On the failure of alarmism!!!

[gslack]

1. Your claim was...
"Who can do anything but laugh about so-called "EM vectors" which would stop IR photons from reaching Earth, while not realizing that, if it were true, we'd never be able to see the moon in the day time?!?! "

Meaning he made the term "EM Vectors" up....
That was a false claim and proven to be so time and again now...

SO junior back to the argument you keep trying to change.... He did not make the term up did he junior???? Come on boy admit it, you can do that much he didn't make it up and you once again spoke without knowing what you are talking about....

You do that and maybe I will help you with your little quantum theory problem...

LOL!!! There you go again!!! Telling me what I mean. Tell us what YOU mean and I'll take care of what I mean. I never said or implied that "EM vectors" are made up, just that he's not aplying the physics in any way with which I'm familiar and hasn't explained why, given HIS theory, why I can see the moon in the daytime. Make fun all you want. All I get out of it is that you can't explain it either. But since he's on your side you have to back him up anyway, which I consider intellectual dishonesty.

OH REALLY!

Well then lets look at your own post #65 in this very thread...

You said...

Who can do anything but laugh about so-called "EM vectors" which would stop IR photons from reaching Earth, while not realizing that, if it were true, we'd never be able to see the moon in the day time?!?!

And then you went and did it again AFTER I showed you the term was not made up right here in your post #67

Why can I see the moon in the daytime, If your EM vector "theory" is true?

WOW!... Dude you really want to continue down this road of lies on your part? Well of course you do....

Now make your little excuses, stomp your feet and cry your eyes out junior but once again you are shown for a liar and a fraud.... Oh and not even remotely aware of anything regarding science...

 

[wirebender]

Why can I see the moon in the daytime, If your EM vector "theory" is true?

By the way konradv, I don't have an EM vector theory. There is nothing theoretical about EM vectors. I wish I were smart enough to have figured that all out on my own, but alas, I am merely standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[gslack]

Why can I see the moon in the daytime, If your EM vector "theory" is true?

By the way konradv, I don't have an EM vector theory. There is nothing theoretical about EM vectors. I wish I were smart enough to have figured that all out on my own, but alas, I am merely standing on the shoulders of giants.

He's looking to get quantum theory lessons from Shroedingers cat....

 

[westwall]

Why can I see the moon in the daytime, If your EM vector "theory" is true?

By the way konradv, I don't have an EM vector theory. There is nothing theoretical about EM vectors. I wish I were smart enough to have figured that all out on my own, but alas, I am merely standing on the shoulders of giants.

He's looking to get quantum theory lessons from Shroedingers cat....

He doesn't "believe" in cats

 

[gslack]

By the way konradv, I don't have an EM vector theory. There is nothing theoretical about EM vectors. I wish I were smart enough to have figured that all out on my own, but alas, I am merely standing on the shoulders of giants.

He's looking to get quantum theory lessons from Shroedingers cat....

He doesn't "believe" in cats

Well soon Al Gore will make a film about them, then he will believe...

 

[wirebender]

Why can I see the moon in the daytime, If your EM vector "theory" is true?

By the way konradv, I don't have an EM vector theory. There is nothing theoretical about EM vectors. I wish I were smart enough to have figured that all out on my own, but alas, I am merely standing on the shoulders of giants.

He's looking to get quantum theory lessons from Shroedingers cat....

I guess I should have mentioned to him that a lot of "seeing" seems to be opposed to the whole EM vector thing in large part because seeing is a photochemical process that doesn't require any actual heating and then there is the whole frequencies of visible light vs IR thing, but I was trying to keep it at the most basic level. Large questions are difficult to answer at a basic level so you inevetably have to go through this whole "but why" process as if you are trying to explain an idea to a 5 year old.

 

[IanC]

That's easy, for all your math that "proves" IR photons couldn't be returning to earth because of "EM vectors", you haven't shown why I can see the moon in the daytime. Wouldn't EM vectors generated by the sun swamp out moonshine and if not, why not?

First, you must recognize that the moon and the sun are not in straight lines with the earth most times but EM vectors are in straight lines. When it is in a straight line (eclipse) of course, you don't see it, only a black disk covering the sun.

You see the light from the sun reflecting off the moon, which has no atmosphere. That would represent an EM field that is greater in magnitude along a given vector than the EM field from the earth. If you wonder if that is true or not, compare the daytime temperature of the moon to the daytime temeprature of the earth. Which EM field do you believe propagates from the hotter surface? Have you ever noticed that on some days you can see the bright areas of the moon, but the gray areas that represent shadow are invisible, as if you are just seeing sky?

Another reason might be your point of view? Can you imagine any point of view that you might have in looking at the moon in which your head is not between the EM field radiated by the earth and the moon? You have to keep in mind that EM vectors move in straight lines.

Nothing I have said, konradv is in opposition to any law of physics; particularly the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Energy flows from cold to hot, not the other way around. The hypotheses you believe, however, are chock full of necessities to disregard laws of physics.

I cant believe the amount of bullshit you put out! you are worse than Cliff Clavin from Cheers.

NET energy flows from hot to cold. NET entropy increases. there is no magical 'EM vector field' that chokes off the spontaneous emission of photons from excited molecules. you are just playing games with the definition of terms. you change your story for any circumstance. so what if your eye is in the way of the earth's 'EM field'? your eye is typically warmer than the earth and therefore should have a 'stronger' field anyways. or does your special 'EM field' have some mass/gravity component to it as well?

spin us some more tales wirebender.

 

[gslack]

That's easy, for all your math that "proves" IR photons couldn't be returning to earth because of "EM vectors", you haven't shown why I can see the moon in the daytime. Wouldn't EM vectors generated by the sun swamp out moonshine and if not, why not?

First, you must recognize that the moon and the sun are not in straight lines with the earth most times but EM vectors are in straight lines. When it is in a straight line (eclipse) of course, you don't see it, only a black disk covering the sun.

You see the light from the sun reflecting off the moon, which has no atmosphere. That would represent an EM field that is greater in magnitude along a given vector than the EM field from the earth. If you wonder if that is true or not, compare the daytime temperature of the moon to the daytime temeprature of the earth. Which EM field do you believe propagates from the hotter surface? Have you ever noticed that on some days you can see the bright areas of the moon, but the gray areas that represent shadow are invisible, as if you are just seeing sky?

Another reason might be your point of view? Can you imagine any point of view that you might have in looking at the moon in which your head is not between the EM field radiated by the earth and the moon? You have to keep in mind that EM vectors move in straight lines.

Nothing I have said, konradv is in opposition to any law of physics; particularly the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Energy flows from cold to hot, not the other way around. The hypotheses you believe, however, are chock full of necessities to disregard laws of physics.

I cant believe the amount of bullshit you put out! you are worse than Cliff Clavin from Cheers.

NET energy flows from hot to cold. NET entropy increases. there is no magical 'EM vector field' that chokes off the spontaneous emission of photons from excited molecules. you are just playing games with the definition of terms. you change your story for any circumstance. so what if your eye is in the way of the earth's 'EM field'? your eye is typically warmer than the earth and therefore should have a 'stronger' field anyways. or does your special 'EM field' have some mass/gravity component to it as well?

spin us some more tales wirebender.

Ian, in all fairness he asked to show if his math is wrong and if so to show him.

In as mush as I can (I am merely a laymen and do not even pretend to understand quantum theory or mechanics on real world usable level) I will try and help here.

I have this link still on my PC... It explains a great deal of Electro-magnetism and a nice section on EM Vector Fields as well... Its from MIT so I think we can trust it...

A VISUAL TOUR OF CLASSICAL ELECTROMAGNETISM

B. Vector Fields

A vector field is a field in which there is a vector associated with every point in space—that is, three numbers instead of only the single number for the scalar field. An example of a vector field is the velocity of the Earth’s atmosphere, that is, the wind velocity. Since fluid flows are the easiest vector fields to visualize, we first show examples of these kinds of vector fields

C. How We Represent Electromagnetic Vector Fields

Now let us turn from fluid flow to more general vector fields. Because there is much more information to represent in a vector field, our visualizations are correspondingly more complex when compared to the representations of scalar fields. Let us introduce an analytic form for a vector field and discuss the various ways that we represent it.

(I.2)

This field is proportional to the electric field of two point charges of opposite signs, with the magnitude of the positive charge three times that of the negative charge. The positive charge is located at and the negative charge is located at . We discuss how this field is calculated in a later section.

That is just the first a few paragraphs and explanation. There are graphics and more detail at the site. So please give it a look.

Reading that we can understand a few things, especially as it pertains to this discussion. The paragraph even gives the earths atmosphere as an example.

Regardless of whether or not we agree or disagree with Quantum theory, the fact remains the term is an integral part of EM Field study. And well it worked to do a great many things we couldn't have done without it.

Now personally I detest the math involved. I really do not care to even try and do it, so my understanding of this subject is limited to the most general of applications. The point is the point he raised is valid in as far as there is a great deal more to the heat retention and radiant effects of CO2 in our atmosphere. EM Vector Fields are a factor in any claim of CO2 interacting with a photon or any other sub-atomic particle coming in to the atmosphere.

If you can correct or show error in his math that is one thing, but simply denying the term is valid or that it doesn't apply is inaccurate. Want to see the problem? Just try and google "mathematical proof CO2 retains heat" and watch how little actual mathematical proof you can find on it. One scientist said it best..

"No branch of atmospheric physics is more difficult than that dealing with radiation. This is not because we do not know the laws of radiation, but because of the difficulty of applying them to gases." — G.C. Simpson(1)

The reasons for this difficulty is directly related to the mathematics involved in Quantum theory relies on apparent improbability factor inherent to quantum theory. Quantum mechanics in particular have rules that defy the physical rules of physical mechanics.

A simple way to look at it would be you flip a coin 500 times and at first you may expect to get around 250/250 of heads vs tails. And using general mathematics this would seem a pretty safe assumption at least within a few either way. But when you try it in the real world its usually doesn't come out that way. You may get 300+ heads or tails or even more. This apparent improbability factor is caused by many things, air composition, current, and humidity, the different places the coin rests on the thumb, the varying amount of force applied in the flip, and so on. Along with that factors we cannot see or interact with also have an effect. This is the realm of quantum mechanics.

We cannot know how photons react when they interact with the atmosphere every time and in every situation it happens across the planet at every instance of space and time with every atom of every gas in the atmosphere. Too many variables to consider and factor in and given the erratic nature of flowing gases in a non-vacum and the various eletro magnetic fields of the planet, it is an impossibility.

And that is the entire point. CO2 trapping heat or radiating it down to the earth creating a feedback loop would require a complete denial of all of these variables and thats not going to happen reliably. That will only happen in a controlled environment like a lab. Where you can do an experiment and know all the factors and variables before hand.

I hope this helps a bit..

 

[wirebender]

I cant believe the amount of bullshit you put out! you are worse than Cliff Clavin from Cheers.

So you keep saying...and old rocks and konradv, and rolling thunder; and like them, you remain completely unable to point to any misapplication of a physical law by myself, or an errror in my mathematics. Do you really want to show up in the same sentence with old rocks, konradv, and rolling thunder in defense of your luke warmist beliefs?

NET energy flows from hot to cold. NET entropy increases.

Net energy flow and net entrophy are fabrications that are not physical.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

"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. "

Energy will not flow from warm to cool and there is not a single experiment that has shown otherwise. If energy could flow from cool to warm, then the warmer object would warm up and in turn put out more energy which would warm the cooler object which would then in turn further warm the already warmer object and you would end up with a power source for a perpetual motion machine stuck in a positve feedback loop.

there is no magical 'EM vector field' that chokes off the spontaneous emission of photons from excited molecules.

Of course there is no magic involved in EM vector fields. It is all well known physics, and I have never said that an EM vector field could choke off the spontaneous emission of a photon from an exicted molecule. I haven't ever said anything close to that. If that is what you believe I have said, then you are a victim of your own gross misunderstanding as I have stated my position very clearly. I guess it is like the man said, any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic. I suppose that goes for sufficiently advanced physical principles as well if you beleive I have been describing some sort of magic.

If you believe I have said such a thing, I invite you wholeheartedly to bring forward such a quote by myself with a link to the quote. Otherwise, you might apologize for so grossly mischaracterizing my statements.

What I have said is that a photon, being a massles particle moves in the direction of propagation of whatever EM field it happens to be associated with. A massless particle can not "swim upstream" against an EM field. If an excited CO2 molecule emits a photon within an EM field radiated by the surface of the earth, and that field is of greater magnitude than the EM field radiated by the atmosphere in which the CO2 molecule finds itself, the photon will move in the direction propagated by the greater EM field.

I have been through this before and you were unable to point to any error on my part or misapplied physical law. Let me explain mathematically again at the most fundamental level possible.

Heat transfer via the emission of an EM wave (field) is, at its foundation, what radiation is when we are talking about IR. Those EM waves carry heat away from the object that is emitting.

Mathematically it looks like this: P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) where P equals the amount of energy being radiated (in watts). e equals the emissivity of the object that is radiating. BC equals the Stefan Boltzman constant. A equals the area. T equals the temperature of the emitting object and Tc equals the temperature of the atmosphere surrounding the emitting object or the temperature of another body that may or may not be emitting.

Rearrange the formula and you get:

P/A = e*BC*T^4 – e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2). That, my friend is the formula used for the subtraction of two EM fields. It is in perfect compliance with the vector subtraction of EM fields and EM fields are vectors.

When you subtract the two EM fields, the resulting field will have a quantity of P/A and will propagate from the direction of the larger field and will either exaust the energy from, or carry along any massless photon that happens to be within it.

you are just playing games with the definition of terms.

I am not playing at all. Again, I have laid out the basis for my position and invite you to describe any problem with it. Have I misapplied a physical principle or made a mathematical error. If I have, describe it and show me your math.

you change your story for any circumstance.

I don't change my story at all. Feel free to bring forward any instance where I have changed my story. In the fashion of all believers, you alter your understanding of what I have said to fit any circumstance, but I am not at liberty to alter my "story". Unlike you, I have stated my "story" mathematically and it isn't subject to change.

so what if your eye is in the way of the earth's 'EM field'? your eye is typically warmer than the earth and therefore should have a 'stronger' field anyways
or does your special 'EM field' have some mass/gravity component to it as well?

That statement suggests that you don't grasp the difference between visible light and IR. Is that true Ian? Honestly, I really thought you were sharper than that. Have you ever played with an IR camera? Have you ever pointed it at an object that was cooler than the camera? It was invisible wasn't it? Surely it was emitting photons so why do you think the IR camera didn't pick them up? It doesn't selectively register only photons that are emitted by objects that are warmer than itself. It doesn't register photons from objects that are cooler because photons from cooler objects can't make it to the camera. You must cool the camera to a temperature cooler than the object to "open" up a vector so that the photons emitted by the cool object can make it to the camera.

Visible light and seeing is a process involving photochemical reactions not warming so the physical laws governing the transfer of heat energy are not in play. Perhaps I didn't describe my thoughts as well as I might have to konradv, but it is difficult to explain large ideas in the very basic terms which konradv, and apparently yourself require.

spin us some more tales wirebender.

Again, point to and prove any error on my part. Your luke warmist beliefs are at the root of your dislike for my position, not any scientific evidence or proof. You believe CO2 to be able to alter the temerature of the atmosphere and any evidence to the contrary challenges your faith and faith is what you have as there is no hard, observed evidence to support your belief that CO2 can trap heat.

 

[skookerasbil]

Alarmism is gay............imagine trying to do this in a fcukking SMARTCAR.................

My homies at MM..................sIcK.....Chris would shit his drawers if he was anywhere in the same zip code!!


http://www.youtube.com/user/toprpm333#p/u/0/RD3qRHZ-MaU

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is all a lie. One big stinking lie. Colder can't warm the warmer surface. Against physical laws.

It is up to the warmer to find away to break the laws of thermodynamics to make there theory work.

 

[IanC]

I am not a physicist, engineer, climate scientist or teacher; and my last courses taken were decades ago so I am working from inculcated principles rather than specific knowledge but I will give it a go....

I cant believe the amount of bullshit you put out! you are worse than Cliff Clavin from Cheers.

So you keep saying...and old rocks and konradv, and rolling thunder; and like them, you remain completely unable to point to any misapplication of a physical law by myself, or an errror in my mathematics. Do you really want to show up in the same sentence with old rocks, konradv, and rolling thunder in defense of your luke warmist beliefs?

NET energy flows from hot to cold. NET entropy increases.

Net energy flow and net entrophy are fabrications that are not physical.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

"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. " Ian says- the earth is not a closed system, the sun supplies constant energy which is available to do work directly and decreases enthropy which also can perform work

Energy will not flow from warm to cool and there is not a single experiment that has shown otherwise. If energy could flow from cool to warm, then the warmer object would warm up and in turn put out more energy which would warm the cooler object which would then in turn further warm the already warmer object and you would end up with a power source for a perpetual motion machine stuck in a positve feedback loop.Ian says- every body above absolute zero emits energy, if that body recieves more energy as an imput than it radiated out it warms, otherwise it cools.



Of course there is no magic involved in EM vector fields. It is all well known physics, and I have never said that an EM vector field could choke off the spontaneous emission of a photon from an exicted molecule. I haven't ever said anything close to that. If that is what you believe I have said, then you are a victim of your own gross misunderstanding as I have stated my position very clearly.Ian says- actually you have, at first I tried to nudge you into a more reasonable position but you only became more obstinant. I guess it is like the man said, any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic. I suppose that goes for sufficiently advanced physical principles as well if you beleive I have been describing some sort of magic.

If you believe I have said such a thing, I invite you wholeheartedly to bring forward such a quote by myself with a link to the quote. Otherwise, you might apologize for so grossly mischaracterizing my statements.

What I have said is that a photon, being a massles particle moves in the direction of propagation of whatever EM field it happens to be associated with. A massless particle can not "swim upstream" against an EM field. If an excited CO2 molecule emits a photon within an EM field radiated by the surface of the earth, and that field is of greater magnitude than the EM field radiated by the atmosphere in which the CO2 molecule finds itself, the photon will move in the direction propagated by the greater EM field. Ian says- a photon randomly emitted will continue upon its path until it interacts with some object (I will ignore gravitation and expansion of space as irrelevent in our situation)

I have been through this before and you were unable to point to any error on my part or misapplied physical law. Let me explain mathematically again at the most fundamental level possible.

Heat transfer via the emission of an EM wave (field) is, at its foundation, what radiation is when we are talking about IR. Those EM waves carry heat away from the object that is emitting.

Mathematically it looks like this: P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4) where P equals the amount of energy being radiated (in watts). e equals the emissivity of the object that is radiating. BC equals the Stefan Boltzman constant.Ian says- the SB equation is an idealized law that is vastly complicated by the fact that the earth is not a true black body and the heating from the sun is variable by latitude and orientation A equals the area. T equals the temperature of the emitting object and Tc equals the temperature of the atmosphere surrounding the emitting object or the temperature of another body that may or may not be emitting.

Rearrange the formula and you get:

P/A = e*BC*T^4 – e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2). That, my friend is the formula used for the subtraction of two EM fields. It is in perfect compliance with the vector subtraction of EM fields and EM fields are vectors. Ian says- I have a problem with 'in perfect compliance' and the notion that you seem to believe subtracting one field from another negates both fields from existence, leaving only the net field

When you subtract the two EM fields, the resulting field will have a quantity of P/A and will propagate from the direction of the larger field and will either exaust the energy from, or carry along any massless photon that happens to be within it.



I am not playing at all. Again, I have laid out the basis for my position and invite you to describe any problem with it. Have I misapplied a physical principle or made a mathematical error. If I have, describe it and show me your math.



I don't change my story at all. Feel free to bring forward any instance where I have changed my story.Ian says- remember that video on CO2 that your repeatedly posted, and your fairytale of an explanation about what was going on (a la Cliff Clavin)? I quoted the actual experimenter on the methods and the results. perhaps I misspoke by saying you change your story, your story just remains the same no matter how out of touch with reality it is. In the fashion of all believers, you alter your understanding of what I have said to fit any circumstance, but I am not at liberty to alter my "story". Unlike you, I have stated my "story" mathematically and it isn't subject to change.

so what if your eye is in the way of the earth's 'EM field'? your eye is typically warmer than the earth and therefore should have a 'stronger' field anyways
or does your special 'EM field' have some mass/gravity component to it as well?

That statement suggests that you don't grasp the difference between visible light and IR.Ian says- there is no difference between UV, visible or IR except the wavelength and energy carried. I am not knowledgeable on IR cameras but I do know that CCDs can capture IR that is emitted from sources much cooler than the CCD itself. Is that true Ian? Honestly, I really thought you were sharper than that. Have you ever played with an IR camera? Have you ever pointed it at an object that was cooler than the camera? It was invisible wasn't it? Surely it was emitting photons so why do you think the IR camera didn't pick them up? It doesn't selectively register only photons that are emitted by objects that are warmer than itself. It doesn't register photons from objects that are cooler because photons from cooler objects can't make it to the camera. You must cool the camera to a temperature cooler than the object to "open" up a vector so that the photons emitted by the cool object can make it to the camera.

Visible light and seeing is a process involving photochemical reactions not warming so the physical laws governing the transfer of heat energy are not in play. Perhaps I didn't describe my thoughts as well as I might have to konradv, but it is difficult to explain large ideas in the very basic terms which konradv, and apparently yourself require. Ian says- many people have questioned you and all you do is bloviate.

spin us some more tales wirebender.

Again, point to and prove any error on my part. Your luke warmist beliefs are at the root of your dislike for my position, not any scientific evidence or proof. You believe CO2 to be able to alter the temerature of the atmosphere and any evidence to the contrary challenges your faith and faith is what you have as there is no hard, observed evidence to support your belief that CO2 can trap heat.

Ian says- CO2 preferentially absorbs two IR wavelengths that create an occilation within the molecule rather than kick an electron up into a higher orbital. when the excited molecule gives up that vibrational energy it is in the same quantum of energy as was absorbed. of course reality is more complicated than idealized equations so I dont know how often the favoured IR photons are absorbed and emitted before they are transformed into a different wavelength or escape into space/return to earth. most of the preferred IR is absorbed in the first few tens of metres but there is always some logrithmically incremental absorption as well as smearing of the absorbed wavelength as CO2 goes up. satellite readings show a hole in the spectrum where CO2 absorbs, so yes I think CO2has an influence on the escape of IR radiation into space. I dont think it is as important as the CAGWers claim but I think it there, which you apparently do not.

 

[wirebender]

Ian says- the earth is not a closed system, the sun supplies constant energy which is available to do work directly and decreases enthropy which also can perform work

Neither absorption nor emission are work.

Ian says- every body above absolute zero emits energy, if that body recieves more energy as an imput than it radiated out it warms, otherwise it cools.

Neither the earth nor the atmosphere are blackbodies. Further, simply because one object emits does not necessitate another body absorbing those, or any part of those emissions. Radiation outward is subject to already existing EM fields or any fields that come into existence..

Ian says- actually you have, at first I tried to nudge you into a more reasonable position but you only became more obstinant.

I suggested that you bring forward any quote by me along with a link in which I said any such thing. I can't help but note that you didn't.

My position is perfectly reasonable as it complies with all known laws of physics and I have done the math to prove my position. It is your position, and that of all warmers and luke warmers that is unreasonable. You are operating from a position of faith rather than hard science, observable, repeatable results, and mathematical proofs.

Ian says- a photon randomly emitted will continue upon its path until it interacts with some object (I will ignore gravitation and expansion of space as irrelevent in our situation)

Simply not true. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what photons are. You seem to be operating under the belief that photons are free agents that zip about the universe until they run into some solid object. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

A photon is the quantum of an electromagnetic field. I have provided these definitions of photon out previously, but for you Ian, I will drag them out again. First, however, here is the definition of quantum.

quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.

photon - n - The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.

photon - n - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

photon - n - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle. See Note at electromagnetic radiation.

Note: as you can see, you were also mistaken in your belief that a photon will ignore gravitation and expansion of space. Clearly you have not taken any time to do any actual research or study into this area as the basic fact of what photons are and how they behave escapes you. As I said, this, for you, is a matter of faith. Not hard, observable, repeatable, provable science.

Here is what the note at electromagnetic radiation in the above definitions says:

electromagnetic radiation - Energy in the form of transverse magnetic and electric waves. In a vacuum, these waves travel at the speed of light (which is itself a form of electromagnetic radiation). The acceleration of electric charges (such as alternating current in a radio transmitter) gives rise to electromagnetic radiation. Other common examples of electromagnetic radiation are x-rays, microwaves, and radio waves. A single unit, or quantum, of electromagnetic radiation is called a photon .


As you should be able to rationalize at this point, photons are not free agents that zip about the universe, ignoring everyting, till they run into something. Photons are the "stuff" that make up EM fields and therefore obey the physics of EM fields. Further, when an EM field weakens (as it does with distance or resistance), that weakening is, in reality, the expiration of photons.

Ian says- the SB equation is an idealized law that is vastly complicated by the fact that the earth is not a true black body and the heating from the sun is variable by latitude and orientation

A distorted and manufactured version of the SB equation is used in an attempt to rationalize backradiation. If you are going to get serious about the reality of what the earth and atmosphere are actually like, and trust only models that reflect what the physical world is like, then you might take a look at a model that views the world not as a flat disk that is perpetually bathed in some sort of twilight but a sphere that is absorbing radiation on one side and dark on the other. Discussion of such a model can be found here.

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

You should note that if you take models of the earth and atmosphere that reflect their reality seriously, you are going to have to dump your belief in a greenhouse effect as it is not necessary to account for the temperature of the planet. The greenhouse effect is a fabrication that was necessary to rationalize the actual temperature of the earth because the flat disk in half light models were so far from reality that they didn't even get close to predicting what actually is.

Ian says- I have a problem with 'in perfect compliance' and the notion that you seem to believe subtracting one field from another negates both fields from existence, leaving only the net field

Of course I am subtracting one field from the other. That is what is required when one is dealing with two opposing EM fields. Subtracting one field from the other only negages one field from existence if the fields are unequal in magnitude. The stronger field "overpowers" the weaker field and the remaining field, weakend by the exchange with the weaker field continues on, propagated from its origin. If both fields were precisely equal, both would still exist, but would cease forward movement at some distance derived by calculating the magnitude and distance between the fields.

The entire series of calculations have already been done on this board. I did them with RWatt who rationally seems to have accepted the facts when he did the math himself. As I remember, you had some comment regarding magical thinking on the thread after the math had been done and the proof offered.

If you need a link to the discussion and calculations, I will provide it.

Ian says- remember that video on CO2 that your repeatedly posted, and your fairytale of an explanation about what was going on (a la Cliff Clavin)? I quoted the actual experimenter on the methods and the results. perhaps I misspoke by saying you change your story, your story just remains the same no matter how out of touch with reality it is.

The experimenter acknowledged that his experiment was a fraud and that he was only showing a very narrow band of EM energy which behaved exactly as I stated. That narrow band was completely blocked (nothing to do with this discussion however) precisely because the CO2 molecules on the camera end of the tube could not absorb the emission from the CO2 molecules on the candle end of the tube.

Ian says- there is no difference between UV, visible or IR except the wavelength and energy carried.

Which defines a difference. You may as well say that there is no difference between rock and water except for the molecules they are composed of.

I am not knowledgeable on IR cameras but I do know that CCDs can capture IR that is emitted from sources much cooler than the CCD itself.

CCD does not depend entirely on IR.

Ian says- many people have questioned you and all you do is bloviate.

Explaining my position to you in terms of physical laws and mathematically proving that position constitutes bloviation to you? Interesting. Spoken like a true believer. Rather than point out some problem with my position or show me a math error, you accuse me of bloviating. Hell, you are as bad as rocks and konradv. You aren't showing even a glimmer of rational thought. You are lashing out at what challenges your belief, pure and simple.

Ian says- CO2 preferentially absorbs two IR wavelengths that create an occilation within the molecule rather than kick an electron up into a higher orbital. when the excited molecule gives up that vibrational energy it is in the same quantum of energy as was absorbed. of course reality is more complicated than idealized equations so I dont know how often the favoured IR photons are absorbed and emitted before they are transformed into a different wavelength or escape into space/return to earth. most of the preferred IR is absorbed in the first few tens of metres but there is always some logrithmically incremental absorption as well as smearing of the absorbed wavelength as CO2 goes up. satellite readings show a hole in the spectrum where CO2 absorbs, so yes I think CO2has an influence on the escape of IR radiation into space. I dont think it is as important as the CAGWers claim but I think it there, which you apparently do not.

You left out the fact that the IR passing through the CO2 molecule is passing through at or near the speed of light. Absorption and emission are almost instantaneous. There is no retention of energy. That photon that emits is a packet of EM energy and is subject to the physics of any EM fields it is exposed to. The CO2 molecule can emit photons till the cows come home but if it is trying to emit them downward where a more powerful EM field is radiating against them in that direction, they, being massless particles, will never make it to the surface. They will either cease to exist in opposition to the more powerful EM field or be swept up in the field as it radiates into cold space.

Nothing in your explanation of CO2 supports the retention of heat.

 

[IanC]

wirebender- there you go changing the parameters of the discussion again.

I said-

Ian says- a photon randomly emitted will continue upon its path until it interacts with some object (I will ignore gravitation and expansion of space as irrelevent in our situation)

you said-

Note: as you can see, you were also mistaken in your belief that a photon will ignore gravitation and expansion of space. Clearly you have not taken any time to do any actual research or study into this area as the basic fact of what photons are and how they behave escapes you. As I said, this, for you, is a matter of faith. Not hard, observable, repeatable, provable science.

obviously I know about gravitation and expansion of space otherwise I wouldnt have mentioned them. are you saying that you think gravitation and expansion of space have any meaningful impact on radiation effects of the atmosphere? hahahaha
-
Ian said-

CO2 preferentially absorbs two IR wavelengths that create an occilation within the molecule rather than kick an electron up into a higher orbital. when the excited molecule gives up that vibrational energy it is in the same quantum of energy as was absorbed. of course reality is more complicated than idealized equations so I dont know how often the favoured IR photons are absorbed and emitted before they are transformed into a different wavelength or escape into space/return to earth. most of the preferred IR is absorbed in the first few tens of metres but there is always some logrithmically incremental absorption as well as smearing of the absorbed wavelength as CO2 goes up. satellite readings show a hole in the spectrum where CO2 absorbs, so yes I think CO2has an influence on the escape of IR radiation into space. I dont think it is as important as the CAGWers claim but I think it there, which you apparently do not.

to which you said-

You left out the fact that the IR passing through the CO2 molecule is passing through at or near the speed of light. Absorption and emission are almost instantaneous. There is no retention of energy. That photon that emits is a packet of EM energy and is subject to the physics of any EM fields it is exposed to. The CO2 molecule can emit photons till the cows come home but if it is trying to emit them downward where a more powerful EM field is radiating against them in that direction, they, being massless particles, will never make it to the surface. They will either cease to exist in opposition to the more powerful EM field or be swept up in the field as it radiates into cold space.

two points. first, near instantaneous is not instantaneous therefore the radiation has been slowed. second, if by some miracle the downward radiation from CO2 is perfectly matched in wavelength and direction so as to cancel each other out where did the energy go? obviously the the momentum is conserved as movement in both the emitting molecules which is better known as 'heat'. most times though any particular vector of the infinite number available is unpopulated and photons are exchanged directly between the earth and the atmosphere.

Ian said-

the SB equation is an idealized law that is vastly complicated by the fact that the earth is not a true black body and the heating from the sun is variable by latitude and orientation

you said-

A distorted and manufactured version of the SB equation is used in an attempt to rationalize backradiation. If you are going to get serious about the reality of what the earth and atmosphere are actually like, and trust only models that reflect what the physical world is like, then you might take a look at a model that views the world not as a flat disk that is perpetually bathed in some sort of twilight but a sphere that is absorbing radiation on one side and dark on the other.

you were quite happy to go along with Stefan Boltzman equations when it suited you. now you are trying to lecture me on how they are insufficient to describe the real world after I already pointed that out!

I could go on and on but through (unfortunate) experience I have found there is no purpose in arguing with zealots of any stripe.

 

[gslack]

IanC, we have seen this kind of "spam it till they believe it" tactic from oldsocks, trollingblunder, chris and any number of other AGW drones on here. If you have to do this no one will read it much less take any of it in. You basically filled a whole thread page with responses to one post...

The point still remains; you along with kornhole tried to imply that he made up a term or used unprovable math or theories. First he DID NOT make up any term nor did he twist anything to make it seem differently than it was. YOU could have apologized or juet kept quiet on it but instead you went crazy trying to prove he was wrong, and now you are trying to use semantics and micro managing each statement to try and make some error that is not there.

And all of this to save face... You did not respond to my explanation, and only went after his. Mine could have been ripped apart by a real mathematician or physicist but his would have been a challenge. That tells me this isn't about truth, its about you wanting to save face...

Quantum mechanics are not bound by natural laws in many areas. A photon coming in cannot be guaranteed to interact with a CO2 molecule the same way every time and that makes the theory of CO2 causing warming to the extent AGW theory claims to be an imposibility in the real world. Like it or not, accept it or not, its the plain truth of the matter..

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- there you go changing the parameters of the discussion again.

Actually Ian, it is you altering your perception of what I have said. My argument remains constant.

obviously I know about gravitation and expansion of space otherwise I wouldnt have mentioned them. are you saying that you think gravitation and expansion of space have any meaningful impact on radiation effects of the atmosphere? hahahaha

My error. I read your statement in parentheses as "It" will ignore..... I see now that you actually wrote "I" will ignore. I thought you were saying that the photon will ignore gravity. Once more, my error and my apologies.
-

two points. first, near instantaneous is not instantaneous therefore the radiation has been slowed. second, if by some miracle the downward radiation from CO2 is perfectly matched in wavelength and direction so as to cancel each other out where did the energy go? obviously the the momentum is conserved as movement in both the emitting molecules which is better known as 'heat'. most times though any particular vector of the infinite number available is unpopulated and photons are exchanged directly between the earth and the atmosphere.

Slowed? What do you suppose that means? The math as been done as to how much CO2 can slow a "packet" of radiated IR on its journey from earth into cold space. It takes that "packet" of energy passing through a CO2 molecule 0.0049 seconds. to pass through the troposphere into cold space. Water vapor (a gas that actually can trap and retain heat) can slow that "packet" of energy considerably more. Passing through water vapor, that "packet" of radiated energy takes 0.0245 seconds to pass through the troposphere and pass into space.

The fact that water vapor is about 5 times more efficient at "trapping" (if that is the word you like to use) emitted IR from the earth than CO2, it stands to reason that, as I have stated before, CO2 serves as a coolant in the atmosphere. If you would like to see the calculations, they may be found here"

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

you were quite happy to go along with Stefan Boltzman equations when it suited you. now you are trying to lecture me on how they are insufficient to describe the real world after I already pointed that out!

First, I am not using them in an attempt to describe the world. I am using them to describe EM field vectors and the subtraction of EM field vectors which are straight lines. Second, I am not using a distorted manufactured version of the SB equations.

I could go on and on but through (unfortunate) experience I have found there is no purpose in arguing with zealots of any stripe.

You could go on and on but it would do no good Ian. You have effectively lost this arugment and further comment on your part that doesn't involve pointing out specific errors on my part and doing the math to prove them is just going to sound like you are whining. Clearly you are not operating from a position of science or any specific knowledge. Your position, like those of the likes of old rocks, konradv, rolling thunder, and any other warmist you care to name is based on an article of faith.

You have bought into the greenhouse effect myth and believe in it as surely as any warmist. Crying that it isn't as big as the warmists believe it is still puts you in the position of believing in a hoax based on fraudulent science.