In Support of the A in AGW

[Billy_Bob]

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

Yeah... However, I have to admit I was surprised to discover how many concepts of "diffuse" there are (and that may not be the end of it).

Sunlight is in fact diffuse in that the sun (thankfully) isn't a laser; it radiates into all directions, and not in one concentrated beam.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy radiated out is dispersed over a wide spectrum of wave lengths.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy transmitted is spread over wide areas, not "concentrated" - as it is, say, in fossil fuels, which makes harvesting and using the sun's energy more of a challenge than is using FFs.

Sunlight is further - in part - diffuse in that it is scattered when traveling through atmosphere, which is why - unlike the situation on the moon - our shadows aren't pitch black. Luckily, most of the sunlight arriving on the ground is not diffuse and it arrives within a very narrow bandwidth of directions, which is why it can be collected and focused.

So, reviewing the above-mentioned worthies' misunderstanding, I actually learned something today.

Diffuse means its focal point is angle of incidence dependent. Power is lost as the angle of deflection increases.. Your AGW models do not deal with this just as you dont understand how this changes the energy balance of the earth.

Do you have a Cliff Clavin app on your phone, or do you think up that nonsensical bafflegab by yourself?

I believe a Qwark is refracted light (Photon). When I measure optical power of a laser, the power is significantly greater at a 90 deg Angle than it is at a refracted 60 deg angle. Using this basic physical observation much can be learned about how light (photons) responds in our atmosphere.

Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power. While molecules are emitting photons in all directions their effect is over rated by greater than 60% due to the diffuse patterns and angels. Then when we determine what is actually returning to earth and not back to the atmosphere we decrease the amount of power again by 80% of the 60% leaving virtually no net power gain . (3-7% of what is radiating out ward is re-emitted earth ward) Water refraction and dust pretty much make this number zero.

This is a very simplified flow but you should be able to get the drift.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A cooled detector can not differentiate the wave lengths of water, CO2, N2 and many other gases from one another.

A spectroscope can. That was used in the experiment being referred to .

NO!

Most of these gases overlap in spectral emittence, so how are you making this assumption?

 

[mamooth]

Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power.

And so Billy is now rejecting the Law of Conservation of Energy.

How ... insane.

 

[Wuwei]

A cooled detector can not differentiate the wave lengths of water, CO2, N2 and many other gases from one another.

A spectroscope can. That was used in the experiment being referred to .

NO!

Most of these gases overlap in spectral emittence, so how are you making this assumption?

The spectra of each gas is well known. Through multivariate analysis you can separate each gasses spectral contribution.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power.

And so Billy is now rejecting the Law of Conservation of Energy.

How ... insane.

Far from it snageltooth..

There is alwasy power loss. Thinking there is not, is how you all get 14,000 calories and no explanation of where it came from. When there is no physical observable evidence to prove your hypothesis.

 

[Wuwei]

And so Billy is now rejecting the Law of Conservation of Energy.

How ... insane

I thought is statement, "I believe a Qwark is refracted light (Photon)." was even more insane. Does he mean Quark?

 

[Billy_Bob]

SUB-atomic particles are whatever the hell you want to call them. I see being the grammar police is all you have..

 

[Wuwei]

SUB-atomic particles are whatever the hell you want to call them. I see being the grammar police is all you have..

Your misspelling wasn't insane. I don't zing people for that. What is insane is that Quarks are the internal structure of a proton and other heavy particles, and have absolutely nothing to do with refraction of light. Photons have no mass. How you got those two totally different concepts intermixed is absolutely amazing.

I'm beginning to think you and some others are trolls saying insane things just to get jollies from replies.

 

[IanC]

Do you have a Cliff Clavin app on your phone, or do you think up that nonsensical bafflegab by yourself?

I believe a Qwark is refracted light (Photon). When I measure optical power of a laser, the power is significantly greater at a 90 deg Angle than it is at a refracted 60 deg angle. Using this basic physical observation much can be learned about how light (photons) responds in our atmosphere.

Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power. While molecules are emitting photons in all directions their effect is over rated by greater than 60% due to the diffuse patterns and angels. Then when we determine what is actually returning to earth and not back to the atmosphere we decrease the amount of power again by 80% of the 60% leaving virtually no net power gain . (3-7% of what is radiating out ward is re-emitted earth ward) Water refraction and dust pretty much make this number zero.

This is a very simplified flow but you should be able to get the drift.

there you go again! hahahahahahahahahaha

quarks are the building blocks of matter. photons are not matter, and have different properties than matter.

lasers are made up of highly organized photons that are capable of doing work, atmospheric radiation is diffuse and (almost) incapable of doing work. why are you comparing them?

why do you continue to string together pseudoscientific terms in a fashion that makes absolutely no sense?

 

[Olde Europe]

Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power.

And so Billy is now rejecting the Law of Conservation of Energy.

How ... insane.

I guess that Billy stumbled over a text discussing the Compton effect, that is, a photon hitting an electron or proton, and transferring parts of its energy to the hit object, and changing towards a longer wavelength.

Compton scattering, discovered by Arthur Holly Compton, is the inelastic scattering of a photon by a charged particle, usually an electron. It results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of the photon​

Or maybe it's Raman scattering?

Raman scattering or the Raman effect /ˈrɑːmən/ is the inelastic scattering of a photon upon interaction with matter. It was discovered by C. V. Raman and K. S. Krishnan (who was a student of C.V. Raman) in liquids,[1] and independently by Grigory Landsberg and Leonid Mandelstam in crystals.[2] The effect had been predicted theoretically by Adolf Smekal in 1923.​

I am almost certain that this is a mere distraction of very little explanatory value concerning AGW.

 

[IanC]

How smart does one need to be to not go to where on already knows it can't be absorbed? Certainly no smarter than the marble that knows that it can't roll up hill, or the outside air that knows that it can't go into the hole in the tire that is leaking air...or the rock that knows when it is dropped that it can't fall into the sky...

It never fails to entertain me when you people suppose that an object must be smart to do what the laws of the universe command that they do....you think an electron must be smart to know which direction to travel in a wire? You must see magic in everything....is that an offshoot of gaia worship or just a peculiarity you picked up from rocks?

here is an example of SSDD's faulty understanding. he conflates the properties of light and matter. air comes out of a tire in the direction of the pressure and because it is matter. no two (10, 1000, 1000000) molecules can occupy the same space. with light there is no bottleneck. there are no restrictions as to how many photons can exist in one spot, or the direction that they are travelling in.

gravity primarily affects matter (mass), always in an attractive direction. because light has a tiny component of momentum, which is related to mass, it too is slightly affected by gravity but not measurably with earth like conditions.

previously mentioned, but not in this post, SSDD also confuses the characteristics of virtual photons which carry force in electro/magnetic fields with common radiative photons which only serve to remove energy. virtual photons exist for a very short time and only become real if they find a partner to transfer force to, otherwise they just cease to exist. because time doesnt exist in the reference frame of a photon it exists every place on its trajectory and therefore its range is infinite no matter how long it exists.

while it may very well be true that photons 'know' were they are going before they get there, radiative photons need no special characteristics to exist whereas virtual photons carrying force do. temperature in no way adds a 'tag' to a molecule, it is a property of the larger cohort of associated molecules. a single molecule has no temperature.

 

[SSDD]

here is an example of SSDD's faulty understanding. he conflates the properties of light and matter. air comes out of a tire in the direction of the pressure and because it is matter. no two (10, 1000, 1000000) molecules can occupy the same space. with light there is no bottleneck. there are no restrictions as to how many photons can exist in one spot, or the direction that they are travelling in.

So you can state with absolute surety that you fully understand the laws of nature to the point that you fully understand the forces that drive everything? You are sure that there are no restrictions regarding photons? For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist? Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend? You say things like that as if there were some actual proof...

previously mentioned, but not in this post, SSDD also confuses the characteristics of virtual photons which carry force in electro/magnetic fields with common radiative photons which only serve to remove energy. virtual photons exist for a very short time and only become real if they find a partner to transfer force to, otherwise they just cease to exist. because time doesnt exist in the reference frame of a photon it exists every place on its trajectory and therefore its range is infinite no matter how long it exists.

Interesting ian...you can't prove the existence of photons...nor can anyone else for that matter, but you seem to be old pals with virtual photons....it is little wonder that you have fallen for the AGW scam....you believe...really believe that you know all sorts of unknowable (at this point in time) things about the universe....

while it may very well be true that photons 'know' were they are going before they get there, radiative photons need no special characteristics to exist whereas virtual photons carrying force do. temperature in no way adds a 'tag' to a molecule, it is a property of the larger cohort of associated molecules. a single molecule has no temperature.

While it may very well be that photons don't exist at all....then where does that leave you ian?

 

[IanC]

here is an example of SSDD's faulty understanding. he conflates the properties of light and matter. air comes out of a tire in the direction of the pressure and because it is matter. no two (10, 1000, 1000000) molecules can occupy the same space. with light there is no bottleneck. there are no restrictions as to how many photons can exist in one spot, or the direction that they are travelling in.

So you can state with absolute surety that you fully understand the laws of nature to the point that you fully understand the forces that drive everything? You are sure that there are no restrictions regarding photons? For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist? Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend? You say things like that as if there were some actual proof...

previously mentioned, but not in this post, SSDD also confuses the characteristics of virtual photons which carry force in electro/magnetic fields with common radiative photons which only serve to remove energy. virtual photons exist for a very short time and only become real if they find a partner to transfer force to, otherwise they just cease to exist. because time doesnt exist in the reference frame of a photon it exists every place on its trajectory and therefore its range is infinite no matter how long it exists.

Interesting ian...you can't prove the existence of photons...nor can anyone else for that matter, but you seem to be old pals with virtual photons....it is little wonder that you have fallen for the AGW scam....you believe...really believe that you know all sorts of unknowable (at this point in time) things about the universe....

while it may very well be true that photons 'know' were they are going before they get there, radiative photons need no special characteristics to exist whereas virtual photons carrying force do. temperature in no way adds a 'tag' to a molecule, it is a property of the larger cohort of associated molecules. a single molecule has no temperature.

While it may very well be that photons don't exist at all....then where does that leave you ian?

so, youre back to the same old rant eh? photons dont exist and quantum mechanics is a pipe dream? hahahaha, yet if you tweek your knee you run off to get an MRI.

no area has been studied more than light and its properties. will QM be supplanted with a more sophisticated theory? probably, but the new theory will give answers very similar to QM except on the very edges, just like QM gives very similar answers to the Newtonian system that it replaced except for relativistic conditions.

 

[SSDD]

so, youre back to the same old rant eh? photons dont exist and quantum mechanics is a pipe dream? hahahaha, yet if you tweek your knee you run off to get an MRI.

And you are still in the same old deflection mode...unable to bring yourself to admit what you don't know...

no area has been studied more than light and its properties. will QM be supplanted with a more sophisticated theory? probably, but the new theory will give answers very similar to QM except on the very edges, just like QM gives very similar answers to the Newtonian system that it replaced except for relativistic conditions.

And yet, actual science remains unsure as to it's actual nature...only idiots believe that they actually know that photons, and virtual photons exist and what their properties may be....it is as stupid as wuwei and the hairball pointing a cooled instrument at the sky and thinking they are measuring back radiation...

 

[Olde Europe]

For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist? Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend?

A photon isn't a thing. It's a concept with explanatory value for our observations.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume Ian cannot prove photons "exist". As far as I have seen, he still doesn't assume his/her ignorance trumps the world's best physicists' knowledge. Incidentally, that would mark a stark difference between Ian and SSDD.

 

[SSDD]

For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist? Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend?

A photon isn't a thing. It's a concept with explanatory value for our observations.

Exactly what I have been saying since I first spoke to Ian...it is a story...a place holder...a way to explain what we see even though we don't understand the underlying nature of what we are seeing...

For the sake of the argument, let's assume Ian cannot prove photons "exist". As far as I have seen, he still doesn't assume his/her ignorance trumps the world's best physicists' knowledge. Incidentally, that would mark a stark difference between Ian and SSDD.

Knowing one is ignorant is the first step to actually learning something...Ian actually believes that he knows that photons exist..he believes that back radiation exists even though it has never been observed or measured...he believes that virtual photons exist and that he knows what they are about during the time of their existence....he believes that he actually knows these things and is locked in his belief...

And modern physics, by the way is in crisis mode...they have abandoned actual observation in lieu of models....

 

[Olde Europe]

Knowing one is ignorant is the first step to actually learning something...Ian actually believes that he knows that photons exist..he believes that back radiation exists even though it has never been observed or measured.

The first phrase would be the most valuable advice you could start to absorb.

Of course, back radiation has been measured; your ignorance about it is no proof to the contrary, and neither is your failure to understand it. Also, the (decline of the) earth's radiation into space has been measured, and found changes over certain wavelengths characteristically associated with greenhouse gases, altering the earth's energy budget.

But hey, given your track record, you'll remain comfortable waving your ignorance like a placard, confident your demonstration is proof of... something.

 

[Wuwei]

So you can state with absolute surety that you fully understand the laws of nature to the point that you fully understand the forces that drive everything? You are sure that there are no restrictions regarding photons? For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist? Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend? You say things like that as if there were some actual proof...

Interesting ian...you can't prove the existence of photons...nor can anyone else for that matter, but you seem to be old pals with virtual photons....it is little wonder that you have fallen for the AGW scam....you believe...really believe that you know all sorts of unknowable (at this point in time) things about the universe....

While it may very well be that photons don't exist at all....then where does that leave you ian?

Here is something you don't understand about modern physics. All understanding of physics today is embedded in the mathematics. Words like "photons", "weak force", "quarks" are names given to various mathematical constructs that predict what happens in reality.

The mathematics of quantum electrodynamics (QED) explains everything about photons better than any thought process you will ever have. It explains all electromagnetic events to one part per billion, and in one experiment, one part per trillion in accuracy.

Mathematics is the understanding of modern physics. If anyone says photons do not exist they are up against the incredible accuracy of mathematics.

 

[Wuwei]

And modern physics, by the way is in crisis mode...they have abandoned actual observation in lieu of models....

Absolutely wrong. The only thing in crisis mode is you. You who are denying the knowledge of man.

It is the mathematical models that codifies the knowledge of man.


.

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha! how do you deal with someone like SSDD? he says 'maybe photons dont exist'. what does he mean by that? surely he acknowledges that light exists? is he complaining along the lines of "a diagram of a tree is not a real tree."?

we can, and have, measured the emissivity of soil, plants, fresh water, sea water, rocks, ice, snow, etc. so we know to a pretty good degree what the surface sends up in the way of radiation. we have satellites that measure the radiation coming through the atmosphere and escaping to space. the two are not remotely the same in quantity or quality. what happened to the energy that disappeared along the way? and how can the surface be radiating 400w/ m2 when it is only receiving 165w/m2 of sunlight?

hahahaha. SSDD and his sycophants refuse to address any of these issues. they claim that the laws of thermodynamics prove them right but they refuse to defend their use of the wrong laws for the conditions.

it's a waste of time, and it always has been.