Global Warming Theory vs Alarmist GW Theory

[wirebender]

infinite number of photons? sorry, not possible

Infinite is your word Ian, not mine. Since photons are the quantum (the smallest quantity of some physical property, such as energy, that a system can possess according to the quantum theory) of EM fields, wherever EM fields exist there are photons. Without photons, there would be no EM fields.

I don't understand why you grasp so for some magical warming by CO2. Trenberth, in his energy balance of the earth created a need for a greenhouse effect by calculating the energy input from the sun as P/4. In doing this, he turned the earth into a flat disk that is under perpetual twilight. You can use blackbody formulae on stars because the look the same from every direction. It does't work with the earth because the earth is not a 3D 360 degree self illuminating body. The earth, as far as energy input goes is a 3D 180 degree illuminated hemisphere where the input of the sun should be expressed as P/2.

His energy budget assumes that the solar input over the 12 hours of daylight is the same as the satellite measured output over 24 hours. If you calculate the solar input over the 12 hours that it actually occurs, you don't need a greenhouse effect to make the earth 33 degrees warmer than it should be.

If you calculate solar input as it exists in reality, you actually find that the hemisphere that is receiving the solar input is slightly cooler than it should be. This, as I have stated before is due to the fact that "greenhouse gasses" by absorbing and emitting IR in multiple directions serves to scatter IR which, in effect, aids in dissipating the energy more efficiently.

 

[wirebender]

find half a dozen more citations, or even one that is specificly geared towards emissions and absorptions rather than a general article that makes a passing reference that is incorrect

You think GHG molecules behave differently based on the topic in which they are being discussed?

Personally, I don't see why you guys are getting your panties so twisted over this little tidbit anyway. I only mentioned it as a curiosity; for the same reason I mentioned that CO2 can emit radiation intramolecullarly as well as intermolecullarly. It really doesn't mean much as far as the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect goes.

Here, have a look at this if you are able to honestly look at data and place it within the context of your view of the atmosphere.

http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf

 

[IanC]

infinite number of photons? sorry, not possible

Infinite is your word Ian, not mine. Since photons are the quantum (the smallest quantity of some physical property, such as energy, that a system can possess according to the quantum theory) of EM fields, wherever EM fields exist there are photons. Without photons, there would be no EM fields.

I don't understand why you grasp so for some magical warming by CO2. Trenberth, in his energy balance of the earth created a need for a greenhouse effect by calculating the energy input from the sun as P/4. In doing this, he turned the earth into a flat disk that is under perpetual twilight. You can use blackbody formulae on stars because the look the same from every direction. It does't work with the earth because the earth is not a 3D 360 degree self illuminating body. The earth, as far as energy input goes is a 3D 180 degree illuminated hemisphere where the input of the sun should be expressed as P/2.

His energy budget assumes that the solar input over the 12 hours of daylight is the same as the satellite measured output over 24 hours. If you calculate the solar input over the 12 hours that it actually occurs, you don't need a greenhouse effect to make the earth 33 degrees warmer than it should be.

If you calculate solar input as it exists in reality, you actually find that the hemisphere that is receiving the solar input is slightly cooler than it should be. This, as I have stated before is due to the fact that "greenhouse gasses" by absorbing and emitting IR in multiple directions serves to scatter IR which, in effect, aids in dissipating the energy more efficiently.

from a single point there are an infinte number of vectors. there are an infinite number of point in a line. there are an infinite number of lines in a plane. there are an infinite number of planes in a body. and you think every possible vector has a photon.

I think GHGs slow the escape of IR but that the energy just leaves by a different route. like electricity through a board with variable resistors or water returning to the ocean. I dont really care about your bizarre misunderstandings in some areas but I worry that some might take them at face value. the second law only concerns itself with net changes so it doesnt matter if some energy returns to earth because the net flow is outwards. you dont agree and that is fine but quit haranging people to prove you wrong. it is a dead certainty that we are both wrong in our understanding of physical processes to some extent.

 

[wirebender]

from a single point there are an infinte number of vectors. there are an infinite number of point in a line. there are an infinite number of lines in a plane. there are an infinite number of planes in a body. and you think every possible vector has a photon.

Wherever an EM field exists Ian, photons exist as photons are the smallest unit of energy in the field. Point to a place where the earth's EM field does not exist.

I think GHGs slow the escape of IR but that the energy just leaves by a different route.

Did you look at the link? Do you think that the man made a math error? According to his calculations, if the atmosphere were all CO2, it would take less than 5 milliseconds for a packet of IR to move from the surface of the earth to cold space. Water vapor "slows" down IR considerably, but then water vapor actually has the ability to absorb and hold energy.

I dont really care about your bizarre misunderstandings in some areas but I worry that some might take them at face value.

To date, you have merely complained about bizarre misundertsandings on my part but remain unable to point out any error on my part or any misapplied law of physics. I made my case and did the math to prove it. None of you guys seem to be able to point to any mistake on my part, you just don't like what I had to say.

I have asked before, do you believe that the physics that govern the movement of EM energy apply to the EM fields radiatied by both the earth and the atmosphere? If you do, then I don't know how you find error with my position and if you don't then describe the law of physics that allows you to move EM energy without obeying the physics of EM fields.

the second law only concerns itself with net changes so it doesnt matter if some energy returns to earth because the net flow is outwards.

"Net flow" is an invention of climate science in an attempt to get around the second law of thermodynamics. The physics of EM fields precludes energy moving in two directions along any single vector.

If any energy returns and changes increases the amount of radiation that the earth emits, then it is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. According to warmists, the surface of the earth which receives 161 watts per square meter from its only energy source is radiating more than twice that amount. If it were a perfect reflector, which it isn't, according to the 2nd law it can radiate no more than 161 watts per square meter.

you dont agree and that is fine but quit haranging people to prove you wrong. it is a dead certainty that we are both wrong in our understanding of physical processes to some extent.

Well, it is a dead certainty that you are wrong. I have proved my position.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Ianc---you post at real climate, so you should get someone like Gavin or mann to come here and debate wire. Hell better how about hansen?

Wire deserves a real debate...That is how science works! Lets see if they can convince wire otherwise and this would be a good forum to do it in.

If wire won---I'd likely go back to being a hard core skeptic!


I'm dead seriously about that... If wire is able to destroy their case within the very basement of their theory...Then it is just wrong! If he makes them run then it was all a crock all along.

 

[IanC]

Ianc---you post at real climate, so you should get someone like Gavin or mann to come here and debate wire. Hell better how about hansen?

Wire deserves a real debate...That is how science works! Lets see if they can convince wire otherwise and this would be a good forum to do it in.

If wire won---I'd likely go back to being a hard core skeptic!


I'm dead seriously about that... If wire is able to destroy their case within the very basement of their theory...Then it is just wrong! If he makes them run then it was all a crock all along.

wirebender is a kook with fundementally flawed misunderstandings. just like 911 conspiracy theorists. he would just keep repeating his mantra....the EM field.... the EM field....

if you like GOOD crackpot theories you should look into Miszcolski's (sp) atmospheric optical density theory. it is beautiful, simple, and complex enough to be very difficult to directly refute. it is so captivating you want it to be true, and it just might be. plus it has the highstrung hungarian scientist being twarted by NASA bureaucracy, little guy against the world type drama going for it.

 

[IanC]

Miskolczi

 

[wirebender]

wirebender is a kook with fundementally flawed misunderstandings. just like 911 conspiracy theorists. he would just keep repeating his mantra....the EM field.... the EM field....

You are as quick to call names as Rolling Thunder and at least as slow to point out any error with my argument. How proud does that make you? If I am wrong, then tell me how it is that the EM field of the earth and that of the atmosphere are not subject to the same field vector calculus as every other known EM field in the universe, or explain how vector calculus does not apply to field vectors.

Explain how you might get energy from two fields of unequal magnitude to travel in both directions along any given vector. Tell me where there might be a void in the earth's EM field that would exempt the EM field radiated by the atmosphere from having to overcome a field of greater magnitude.

The fact, Ian is that your guys have blown it at the foundational level. The physics doesn't support a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Ask yourself why when the question "which law of physics supports and predicts a greenhouse effect?" all you hear in the room is crickets? Why does climate science never call on the laws of physics in support of their hypotheses? They make assumption after assumption after assumption, then jump straight to fallacious appeals to complexity.

CLimate scientists simply won't discuss the foundational basics Ian and there is a reason for that. Don't you find it odd that skeptics are biting at the bit to discuss the foundational science and you warmists and luke warmists can find nothing from climate science that constitutes a rational discussion of the foundational science upon which their hypotheses are built?

I am not interested in a debate with your buds over at real climate. If they want to come here and discuss the foundational principles of physics as they apply to the climate and claims that climate science makes, I am sure that I can find a couple of physicists who boast PhDs and are genuine "math guys" who would jump at the chance for the debate with the corrupt clique that has been avoiding any such debate for years.

I am not counting on any such debate here though. Those guys only talk science in a format where they can censor and delete information as they see fit in order to maintain control of the conversation.