Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[IanC]

here is Dr Roy Spencer's simple experiment to straighten out some of your bizarre beliefs about back radiation, wirebender. actually, I know it wont make a difference to a true believer like yourself but others may find it enjoyable to read a 'skeptic' finding common ground with the 'warmers'

Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard! « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

a lot of the basic science is agreed upon, at least in principle

 

[wirebender]

hahahahaha, wirebender has gone totally wacko! hahahahaha

my flashlight is stronger than yours, and the photons are afraid to come out of your filament!

Perhaps you should take a few moments and inform yourself on the topic of vector stubtraction of electromagnetic fields. When two EM fields collide "head on" so to speak, you must subtract the two vectors and the result determines which direction the field is propagated.

As far as flashlights are concerned, it is only the filament that you need concern yourself with. If you could stand on the filament of the bulb in a flashlight and look towards another flashlight pointing at you, if the flashlight pointing at you produced a weaker EM field than the one you were standing on, you would not see the other light.

You subtract the two EM fields and the larger field will have a value of P/A and will propagate in the direction of the larger field. Photons can only move along EM fields and therefore can only move in the direction in which the larger field is propagated.


If you believe I am wrong, then show me the math. I asked before for you to show me the math to prove that your claims are correct and to date, I have seen no math.

 

[wirebender]

Right after you explain which natural cycle or phenomenon has resulted in an increase of CO2 Frank.....

Actually a great deal of the increase in CO2 since the beginning of the present interglacial is due to outgassing from the ocean because warm water can hold much less CO2 than cold water.

 

[wirebender]

here is Dr Roy Spencer's simple experiment to straighten out some of your bizarre beliefs about back radiation, wirebender. actually, I know it wont make a difference to a true believer like yourself but others may find it enjoyable to read a 'skeptic' finding common ground with the 'warmers'

Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard! « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

a lot of the basic science is agreed upon, at least in principle

Yeah, I followed it as the discussion was in progress. In the end, Dr. Spencer proved nothing. His experiment failed to prove anything so he moved on to a thought experimet which proved even less. But hey, if you believe he is right, and downdwelling radiation from a cooler atmosphere can be absorbed by the surface of the warmer earth, lets see the math.

It comes down to this Ian. Either you can do the math and show that you are right and I am wrong or you can't. If you can then do it. If you can't then you are left taking someone's word for it and have no idea whether what you believe is true or false and a fallacious appeal to authority is as close to proving your belief as you will ever get until such time as you can prove your claim via the laws of science.

 

[wirebender]

so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?

The EM field generated by the atmosphere is weaker than the EM field generated by the earth. Therefore the direction of the propagation of the field is away from the earth. No radiation from the cooler atmosphere is being absorbed by the earth.

I hate to keep going back to the parabolic dish experiment that I have provided but it is an easy, and inexpensive way for you to prove to yourself that there is no downdwelling radiation warming the earth. Again, if you point your parabolic dish at the sun, you can use it to boil water or cook food or heat up anything you wish. If you point your parabolic reflector away from the sun into clear sky, you will cool off whatever is in the reflector by several degrees, even during the daytime. If downdwelling radition were coming from the atmosphere and warming the earth, pointing a parabolic dish at that radiation could not result in a cooling effect.

The cooling effect is predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. It is radiating the heat, of whatever is in the dish out to the cooler atmosphere.

If you point that same parabolic reflector into a clear sky at night, you will see ice form if the ambient temperature is 47.5 degrees or cooler. According to climate science, downdwelling radiation is happening day and night. If downdwelling radiation sufficient to warm the earth were happening at night, how is it that ice forms if the temperature is 47.5 degrees or less?

Which law of physics allows downdwelling radiation from the cooler atmosphere to warm the earth but form ice in a parabolic dish if it is pointed at that radiation and the temperature is 47.5 degrees or less? Name the law and show me the math to support the claim.

 

[RWatt]

So we have a spacecraft moving through space. Everyone inside can see both stars because both stars have long ago emitted light towards the space the ship occupies.

Have you ever been on a space ship travelling between stars? Have you ever stood on a star and looked out towards another star? If you could stand on a star and look into space, you would see no other stars because no photons would be swimming upstream along your star's stronger EM field.

Photons cannot reverse direction in a vacuum. Photons have a velocity. They are particles governed by laws of motion.

You also haven't taken into account the inverse square law (Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which now I think of it is a death knell for your theory.

I emphasize that it's your theory. You won't find any textbooks or any scientific laws backing up your assertion that the direction of photons is governed by an "EM field". Photons cannot reverse in a vacuum.

The inverse square law in this case means that the energy flux drops with distance from the emitting star, because the energy spreads out. So even though the cold star was emitting 0.35wm-2, as the light travels from it that flux drops. This is why 1366wm-2 sunlight reaches Earth but only 590wm-2 sunlight reaches Mars. Same star, but the flux drops with distance. This means the flux at any given point from any given direction does not tell you the temperature of it's source.

Here's the killer scenario. A very cold planet sits midway between two equally warm stars. Both stars emit 100wm-2 towards the planet. By the time the light approaches the planet it's dropped to 10wm-2.

Your version of physics accepts this.

But just before the light reaches the planet, the planet moves. Now 10wm-2 from both stars is heading towards the other star. Where does the light go now? My version of physics, which is the true version, says that the light carries on in the same direction.

Your version of physics however is broken because it says that the light should be stuck there as it cannot go either backwards nor forwards because in both directions lies a 100wm-2 emitter which is greater than the 10wm-2 flux carried by the light.

of course light can't be "stuck", it travels at the speed of light. Neither can it disappear (violation of conservation of energy). So where do you propose it goes now?

If that is not true, then show me the math and the laws of science that back you up.

Conservation of energy. Inverse square law. Stefan-boltzman law. It goes on.

I can even show you my shoes at high noon. With the Sun right above in the sky, if you look down you will see my shoes. How can photons be moving upwards from my shoes with the Sun right above? My version of physics finds this obvious. Your theory of physics is challenged by shoes.

A flawed thought experiment is no substitute for hard mathematical proof which is what I have provided for you.

You haven't provided a mathematical proof. All you did was calculate the emission of two objects using stefan-boltzmann law. All that proves is that warm objects emit radiation towards each other, something which is actually key to my argument.

All you did then was subtract those emissions. All that proves is that you can subtract two numbers. Your interpretation of the result is wrong.

Photons only travel on an EM wave. They are not free agents. If a stronger EM wave is washing over wherever you are standing, you will only see light (photons) from the source of the stronger EM field. Do you believe you can't see the stars during the daytime simply because the sun is shining?

Photons are free agents. They are particles and have their own velocity and follow laws of motion.

This EM wave idea you have is completely wrong and creates a number of absurd situations. Here's another one:

A ring of equal stars. Your physics says that if I shine a torch in the center of this ring the light from it will not travel in a straight line, instead it will be stuck in the middle of the ring forever unable to move because all around it are stronger incoming "EM fields".

As for not being able to see stars during the day, that's because the brightness of those stars is less than the brightness of the sky. The star light is there, but it's bright on a bright background.

That is preciisely the disagreement. That is at the heart of the hypotheses of AGW and the greenhouse effect. The math and laws of science prove quite elegantly that neither is happening. As the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states no energy transferrs spontaneously from one object to a warmer object.

The 2nd law reads that no net energy flows from an object to a warmer object. It doesn't say no energy moves from the colder object to the warmer object at all.

If you were somehow standing on the surface of your warm star and your cooler star were the only other object in the universe, you would not be able to see the cooler star because none of its photons could travel from it, against the "current" of the stronger EM field propagated by your warmer star.

If this were true it would imply that anything in front of me would be invisible, not just the colder star. That's clearly wrong.

If someone walks 100 meters in front of me, I will see them, that's even more certain with a giant burning star behind me! But your physics implies that they will be invisible because the light coming from behind me will be greater than the light being reflected back from them.

So show me the math errors. Show me the error in the Stefan-Boltzman law. Show me what physicists have been missing for hundreds of years.

Wow. It's you who are disagreeing with physicists. The greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years. Why don't you explain why physicists have missed the obvious?

The reason is you've got it wrong. The reason physicists stubbornly accept the existance of downwelling radiation from thea tmosphere, is because it's real. If it was an obvious violation of physics it wouldn't have survived 100 years of scrutiny.

 

[wirebender]

Photons cannot reverse direction in a vacuum. Photons have a velocity. They are particles governed by laws of motion.

Who ever said that the could. If a photon is moving along an EM field and encounters a larger EM field moving in the opposite direction, it ceases to exist adding its energy to the energy of the more powerful EM field.

You also haven't taken into account the inverse square law (Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which now I think of it is a death knell for your theory.

So do the math and prove me wrong. In the example I gave I made the time constant zero so we didn't have to get into distance. Adding distance to the equation only makes the calculation more complex, it does not alter the laws of science. Of course if you think otherwise, feel free to do the math and prove your claim.

I emphasize that it's your theory. You won't find any textbooks or any scientific laws backing up your assertion that the direction of photons is governed by an "EM field". Photons cannot reverse in a vacuum.

To the contrary, I have provided links to physics textbook sites to support every claim I have made. How could you have missed that.

And I never made any assertion that a photon could reverse direction. The fact that you think I said any such thing only serves to highlight how far out of your depth you are.

Clearly, you have never read a textbook on the subject if you don't thnk that the direction of photons is governed by an EM field. That fact is one of the bare bones basics RWatt. If you don't know that, then you really need to apply yourself to doing some very basic research if you expect to discourse on the subject at even the most elementary level.

Photon

"The photon is massless, has no electric charge and does not decay spontaneously in empty space. A photon has two possible polarization states and is described by exactly three continuous parameters: the components of its wave vector, which determine its wavelength λ and its direction of propagation. "

HowStuffWorks "The Electromagnetic Spectrum"

"Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is a stream of photons, traveling in waves. The photon is the base particle for all forms of EM radiation"

The inverse square law in this case means that the energy flux drops with distance from the emitting star, because the energy spreads out. So even though the cold star was emitting 0.35wm-2, as the light travels from it that flux drops. This is why 1366wm-2 sunlight reaches Earth but only 590wm-2 sunlight reaches Mars. Same star, but the flux drops with distance. This means the flux at any given point from any given direction does not tell you the temperature of it's source.

And that doesn't say anything at all about which star is absorbing energy from which. You are only telling me that with increased distance the strenght of the EM field and its associated electrons weakens. When the two fields meet, no matter what the distance, the more powerful field will be the direction of propgagation and the electrons will move in that direction.

Here's the killer scenario. A very cold planet sits midway between two equally warm stars. Both stars emit 100wm-2 towards the planet. By the time the light approaches the planet it's dropped to 10wm-2.

Your version of physics accepts this.

But just before the light reaches the planet, the planet moves. Now 10wm-2 from both stars is heading towards the other star. Where does the light go now? My version of physics, which is the true version, says that the light carries on in the same direction.

Do you understand the concept wave interference as it applies to wave propagation?

Here is a link. It describes what happens and even has an animation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)

Your version of physics however is broken because it says that the light should be stuck there as it cannot go either backwards nor forwards because in both directions lies a 100wm-2 emitter which is greater than the 10wm-2 flux carried by the light.

I have no version of phisics. I just have the laws of physics and the math that supports and proves them.

You haven't provided a mathematical proof. All you did was calculate the emission of two objects using stefan-boltzmann law. All that proves is that warm objects emit radiation towards each other, something which is actually key to my argument.

Of course I have. Sorry you don't understand.

Photons are free agents. They are particles and have their own velocity and follow laws of motion.

Sorry, simply not true and as a result "your version" of physics is wrong.

As for not being able to see stars during the day, that's because the brightness of those stars is less than the brightness of the sky. The star light is there, but it's bright on a bright background.

And "brightness" is just another term for the strength of an EM field. You can't see them because their light can not come to your eye.

The 2nd law reads that no net energy flows from an object to a warmer object. It doesn't say no energy moves from the colder object to the warmer object at all.

Object to a warmer object. That says pretty clearly that one of the objects is cooler than the other and energy doesn't flow from the cooler to the warmer. Geez guy, are you really unable to understand such a basic statement?

If this were true it would imply that anything in front of me would be invisible, not just the colder star. That's clearly wrong.

If the surface you were standing on were emitting the strongest EM field, then yes, you would be able to see nothing.

Wow. It's you who are disagreeing with physicists. The greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years. Why don't you explain why physicists have missed the obvious?

Oddly enough, few physicists accept the greenhouse theory.

The reason is you've got it wrong. The reason physicists stubbornly accept the existance of downwelling radiation from thea tmosphere, is because it's real. If it was an obvious violation of physics it wouldn't have survived 100 years of scrutiny.

And in the end, you are left with nothing but a fallacious appeal to authority. Sorry guy, but I don't have it wrong. Feel free to do the math yourself and prove that you are right. Your opinion simply isn't going to carry the argument.

 

[RWatt]

Who ever said that the could. If a photon is moving along an EM field and encounters a larger EM field moving in the opposite direction, it ceases to exist adding its energy to the energy of the more powerful EM field.

This claim is unsupported. And wrong.

Also note that you haven't explained what happens if the photon encounters an equal EM field moving in the opposite direction. In that case there wouldn't be a more powerful EM field to add it's energy to, so what are you proposing happens here?

There will always be a location between two objects where the flux from both equals out, because the flux drops from all emitters over distance.

That means in every case there will be a "dead zone" in your theory where photons can't go in either direction. You've been arguing that light from a cooler star can't reach a warmer star, but in fact your version of physics even prevents light from a warmer star reaching a cooler star, because as light from a warmer star approaches a cooler star the flux decreases while the flux coming from the opposite direction increases.

That means before the light reaches the colder star there will come a position where the incoming flux from the colder star is equal or greater to the flux from the warmer star.

Eg our Sun emits 64,000,000wm-2, but by the time it reaches Earth the flux is just 1366wm-2. Replace Earth with a small star emitting 2000wm-2.

Because 1366wm-2 from the Sun is less than 2000wm-2, therefore the energy from the 64,000,000wm-2 emitting Sun would not reach the 2000wm-2 star under your version of physics.

Again I emphasize this is yet another problem with your version of physics. We've already been through about half a dozen examples where weirdly absurd stuff would happen in the universe if your version of physics was the case.

The example where having a bright light behind me means everything in front of me becomes invisible has to take the cake though.

So do the math and prove me wrong. In the example I gave I made the time constant zero so we didn't have to get into distance. Adding distance to the equation only makes the calculation more complex, it does not alter the laws of science. Of course if you think otherwise, feel free to do the math and prove your claim.

You keep telling me to do the math, but my math is very simple I am not suggesting any exotic behavior as you are having to do to try and fix your theory in the face of insurmountable problems.

My math is simply to calculate the emission of both stars, then I say that light from each star reaches the opposite star and is absorbed. That's all there is too it. A 200wm-2 star and a 100wm-2 star in space are both receiving energy from the other star in an amount that can be calculated from the distance between them. That's it.

Adding distance to the equation is critical. For a start light has a finite speed, so by ignoring distance you are allowing light to travel instantly. That allows you to ignore the problem for your version of physics that the temperatures of objects can change after light has been emitted.

Second distance makes a huge difference because the flux drops off with distance. Even though your star is emitting 5.35wm-2 towards the cooler star, by the time the light gets there it can be much reduced, perhaps as low as 0.1wm-2 if the cooler star is far enough away.

So if the cooler star is emitting 0.35wm-2, how does that 0.1wm-2 reach the cooler star? Your version of physics says it can't. What you haven't realized is that 5.35wm-2 emitter doesn't mean the light that reaching a target a distance away is 5.35wm-2.

To the contrary, I have provided links to physics textbook sites to support every claim I have made. How could you have missed that.

You've linked to stuff that I agree with, stuff supporting stefan boltzmann law for example, but not anything that is central to your claims that photon direction is governed by an all encompassing field or that photons "cease to exist" if they meet a greater flux coming from the other direction.

[And I never made any assertion that a photon could reverse direction. The fact that you think I said any such thing only serves to highlight how far out of your depth you are.

The fact that I think you said that is that you weren't being very clear. You haven't once before mentioned that photons cease to exist if they encounter a larger flux coming from the opposite direction. And no this isn't in any textbooks because it isn't true. So how am I supposed to guess what you will dream up next?

Photon

"The photon is massless, has no electric charge and does not decay spontaneously in empty space. A photon has two possible polarization states and is described by exactly three continuous parameters: the components of its wave vector, which determine its wavelength λ and its direction of propagation. "

Nothing about a field there. All it's saying is what I've been telling you: photons have their own velocity.

HowStuffWorks "The Electromagnetic Spectrum"

"Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is a stream of photons, traveling in waves. The photon is the base particle for all forms of EM radiation"

Again this is no different to what I've been telling you.

And that doesn't say anything at all about which star is absorbing energy from which. You are only telling me that with increased distance the strenght of the EM field and its associated electrons weakens. When the two fields meet, no matter what the distance, the more powerful field will be the direction of propgagation and the electrons will move in that direction.

There are no electrons here! Photons are not electrons!

Do you understand the concept wave interference as it applies to wave propagation? Here is a link. It describes what happens and even has an animation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)

Yes I do understand destructive interference. It doesn't mean a destruction of energy, it's a temporal canceling out when two waves cross, the wave still carries on. Your version of physics is proposing waves stop when they meet an opposing "stronger wave". That's at odds with the very link you post.

And "brightness" is just another term for the strength of an EM field. You can't see them because their light can not come to your eye.

No the light does come to your eye, but it's indistinguishable from the light from the rest of the sky. It's like trying to see a green shape on a green background. That you can't spot the shape doesn't mean light from it is not reaching your eye.

Object to a warmer object. That says pretty clearly that one of the objects is cooler than the other and energy doesn't flow from the cooler to the warmer. Geez guy, are you really unable to understand such a basic statement?

It doesn't say this. In fact I recommend you look up the actual classical wording of the 2nd law. The law implies that the net flow of energy cannot be from a cooler to warmer object without work being done. That's the net flow.

Oddly enough, few physicists accept the greenhouse theory.

The vast majority do.

And in the end, you are left with nothing but a fallacious appeal to authority.

What? You just appealed to authority by claiming few physicists accept the greenhouse effect. You are wrong. Most physicists accept it, short of the customary few mad ones you get on any subject. If it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics it wouldn't have withstood over 100 years of scientific scrutiny.

 

[wirebender]

This claim is unsupported. And wrong.

Actually, it is supported and quite accurate.

Also note that you haven't explained what happens if the photon encounters an equal EM field moving in the opposite direction. In that case there wouldn't be a more powerful EM field to add it's energy to, so what are you proposing happens here?

Where do you get this idea of "encountering" an equal EM field? Are you claiming that stars suddenly spring into existence? The fact is that photons have zero mass and either require an electromagnetic field to move or make up an electromagnetic field (depending on which physics textbook you read). In either case, they require a field in order to move. If two equal fields are present, then electrons don't move as there is no field propagated in either direction.

That means in every case there will be a "dead zone" in your theory where photons can't go in either direction. You've been arguing that light from a cooler star can't reach a warmer star, but in fact your version of physics even prevents light from a warmer star reaching a cooler star, because as light from a warmer star approaches a cooler star the flux decreases while the flux coming from the opposite direction increases.

So lets see the math. Prove it. And again, I don't have a version of physics.

As to your claim that light from a warmer star can never reach a cooler star, lets see the math.

Eg our Sun emits 64,000,000wm-2, but by the time it reaches Earth the flux is just 1366wm-2. Replace Earth with a small star emitting 2000wm-2.

Because 1366wm-2 from the Sun is less than 2000wm-2, therefore the energy from the 64,000,000wm-2 emitting Sun would not reach the 2000wm-2 star under your version of physics.

Lets see the math, and show your work.

The example where having a bright light behind me means everything in front of me becomes invisible has to take the cake though.

In your example where you have a bright light behind you, you, yourself are absorbing the energy from the light. It isn't passing through you. You don't seem to grasp that EM fields are vectors and move in straight lines. None of your "if I stand here" examples have any meaning because you are absorbing the energy coming from any greater energy source behind you. You can't put yourself in a place where you are not absorbing energy from a source behind you.

You keep telling me to do the math, but my math is very simple I am not suggesting any exotic behavior as you are having to do to try and fix your theory in the face of insurmountable problems.

Yeah. Your math is simple alright. So simple it is non existent. As I said to IanC , either you can do the math and prove me wrong or you can't. If you can, then do it. If you can't, then you don't know whether you are right or wrong and have no idea whether the science you accept as true is true or not and in the end, a fallacious appeal to authority is as close as you will ever get to proving your claims.

My math is simply to calculate the emission of both stars, then I say that light from each star reaches the opposite star and is absorbed. That's all there is too it. A 200wm-2 star and a 100wm-2 star in space are both receiving energy from the other star in an amount that can be calculated from the distance between them. That's it.

Yep. Your math doesn't figure EM fields. Your math doesn't figure the subtraction of vectors. Your math assumes that a massless particle can move about the universe as a free agent, and your math does not take into consideration what happens when two waves meet going in exactly opposite directions. That, my friend, is why your math doesn't prove anything at all and is supported with "thought experiments" rather than equations.

Adding distance to the equation is critical. For a start light has a finite speed, so by ignoring distance you are allowing light to travel instantly. That allows you to ignore the problem for your version of physics that the temperatures of objects can change after light has been emitted.

It doesn't change the fact that when the two fields meet, no matter how weak, you MUST subtract them and the difference determines the direction of propagation of the resulting field. If the resulting field is to weak to reach the cooler star then the end result is still that the warmer star didn't absorb any energy at all from the cooler star. There is no law of nature that says that a cool star, no matter how far a way must absorb energy from a warmer star. The law of nature only says that the object won't absorb energy from the
cooler object.

Second distance makes a huge difference because the flux drops off with distance. Even though your star is emitting 5.35wm-2 towards the cooler star, by the time the light gets there it can be much reduced, perhaps as low as 0.1wm-2 if the cooler star is far enough away.

Once more with emphasis. The laws of science don't say that the cooler object must absorb energy from the warm object. Distances can certainly reduce the strength of a field to the point that it can't overcome the field from a cooler object. But by the same token, the field from the cooler object will, with distance, find itself unable to overcome the field from the warmer object. At that point, motion stops. Feel free to do the math and prove me wrong.

You've linked to stuff that I agree with, stuff supporting stefan boltzmann law for example, but not anything that is central to your claims that photon direction is governed by an all encompassing field or that photons "cease to exist" if they meet a greater flux coming from the other direction.

Then you fail to understand the material. Depending on which textbook you are reading (generally a difference between physics and astrophysics) photons either require an EM field to travel on or are the basic quantim ("substance") of the EM wave or field. Here is a 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. See also quantum state. plural - quanta

Whether the photon requires the EM field to move or is the field itself, they only move in EM fields. They are not free agents that go zipping about the universe independent of the emitters that propagate EM fields. They are subject to the forces that govern EM fields. When two fields are in opposition, you must subtract the two to determine the direction of propagation of the resultant field.

The fact that I think you said that is that you weren't being very clear. You haven't once before mentioned that photons cease to exist if they encounter a larger flux coming from the opposite direction. And no this isn't in any textbooks because it isn't true. So how am I supposed to guess what you will dream up next?

I thought that was clear when I ponted out that photons require an EM field to move forward. When you subtract the two and propagate the field in the direction of the more powerful field, what did you think happend to the photons?

It doesn't say this. In fact I recommend you look up the actual classical wording of the 2nd law. The law implies that the net flow of energy cannot be from a cooler to warmer object without work being done. That's the net flow.

Here is the classical wording:

Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1]

Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.

I dont' see anything there about net energy flows or even an implication of net energy flows.

The vast majority do.

Prove it.

 

[IanC]

I see wirebender is still on his quixotic rant.

I have a suspicion that he is taking some weird quantum effect that is only applicable to highly constrained circumstances and applying it across the board in areas where it is inapplicable. photons are created from energy, fly in a straight line until they find something to interact with, and the energy that was carried as momentum is converted into some other form. but photons rarely interact with each other.

on another note- a container of water will evaporate if the air is less than saturated (actually even fully saturated air will take new molecules as soon as others return). but even as energetic H2O molecules break free others in the air will dive in. IR radiation does the same thing. most of the radiation will be from the surface but some will come back from molecules in the air. this doesnt break the 2nd law and wirebender's em fields dont stop the molecules in the atmosphere from emitting photons of IR

 

[RWatt]

Lets see the math, and show your work.

Okay fine. The Sun has a surface emission of about 63 million wm-2 (Sun Fact Sheet)

That's because it has an effective temperature of 5780K, so stefan boltzmann:
5780K ^ 4 * sbconstant = ~63 million wm-2

10,000 kilometers from the Sun the flux has dropped from ~63 million wm-2 to ~61 million wm-2

One million kilometers from the Sun the flux has dropped further to about 11 million wm-2.

And by the time it reaches Earth (about 150 million kilometers), the flux is now about 1370wm-2:

Solar flux at Earth (wm-2) = Emission of sun (wm-2) * Solar radius ^ 2 / Earth distance from Sun ^ 2

Solar flux at Earth (wm-2) = 63000000wm-2 * 700000000^2 / 150000000000^2

Solar flux at Earth = ~1370wm-2
(eg http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/browse/b_tsi_erbs_8410_9912.gif)

If Earth was instead a cold star of just 500K temperature then it's emission would be about 3500wm-2, more than the 1370wm-2 flux from the Sun at that distance. Similarly that flux of 3500wm-2 would also drop with distance.

The "dead zone" in this case is 4000 kilometers from the cold star. At this location in space the flux from the the cold star has dropped to 1370wm-2. And at that distance the flux from the Sun is also 1372wm-2.

A dead zone means in your version of physics light cannot pass in either direction. The flux in both directions is equal so the "EM field" has no direction. If there's no light coming across this plane then anything on the otherside of it will be invisible to the observer.

That's just one problem for you to explain.

Another problem is going on elsewhere. 2000 kilometers from the cold star the sun's flux is still 1372wm-2, but the flux from the cold star is 2000wm-2. That means the EM field 2000 kilometers from the cold star is heading towards the Sun. That means photons carrying energy are traveling towards the dead zone.

The problem there is of course what happens to all this energy. Every second the dead zone is filling up with photons from both stars. Energy is increasing, yet you've got it stuck there because the "EM fields" subtract to zero and therefore photons once they reach the dead zone have nowhere else to go.

None of your "if I stand here" examples have any meaning because you are absorbing the energy coming from any greater energy source behind you. You can't put yourself in a place where you are not absorbing energy from a source behind you.

Light takes time to travel through space. For example it takes about 8 minutes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth. That poses yet another falsification of your version of physics.

In the above example the cold star is radiating 3500wm-2, but that light isn't making it past the dead zone, just 4000 kilometers from the cold star. If I stood even midway between the Sun and the cold star, your version of physics now says that light from the cold star can reach me. Except it won't reach me for a full 4 minutes....

Which means at first the cold star will be invisible to me. Then suddenly it will appear.

This is yet another weird consequence of your version of physics. Interestingly enough if I jump out of the way of the light before the 4 minutes is up, according to your physics it will then meet the stronger light coming from the Sun, the photons will "cease to exist" and the energy will be transfered to the photons going towards the cold sun.

Effectively by standing midway between the two stars for 3 minutes and then moving asside I have amplified the light going in the direction of the cold star! Your version of physics just makes no sense!

 

[Old Rocks]

Right after you explain which natural cycle or phenomenon has resulted in an increase of CO2 Frank.....

Actually a great deal of the increase in CO2 since the beginning of the present interglacial is due to outgassing from the ocean because warm water can hold much less CO2 than cold water.

Bentwire, you do realize that businesses keep records, do you not? Records like how many tons of coal and barrels of oil have been produced? And it is simple math to extrapolate from that how much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere from those sources.

Thus far, the oceans are net sinks for CO2. When they become net emitters, game over.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right after you explain which natural cycle or phenomenon has resulted in an increase of CO2 Frank.....

Actually a great deal of the increase in CO2 since the beginning of the present interglacial is due to outgassing from the ocean because warm water can hold much less CO2 than cold water.

Bentwire, you do realize that businesses keep records, do you not? Records like how many tons of coal and barrels of oil have been produced? And it is simple math to extrapolate from that how much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere from those sources.

Thus far, the oceans are net sinks for CO2. When they become net emitters, game over.

Are you claiming he oceans were warmer when the North American continent north of the Ohio River was under an ice sheet several miles thick?

 

[RWatt]

Actually a great deal of the increase in CO2 since the beginning of the present interglacial is due to outgassing from the ocean because warm water can hold much less CO2 than cold water.

Bentwire, you do realize that businesses keep records, do you not? Records like how many tons of coal and barrels of oil have been produced? And it is simple math to extrapolate from that how much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere from those sources.

Thus far, the oceans are net sinks for CO2. When they become net emitters, game over.

Are you claiming he oceans were warmer when the North American continent north of the Ohio River was under an ice sheet several miles thick?

The oceans emit more CO2 as the temperature rises, but also absorb more CO2 as CO2 level rises. When CO2 level rises in the atmosphere that causes both effects. The ocean is currently a net sink of CO2. That's why our 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year are causing only 15 million ton rise in CO2 in the atmsphere per year.

The bulk of the rest is being absorbed by the oceans, leading to the problem of ocean acidification. Both the rate of pH drop in the oceans and the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere are probably unprecedented in our planet's long history.

 

[wirebender]

Okay fine. The Sun has a surface emission of about 63 million wm-2 (Sun Fact Sheet)

That's because it has an effective temperature of 5780K, so stefan boltzmann:
5780K ^ 4 * sbconstant = ~63 million wm-2

10,000 kilometers from the Sun the flux has dropped from ~63 million wm-2 to ~61 million wm-2

One million kilometers from the Sun the flux has dropped further to about 11 million wm-2.

And by the time it reaches Earth (about 150 million kilometers), the flux is now about 1370wm-2:

Solar flux at Earth (wm-2) = Emission of sun (wm-2) * Solar radius ^ 2 / Earth distance from Sun ^ 2

Solar flux at Earth (wm-2) = 63000000wm-2 * 700000000^2 / 150000000000^2

Solar flux at Earth = ~1370wm-2
(eg http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/browse/b_tsi_erbs_8410_9912.gif)

If Earth was instead a cold star of just 500K temperature then it's emission would be about 3500wm-2, more than the 1370wm-2 flux from the Sun at that distance. Similarly that flux of 3500wm-2 would also drop with distance.

The "dead zone" in this case is 4000 kilometers from the cold star. At this location in space the flux from the the cold star has dropped to 1370wm-2. And at that distance the flux from the Sun is also 1372wm-2.

Sorry to take so long to respond but during the summer when the offshore forecast looks good, I go fishing.

You are unbelievable RWatt. You did the math, got the answer and are simply unable to accept that answer even though you did the math. When you reached the point where the two EM fields subtracted to zero, what did you think you were subtracting? x Wm2 - y Wm2 = z Wm2. When z=0, then there is no more energy. No energy, no photons, no Em field. The energy is all used up. The numbers mean something RWatt and in this case, they mean that the energy is expended. If there were any energy left, which ever field had an excess would continue to propagate in the direction it came from.

A dead zone means in your version of physics light cannot pass in either direction. The flux in both directions is equal so the "EM field" has no direction. If there's no light coming across this plane then anything on the otherside of it will be invisible to the observer.

Your dead zone is a fiction. That point where the two fields subtract to zero is simply the point where the available energy is used up. Light doesn't pass becasue there is no more light. The flux in both directions has reached zero. What did you think that zero means?

Another problem is going on elsewhere. 2000 kilometers from the cold star the sun's flux is still 1372wm-2, but the flux from the cold star is 2000wm-2. That means the EM field 2000 kilometers from the cold star is heading towards the Sun. That means photons carrying energy are traveling towards the dead zone.

Of course the field is moving towards the point where the two fields subtract to zero. And it is diminishing as well. What did you think was diminishing? When you did the math and saw that the EM field diminished from 63 million Wm2 down to 1370 Wm2 between the sun and earth, what did you think was diminishing? Did you think that the EM field was diminishing but carrying the same amount of photons?

The problem there is of course what happens to all this energy. Every second the dead zone is filling up with photons from both stars. Energy is increasing, yet you've got it stuck there because the "EM fields" subtract to zero and therefore photons once they reach the dead zone have nowhere else to go.

You have already shown what happens to all the energy. It has diminished as it moved away from its respective star and at the point where the two fields subtract to zero, the energy is used up. That zero means no more energy. No more EM field. No more photons. It is all gone. That zero doesn't represent a dam in space that blocks the flow of the fields. It represents the point at which the fields dimish to zero. That is the point where the creeks dry up. You don't need a dam when the water dries up.

You did the math, saw the answer and simply couldn't accept its meaning. Did you think you did the math wrong? Again, what do you think that zero represents? The zero represents energy so when the energy is zero, what energy do you think is increasing? Where do you think the photons are coming from if there is no energy? Your argument demonstrates that you don't understand what a photon is so perhaps that is why you think you need to create energy to fill up a place where the energy equals zero. Here are some definitions for photon from various standard and scientific dictionaries.

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

For your reference, here is also a definition of quantum.

quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.

You should be able to read that definition and grasp that a photon is not a free agent but is the smallest part of the electromagnetic fields that you just subtracted to zero. When yuo were subtracting, you were subtracting energy, photons; the whole of the EM field.

photon - a unit of energy in the form of light.

photon - a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation, including light

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

photon - quantum (smallest possible unit) of electromagnetic radiation, considered as an elementary particle with zero charge and rest mass

If at this point, you still don't get it, I am afraid that you are just doomed to never get it.

In the above example the cold star is radiating 3500wm-2, but that light isn't making it past the dead zone, just 4000 kilometers from the cold star. If I stood even midway between the Sun and the cold star, your version of physics now says that light from the cold star can reach me. Except it won't reach me for a full 4 minutes....

Do you believe you can block the EM field of a star? Even a cold one? If you are in the field at a point before it subtracts to zero, the EM field you generate can not overcome that of the cold star so the EM field of the star continues to propagate in the direction it was going until it either reaches the other star and is absorbed or subtracts to zero in which case, there is no more energy. You did the math yourself, why can't you accept the answer?

 

[wirebender]

The oceans emit more CO2 as the temperature rises, but also absorb more CO2 as CO2 level rises. When CO2 level rises in the atmosphere that causes both effects. The ocean is currently a net sink of CO2. That's why our 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year are causing only 15 million ton rise in CO2 in the atmsphere per year.

The oceans don't absorb as much as they outgas. If they did, then the net would be zero. This should tell you that the oceans held more CO2 during the depths of the ice age we are exiting and did not kill the corals. Further, paleohistory tells us that at times the oceans have held far more CO2 than the present with no ill effect to the oceans or the life they hold.

 

[Douger]

Planet earth is a living breathing organism. It has a virus( that would be us).
It is getting an infection and a fever. Just like when you get a virus.The fever will assist in killing most of the parasites.( with a little assist from the Nazi's that think they own this planet)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bentwire, you do realize that businesses keep records, do you not? Records like how many tons of coal and barrels of oil have been produced? And it is simple math to extrapolate from that how much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere from those sources.

Thus far, the oceans are net sinks for CO2. When they become net emitters, game over.

Are you claiming he oceans were warmer when the North American continent north of the Ohio River was under an ice sheet several miles thick?

The oceans emit more CO2 as the temperature rises, but also absorb more CO2 as CO2 level rises. When CO2 level rises in the atmosphere that causes both effects. The ocean is currently a net sink of CO2. That's why our 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year are causing only 15 million ton rise in CO2 in the atmsphere per year.

The bulk of the rest is being absorbed by the oceans, leading to the problem of ocean acidification. Both the rate of pH drop in the oceans and the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere are probably unprecedented in our planet's long history.

We add 15 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually? Are you absolutely sure?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Need confirmation from the Warmers. Does mankind really add 15 billions tons of CO2 annually to the atmosphere because that sounds like an awful lot?

 

[konradv]

Need confirmation from the Warmers. Does mankind really add 15 billions tons of CO2 annually to the atmosphere because that sounds like an awful lot?

It IS a lot, Frank, but you're LOW by half!!!

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia