Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

[wirebender]

an example to disprove your version of 'EM vector fields'. two blocks of metal are insulated on five sides which leaves one face each able to radiate as a blackbody according to their temperatures. when you place them face to face the one with a higher temperature will radiate more energy than the other but the lower temp block does not stop radiating, it just doesnt radiate as much.

The cooler block will radiate as much as it ever did. The radiation, however, will never make it to the warmer block. That is what vector calculus is all about Ian. When two vectors (and there may be millions of vectors across the blocks you describe) are in opposition, you must subtract them. That is you subtract the magnitudes of the vectors and the end result determines the direction of energy flow. The cool block doesn't stop radiating, the energy it radiates however, is depleted in its effort to overcome the greater EM field.

There will be no transfer from the cooler block to the warmer blcok however. There is no such thing as net energy flow along any EM vector. Energy flow is a one way street. The second law states that energy will not spontaneously flow from cool to hot without some input of work. Net energy flow is a device that might work in computer models, but it doesn't happen in the real world.

time passes and more energy flows from the higher temp block and it cools, reducing its radiation. conversely the lower temp block heats up and increases its radiation. given enough time the blocks will equilibrate and there will no longer be a net flow from one to the other. each block will be radiating equally, the energy lost will be equal to the energy gained but both are still radiating.

That part, you have right. Both will be radiating, but no energy will be exchanged between them. The EM fields, depending on the strength of each will be depeleted somewhere between the two. At some point, one may change enough so that when you subtract the fields and account for distance, energy transfer might begin again.

in your fanciful world, the 'EM vector field' imposes some unexplained mechanism that makes it impossible for the lower temp block to spontaneously release a photon in the direction of the higher temp block. I have called bullshit on this before and will continue to do so.

No it doesn't. The photon can be released but if it is released along a vector in which a greater amount of energy is flowing in the opposite direction, the photon will simply use up its energy in opposition and cease to exist. A photon is nothing more than a "packet" of EM emergy and when you subtract vectors of EM fields when IR is the energy source, you are, in effect subtracting photons.

I have not misapplied any law of physics, and my math, with regard to EM vectors is sound. You just don't like the fact that it disproves backradiation which would force you to give up whatever bit of heat you believe CO2 is responsible for.

 

[wirebender]

Didn't say that they were not real. And why should the Scheelite flouresce only straight down? It radiates in all directions, just as the CO2 molecules that radiate the longwave IR do.

It may appear to be radiating in all directions from your point of view rocks, but if your point of view were that of the radiation source, ie the SW light, you would not see any radiation returning to you from the stone.

The application of EM Field Vectors to the way the CO2 molecules retain heat in our climate system is totally a false bit of pseudoscience. Falsified so easily with just a standard field UV lamp.

You are to liminted in your thinking to get through this rocks. Clearly you cant grasp the idea that things look different from different points of view. Your eye can only detect flourescence that is coming from the stone to your eye. It doesn't detect any that might be radiating away unless something is reflecting it back to your eye. In order to see the areas where UV light is not radiating back, you would have to view the senario from the point of view of the UV light source. If you could somehow view the stone from the level of the surface of the UV light, you would not see the stone since there would be no energy from the stone coming back to the energy source. Energy flow along any vector is one way.

 

[Big Fitz]

A record-setting 36.4 billion tons

Since the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 250 TRILLON tons, and that equals about .6% total atmospheric volume, you really think this is going to make a difference?

Can you give me the totals of how much NATURALLY produced CO2 occurred in the same time period?

No? How is it you know then that it was all our doing?

Can you also explain how such an insignificant portion of CO2 produced has such catastrophic effects when more powerful greenhouse gases like water vapor can flutuate as much as 4% to 8% and not be taken into account?

 

[konradv]

And global temperatures don't seem to be reacting properly to such an increase do they? Must be something dreadfully wrong with the greenhouse hypothesis.

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles. When global temps don't match CO2, another factor is at work. But, if CO2 keeps going up, the overall trend has to be warming. After all, where's all that extra trapped IR going, since statistically only half would be re-emitted into space?

 

[Big Fitz]

And global temperatures don't seem to be reacting properly to such an increase do they? Must be something dreadfully wrong with the greenhouse hypothesis.

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles. When global temps don't match CO2, another factor is at work. But, if CO2 keeps going up, the overall trend has to be warming. After all, where's all that extra trapped IR going, since statistically only half would be re-emitted into space?

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles.

aaaaaaaaaaand... you're not?

It's warmists running around flapping their arms screaming "IT'S MAN'S FAULT!!! IT'S MAN'S FAULT!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! DIE DIE DIE!!! AAAIIIEEEEEE!!!!!'

 

[konradv]

And global temperatures don't seem to be reacting properly to such an increase do they? Must be something dreadfully wrong with the greenhouse hypothesis.

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles. When global temps don't match CO2, another factor is at work. But, if CO2 keeps going up, the overall trend has to be warming. After all, where's all that extra trapped IR going, since statistically only half would be re-emitted into space?

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles.

aaaaaaaaaaand... you're not?

It's warmists running around flapping their arms screaming "IT'S MAN'S FAULT!!! IT'S MAN'S FAULT!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! DIE DIE DIE!!! AAAIIIEEEEEE!!!!!'

You remember them when it suits you and forget them when it doesn't. It's the basic intellectual dishonesty of the skeptic/denier side. They claim "warmers" don't take cycles into account, when the truth is they're only important to the "coolers" as rhetorical flourishes.

 

[Big Fitz]

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles. When global temps don't match CO2, another factor is at work. But, if CO2 keeps going up, the overall trend has to be warming. After all, where's all that extra trapped IR going, since statistically only half would be re-emitted into space?

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles.

aaaaaaaaaaand... you're not?

It's warmists running around flapping their arms screaming "IT'S MAN'S FAULT!!! IT'S MAN'S FAULT!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! DIE DIE DIE!!! AAAIIIEEEEEE!!!!!'

You remember them when it suits you and forget them when it doesn't. It's the basic intellectual dishonesty of the skeptic/denier side. They claim "warmers" don't take cycles into account, when the truth is they're only important to the "coolers" as rhetorical flourishes.

Then why is every change in the weather since the industrial age began been essentially man's fault? Have we abolished natural cycles?

I'm still waiting to see how CO2 produced by man in such a minor quantity is having such dramatic effects.

Got something new?

 

[Muhammed]

Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

This is very good news. CO2 is a boon to our ecosystem.

 

[Big Fitz]

Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

This is very good news. CO2 is a boon to our ecosystem.

well we won't mention that.

 

[gslack]

Hey Bent, why can I see Scheelite radiating in all directions when I expose it to short wave UV? Shouldn't your EM field vectors prevent that?

in all directions.... not just straight down? Well thats odd... Then AGW theory is wrong after all?

Socks seriously.... EM field vectors are a real scientific (quantum) concept and not something he made up. I showed this before so did he. They exist, they are real and you are an idiot.

you are not being entirely honest. there are EM field vectors, they just arent what wirebender states they are. he has taken an esoteric physics model that doesnt relate to regular interactions and redefined it into a quack theory. and just like how CAGW zealots will agree to anything that appears to support manmade global warming catastrope there are some skeptic zealots that will support nonsense as long as it is against CAGW.

Ian they are not an esoteric physics model. They are a factor in any studies involving subatomic particles and their interaction with other bodies or particles. Quantum mechanics is not an esoteric study, its the reason we have microwave ovens and the reason they can even make a claim for CO2 induced warming at all.

And as far as my honesty, I am being completely honest. The dishonesty here resides in the asinine claim that all heat transfers from a CO2 molecule will radiate straight down. Its a complete fallacy and that is one of the reasons the climate models are usually wrong.

You cannot deny sub-atomic particles in greenhouse effect or pretend they are bound by regular physics and thats it. Quantum mechanics is the reason there is a heat transfer at all.

 

[wirebender]

A record-setting 36.4 billion tons

Since the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 250 TRILLON tons, and that equals about .6% total atmospheric volume, you really think this is going to make a difference?

Can you give me the totals of how much NATURALLY produced CO2 occurred in the same time period?

No? How is it you know then that it was all our doing?

Can you also explain how such an insignificant portion of CO2 produced has such catastrophic effects when more powerful greenhouse gases like water vapor can flutuate as much as 4% to 8% and not be taken into account?

We don't even emit enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

 

[wirebender]

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles. When global temps don't match CO2, another factor is at work. But, if CO2 keeps going up, the overall trend has to be warming. After all, where's all that extra trapped IR going, since statistically only half would be re-emitted into space?

Really? The overall trend has to be warming? Here is the HADCRUT data from 2002 - 2011. The trend is cooling.

As to your statistics, they don't matter a whit in the face of physics and physics says that energy can not flow in two directions at the same time along any EM vector. Which vector from the earth's EM field do you suppose is cooler than the surrounding atmosphere?

 

[IanC]

in all directions.... not just straight down? Well thats odd... Then AGW theory is wrong after all?

Socks seriously.... EM field vectors are a real scientific (quantum) concept and not something he made up. I showed this before so did he. They exist, they are real and you are an idiot.

you are not being entirely honest. there are EM field vectors, they just arent what wirebender states they are. he has taken an esoteric physics model that doesnt relate to regular interactions and redefined it into a quack theory. and just like how CAGW zealots will agree to anything that appears to support manmade global warming catastrope there are some skeptic zealots that will support nonsense as long as it is against CAGW.

Ian they are not an esoteric physics model. They are a factor in any studies involving subatomic particles and their interaction with other bodies or particles. Quantum mechanics is not an esoteric study, its the reason we have microwave ovens and the reason they can even make a claim for CO2 induced warming at all.

And as far as my honesty, I am being completely honest. The dishonesty here resides in the asinine claim that all heat transfers from a CO2 molecule will radiate straight down. Its a complete fallacy and that is one of the reasons the climate models are usually wrong.

You cannot deny sub-atomic particles in greenhouse effect or pretend they are bound by regular physics and thats it. Quantum mechanics is the reason there is a heat transfer at all.

a while back you linked to some sort of google search of EM field vectors that talked about an esoteric quantum effect that couldnt even be accurately be measured. that was your proof that there actually WAS something by that name. it didnt match up with what wirebender was claiming it was.

no one is claiming all radiation from excited CO2 molecules goes straight down to earth but some does and even more comes down at an angle that intersects with the earth's surface. if ten units of radiation go up and three come back that is the equivilent of seven going up. more ghg simply changes the ratio.

 

[IanC]

Seems you're forgetting about natural cycles. When global temps don't match CO2, another factor is at work. But, if CO2 keeps going up, the overall trend has to be warming. After all, where's all that extra trapped IR going, since statistically only half would be re-emitted into space?

Really? The overall trend has to be warming? Here is the HADCRUT data from 2002 - 2011. The trend is cooling.

As to your statistics, they don't matter a whit in the face of physics and physics says that energy can not flow in two directions at the same time along any EM vector. Which vector from the earth's EM field do you suppose is cooler than the surrounding atmosphere?

from any single point on earth there are an infinity of possible vectors. there are an infinity of points on the earths surface. there are an infinity of phase alignments on any vector. you claim that every possible vector of these infinities is populated with a photon of the right wavelength to cancel any possible photon returning to earth from a CO2 molecule randomly radiating from the atmosphere. I say that that is farfetched in the extreme. go ahead and 'do the math'.

 

[Old Rocks]

A record-setting 36.4 billion tons

Since the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 250 TRILLON tons, and that equals about .6% total atmospheric volume, you really think this is going to make a difference?

Can you give me the totals of how much NATURALLY produced CO2 occurred in the same time period?

No? How is it you know then that it was all our doing?

Can you also explain how such an insignificant portion of CO2 produced has such catastrophic effects when more powerful greenhouse gases like water vapor can flutuate as much as 4% to 8% and not be taken into account?

We don't even emit enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

You lying bullshitter. LOL That is such a dumb statement it defies belief that someone claiming a scientific background could make it.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

 

[Chris]

At this rate we will add 3,600 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in the next 100 years.

 

[gslack]

you are not being entirely honest. there are EM field vectors, they just arent what wirebender states they are. he has taken an esoteric physics model that doesnt relate to regular interactions and redefined it into a quack theory. and just like how CAGW zealots will agree to anything that appears to support manmade global warming catastrope there are some skeptic zealots that will support nonsense as long as it is against CAGW.

Ian they are not an esoteric physics model. They are a factor in any studies involving subatomic particles and their interaction with other bodies or particles. Quantum mechanics is not an esoteric study, its the reason we have microwave ovens and the reason they can even make a claim for CO2 induced warming at all.

And as far as my honesty, I am being completely honest. The dishonesty here resides in the asinine claim that all heat transfers from a CO2 molecule will radiate straight down. Its a complete fallacy and that is one of the reasons the climate models are usually wrong.

You cannot deny sub-atomic particles in greenhouse effect or pretend they are bound by regular physics and thats it. Quantum mechanics is the reason there is a heat transfer at all.

a while back you linked to some sort of google search of EM field vectors that talked about an esoteric quantum effect that couldnt even be accurately be measured. that was your proof that there actually WAS something by that name. it didnt match up with what wirebender was claiming it was.

no one is claiming all radiation from excited CO2 molecules goes straight down to earth but some does and even more comes down at an angle that intersects with the earth's surface. if ten units of radiation go up and three come back that is the equivilent of seven going up. more ghg simply changes the ratio.

Now who is being dishonest? I linked to a webpage explaining a basic concept of Quantum Mechanics, you likening it to "some google search" is BULLSHIT!

You just flat out lied your ass off... It was an explanation of the very basics of Quantum mechanics as it would pertain to electromagnetic fields and interactions.

The climate models do not accurately predict because they for one do not use all of the factors involved, two, cannot quantify all of the complexities involved in the radiation effects, third, they cannot accurately show or relate the actual warming as it would happen in the real world. They take an oversimplification (a gross one) and make vast all en-composing assumptions which are not only unsound scientifically but unrealistic by their own inaccuracies. They in-effect might as well be claiming the heat radiates straight down because that about as accurate as they are currently.

Ian I don't know what your issue with this is, and frankly I don't care. The simple fact is these things exist, they are not made up nor someones twisted concept. You tried to imply they were made up before I showed you they were not, then you tried to claim he was misusing an esoteric concept or factor and that is not true either.

Like it or not, agree with it or not it is a very real, very relevant factor and study. Quantum Mechanics is a very real science and as of yet they understand very little of it. That does not make any less legitimate or any less applicable.

You just called me dishonest in a previous post, and here in this post you flat out lied and did so deliberately...

 

[Chris]

 

[ScienceRocks]

That's cool my friend.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Seriously, if you believe that co2 is so good for plants, tree's and the planet-- then why won't you burn coal in your fire place and work to increase your carbon foot print. You went to feed a larger population and you think it can only be good. WHY NOT? What is the down side in your view?