Global Warming is legit

[wirebender]

If that were true, I shouldn't be able to see the moon during the day.

Konrad you doofus, how many times does this have to be explained to you? Repeating the same old ignorant arguments an endless number of times isn't going to change the physics. Are you unable to grasp the difference between IR and visible light? Again, you don't know enough science to even begin to make an intelligent argument.

Why is the sky blue? Because blue wavelength photons are "scattered" back to my eye!

Again, visible light vs IR.

Of course a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can reach earth. Anyone that agrees with you is as delusional as you are.

Sorry, but it can't and the math proves it. Disagree if you like, but your disagreement is based on your faith rather than any actual knowledge. What does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to say about energy transferring from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth)?

 

[rancidmilko]

Funny that down here in Brazil the weather is getting colder and colder.

 

[wirebender]

Funny that down here in Brazil the weather is getting colder and colder.

But the surface record says that it is getting hotter and hotter. Your thermometer must be broken.

 

[konradv]

If that were true, I shouldn't be able to see the moon during the day.

Konrad you doofus, how many times does this have to be explained to you? Repeating the same old ignorant arguments an endless number of times isn't going to change the physics. Are you unable to grasp the difference between IR and visible light? Again, you don't know enough science to even begin to make an intelligent argument.

Why is the sky blue? Because blue wavelength photons are "scattered" back to my eye!

Again, visible light vs IR.

Of course a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can reach earth. Anyone that agrees with you is as delusional as you are.

Sorry, but it can't and the math proves it. Disagree if you like, but your disagreement is based on your faith rather than any actual knowledge. What does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to say about energy transferring from cool objects (the atmosphere) to warm objects (the surface of the earth)?

I make the same arguments because you never refute them. Blue or red, photons are photons and what you said should apply, regardless. Once again you've moved the goalposts by talking about heat transfer. We were talking about photons! Do you think no one notices you can't stick to a coherent argument?

 

[konradv]

Funny that down here in Brazil the weather is getting colder and colder.

But the surface record says that it is getting hotter and hotter. Your thermometer must be broken.

Doofus, they're heading for winter in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

[rancidmilko]

Summer has been milder and winters have been hitting records almost every year.

 

[konradv]

And yet the climate has stalled or cooled for the last decade while the rise of CO2 continues apace.

What up with that?

Is the climate just too stupid to follow natural law?

Why do reminders about natural cycles have to be made to the skeptics?

No need. It your contention that changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate. You have yet to prove this contention. You are welcome to do so.

My observation is that your case makes an assertion and this is not supported by the reality of the natural world. Your response should have been to show that in truth the temperature always follows the rise of CO2.

Since this simply does not happen, I understand your inability to do so. However, what I don't understand is why you bitterly cling to your assertion when there is no proof to support it.

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

 

[IanC]

Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!

As has been explained to you over and over konradv, a photon is a packet of energy. It is the smallest possible bit of energy in the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. Energy can not flow in two directions along any given vector. Claiming that radiation from the atmosphere can reach the earth is like claiming that if you run a wire from a car battery to a AAA battery, power from the AAA battery will reach the car battery.

I am not making a mistake and have done the math right here on this board for everyone to see. While several of you didn't care for the results, no one on this board, or any other board for that matter has pointed to any error on my part. Radiation from the atmosphere can not reach the surface of the earth. Period.

I really wish you would stop promoting your bizarre personal theory of radiative physics.

There is no physical way of stopping an excited CO2 molecule from radiating an IR photon in a random direction, some of which will be pointed to earth and some of those will impact the surface.

you are still confused about the properties of radiative fields compared to reactive fields. radiative fields(eg. a light bulb) pay the energy up front to make photons that exist. reactive fields(eg. a magnet) produce potential photons that only have to be paid for if some other particle accepts them.

konrad is incorrect about head-to-head collisions of exact match photons along the same vector. if you measured at the point of interference there would be a change but if the photons do not react with a particle of matter they simply continue on as if nothing had happened. wirebender's mistaken theory has existing radiative photons blinking out of existence with no interaction with matter because he is confusing them with reactive photons that come into existence in reactive fields with the exact amount of energy to carry the force. even then it takes a particle of matter to complete the transaction.

wirebender is also confused by the second law of thermodynamics. SLoT is not a physical process that actually interacts with matter or photons. it is a description of energy flow based on the fact that warmer objects radiate more than cooler ones, so there is always more net radiation from warm to cool. it does not state that there is no radiation from the cooler object to the warmer one.

wirebender-- you have stated that you have proved your theory and 'done the math'. but whenever anyone asks to see this proof you refuse to produce it. I am asking again but I am sure you will just duck the question again, like you have done so many times in the past.

 

[IanC]

Why do reminders about natural cycles have to be made to the skeptics?

No need. It your contention that changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate. You have yet to prove this contention. You are welcome to do so.

My observation is that your case makes an assertion and this is not supported by the reality of the natural world. Your response should have been to show that in truth the temperature always follows the rise of CO2.

Since this simply does not happen, I understand your inability to do so. However, what I don't understand is why you bitterly cling to your assertion when there is no proof to support it.

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

konradv- there is no increase in energy. the Sun supplies the energy, the Earth radiates it away. CO2 blocks the escape of radiative energy to a small degree in the same fashion as a log across a river dams up the water. once the water backs up a bit it finds new ways to get around the blockage and the flow returns to normal. when CO2 backs up the flow of escaping energy the temperature at the surface goes up a small amount and other methods of heat shedding are increased until a new equilibrium is found. the theoretical 1C increase for doubling CO2 is probably more like 0.5C once the adjustments have taken place. negative feedbacks abound in nature, positive feedbacks are as rare as hen's teeth.

 

[wirebender]

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

And again, your lack of knowledge leads your intuition in exactly the wrong direction. There is no more energy. CO2 doesn't represent more energy or any energy at all. Your belief that somehow CO2 represents more energy is in direct opposition to the law of conservation of energy which says that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. The sun is the earth's primary source of energy and unless the sun increases its output, or the core of the earth increases its output there is no more energy available.

Your belief that simple absorption and emission somehow increases the available energy is not in accordance with the law of conservation of energy.

 

[konradv]

Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!

As has been explained to you over and over konradv, a photon is a packet of energy. It is the smallest possible bit of energy in the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. Energy can not flow in two directions along any given vector. Claiming that radiation from the atmosphere can reach the earth is like claiming that if you run a wire from a car battery to a AAA battery, power from the AAA battery will reach the car battery.

I am not making a mistake and have done the math right here on this board for everyone to see. While several of you didn't care for the results, no one on this board, or any other board for that matter has pointed to any error on my part. Radiation from the atmosphere can not reach the surface of the earth. Period.

I really wish you would stop promoting your bizarre personal theory of radiative physics.

There is no physical way of stopping an excited CO2 molecule from radiating an IR photon in a random direction, some of which will be pointed to earth and some of those will impact the surface.

you are still confused about the properties of radiative fields compared to reactive fields. radiative fields(eg. a light bulb) pay the energy up front to make photons that exist. reactive fields(eg. a magnet) produce potential photons that only have to be paid for if some other particle accepts them.

konrad is incorrect about head-to-head collisions of exact match photons along the same vector. if you measured at the point of interference there would be a change but if the photons do not react with a particle of matter they simply continue on as if nothing had happened. wirebender's mistaken theory has existing radiative photons blinking out of existence with no interaction with matter because he is confusing them with reactive photons that come into existence in reactive fields with the exact amount of energy to carry the force. even then it takes a particle of matter to complete the transaction.

wirebender is also confused by the second law of thermodynamics. SLoT is not a physical process that actually interacts with matter or photons. it is a description of energy flow based on the fact that warmer objects radiate more than cooler ones, so there is always more net radiation from warm to cool. it does not state that there is no radiation from the cooler object to the warmer one.

wirebender-- you have stated that you have proved your theory and 'done the math'. but whenever anyone asks to see this proof you refuse to produce it. I am asking again but I am sure you will just duck the question again, like you have done so many times in the past.

Sorry, just trying to come up with anything that could rationalize his position. Didn't really think anything like that could happen. It was an exercise in my own mind to try and determine how his theory would work. It was more a method of showing how absurd the notion was, than an actual theory.

 

[konradv]

No need. It your contention that changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate. You have yet to prove this contention. You are welcome to do so.

My observation is that your case makes an assertion and this is not supported by the reality of the natural world. Your response should have been to show that in truth the temperature always follows the rise of CO2.

Since this simply does not happen, I understand your inability to do so. However, what I don't understand is why you bitterly cling to your assertion when there is no proof to support it.

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

konradv- there is no increase in energy. the Sun supplies the energy, the Earth radiates it away. CO2 blocks the escape of radiative energy to a small degree in the same fashion as a log across a river dams up the water. once the water backs up a bit it finds new ways to get around the blockage and the flow returns to normal. when CO2 backs up the flow of escaping energy the temperature at the surface goes up a small amount and other methods of heat shedding are increased until a new equilibrium is found. the theoretical 1C increase for doubling CO2 is probably more like 0.5C once the adjustments have taken place. negative feedbacks abound in nature, positive feedbacks are as rare as hen's teeth.

An increase is an increase. 1% vs 0.5% merely increases the time, but doesn't change the results. I notice you said "new equilibrium". Not back to baseline? Not lower, surely? What does that leave, but up?

 

[konradv]

BTW, re: your analogy, Ian. What's the "other way" IR escapes? Seems to me it will always have to run the CO2 gauntlet. There doesn't seem to be a way around THAT log.

 

[IanC]

BTW, re: your analogy, Ian. What's the "other way" IR escapes? Seems to me it will always have to run the CO2 gauntlet. There doesn't seem to be a way around THAT log.

I have talked to you in the past about this. most of the surface heat leaves through convection and latent heat of phase change. it is only when the tops of clouds shed their heat that radiation comes to the fore.

 

[IanC]

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

konradv- there is no increase in energy. the Sun supplies the energy, the Earth radiates it away. CO2 blocks the escape of radiative energy to a small degree in the same fashion as a log across a river dams up the water. once the water backs up a bit it finds new ways to get around the blockage and the flow returns to normal. when CO2 backs up the flow of escaping energy the temperature at the surface goes up a small amount and other methods of heat shedding are increased until a new equilibrium is found. the theoretical 1C increase for doubling CO2 is probably more like 0.5C once the adjustments have taken place. negative feedbacks abound in nature, positive feedbacks are as rare as hen's teeth.

An increase is an increase. 1% vs 0.5% merely increases the time, but doesn't change the results. I notice you said "new equilibrium". Not back to baseline? Not lower, surely? What does that leave, but up?

changing the temperatures at different levels doesnt necessarily change the input and output energies.

most sceptics dont deny that there is some effect from CO2. what we deny is the huge temperature increases and the doomsday scenarios presented from those ridiculous predictions. we are also suspicious of the work that is being done in climate science because every time it is closely examined it shows exaggeration and unfounded conclusions.

 

[Saigon]

every time it is closely examined it shows exaggeration and unfounded conclusions.

Really? On how many occasions has this been shown, and by whom?

Please be specific in your reply.

 

[konradv]

BTW, re: your analogy, Ian. What's the "other way" IR escapes? Seems to me it will always have to run the CO2 gauntlet. There doesn't seem to be a way around THAT log.

I have talked to you in the past about this. most of the surface heat leaves through convection and latent heat of phase change. it is only when the tops of clouds shed their heat that radiation comes to the fore.

I'll accept that's another way heat escapes, but that doesn't change the fact that more CO2 means more absorbed energy, even if the effect is logarithmic rather than arithmetic. I'm not going to scream in panic over the subject, but I feel ignoring the situation doesn't make sense, either.

 

[wirebender]

I really wish you would stop promoting your bizarre personal theory of radiative physics.

First, it isn't my personal theory. Second, if you understand physics, it isn't bizzare. What is bizarre is the idea promoted by agw entheusiasts is that the atmosphere delivers more than twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun. Now that is bizarre and even more bizarre is that the public has become so uneducated that it has bought into the hoax.

There is no physical way of stopping an excited CO2 molecule from radiating an IR photon in a random direction, some of which will be pointed to earth and some of those will impact the surface.

I never said that there was. What I said is that energy can not travel in two directions along the same vector. I asked you which vector might exist in which energy from the atmosphere might travel unimpeeded to the surface of the earth and you had no answer.

If you would like to explain how energy might travel in two directions along the same vector, by all means do so and describe an experiment by which it might be proven possible. Of course to do so would be a workable mechanism for a perpetual motion machine.

you are still confused about the properties of radiative fields compared to reactive fields.

Sorry guy, the only one confused here is you.

konrad is incorrect about head-to-head collisions of exact match photons along the same vector.

Describe a frequency emitted by a CO2 molecule which would not already be emitting from the surface of the earth from any possible vector. And your idiot clinging to photons as free agents zipping about the universe rather than the fact that a photon is the smallest possible measure of an EM field demonstrates your very fundamental misunderstanding of the physics.

A new paradigm is coming ian courtesy of N&Z. What will you believe then?

wirebender is also confused by the second law of thermodynamics. SLoT is not a physical process that actually interacts with matter or photons. it is a description of energy flow based on the fact that warmer objects radiate more than cooler ones, so there is always more net radiation from warm to cool. it does not state that there is no radiation from the cooler object to the warmer one.

Your belief that the second law is no more than a set of statistical probabilities is further evidence that you have a profound misunderstanding of physics. Do feel free to describe an experiment that proves that the second law is not correct to the letter.

wirebender-- you have stated that you have proved your theory and 'done the math'. but whenever anyone asks to see this proof you refuse to produce it. I am asking again but I am sure you will just duck the question again, like you have done so many times in the past.

You were part of the discussion ian and you had nothing more to add other than some snide sideline sniping which didn't address the math at all. Clearly it was over your head at the time and remains over your head. If you want it, feel free to find it as it is still right were I left it. You have sunk so low on my respect - o - meter that I feel no compunction at all to be of any assistance to you.

 

[konradv]

Each photon IS a free agent once it's emitted. To say otherwise removes the particle aspect of wave-particle duality.

 

[wirebender]

Sorry, just trying to come up with anything that could rationalize his position. Didn't really think anything like that could happen. It was an exercise in my own mind to try and determine how his theory would work. It was more a method of showing how absurd the notion was, than an actual theory.

My position doesn't need to be rationalized. It is supported and predicted by the very laws of physics. And it is clear that you didn't, don't, and haven't spent much time thinking.