Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

[wirebender]

But Bent, the scheelite crystal still emits in all directions in a beam of short wave UV. Even in the direction of the lamp illuminating it. This is the same effect as the radiation of long wave IR by the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Your ding dong hypothesis is falsified.

Sorry rocks, but it doesn't emit back along the vectors from the energy source. Do feel free to provide some proof that it does if you like, but I can assure you that no such proof exists because the stone doesn't emit back towards its energy source.

I will qualify that by stating that the stone may emit back towards the light but none of the emissions make it to the light because the emitted EM field is lesser in magnitude than the emission from the energy source. Simple subtraction of vectors is enough to prove what I am saying rocks. Too bad you aren't even bright enough to do that.

 

[wirebender]

STRAWMAN ALERT!!! Mathematics isn't necessary to debunk wirebender. His theory is false on the face of it. If quantum radiation can't travel in the direction of a stronger source, how come I can see the moon in the daytime? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You guys make this too easy and expose yourselves as nearly complete knownothings.

Tell me konradv, are you able to differentiate the difference between visible light and EM fields? What do you think the world would look like if you could actually see EM fields radiating from everything? EM fields don't happen in the visible spectrum konradv and therefore have little, if anything to do with visible light and what you can see.

Try pointing an IR camera at the moon during the daytime and see if it is visible. If it is, then calculate the magnitude of the EM field it is radiating as reflected energy from the sun vs the magnitude of the EM field radiating from the earth. If the field radiating from the moon is of a greater magnitude than that radiating from the earth after taking the distance into account, you will or will not be able to see the moon with an IR camera.

Visible light isn't even a factor.

 

[wirebender]

Not to my satisfaction he didn't. Care to give it a shot?

You say that as if you would understand it even if I drew you a crayon picture. This has all been explained to you in detail before konradv and you proved beyond any reasonable doubt that it is all waaaaaaaayyyyyy over your head.

 

[IanC]

But Bent, the scheelite crystal still emits in all directions in a beam of short wave UV. Even in the direction of the lamp illuminating it. This is the same effect as the radiation of long wave IR by the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Your ding dong hypothesis is falsified.

Sorry rocks, but it doesn't emit back along the vectors from the energy source. Do feel free to provide some proof that it does if you like, but I can assure you that no such proof exists because the stone doesn't emit back towards its energy source.

I will qualify that by stating that the stone may emit back towards the light but none of the emissions make it to the light because the emitted EM field is lesser in magnitude than the emission from the energy source. Simple subtraction of vectors is enough to prove what I am saying rocks. Too bad you aren't even bright enough to do that.

I see you have have abandoned yet another lynchpin of your crazy theory. so if radiation is emitted backwards at the energy source where exactly does the photon cease to exist. please be specific.

BTW, why did you change your mind about CO2 being able to absorb the same frequencies as it emits? did you finally read a physics text rather than your incorrect quote out of a govt article?

its funny to watch blowhards like you change your story as time goes on.

 

[wirebender]

I see you have have abandoned yet another lynchpin of your crazy theory. so if radiation is emitted backwards at the energy source where exactly does the photon cease to exist. please be specific.

I haven't abandoned anything Ian, and I have explained this to you in specifics before. The last time was on this very thread here I will try again although I don't really know what the point is. You oppose this as a matter of faith, not any specific knowledge.

Rather than get into all of the minutae of EM vectors, I am going to try and keep this simple for you. No offense intended, but I have explained this in detail for you before and clearly you didn't get it. I will tick off the main points.

1. EM vectors have a magnitude. If you don't understand what magnitude means as it relates to the relative strength of an EM field, say so and I will explain.

2. When two EM fields are in opposition along any given vector, they must be subtracted and the result will tell you which field has the greater magnitude and therefore determines the direction of energy flow.

3. In addition to the magnitude of an EM field, one must also consider the distance the EM field radiates. I am sure that you can imagine that the EM field of the sun is greater the nearer you get to the sun. As the field radiates out away from its source, the magnitude of the field diminishes. If two fields are in opposition and one is only slightly stronger than the other, then the weaker field will peter out somewhere between its source and the source of the opposing field.

4. Energy transfer along any given vector is one way.

OK. The earth radiates an EM field. I can't think of any vector in which it might not radiate. If you can think of one or a reason why there might be a dead spot in the earth's EM field, by all means state it. The atmosphere radiates as well. The fact that it radiates however, does not mean that it can overcome a field of greater magnitude and transfer its energy to the source of the opposing EM field.

When you subtract EM fields, you are subtracting energy; subtracting photons if you like. The energy of the weaker field is expended in opposition to the greater field. If the differences in magnitude is great, then the energy is expended as soon as it is radiated very near the surface of the radiator. If it is close in magnitude to the opposing EM field, then you not only have to subtract energy, but factor in distance. the field will peter out somewhere between its source and the source of the opposing field.

There exists quite a difference between the magnitude of the EM field radiated by the earth and that radiated by a trace gas in the atmosphere. I have never done the math, but I would guess that any energy emitted by a CO2 along a vector in opposition to the EM field radiated by the earth would be expended as soon as it is radiated.

As I have said, I have never done the math. You tell me the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a single CO2 molecule and I will give it a shot. I have never found any table listing a magnitude so small. And you have to consider each molecule as an individual emitter whose radiation is in opposition to the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth.

I believe you have a fundamentally incorrect picture in your mind because you misunderstand what a photon is. I think you view photons as free agents that are zipping about the universe on their own but they aren't. A photon is the smallest measureable unit of an EM field. It represents a bit of EM energy and nothing more. You are picturing in your mind some sort of little bit of something being destroyed when in reality nothing is happening other than energy being expended against a stronger EM field.

Picture you standing in a parking lot with a firehose and me standing in front of you with a garden hose. You turn on your hose, I turn on my hose. Water is going to continue to flow out of my hose but it isn't going to flow upstream against the greater water flow from your fire hose. Any water that comes out of my hose is going to simply be swept away by the greater magnitude of the water you are spraying.

BTW, why did you change your mind about CO2 being able to absorb the same frequencies as it emits? did you finally read a physics text rather than your incorrect quote out of a govt article?

I don't recall ever saying that I have changed my mind. And Ian, I have read plenty of physics texts and unlike you, apparently I got what I read.

its funny to watch blowhards like you change your story as time goes on.

Its sad to watch you rail against something that is clearly over your head simply because it challenges your faith.

 

[Liability]

I see you have have abandoned yet another lynchpin of your crazy theory. so if radiation is emitted backwards at the energy source where exactly does the photon cease to exist. please be specific.

I haven't abandoned anything Ian, and I have explained this to you in specifics before. The last time was on this very thread here I will try again although I don't really know what the point is. You oppose this as a matter of faith, not any specific knowledge.

Rather than get into all of the minutae of EM vectors, I am going to try and keep this simple for you. No offense intended, but I have explained this in detail for you before and clearly you didn't get it. I will tick off the main points.

1. EM vectors have a magnitude. If you don't understand what magnitude means as it relates to the relative strength of an EM field, say so and I will explain.

2. When two EM fields are in opposition along any given vector, they must be subtracted and the result will tell you which field has the greater magnitude and therefore determines the direction of energy flow.

3. In addition to the magnitude of an EM field, one must also consider the distance the EM field radiates. I am sure that you can imagine that the EM field of the sun is greater the nearer you get to the sun. As the field radiates out away from its source, the magnitude of the field diminishes. If two fields are in opposition and one is only slightly stronger than the other, then the weaker field will peter out somewhere between its source and the source of the opposing field.

4. Energy transfer along any given vector is one way.

OK. The earth radiates an EM field. I can't think of any vector in which it might not radiate. If you can think of one or a reason why there might be a dead spot in the earth's EM field, by all means state it. The atmosphere radiates as well. The fact that it radiates however, does not mean that it can overcome a field of greater magnitude and transfer its energy to the source of the opposing EM field.

When you subtract EM fields, you are subtracting energy; subtracting photons if you like. The energy of the weaker field is expended in opposition to the greater field. If the differences in magnitude is great, then the energy is expended as soon as it is radiated very near the surface of the radiator. If it is close in magnitude to the opposing EM field, then you not only have to subtract energy, but factor in distance. the field will peter out somewhere between its source and the source of the opposing field.

There exists quite a difference between the magnitude of the EM field radiated by the earth and that radiated by a trace gas in the atmosphere. I have never done the math, but I would guess that any energy emitted by a CO2 along a vector in opposition to the EM field radiated by the earth would be expended as soon as it is radiated.

As I have said, I have never done the math. You tell me the magnitude of the EM field radiated by a single CO2 molecule and I will give it a shot. I have never found any table listing a magnitude so small. And you have to consider each molecule as an individual emitter whose radiation is in opposition to the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth.

I believe you have a fundamentally incorrect picture in your mind because you misunderstand what a photon is. I think you view photons as free agents that are zipping about the universe on their own but they aren't. A photon is the smallest measureable unit of an EM field. It represents a bit of EM energy and nothing more. You are picturing in your mind some sort of little bit of something being destroyed when in reality nothing is happening other than energy being expended against a stronger EM field.

Picture you standing in a parking lot with a firehose and me standing in front of you with a garden hose. You turn on your hose, I turn on my hose. Water is going to continue to flow out of my hose but it isn't going to flow upstream against the greater water flow from your fire hose. Any water that comes out of my hose is going to simply be swept away by the greater magnitude of the water you are spraying.

BTW, why did you change your mind about CO2 being able to absorb the same frequencies as it emits? did you finally read a physics text rather than your incorrect quote out of a govt article?

I don't recall ever saying that I have changed my mind. And Ian, I have read plenty of physics texts and unlike you, apparently I got what I read.

its funny to watch blowhards like you change your story as time goes on.

Its sad to watch you rail against something that is clearly over your head simply because it challenges your faith.

Holy ****. I would not debate you on this topic since I am not even close to being well versed in the field enough to begin to try.

I will say, I don't know (therefore) if you are right or wrong. but I can absolutely say you have the goods to be a solid teacher, since I think I'm beginning to get my first handle on that particular science. And, no, I am not going to go back to school to progress any further. But I do appreciate a demonstration of expertise like that.

Now, in layman's terms could you state your basic thesis in a very short, concise manner for a non scientist like myself?

 

[Big Fitz]

STRAWMAN ALERT!!! Mathematics isn't necessary to debunk wirebender. His theory is false on the face of it. If quantum radiation can't travel in the direction of a stronger source, how come I can see the moon in the daytime? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Puppeteer, he already covered this and you know it. you are about as juvenile a poster on this board as there can be.. Shut up junior you never have anything of value to add. Either as yourself or your Poo Poo identity...

Not to my satisfaction he didn't. Care to give it a shot?

we already know you are a zealot of the faith and nothing can shake it regardless of who tells you or what proof is provided.

Why should anyone bother since your 'satisfaction' is unattainable to all?

You've still not proven how our producing 3,600 billion tons of CO2 in a century matters compared to the 250,000+ Billion tons of CO2 that currently exists is a factor as it is smaller than the margin of error of measurement.

 

[IanC]

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...

let me make an analogy. wirebender took a shit into a waffle cone and called it ice cream. you defended him by saying ice cream cones are real. but shit and ice cream arent the same thing. I am against bullshit no matter who says it. I dont want to hear bullshit from either side of the global warming situation. I agree with a lot of what wirebender says but he has a strange flaw in his understanding when it comes to his precious EM vector fields.

now you are calling me a liar for saying your list of links was googled. you may have used a different search engine but the list was just an unfocused group of sites that had peripheral connections to EM vector fields. at least one of your citations was about poorly understood quantum effects otherwise I probably wouldnt remember your feeble attempt to prop up wirebender while calling konradv a retard. It was churlish behaviour then and you resort to churlish behaviour now by calling me a liar.

You are full of it Ian. Why are you sitting there and deliberately denying an entire field of science that is formally accepted and relied upon in the scientific community for many years now? Are you that upset you didn't know something? Hell man I don't know a hell of a lot more than I know, but what I do know is enough to get over my arrogance and accept when I don't know.

You keep making simplified and irrelevant sweeping statements like this instead of arguing what is said. You called my links a random google search, when they were chosen for explaining and showing that EM fields and vectors were a part of quantum mechanics and a respected and relied upon field of study. You tried to pretend he made up the terms, which he did not. And you do so without even addressing what he or I said or what we present.

I am not a mathematician or a physics expert, but I know enough to realize you cannot deny the Quantum aspects when they interact with the physical in such a manner as greenhouse effect. Heat is physical, how that is created or transferred is quantum. Its not esoteric or magic, its a respected and accepted science.

Now if you believe wire to be incorrect in his math or the applications of it, then please be my guest and show it mathematically. If you can't then that would make two of us. But just standing there and claiming he made it up or its wrong with nothing but baseless claims of esoteric and magic using nothing but irrelevant and convoluted metaphors is just nay-saying.

pointing out that wirebender is mistaken in his understanding of 'EM field vectors' is not denying quantum mechanics.

your list was a random google search, using google as a verb and not specifying that you used that particular search engine. why dont you bump the post in question so we can all see whether they were a coherent sample of informative sites or just a wiki piece with a few oddball articles tossed in and links to other links?

I never pretended that wirebender made up the term 'EM field vector'. I stated that his definition and understanding of the term, and his use in context, were incorrect.

your reverence of quantum mechanics is very touching but why then were you so dismissive of RollingThunder's link to the explaination of IR absorption as vibrational energy in the CO2 molecule? was that the wrong type of quantum mechanics, hahaha.

I think you arejust defering to authority instead of thinking for yourself. no shame in that really, most of us do in many areas that we do not fully understand. but do yourself a favour and find someone more knowledgable than wirebender.

 

[wirebender]

Now, in layman's terms could you state your basic thesis in a very short, concise manner for a non scientist like myself?

I don't have a basic thesis. This is well established, basic science that simply does not mesh with the greenhouse effect as described by AGW alarmists. There is no such thing as backradiation because it violates the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. Warmists claim that backradiation in the form of LW radiation reradiated downward towards the earth warms the earth to a greater degree than the sun.

If that were happening, then there would be more energy within the system than is coming in from the earth's only energy source (violation of the law of conservation of energy) and the cooler atmosphere would be warming the surface of the earth. (violation of the second law of thermodynamics).

The greenhouse effect is an artifact invented by warmists as a result of a terribly flawed model of the earth's energy budget. The warmist model assumes that the earth radiates like a star. That is, the radiation is the same no matter which point on the earth you are looking at, at any time of the day. Their model is of a flat earth that is being irradiated by the sun to a degree of some sort of twilight 24 hours a day. No rotation. No night and day.

The mathematics of this model that doesn't match reality tells them that the earth is cooler than it should be so they had to come up with something that would account for the earth's warmth. A bit of reverse enginering and viola' a greenhouse effect. It is a fabrication designed to balance the energy budget of a model earth that is nothing like the actual earth.

If you model the earth as a sphere that is being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface increasing from sunrise till mid day and decreasing from mid day to sunset, then the model reflects a much closer approximation of the actual temperature of the earth and no greenhouse effect is required.

I am not exactly sure what you want me to tell you. Ask more specific questions and I will answer as well as I can.

 

[wirebender]

I never pretended that wirebender made up the term 'EM field vector'. I stated that his definition and understanding of the term, and his use in context, were incorrect.

And yet, you remain unable to tell me where I am incorrect. You can point to no math error or any misapplied physical law.

Tell me Ian, when I say the word photon, what image do you form in your mind?

I think you arejust defering to authority instead of thinking for yourself. no shame in that really, most of us do in many areas that we do not fully understand. but do yourself a favour and find someone more knowledgable than wirebender.

And you are relying on faith as opposed to any specific knowledge. If you accept what I say, which I have proven, in public, mathematically, then your lukewarm belief gets challenged.

 

[IanC]

OK wirebender, I have been trying to see things from your point of view....

as best as I can figure out, you must be conflating electrical/magnetic field strengths and the real/virtual photons that transfer energy to particles in those fields with common variety black body radiation photons emitted by excited atoms or molecules. I thought you were saying that perfectly matched photons were coliding/anihilating each other is some esoteric quantum wave effect. that is why I asked you to specifically state where the photon disappeared.

I was intrigued when you said that the photon would 'peter out' and that's when I was sure you were confused. photons, once created, travel in a straight line until they interact with matter. (yes gravity can have a small effect, expansion of the universe even smaller). yet you were saying they just disappear.

perhaps I am still misunderstanding you. please describe the type of field you are talking about, why it interacts with GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and how it removes or 'peters out' the photon in the absence of matter.

thanks for your consideration. I am sure we can come to a better understanding with a clarification of positions much faster than just speaking past each other.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now, in layman's terms could you state your basic thesis in a very short, concise manner for a non scientist like myself?

I don't have a basic thesis. This is well established, basic science that simply does not mesh with the greenhouse effect as described by AGW alarmists. There is no such thing as backradiation because it violates the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. Warmists claim that backradiation in the form of LW radiation reradiated downward towards the earth warms the earth to a greater degree than the sun.

If that were happening, then there would be more energy within the system than is coming in from the earth's only energy source (violation of the law of conservation of energy) and the cooler atmosphere would be warming the surface of the earth. (violation of the second law of thermodynamics).

The greenhouse effect is an artifact invented by warmists as a result of a terribly flawed model of the earth's energy budget. The warmist model assumes that the earth radiates like a star. That is, the radiation is the same no matter which point on the earth you are looking at, at any time of the day. Their model is of a flat earth that is being irradiated by the sun to a degree of some sort of twilight 24 hours a day. No rotation. No night and day.

The mathematics of this model that doesn't match reality tells them that the earth is cooler than it should be so they had to come up with something that would account for the earth's warmth. A bit of reverse enginering and viola' a greenhouse effect. It is a fabrication designed to balance the energy budget of a model earth that is nothing like the actual earth.

If you model the earth as a sphere that is being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface increasing from sunrise till mid day and decreasing from mid day to sunset, then the model reflects a much closer approximation of the actual temperature of the earth and no greenhouse effect is required.

I am not exactly sure what you want me to tell you. Ask more specific questions and I will answer as well as I can.

No, you surely do not have a basic thesis.

You state that basic scientific law doesn't agree with the warming of the earth by GHGs. Virtually all of the world's physicists state that it does. Oh, who to believe

No, dumb ass, you pulled that right out of your asshole. It is not stated that the greenhouse effect warms the Earth more than the Sun. What is stated is that more of the energy normally reflected back into space is retained. In fact, from Fourier on, this is the basic concept.

Your stupid strawman arguement that the greenhouse effect is dependent on more energy than we are recieving from the sun is beyond stupid. It is a lie about what the scientists are stateing, and a demonstration of your lack of intellectual capacity.

What can you tell us? Your whole yap-yap has been falsified by a handheld UV lamp.

 

[gslack]

let me make an analogy. wirebender took a shit into a waffle cone and called it ice cream. you defended him by saying ice cream cones are real. but shit and ice cream arent the same thing. I am against bullshit no matter who says it. I dont want to hear bullshit from either side of the global warming situation. I agree with a lot of what wirebender says but he has a strange flaw in his understanding when it comes to his precious EM vector fields.

now you are calling me a liar for saying your list of links was googled. you may have used a different search engine but the list was just an unfocused group of sites that had peripheral connections to EM vector fields. at least one of your citations was about poorly understood quantum effects otherwise I probably wouldnt remember your feeble attempt to prop up wirebender while calling konradv a retard. It was churlish behaviour then and you resort to churlish behaviour now by calling me a liar.

You are full of it Ian. Why are you sitting there and deliberately denying an entire field of science that is formally accepted and relied upon in the scientific community for many years now? Are you that upset you didn't know something? Hell man I don't know a hell of a lot more than I know, but what I do know is enough to get over my arrogance and accept when I don't know.

You keep making simplified and irrelevant sweeping statements like this instead of arguing what is said. You called my links a random google search, when they were chosen for explaining and showing that EM fields and vectors were a part of quantum mechanics and a respected and relied upon field of study. You tried to pretend he made up the terms, which he did not. And you do so without even addressing what he or I said or what we present.

I am not a mathematician or a physics expert, but I know enough to realize you cannot deny the Quantum aspects when they interact with the physical in such a manner as greenhouse effect. Heat is physical, how that is created or transferred is quantum. Its not esoteric or magic, its a respected and accepted science.

Now if you believe wire to be incorrect in his math or the applications of it, then please be my guest and show it mathematically. If you can't then that would make two of us. But just standing there and claiming he made it up or its wrong with nothing but baseless claims of esoteric and magic using nothing but irrelevant and convoluted metaphors is just nay-saying.

pointing out that wirebender is mistaken in his understanding of 'EM field vectors' is not denying quantum mechanics.

your list was a random google search, using google as a verb and not specifying that you used that particular search engine. why dont you bump the post in question so we can all see whether they were a coherent sample of informative sites or just a wiki piece with a few oddball articles tossed in and links to other links?

I never pretended that wirebender made up the term 'EM field vector'. I stated that his definition and understanding of the term, and his use in context, were incorrect.

your reverence of quantum mechanics is very touching but why then were you so dismissive of RollingThunder's link to the explaination of IR absorption as vibrational energy in the CO2 molecule? was that the wrong type of quantum mechanics, hahaha.

I think you arejust defering to authority instead of thinking for yourself. no shame in that really, most of us do in many areas that we do not fully understand. but do yourself a favour and find someone more knowledgable than wirebender.

The post is there then link to it... You are the one desperate to be right...

I an you are continuing to lie about what I said... Grow up man seriously grow up. You aren't even genuinely trying to debate this or anything anymore.You are trolling. My disagreement with trollingblunders article is it oversimplifies a much more complex system with a drawing depicting a perfectly aligned CO2 atom waiting for a perfectly scripted photon to hit it in just the right way. Thats unrealistic and silly.

And I find the fact you defend trollingblunder now to be very telling of your character, or lack of... Why didn't you agree with trollingblunder in the past? Oh thats right you weren't desperate to be right no matter what back then....

Appeal to authority? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Ever read any of my threads? Most of mine are my opinion and usually have very little so-called authority in them at all. I been singled out for this many times by oldsocks and so on, for my threads lack of scientific authority. SO Ian you can just go stomp your foot and cry...

 

[wirebender]

I was intrigued when you said that the photon would 'peter out' and that's when I was sure you were confused. photons, once created, travel in a straight line until they interact with matter. (yes gravity can have a small effect, expansion of the universe even smaller). yet you were saying they just disappear.

I don't know how many times I have to point this out, or how many times I have to post the defintion of photon. Clearly you are imagining that a photon is this "thing" that goes zipping about the universe and just keeps on going till such time as it hits something. A photon is the smallest quantum of an EM field. Until you understand and accept that, you are not going to be able to grasp what is happening. So, AGAIN, I am going to provide you with a definition of what a quantum is, and what a photon is.

quantum - Plural quanta
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.

Now the definition of photon:

photon - 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. See Table at subatomic particle.

Just for the hell of it, here is the note at electromagnetic radiation:

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

I don't know how many ways I can describe this to you. A photon is the smallest unit of an EM field. It is a packet of energy. Being a "packet" of EM energy, it can be expended against anything that might require energy to overcome. You are laboring under the impression that a photon zips along until such time as it hits something. That something to you is apparently a solid object, but that simply is not true. An EM field is something and when a photon moving in one direction along any vectro as part of an EM field encounters photons coming from the opposite direction along the same vector that are parts of an EM field, you must subtract the magnitudes of the two EM opposing EM fields in order to determine in which direction the energy will be propagated. When you subtract the fields, you are, in effect, subtracting photons. Energy is being expended to overcome the weaker field which leaves the field with the greater mangitude diminished but still propagating energy flow in its original direction and the energy of the weaker field is expended in the diminishment of the greater field.

The bits of energy that photons represent are expending themselves against the opposing EM field. I repeat a photon that is part of an EM does not have to hit a solid object in order to cease its existence. Of course if you direct an EM field against a 10 foot thick lead wall, the energy would be expended against the wall, but an EM field also expends energy in overcoming another EM field and when energy is expended, photons cease to exist.

Perhaps I am still misunderstanding you. please describe the type of field you are talking about, why it interacts with GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and how it removes or 'peters out' the photon in the absence of matter.

What you are misunderstanding is the nature of photons. Are you laboring under the impression that an EM field can only be overcome by matter? That an EM field simply continues forever until it hits some object of sufficient mass to stop it? If so, then you couldn't possibly be more mistaken. Photons are the "stuff" EM fields are made of and there is no argument that along any vector, if two EM fields are in opposition, the field of greater mangitude determines the directon of energy flow. There is no two way energy movement along any vector.

thanks for your consideration. I am sure we can come to a better understanding with a clarification of positions much faster than just speaking past each other.

i have not been speaking past you. I have made every effort to try and explain this to you but you seem to be completely unwilling to alter the misinformed image in your head of what a photon is. You see it as this thing that just goes on forever till it hits some bit of matter and that is not an accurate image. In EM fields, photons represent the smallest possible bit of energy that makes up the EM field. As energy is expended, whether it be against a brick wall, or against another EM field, photons are "winking" out of existence. When the bit of energy that each photon represents is expended, that photon ceases to exist.

I don't know how else to describe what is happening to you. Till you get this idea that a photon goes on till it hits a solid object out of your mind, you will never be able to accurately grasp what is happening.

If you accept that one EM field can overcome another by expending energy till the other field is "defeated" and still have energy left (although diminished) to continue moving in its original direction, and you can accept the well known fact that EM fields are made of photons... that photons are the "stuff" that make the field and are the smallest possible bit of energy in the field, and can accept that when fields oppose each other, the energy represented by photons is being used up in opposition to the other field, then, and only then, can you grasp what is going on.

 

[wirebender]

No, you surely do not have a basic thesis.

You state that basic scientific law doesn't agree with the warming of the earth by GHGs. Virtually all of the world's physicists state that it does. Oh, who to believe

Actually rocks, very few of the worlds physicists state any such thing and of those who do, you can bet that they are being funded by warmist money.

No, dumb ass, you pulled that right out of your asshole. It is not stated that the greenhouse effect warms the Earth more than the Sun. What is stated is that more of the energy normally reflected back into space is retained. In fact, from Fourier on, this is the basic concept.

Sorry rocks but you are wrong. The greenhouse effect as described by warmists states that 168 watts per square meter arrives at, and is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the sun but 324 watts per square meter arrives at and is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere in the form of backradiation. Sorry that you aren't bright enough to actually look at a graphic, read the labels and understand what is being described, but alas, your lack of understanding doesn't alter what the graphic states.

Here, have a look and tell me that what I have stated isn't precisley what warmists are claiming.

Your stupid strawman arguement that the greenhouse effect is dependent on more energy than we are recieving from the sun is beyond stupid. It is a lie about what the scientists are stateing, and a demonstration of your lack of intellectual capacity.

Well, the claim that the surface of the earth is receiving more energy from the atmosphere than it receives from the sun is beyond stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that that is exactly what climate science is claiming. Have another look at the graph. It is right there for anyone to see. 168 watts per square meter absorbed by the surface of the earth from the sun. 324 watts per square meter absorbed by the earth in the form of backradiation from the atmosphere and 492 watts per square meter emitted by a surface that only receives 168 watts per square meter from its only energy source. Of course it is idiocy, but it is what the greenhouse effect is based on.

 

[IanC]

I was intrigued when you said that the photon would 'peter out' and that's when I was sure you were confused. photons, once created, travel in a straight line until they interact with matter. (yes gravity can have a small effect, expansion of the universe even smaller). yet you were saying they just disappear.

I don't know how many times I have to point this out, or how many times I have to post the defintion of photon. Clearly you are imagining that a photon is this "thing" that goes zipping about the universe and just keeps on going till such time as it hits something. A photon is the smallest quantum of an EM field. Until you understand and accept that, you are not going to be able to grasp what is happening. So, AGAIN, I am going to provide you with a definition of what a quantum is, and what a photon is.

quantum - Plural quanta
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.

Now the definition of photon:

photon - 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. See Table at subatomic particle.

Just for the hell of it, here is the note at electromagnetic radiation:

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

I don't know how many ways I can describe this to you. A photon is the smallest unit of an EM field. It is a packet of energy. Being a "packet" of EM energy, it can be expended against anything that might require energy to overcome. You are laboring under the impression that a photon zips along until such time as it hits something. That something to you is apparently a solid object, but that simply is not true. An EM field is something and when a photon moving in one direction along any vectro as part of an EM field encounters photons coming from the opposite direction along the same vector that are parts of an EM field, you must subtract the magnitudes of the two EM opposing EM fields in order to determine in which direction the energy will be propagated. When you subtract the fields, you are, in effect, subtracting photons. Energy is being expended to overcome the weaker field which leaves the field with the greater mangitude diminished but still propagating energy flow in its original direction and the energy of the weaker field is expended in the diminishment of the greater field.

The bits of energy that photons represent are expending themselves against the opposing EM field. I repeat a photon that is part of an EM does not have to hit a solid object in order to cease its existence. Of course if you direct an EM field against a 10 foot thick lead wall, the energy would be expended against the wall, but an EM field also expends energy in overcoming another EM field and when energy is expended, photons cease to exist.

Perhaps I am still misunderstanding you. please describe the type of field you are talking about, why it interacts with GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and how it removes or 'peters out' the photon in the absence of matter.

What you are misunderstanding is the nature of photons. Are you laboring under the impression that an EM field can only be overcome by matter? That an EM field simply continues forever until it hits some object of sufficient mass to stop it? If so, then you couldn't possibly be more mistaken. Photons are the "stuff" EM fields are made of and there is no argument that along any vector, if two EM fields are in opposition, the field of greater mangitude determines the directon of energy flow. There is no two way energy movement along any vector.

thanks for your consideration. I am sure we can come to a better understanding with a clarification of positions much faster than just speaking past each other.

i have not been speaking past you. I have made every effort to try and explain this to you but you seem to be completely unwilling to alter the misinformed image in your head of what a photon is. You see it as this thing that just goes on forever till it hits some bit of matter and that is not an accurate image. In EM fields, photons represent the smallest possible bit of energy that makes up the EM field. As energy is expended, whether it be against a brick wall, or against another EM field, photons are "winking" out of existence. When the bit of energy that each photon represents is expended, that photon ceases to exist.

I don't know how else to describe what is happening to you. Till you get this idea that a photon goes on till it hits a solid object out of your mind, you will never be able to accurately grasp what is happening.

If you accept that one EM field can overcome another by expending energy till the other field is "defeated" and still have energy left (although diminished) to continue moving in its original direction, and you can accept the well known fact that EM fields are made of photons... that photons are the "stuff" that make the field and are the smallest possible bit of energy in the field, and can accept that when fields oppose each other, the energy represented by photons is being used up in opposition to the other field, then, and only then, can you grasp what is going on.

you are confusing one aspect or use of a photon as the only aspect. photons do carry the force in an electric or magnetic field. but that is not the only type of photon. the type of photon that is relavent to the discussion of back radiation is produced when an excited molecule expels energy to get closer to its ground state. once created it travels in a straight line until it encounters another atom or molecule that is capable of interacting with it. photons DO NOT interact with other photons, they only interact with matter. if a GHG molecule was interacting with an electric or magnetic field then there would be photons carrying the force to deflect it according to the cumulative energy of the field but that is not what we are examining, we dont care about the speed or direction of the molecule we care about the radiation it emits.

so if you have some reference that photons interact with other photons in the absence of matter, please post it. or show how an EM field influences the direction, size, whatever of an internally released photon from an excited molecule.

thanking you in advance for responding to my specific points

 

[Liability]

Now, in layman's terms could you state your basic thesis in a very short, concise manner for a non scientist like myself?

I don't have a basic thesis. This is well established, basic science that simply does not mesh with the greenhouse effect as described by AGW alarmists. There is no such thing as backradiation because it violates the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. Warmists claim that backradiation in the form of LW radiation reradiated downward towards the earth warms the earth to a greater degree than the sun.

If that were happening, then there would be more energy within the system than is coming in from the earth's only energy source (violation of the law of conservation of energy) and the cooler atmosphere would be warming the surface of the earth. (violation of the second law of thermodynamics).

The greenhouse effect is an artifact invented by warmists as a result of a terribly flawed model of the earth's energy budget. The warmist model assumes that the earth radiates like a star. That is, the radiation is the same no matter which point on the earth you are looking at, at any time of the day. Their model is of a flat earth that is being irradiated by the sun to a degree of some sort of twilight 24 hours a day. No rotation. No night and day.

The mathematics of this model that doesn't match reality tells them that the earth is cooler than it should be so they had to come up with something that would account for the earth's warmth. A bit of reverse enginering and viola' a greenhouse effect. It is a fabrication designed to balance the energy budget of a model earth that is nothing like the actual earth.

If you model the earth as a sphere that is being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface increasing from sunrise till mid day and decreasing from mid day to sunset, then the model reflects a much closer approximation of the actual temperature of the earth and no greenhouse effect is required.

I am not exactly sure what you want me to tell you. Ask more specific questions and I will answer as well as I can.

After telling me that you don't have a thesis, you laid out your thesis.

It's good.

 

[wirebender]

you are confusing one aspect or use of a photon as the only aspect.

I am not confusing anything Ian. I have given you the scientific definition of photon. The fact that you can't grasp the meaning does not alter what a photon is in the least.

photons do carry the force in an electric or magnetic field.

Ian, photons not only carry the force in an EM field, they are the force in an EM field. They are what the EM field is made of. The smallest possible unit of energy in an EM field IS a photon.

When an excited CO2 molecule emits a photon, what it is emitting is the smallest bit of EM energy possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

but that is not the only type of photon. the type of photon that is relavent to the discussion of back radiation is produced when an excited molecule expels energy to get closer to its ground state. once created it travels in a straight line until it encounters another atom or molecule that is capable of interacting with it.

Sorry Ian, but you are wrong. Your determination to not accept the definition of photon as it relates to EM energy is why you can't understand what is happening. The photons you are imagining as (I suppose) little round spheres that go on till they hit matter are a figment of your imagination. Photon as it relates to an EM field is just the smallest possible bit of energy that makes up an EM field. It can be expended against another EM field and when the energy of one EM field is expended against another, photons cease to exist and the loss of those photons is, in reality, the diminishment of the field.

Excited molecules are emitting a quantum of EM radiation. A photon. Not some tiny free agent that goes on forever in a straight line till it hits some solid object. An EM field (made of photons) doesn't go on for ever. Distance diminishes an EM field. When the field diminishes, it is because the small "packets" of energy represented by photons have expended and ceased to exist.

Tell me Ian, do you really believe that all of the photons that leave the sun on vectors destined for earth actually reach the earth? Compare the magnitude of the EM field of the sun near it's surface vs the strenght of its EM field when it reaches the earth. It is decidedly weaker. That EM field is made of photons but it is weaker when it reaches earth than it is near the surface of the sun. Do you suppose there is enough matter in space to account for the weakening?

photons DO NOT interact with other photons, they only interact with matter.

Sorry Ian, but you are wrong. I have given you the definition of photon over and over and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it. Here, one more time.

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation

What does that bold phrase mean to you Ian? The quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It means that the photon is the smallest possible bit of energy in an EM field. That's it and EM fields (made of photons) interact with other EM fields. Like it or not, accept it or not, that is how it is. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a photon is as it applies to EM radiation.

if a GHG molecule was interacting with an electric or magnetic field then there would be photons carrying the force to deflect it according to the cumulative energy of the field but that is not what we are examining, we dont care about the speed or direction of the molecule we care about the radiation it emits.

Geez Ian, is your understanding really this far off base? Hell, you may as well jump on the CAGW bandwagon.

GHG's don't interact with EM fields. Only the energy they radiate interacts with EM fields. The energy they radiate is EM radiation. The photon that you imagine as a tiny free agent zipping around the universe is nothing more and nothing less than the smallest possible unit of EM radiation. That's it.

The radiation it emits, if radiated upward is added to the magnitude of the vector it is moving with and since the EM field radiating from the surface of the earth is radiating from every possible vector, if the photon is radiating up, it is moving along a vector that is moving energy away from the surface. If the radiation it emits is down, then it is subtracted from the magnitude of the EM field along that vector. It's energy is expended in opposition to the opposing EM field radiating from the earth. That is as simple as it can be made for you Ian.

so if you have some reference that photons interact with other photons in the absence of matter, please post it. or show how an EM field influences the direction, size, whatever of an internally released photon from an excited molecule.

I have Ian. The very definiton of photon as the term relates to EM fields is that evidence. A photon is the smallest possible unit of energy in an EM field. It is what makes up the EM field. Now if you have some evidence that states that EM fields only interact with matter, by all means post it, otherwise, simply admit that you are wrong and get over it.


Here is a link to a grade school site put out by NASA. It explains radiation and photons in terms they expect school children to be able to grasp. Here is a clip from the site:

"Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of photons, which are massless particles each traveling in a wave-like pattern and moving at the speed of light. Each photon contains a certain amount (or bundle) of energy, and all electromagnetic radiation consists of these photons. The only difference between the various types of electromagnetic radiation is the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwaves have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared has still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and ... the most energetic of all ... gamma-rays."

In order for your idea to hold water, you have to believe that EM fields can't interact with other EM fields and that is simply not true. I don't mean to be insulting by linking you to a grade school level article about EM radiation but DAMN, Ian, you just don't seem to be able to get it. You have this picture in your mind that is completely wrong, by the way, and you either can't shake it, or won't shake it out. I suspect that you won't because to do so would force you to give up a bit of your lukewarmist faith. You believe in the greenhouse effect and simply aren't prepared to give it up at this time.

You seem to be applying what you think you know about photons as you believe they behave in visible light to the entire EM spectrum and that is simply incorrect. In fact, you couldn't possibly be more wrong if you tried.

 

[wirebender]

After telling me that you don't have a thesis, you laid out your thesis.

It's good.

Not "my" thesis. Just physics.

 

[gslack]

Just quick point... A year ago if you googled the term "physics of greenhouse effect" all you would get for several pages would be the list of usual suspects; IPCC, NOAA, et al. And in all of those links you will find very little actual mathematical evidence just a few elementary school graphics and a lot of talk about it being true and so on. Nothing in the manner of science or actual scientific evidence just a lot of "we know this is true and we are smarter than you so trust us"..

Now you do the same search and you get a few listings that actually debate or even contradict or outright deny the accepted greenhouse effect theory. And that number is growing... The true scientists have begun to question the math lately, and they are finding one by one that the physics and mathematics used are flawed. So far the list of those who will risk such scrutiny and ridicule from the presenters and backers of this false science is relatively small. But that number grows by the day.

Your emperor is naked boys... He doesn't have the new clothes he was scammed... Soon this will be another one of those little things we laugh about in the history side notes, like so many other theories that did not stand up to scrutiny over time...