according to the WMO."
Global Warming "Marches On"; Past Decade Hottest Known
Wirebender -
In my experience, National Geographic run a fairly tight ship. I don't think I've ever known them to run a story which didn't have a fairly solid scientific core.
The data comes from the World Meterological Organization, and their page on climate change is here:
Climate | WMO
How is energy "expended"? That sounds like 'destroyed', if not, it's still there. Unless you're creating matter, you've violated Conservation of Energy. Not only that, you've doubled-down on the error by postulating a second "anti-photon?", which also disappears! If it doesn't disappear, where does the energy go?
Geez konradv, this is absolute rock bottom basic and you still don't get it? You become more pathetic all the time. Expending energy against a force, any force, wheither it be dead weight, hydraulic pressure, or an EM field constiutes work. The energy is expended doing work. That work is the dimunation of the opposing EM field by the amount of energy expended against it.
When energy is expended doing work, the work accomplished accounts for the expended energy. Are you now going to try and argue that the law of conservation of energy says that when you expend energy doing work the energy remains in addition to the work performed?
Look back to the early days of the formation of the DDT myth. NG was right on board.
