Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

[IanC]

wirebender- you did not like my comparison of your refusal to bump your supposed 'proof where you did the math' to a paywall. what would you call it? you want me to waste my time searching for something that most likely doesnt even exist. you refuse to produce it yet you constantly refer back to it. you dare people to show where you are mistaken but produce nothing to be checked. this is very reminiscent of Jones' "why should I show you my data if you just want to find flaws" or Mann's "my data is freely available, you just have to look for it" even though it wasnt. wirebender has learned well from the masters of distortion and disception.

 

[gslack]

an interesting factoid, paradox about photons. because they have integer spin a magnetic field can slightly separate a beam of light into two smaller overlapping circles. but if you separate the light source from the detector and only the actual photons go through the magnetic field no separation happens, if you then put either the light source OR the detector in the magnetic field the separation reappears. photons only react with matter present, they can only be shown to exist with detectors made of matter. wirebender is full of shit when he says photons magically annihilate each other in the absence of matter.

Ian, how do they get that integer spin? An EM Field? You seriously just argued against something you are now showing evidence for... IF a magnetic field can as you put it "slightly separate a beam of light" what is the beam of light made of? Photons you got it! So if the magnetic field does it, WTH are you crying about?

And will you stop with the BS now? Seriously this statement "photons only react with matter present,.." Its a silly point that was not even disputed by anyone but you.. A CO2 molecule is matter, so is a cloud, and the damn air we breath is matter. Hell man saying a photon only reacts with matter present is a save-ass statement. Matter is gas, liquid or solid. In the vacuum of space there is a lot of matter, different kinds of it. Our planet? Its matter.. So saying a photon only reacts in the presence of matter is like saying the sun is hot.

Ian seriously....

spin is just a quality of photons, like the charge on an electron. the fact that a magnetic field only affects photons at the source of the light or at the detector end and NOT in the middle where only photons were present leads me to believe that changes to photons only happen in the presence of matter, perhaps even the gravity and space expansion effects are mediated by matter. I dont know but no one else does either because you cant detect photons without matter.

wirebender is the one who said photons could disappear in the absence of matter. that is why I have been involved in this long running dispute. he has said many crazy things, eg the light of a brighter sun cancels out the light of a lesser sun and only the light from the brighter sun goes through. personally I think wirebender has jumbled up different aspects of radiation and electric fields into a confused personal version of physics.

Not much on comprehension are ya Ian... Read it again please..

Do you know that a photon is a measurement of an EM Field? I don't think you do... Do you realize that stating a photon can only interact in the presence of matter is not what you said in the beginning? or that stating a photon can only interact in the presence of matter is like saying the sun is hot? no shit Ian...WOW.

You really do not get this at all do you. You would rather make an ass of yourself so be it..

 

[gslack]

perhaps. but I think I have seen enough clues that wirebender has the mental horsepower to understand a bit deeper than some on this messageboard. its just a matter of getting him to think without his errant misconceptions getting in the way.

you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him think.

The more you try and pretend, the more ignorant and desperate you look. Siding up with oldsocks now? Tell me exactly how that is not a pathetic attempt to save face? Give me a break Ian. You screwed up and didn't fully realize what you were arguing against and not only does it show, it also has revealed a great deal about you.

1. Light is electro-magnetic energy.

2. A photon is the smallest measurement of or quantum of an EM field.

3. An electro-magnetic field (EM Field) is made up of Photons.

4. Light has the properties of BOTH a wave and a particle.

You have shown you either do not grasp those 4 principles, or you do now and are trying to be obtuse to cover your previous lack of understanding. Either way your behavior since has been enlightening and I am glad I got to see you this way. Best to know what we are dealing with straight up with no pretenses.

I lack the mathematical abilities and knowledge to dispute wirebenders math on this, I said as much from the start. But rather than calling him wrong, or claiming he made things up, or that Quantum mechanics as it pertains to so-called greenhouse effect is some esoteric study akin to magic, I actually tried to do a little studying on it. At least enough to grasp the basic concepts. That is something you have not done and flat refused to even try and debate this reasonably.

That tells me you are full of shit... I think you are just another internet bullshitter playing a part online. This is your persona and rather than have all that time you spent building it up wasted by not knowing as much as you claim, you will talk as much shit as you can no matter how it makes you look, just so long as your online personality is not wrong about something he is an expert on... Pretty lame Ian...

I am pretty sure you don't understand the wave/particle duality at all, and I would bet you didn't realize the true scope of Quantum mechanics and what it entails as far its effects on the physical realm which we see. The two interact every millisecond of every bit of our existence, and to deny the quantum simply because it wasn't covered in a regular physics class or texts, or simply because you didn't know enough about it, is not logical nor scientific its more like you have your blinders on and will only accept what you already know or at least you can fake that you know.

See Ian I don't understand a lot of it either, but at least I try and learn a bit about it BEFORE I go and make an ass of myself attacking or harassing others. For me when you likened quantum mechanics to an esoteric thing, I smelled BS coming from you. Even with my very limited knowledge of it I knew it was a very real, very much relied upon field which without we wouldn't have microwave ovens, lasers, or so many other things that are apart of our lives now. But you a person of apparently some form of formal physics education dismiss it like its mumbo-jumbo. How in the hell does that work man? Seriously how in the hell does a person educated in physics after Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, et al. still believe quantum mechanics to be the realm of the cracks and wackos? I smell BS like I said before, and unless you work on cattle ranch you are full of it...

even many decades past my last physics course I understand light and quantum effects better than you and wirebender.

and my manners are better too.

Really? Than you wouldn't mind explaining why you spent a couple days harassing me simply because I agreed with wirebender and showed you where you were incorrect? I did so with decency yet your actions were anything but.... how about lying about my links? Or the way you refuse to answer a direct question or statement in favor of changing it to something you want to answer?

All of those things you did BEFORE I called you out for being a bullshit artist..

And for the record, I reserve manners for those who show them in kind. I treat people as they deserve based on their behavior and actions. I call em as I see em...

My manners? HAHAHAHHAHAHAA!

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- you did not like my comparison of your refusal to bump your supposed 'proof where you did the math' to a paywall. what would you call it?

I would call it an instance of telling you to do your own homework. You were right in the middle of the conversation which went on for pages and had no comment whatsoever on either the physical laws being discussed or the mathematics being presented. You had, in short, nothing. I have gone back and looked over the conversation just to be sure. It seems that everyone else in this conversation saw the math and had no objections to it either.

Paywalls? I suppose you could call it that Ian since you are fast and loose with definitions anyway. Hell you might call it pay per view, or even a checking account or a 1933 Ford Crown Victoria with your penchant for torturing definitions to suit whatever point you are trying to make.

The fact is Ian, that you have wasted far more of my time than I have of yours. I laid my position out long ago and you keep asking the same questions over and over and dragging irrelavent subject matter like virtual photons into the discussion for me to have to explain.

you want me to waste my time searching for something that most likely doesnt even exist. you refuse to produce it yet you constantly refer back to it.

You were part of the conversation Ian. Find it yourself. You already demonstrated that you didn't grasp the math anyway when you had no comment as it was being explained in detail and done on the board. You want it, you find it. Maybe Gslack or Matthew will point you in the right direction. I am not inclined to do it for you at this point. Had you asked 50 posts ago, I would have gladly provided you with a link. My opinion of you has changed considerably since then.

you dare people to show where you are mistaken but produce nothing to be checked.

Of course I did. It is all right there. As I have said, you were part of the discussion and had absolutely no comment on the math at all even as it was being explained and presented. In short, then, as now, you had nothing.

Maybe rocks can help you find it since you are getting your sugar from him these days.

this is very reminiscent of Jones' "why should I show you my data if you just want to find flaws" or Mann's "my data is freely available, you just have to look for it" even though it wasnt.

There you go twisting definitions again. Unsurprising. All of mine is right here on this board and maybe on a few other boards if you care to look.

wirebender has learned well from the masters of distortion and disception.

Dishonesty at a foundational level Ian. I have simply grown tired of you and have very little, if any respect for you at this point. You want it, it is all there. You are the smartest guy in the room aren't you. It shoudl be a cinch for as shining an intellect as your own. Hell, I found it on the second try and according to you, I am an idiot.

 

[IanC]

Ian, how do they get that integer spin? An EM Field? You seriously just argued against something you are now showing evidence for... IF a magnetic field can as you put it "slightly separate a beam of light" what is the beam of light made of? Photons you got it! So if the magnetic field does it, WTH are you crying about?

And will you stop with the BS now? Seriously this statement "photons only react with matter present,.." Its a silly point that was not even disputed by anyone but you.. A CO2 molecule is matter, so is a cloud, and the damn air we breath is matter. Hell man saying a photon only reacts with matter present is a save-ass statement. Matter is gas, liquid or solid. In the vacuum of space there is a lot of matter, different kinds of it. Our planet? Its matter.. So saying a photon only reacts in the presence of matter is like saying the sun is hot.

Ian seriously....

spin is just a quality of photons, like the charge on an electron. the fact that a magnetic field only affects photons at the source of the light or at the detector end and NOT in the middle where only photons were present leads me to believe that changes to photons only happen in the presence of matter, perhaps even the gravity and space expansion effects are mediated by matter. I dont know but no one else does either because you cant detect photons without matter.

wirebender is the one who said photons could disappear in the absence of matter. that is why I have been involved in this long running dispute. he has said many crazy things, eg the light of a brighter sun cancels out the light of a lesser sun and only the light from the brighter sun goes through. personally I think wirebender has jumbled up different aspects of radiation and electric fields into a confused personal version of physics.

Not much on comprehension are ya Ian... Read it again please..

Do you know that a photon is a measurement of an EM Field? I don't think you do... Do you realize that stating a photon can only interact in the presence of matter is not what you said in the beginning? or that stating a photon can only interact in the presence of matter is like saying the sun is hot? no shit Ian...WOW.

You really do not get this at all do you. You would rather make an ass of yourself so be it..

you are more garbled than wirebender. what do you mean by "a photon is a measurement of an EM Field"? photons (real and virtual) are the energy carriers in a magnetic or electric field. the strength of the field is measured in units of flux.

what did I say in the beginning? that photons dont interact with each other? they dont, they need matter to change, or even to show paradoxes.

you said "In the vacuum of space there is a lot of matter". I thought vacuum by definition was the absence of matter. perhaps you are talking about 'quantum foam', a theoretical spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs that can only exist for an incredibly short time as defined by the uncertainty principle, and of course cannot actually be measured or even proved to exist. if quantum foam were causing some measurable effect on photons we probably would have noticed by now. your theoretical exceptions to basic physics dont change real world interactions in any meaningful way. why dont you just argue what is actually happening rather than bringing up poorly understood and poorly measured interactions at supercolider energies or theoretical particles that may exist 'in between time'.

 

[IanC]

wirebender- you did not like my comparison of your refusal to bump your supposed 'proof where you did the math' to a paywall. what would you call it?

I would call it an instance of telling you to do your own homework. You were right in the middle of the conversation which went on for pages and had no comment whatsoever on either the physical laws being discussed or the mathematics being presented. You had, in short, nothing. I have gone back and looked over the conversation just to be sure. It seems that everyone else in this conversation saw the math and had no objections to it either.

Paywalls? I suppose you could call it that Ian since you are fast and loose with definitions anyway. Hell you might call it pay per view, or even a checking account or a 1933 Ford Crown Victoria with your penchant for torturing definitions to suit whatever point you are trying to make.

The fact is Ian, that you have wasted far more of my time than I have of yours. I laid my position out long ago and you keep asking the same questions over and over and dragging irrelavent subject matter like virtual photons into the discussion for me to have to explain.

you want me to waste my time searching for something that most likely doesnt even exist. you refuse to produce it yet you constantly refer back to it.

You were part of the conversation Ian. Find it yourself. You already demonstrated that you didn't grasp the math anyway when you had no comment as it was being explained in detail and done on the board. You want it, you find it. Maybe Gslack or Matthew will point you in the right direction. I am not inclined to do it for you at this point. Had you asked 50 posts ago, I would have gladly provided you with a link. My opinion of you has changed considerably since then.




Of course I did. It is all right there. As I have said, you were part of the discussion and had absolutely no comment on the math at all even as it was being explained and presented. In short, then, as now, you had nothing.

Maybe rocks can help you find it since you are getting your sugar from him these days.

this is very reminiscent of Jones' "why should I show you my data if you just want to find flaws" or Mann's "my data is freely available, you just have to look for it" even though it wasnt.

There you go twisting definitions again. Unsurprising. All of mine is right here on this board and maybe on a few other boards if you care to look.

wirebender has learned well from the masters of distortion and disception.

Dishonesty at a foundational level Ian. I have simply grown tired of you and have very little, if any respect for you at this point. You want it, it is all there. You are the smartest guy in the room aren't you. It shoudl be a cinch for as shining an intellect as your own. Hell, I found it on the second try and according to you, I am an idiot.

I dont blame you for not wanting to bump your 'math' up. at first I just dismissed your rantings for the nonsense that they are. unfortunately some readers of this forum actually believe your bullshit. I can understand why you wouldnt want me or anybody else to scrutinize it. thats why you only refer back to it and never actually repeat it.

 

[gslack]

spin is just a quality of photons, like the charge on an electron. the fact that a magnetic field only affects photons at the source of the light or at the detector end and NOT in the middle where only photons were present leads me to believe that changes to photons only happen in the presence of matter, perhaps even the gravity and space expansion effects are mediated by matter. I dont know but no one else does either because you cant detect photons without matter.

wirebender is the one who said photons could disappear in the absence of matter. that is why I have been involved in this long running dispute. he has said many crazy things, eg the light of a brighter sun cancels out the light of a lesser sun and only the light from the brighter sun goes through. personally I think wirebender has jumbled up different aspects of radiation and electric fields into a confused personal version of physics.

Not much on comprehension are ya Ian... Read it again please..

Do you know that a photon is a measurement of an EM Field? I don't think you do... Do you realize that stating a photon can only interact in the presence of matter is not what you said in the beginning? or that stating a photon can only interact in the presence of matter is like saying the sun is hot? no shit Ian...WOW.

You really do not get this at all do you. You would rather make an ass of yourself so be it..

you are more garbled than wirebender. what do you mean by "a photon is a measurement of an EM Field"? photons (real and virtual) are the energy carriers in a magnetic or electric field. the strength of the field is measured in units of flux.

what did I say in the beginning? that photons dont interact with each other? they dont, they need matter to change, or even to show paradoxes.

you said "In the vacuum of space there is a lot of matter". I thought vacuum by definition was the absence of matter. perhaps you are talking about 'quantum foam', a theoretical spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs that can only exist for an incredibly short time as defined by the uncertainty principle, and of course cannot actually be measured or even proved to exist. if quantum foam were causing some measurable effect on photons we probably would have noticed by now. your theoretical exceptions to basic physics dont change real world interactions in any meaningful way. why dont you just argue what is actually happening rather than bringing up poorly understood and poorly measured interactions at supercolider energies or theoretical particles that may exist 'in between time'.

So you dispute the definition of a photon being the quantum of an Electro-magnetic Field?

ok lets take care of this ignorant crap right now...

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and will exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when quantitative momentum (quantized angular momentum) is measured.


Thats not enough for ya? ok...

photon - definition of photon by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

pho·ton (ftn)
n.
1. The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. See Table at subatomic particle.
2. A unit of retinal illumination, equal to the amount of light that reaches the retina through 1 square millimeter of pupil area from a surface having a brightness of 1 candela per square meter.

Want more?

Photon | Define Photon at Dictionary.com

pho·ton   [foh-ton] Show IPA
noun
a quantum of electromagnetic radiation, usually considered as an elementary particle that is its own antiparticle and that has zero rest mass and charge and a spin of one. Symbol: γ
Also called light quantum.

Want more I can go get them all damn day and in all of them the words "quantum of EM energy" is predominate.

Want to debate the use of quantum or its meaning here? Fine lets take care of that too while we are at it...

quantum - definition of quantum by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

quan·tum (kwntm)
n. pl. quan·ta (-t)
1. A quantity or amount.
2. A specified portion.
3. Something that can be counted or measured.
4. Physics
a. The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
b. This amount of energy regarded as a unit.
adj.
Relating to or based upon quantum mechanics.

Do I need to go on? Sure...

Quantum - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1quan·tum noun \ˈkwän-təm\
plural quan·ta



Definition of QUANTUM

1
a : quantity, amount
b : portion, part
c : gross quantity : bulk
2
a : any of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided
b : any of the small subdivisions of a quantized physical magnitude (as magnetic moment)
See quantum defined for English-language learners »
See quantum defined for kids »
Examples of QUANTUM

<the sum of human knowledge is now so immense that even a highly educated person can hope to absorb only a tiny quantum of it>

Notice in all those definitions they say that a quantum is the smallest amount, measurement, increment et al. Get it yet? Its a damn measurement you imbecile.

NOW you have spent all this time dancing and ended up in a corner again...Fact is you DO not know one tenth of what you pretend to know on this. We know it and you just proved it again by trying to mince words and play a semantic douchebag to save face..

Now please continue being a moron because the more bullshit you try and throw in here only makes you look ever more ignorant. Please continue adding more nonsense and things that we are not saying or arguing. You started out claiming photons only react with matter, then you changed it to photons only react in the presence of matter, now its virtual or actual photons.. It never ends with your bs.

You are dishonest Ian, both intellectually and ethically. You have postured and tried to play mr. physics and now in your desperation you have backed yourself into a corner. Its either drop the BS or continue to lose your credibility..

P.S. when I said the vacuum of space you damn well know what I was referring to. In the vastness of space there is a lot of matter. Planets, gases, and so on.. please stop playing the semantic weasel Ian.

 

[IanC]

gslack said- Do you know that a photon is a measurement of an EM Field? I don't think you do...

like I said-- garbled. when most people talk about measurement they actually mean measuring something, as in the flux. as I actually said photons are the energy carriers in the field I dont see how you can accuse me of being confused.

I am not sure but I think the average density of the universe is estimated at one atom per cubic centimeter, a better vacuum than we can produce. I may be wrong in the details but not in the general statement that the universe is a very empty place.

 

[IanC]

arrrrrgh Jim. bring Ol' Billy Bones a measure of grog. I cant get my mind off this Black Spot.

 

[wirebender]

I dont blame you for not wanting to bump your 'math' up. at first I just dismissed your rantings for the nonsense that they are. unfortunately some readers of this forum actually believe your bullshit. I can understand why you wouldnt want me or anybody else to scrutinize it. thats why you only refer back to it and never actually repeat it.

Not even a good try Ian. If you wanted to find the material, a genius like you should have no problem. You weren't able to comment on it in real time and would have nothing to say now.

And at this point Ian, it is abundantly clear that you understand very little other than your need to attempt to save face at any expense. I have proved my point while, to date, you have proved nothing at all other than that you don't really grasp the subject. Hell Ian, everything you brought here in an attempt to make your point has only served to reinforce mine. At this point, if I had any respect left for you, I would be embarassed for you.

 

[gslack]

gslack said- Do you know that a photon is a measurement of an EM Field? I don't think you do...

like I said-- garbled. when most people talk about measurement they actually mean measuring something, as in the flux. as I actually said photons are the energy carriers in the field I dont see how you can accuse me of being confused.

I am not sure but I think the average density of the universe is estimated at one atom per cubic centimeter, a better vacuum than we can produce. I may be wrong in the details but not in the general statement that the universe is a very empty place.

You know what I was referring to in this instance, stop trying to confound the argument Ian. It only shows how right I am about you.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. G, you are as ignorant as a post and have repeatedly proved in on this board. At least Ian has science basics down.

 

[gslack]

LOL. G, you are as ignorant as a post and have repeatedly proved in on this board. At least Ian has science basics down.

Socks when i want the ramblings of a complete sellout and fake I will ask you.. Now run along and play in your peer reviewed eco-blogs.

 

[Chris]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]Global Warming in a Jar - YouTube[/ame]

 

[wirebender]

Global Warming in a Jar - YouTube

Poor dupes. That experiment isn't demonstrating the greenhouse effect, or anything like it. It does demonstrate a property of CO2 that air doesn't have, but it doesn't demonstrate anything that happens in the open atmosphere.

CO2 is heavier than air. Because it is heavier, when it absorbs IR it expands with greater force than air. What that experiment is showing is the phenomenon known as heat of compression. When a gas is compressed, its temperature rises. Refer to the ideal gas law. Since CO2 is heavier, it expands to a greater degree than air and is therefore compressed in the jar which is what causes the temperature to rise, not any greenhouse effect.

Take the heat of compression out of the experiment and you will see no warming within the jar. Here, have a look.

Greenhouse In A Bottle-Reconsidered