Yes, 97%

[orogenicman]

NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. But EM Energy is NOT heat. That's the part you're missing here..

Excuse me now -- I'm tapped out of thermo brilliance for the day..

As I have shown...science isn't clear about what heat is...you seem to be. Maybe you could settle the issue for them.

Bullshit:

Heat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation.[7][8][9] Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system.

 

[skookerasbil]

NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. But EM Energy is NOT heat. That's the part you're missing here..

Excuse me now -- I'm tapped out of thermo brilliance for the day..

As I have shown...science isn't clear about what heat is...you seem to be. Maybe you could settle the issue for them.

Bullshit:

Heat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation.[7][8][9] Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system.

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bullshit:

Heat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation.[7][8][9] Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system.

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg.html'][/URL]

http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket....305/baldaltima/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg[/IMG][/URL]']SSDD's ignorance is exhausting.[/URL]

 

[SSDD]

NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. But EM Energy is NOT heat. That's the part you're missing here..

Excuse me now -- I'm tapped out of thermo brilliance for the day..

As I have shown...science isn't clear about what heat is...you seem to be. Maybe you could settle the issue for them.

Bullshit:

Heat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation.[7][8][9] Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system.

I suppose in your mind wiki is the final authority on everything, but I have already proven that science remains quite unclear as to what heat is...there is a school that maintains that heat is the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another...and another school that claims that heat is a form of energy in itself. The fact that you think you know when the truth is that science doesn't know speaks volumes.

 

[orogenicman]

NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. But EM Energy is NOT heat. That's the part you're missing here..

Excuse me now -- I'm tapped out of thermo brilliance for the day..

As I have shown...science isn't clear about what heat is...you seem to be. Maybe you could settle the issue for them.

Bullshit:

Heat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation.[7][8][9] Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system.

I suppose in your mind wiki is the final authority on everything, but I have already proven that science remains quite unclear as to what heat is...there is a school that maintains that heat is the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another...and another school that claims that heat is a form of energy in itself. The fact that you think you know when the truth is that science doesn't know speaks volumes.

At it's worst, Wikipedia provides a simplistic understanding of science issues; it certainly provides much more than you appear to understand. The point is that contrary to your bullshit statement, we do, in fact, understand what heat is. And even if it were true that we don't understand what heat is, like gravity, we certainly know its effects when we see them. One effect of heat is rising global temperatures, in our case, due mostly to human activities. Next.

 

[IanC]

But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.

be careful where you are going with this. photons carrying away excess energy are the simplest version. photons transferring force in electric or magnetic fields are more complicated. movement of 'heat' is more complicated still.

Science isn't sure what heat is but you are sure that photons exist and that you know what they are up to.

the 100+ years of detailed obsevation and experimentation has led to exquisite understanding of the properties of light. your 150 year old definition of the second law of thermodynamics is correct in a general way but does not incorporate the knowledge of the microscopic interactions that we know to exist today. Newton's F=ma is a reasonable description of everyday physics but we know it to be wrong today.

 

[flacaltenn]

But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.

Absolutely not. Heat is NOT EM energy.. Doesn't walk like it. Doesn't quack like it either.. EM energy propagates by it's own rules. Has characteristic wavelengths and can fly thru the voids of space with no matter to cling to.. Ahhhh. The beauty of physics is so calming after a session on USMB..

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm not going anywhere with it. I just wanted to make certain that FCT wasn't able to imply that IR was not EM radiation.

IR radiation IS EM energy.. But it is not heat unless it is absorbed by some matter in it's path..

 

[orogenicman]

But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.

Absolutely not. Heat is NOT EM energy.. Doesn't walk like it. Doesn't quack like it either.. EM energy propagates by it's own rules. Has characteristic wavelengths and can fly thru the voids of space with no matter to cling to.. Ahhhh. The beauty of physics is so calming after a session on USMB..

Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thermal radiation and electromagnetic radiation as a form of heat[edit]
Main articles: Thermal radiation and Planck's law
The basic structure of matter involves charged particles bound together in many different ways. When electromagnetic radiation is incident on matter, it causes the charged particles to oscillate and gain energy. The ultimate fate of this energy depends on the situation. It could be immediately re-radiated and appear as scattered, reflected, or transmitted radiation. It may also get dissipated into other microscopic motions within the matter, coming to thermal equilibrium and manifesting itself as thermal energy in the material. With a few exceptions related to high-energy photons (such as fluorescence, harmonic generation, photochemical reactions, the photovoltaic effect for ionizing radiations at far ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma radiation), absorbed electromagnetic radiation simply deposits its energy by heating the material. This happens both for infrared, microwave, and radio wave radiation. Intense radio waves can thermally burn living tissue and can cook food. In addition to infrared lasers, sufficiently intense visible and ultraviolet lasers can also easily set paper afire.[citation needed]
Ionizing electromagnetic radiation creates high-speed electrons in a material and breaks chemical bonds, but after these electrons collide many times with other atoms in the material eventually most of the energy is downgraded to thermal energy; this whole process happens in a tiny fraction of a second. This process makes ionizing radiation far more dangerous per unit of energy than non-ionizing radiation. This caveat also applies to the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, even though almost all of it is not ionizing, because UV can damage molecules due to electronic excitation which is far greater per unit energy than heating effects produce.[citation needed]
Infrared radiation in the spectral distribution of a black body is usually considered a form of heat, since it has an equivalent temperature, and is associated with an entropy change per unit of thermal energy. However, the word "heat" is a highly technical term in physics and thermodynamics, and is often confused with thermal energy. Any type of electromagnetic energy can be transformed into thermal energy in interaction with matter. Thus, any electromagnetic radiation can "heat" (in the sense of increase the thermal energy termperature of) a material, when it is absorbed.[citation needed]
The inverse or time-reversed process of absorption is responsible for thermal radiation. Much of the thermal energy in matter consists of random motion of charged particles, and this energy can be radiated away from the matter. The resulting radiation may subsequently be absorbed by another piece of matter, with the deposited energy heating the material. Thermal radiation is an important mechanism of heat transfer.[citation needed]
The electromagnetic radiation in an opaque cavity at thermal equilibrium is effectively a form of thermal energy, having maximum radiation entropy.[citation needed]

 

[SSDD]

the 100+ years of detailed obsevation and experimentation has led to exquisite understanding of the properties of light.

Really...show me the proof of photons? No proof of photons...no evidence that science has anything like an exquisite understanding of light. Lets see it.

your 150 year old definition of the second law of thermodynamics is correct in a general way but does not incorporate the knowledge of the microscopic interactions that we know to exist today. Newton's F=ma is a reasonable description of everyday physics but we know it to be wrong today.

You believe in an unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical model...I don't.

 

[SSDD]

So I rest my case...do a few searches...you guys can provide any number of credible sources stating that heat is what you believe it to be and the other side can also provide any number of credible sources stating that heat is what they believe it to be....bottom line, here, almost 15 years into the 21st century...science remains quite unsure and divided over exactly what heat is...but they have it narrowed down to it either being the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another or that it is actually a form of energy...two very different things...in short, they just don't know.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.

OK, let's go back to the original thread.

is there 97% agreement on the amount of warming that happened over the last 1000, 100, 50, 25, 17, 10 or 5 years? is there 97% agreement on the figure for climate sensitivity? is there 97% agreement on the validity of GCM models, or even the inputs that they should be initialized with?

97% of active climate scientists believe human activities are the primary cause of the global warming we've experienced over the previous 150 years. How many times have you heard that?

I thought you said you wouldn't try to put words in my mouth.

If only we could convince some of those 75 "active climate scientists" that they're wrong, we wouldn't have this phony stat polluting so many threads.......

Still believing in the COOKED books....

 

[bornright]

At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.

 

[SSDD]

At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.

Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.

 

[flacaltenn]

But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.

Absolutely not. Heat is NOT EM energy.. Doesn't walk like it. Doesn't quack like it either.. EM energy propagates by it's own rules. Has characteristic wavelengths and can fly thru the voids of space with no matter to cling to.. Ahhhh. The beauty of physics is so calming after a session on USMB..

Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thermal radiation and electromagnetic radiation as a form of heat[edit]
Main articles: Thermal radiation and Planck's law
The basic structure of matter involves charged particles bound together in many different ways. When electromagnetic radiation is incident on matter, it causes the charged particles to oscillate and gain energy. The ultimate fate of this energy depends on the situation. It could be immediately re-radiated and appear as scattered, reflected, or transmitted radiation. It may also get dissipated into other microscopic motions within the matter, coming to thermal equilibrium and manifesting itself as thermal energy in the material. With a few exceptions related to high-energy photons (such as fluorescence, harmonic generation, photochemical reactions, the photovoltaic effect for ionizing radiations at far ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma radiation), absorbed electromagnetic radiation simply deposits its energy by heating the material. This happens both for infrared, microwave, and radio wave radiation. Intense radio waves can thermally burn living tissue and can cook food. In addition to infrared lasers, sufficiently intense visible and ultraviolet lasers can also easily set paper afire.[citation needed]
Ionizing electromagnetic radiation creates high-speed electrons in a material and breaks chemical bonds, but after these electrons collide many times with other atoms in the material eventually most of the energy is downgraded to thermal energy; this whole process happens in a tiny fraction of a second. This process makes ionizing radiation far more dangerous per unit of energy than non-ionizing radiation. This caveat also applies to the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, even though almost all of it is not ionizing, because UV can damage molecules due to electronic excitation which is far greater per unit energy than heating effects produce.[citation needed]
Infrared radiation in the spectral distribution of a black body is usually considered a form of heat, since it has an equivalent temperature, and is associated with an entropy change per unit of thermal energy. However, the word "heat" is a highly technical term in physics and thermodynamics, and is often confused with thermal energy. Any type of electromagnetic energy can be transformed into thermal energy in interaction with matter. Thus, any electromagnetic radiation can "heat" (in the sense of increase the thermal energy termperature of) a material, when it is absorbed.[citation needed]
The inverse or time-reversed process of absorption is responsible for thermal radiation. Much of the thermal energy in matter consists of random motion of charged particles, and this energy can be radiated away from the matter. The resulting radiation may subsequently be absorbed by another piece of matter, with the deposited energy heating the material. Thermal radiation is an important mechanism of heat transfer.[citation needed]
The electromagnetic radiation in an opaque cavity at thermal equilibrium is effectively a form of thermal energy, having maximum radiation entropy.[citation needed]

I got no beef with any of that. Except that the distinction of IR being Heat but not Thermal Energy is unnecessarily confusing and would never be discussed except in bars by bored scientists instead of scoping out the women.. I'll concede that IR may possess a "POTENTIAL" amount of heat -- but that has no meaning of real units unless some molecules of matter are involved..

If that was true --- then EVERY EM source would have a heat equivalent. I've never heard of a heat content for Xrays, UV, microwaves or Radio Waves.
YES --- they are measured in Watts, but the heat they impart are dependent on the SPECIFIC matter that absorbs them.. Remember that next time you go to cook a complex dish in a microwave oven..

Second point is that it's the Black Body that has a temperature. The WAVELENGTHS and intensities of the EM are distributed according to that. But IR photon flux that INHERENTs a colored wavelength from Black Body temperature doesn't have a photon energy derived from that temperature.

 

[orogenicman]

At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.

And you got this statistic from where, exactly??? Right. You made it up.

 

[orogenicman]

At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.

Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.

Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?

 

[SSDD]

At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.

Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.

Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?

Any model based on trenberth's energy budget...in other words...all of them.

 

[Crick]

Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.

Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?

Any model based on trenberth's energy budget...in other words...all of them.

I suspect you are referring to the factor of 4 used in the calculation of solar energy received by the Earth's sphere? You failed geometry, didn't you

ps: the calculation is not Trenberth's. It predates him by a few thousand years.

 

[SSDD]

Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.

Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?

Any model based on trenberth's energy budget...in other words...all of them.

I suspect you are referring to the factor of 4 used in the calculation of solar energy received by the Earth's sphere? You failed geometry, didn't you

ps: the calculation is not Trenberth's. It predates him by a few thousand years.

Not at all...my statement stands. You on the other hand can't even read the simplest of graphs.