Global Warming is legit

[konradv]

Energy shifts from kinetic to potential and then the reverse.

On the other hand, if energy is never converted, then we would never have decreases in temperature.

True, but the basic question is, what happens to IR photons that are scattered back towards earth by CO2? That energy has to be accounted for, if you want to disprove AGW theory.

 

[saveliberty]

Energy shifts from kinetic to potential and then the reverse.

On the other hand, if energy is never converted, then we would never have decreases in temperature.

True, but the basic question is, what happens to IR photons that are scattered back towards earth by CO2? That energy has to be accounted for, if you want to disprove AGW theory.

If the energy is scattered, CO2 isn't retaining it now is it?

 

[konradv]

Energy shifts from kinetic to potential and then the reverse.

On the other hand, if energy is never converted, then we would never have decreases in temperature.

True, but the basic question is, what happens to IR photons that are scattered back towards earth by CO2? That energy has to be accounted for, if you want to disprove AGW theory.

If the energy is scattered, CO2 isn't retaining it now is it?

It's absorbing and re-emitting photons, some of which travel back towards earth. Those photons would tend to warm the earth, unless there's another way the energy is dissipated. It's that fact that leads AGW theorists to predict warming, not retention by CO2. Basically, it intercepts some of the reflected IR photons heading towards space and redirects them back towards earth. The more CO2, the more redirected photons.

 

[saveliberty]

True, but the basic question is, what happens to IR photons that are scattered back towards earth by CO2? That energy has to be accounted for, if you want to disprove AGW theory.

If the energy is scattered, CO2 isn't retaining it now is it?

It's absorbing and re-emitting photons, some of which travel back towards earth. Those photons would tend to warm the earth, unless there's another way the energy is dissipated. It's that fact that leads AGW theorists to predict warming, not retention by CO2. Basically, it intercepts some of the reflected IR photons heading towards space and redirects them back towards earth. The more CO2, the more redirected photons.

If true, the CO2 would deflect as much or more photons back into space. Really a poor theory.

 

[konradv]

If the energy is scattered, CO2 isn't retaining it now is it?

It's absorbing and re-emitting photons, some of which travel back towards earth. Those photons would tend to warm the earth, unless there's another way the energy is dissipated. It's that fact that leads AGW theorists to predict warming, not retention by CO2. Basically, it intercepts some of the reflected IR photons heading towards space and redirects them back towards earth. The more CO2, the more redirected photons.

If true, the CO2 would deflect as much or more photons back into space. Really a poor theory.

Why? That's the whole point. If CO2 weren't there at all, a lot more would escape and we'd be colder by several degrees. Keep adding to it and it would seem logical that the reverse would be true. No one's saying CO2 is a prefect blanket.

 

[saveliberty]

It's absorbing and re-emitting photons, some of which travel back towards earth. Those photons would tend to warm the earth, unless there's another way the energy is dissipated. It's that fact that leads AGW theorists to predict warming, not retention by CO2. Basically, it intercepts some of the reflected IR photons heading towards space and redirects them back towards earth. The more CO2, the more redirected photons.

If true, the CO2 would deflect as much or more photons back into space. Really a poor theory.

Why? That's the whole point. If CO2 weren't there at all, a lot more would escape and we'd be colder by several degrees. Keep adding to it and it would seem logical that the reverse would be true. No one's saying CO2 is a prefect blanket.

If CO2 reflects the photons when they initially enter, they aren't available to warm the Earth as your "theory" suggests. The more CO2 the more reflection and the less available photons to retain.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When these IR Photos are scattered back, only a small percentage actually make it back to the surface no?

 

[code1211]

The energy the backradiated photons represent is expended in opposition to the EM field being radiated by the surface of the earth. The magnitude of the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth is, in turn, diminished by the magnituded of the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. The EM field being radiated by the earth, being larger than that being radiated by the atmosphere determines the direction of propagation and therefore the direction of energy flow.

Those things happen in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. If any of that energy reached the surface, it would be a violation of both those laws as energy would have to move from a cool object (the atmosphere) to a warm object (the earth) and if the earth absorbed any of that energy, its radiation output would have to increase even though its energy source (the sun) was not putting out more energy. That would represent the creation of energy and that, according to the law of conservation of energy simply can't happen.

How is energy "expended"? That sounds like 'destroyed', if not, it's still there. Unless you're creating matter, you've violated Conservation of Energy. Not only that, you've doubled-down on the error by postulating a second "anti-photon?", which also disappears! If it doesn't disappear, where does the energy go?

Are describing a cause that has no effect?

 

[code1211]

Conservation of Energy demands you tell me what happens to the energy of back-scattered photons. If you can't, the only logical inference is that it contributes to warming. That's all the proof one should need. What's YOUR deduction from the evidence presented? Do you have an alternate theory of what happens to the energy? If not, your opinion isn't worth much.

Let's concede that what you are saying is absolutely correct and all of what you say is contributing all of what you suppose to the warming of the planet.

Why is the planet cooling?

Why are you telling lies once again?



Ten Warmest 12-month consecutive periods of the CONUS Record

These are the warmest 12-month periods on record for the contiguous United States. The record begins January 1895.

2012 Warmth | Ten Warmest 12-month consecutive periods of the CONUS Record

Rank

Consecutive 12-month Period

Temperature Departure
(from 20th Century Average)



Warmest

May 2011 – April 2012*

+2.80°F



2nd Warmest

November 1999 – October 2000

+2.70°F



3rd Warmest

October 1999 – September 2000

+2.65°F



4th Warmest

April 2011 – March 2012*

+2.61°F



5th Warmest

September 2005 – August 2006

+2.56°F



6th Warmest

August 2005 – July 2006

+2.54°F





September 1999 – August 2000

+2.54°F



8th Warmest

July 1999 – June 2000

+2.51°F



9th Warmest

June 1999 – May 2000

+2.46°F





August 1999 – July 2000

+2.46°F

Your inability to speak English does not detract from the fact that the climate has not warmed in the last ten years and has cooled in the last 11.

Can you make wine out of those cherries you're picking?

Global Warming Hoax, No sign In 10 Years

World temperatures have remained virtually unchanged in the past 10 years despite predictions of global warming and America’s mildest winter in decades, Princeton physics professor William Happer contends.

Weather patterns worldwide over the past few months were very similar to those in 1942 when the continental United States basked in a warm winter at the same time that Alaska and Asia were slammed with severe weather and “General Frost” stalled the German army’s advance into Russia, Happer wrote in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Global Warming Hoax, No sign In 10 Years
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

 

[konradv]

The energy the backradiated photons represent is expended in opposition to the EM field being radiated by the surface of the earth. The magnitude of the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth is, in turn, diminished by the magnituded of the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. The EM field being radiated by the earth, being larger than that being radiated by the atmosphere determines the direction of propagation and therefore the direction of energy flow.

Those things happen in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. If any of that energy reached the surface, it would be a violation of both those laws as energy would have to move from a cool object (the atmosphere) to a warm object (the earth) and if the earth absorbed any of that energy, its radiation output would have to increase even though its energy source (the sun) was not putting out more energy. That would represent the creation of energy and that, according to the law of conservation of energy simply can't happen.

How is energy "expended"? That sounds like 'destroyed', if not, it's still there. Unless you're creating matter, you've violated Conservation of Energy. Not only that, you've doubled-down on the error by postulating a second "anti-photon?", which also disappears! If it doesn't disappear, where does the energy go?

Are describing a cause that has no effect?

No, please explain. Don't really understand your question. If there's no effect, is there a cause and what does that have to do with the question at hand?

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks- you are worried about global warming right? wouldnt it be more fruitful to look at which 5 year periods showed the most warming? there wouldnt be many in the 2000's, if any.

I have seen figures for the decades with the most warming....this is from those biased commies at National Geogrphic magazine!!

"The past decade has been the hottest on record, according to new global warming data released today at the Copenhagen climate conference by the World Meteorological Organization.

The climate research revealed today in Copenhagen says that that global combined air surface and sea surface temperatures for 2009 have so far hit 14.44°C (57.99°F). This is 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the average annual temperature of 14.00°C (57.20°F) recorded between 1961 and 1990, which is used as a reference period, according to the WMO."

Global Warming "Marches On"; Past Decade Hottest Known

why do so many of you guys have problems with the simplest concepts? you do realize that 'warm' and 'warming' mean different things, right? the last decade had insignificant warming (perhaps insignificant cooling). therefore it does not support CO2 theory but it doesnt disprove it either.

 

[Staidhup]

So the earth never experienced periods of warming and cooling before man showed up with his quest to burn fossil fuels? Too bad Gore and his buds weren't around a few million years ago, just think of all the extinct critters that would have been saved. when scientists rule the world were truly fucked.

 

[IanC]

How is energy "expended"? That sounds like 'destroyed', if not, it's still there. Unless you're creating matter, you've violated Conservation of Energy. Not only that, you've doubled-down on the error by postulating a second "anti-photon?", which also disappears! If it doesn't disappear, where does the energy go?

Geez konradv, this is absolute rock bottom basic and you still don't get it? You become more pathetic all the time. Expending energy against a force, any force, wheither it be dead weight, hydraulic pressure, or an EM field constiutes work. The energy is expended doing work. That work is the dimunation of the opposing EM field by the amount of energy expended against it.

When energy is expended doing work, the work accomplished accounts for the expended energy. Are you now going to try and argue that the law of conservation of energy says that when you expend energy doing work the energy remains in addition to the work performed?

explain where the discrete photon emitted from the CO2 molecule disappears. it really is that simple but you never answer.

 

[IanC]

I keep trying to find an easy example to explain the difference between radiative and reactive photons.

Star Trek had a science fiction tractor beam. it attracted non-magnetic, non-charged objects. we dont have that because only photons created by electric or magnetic fields (reactive) can be attractive.

radiative photons are created by single particles to expel energy. reactive photons are created to transfer energy between two particles in a magnetic or electric field. radiative photons are always real, reactive photons are not real until they find a corresponding particle to transfer energy to.

where would the energy come from if magnetic or electric fields produced real photons in every conceivable direction? they are only 'paid' for when something accepts them.

wirebender has confused one type for the other and doesnt realize that the properties are different.

 

[Saigon]

why do so many of you guys have problems with the simplest concepts? you do realize that 'warm' and 'warming' mean different things, right? the last decade had insignificant warming (perhaps insignificant cooling). therefore it does not support CO2 theory but it doesnt disprove it either.

I don't know why you found my post difficult to understand, Ian.

No one confused 'warm' with 'warming'...but if the last decade was the warmest on record, then it seems fairly unlikely that the planet is actually cooling (as claimed), doesn't it?

If one can get to 'warmest' with 'warming', I'd like to see how.

 

[IanC]

why do so many of you guys have problems with the simplest concepts? you do realize that 'warm' and 'warming' mean different things, right? the last decade had insignificant warming (perhaps insignificant cooling). therefore it does not support CO2 theory but it doesnt disprove it either.

I don't know why you found my post difficult to understand, Ian.

No one confused 'warm' with 'warming'...but if the last decade was the warmest on record, then it seems fairly unlikely that the planet is actually cooling (as claimed), doesn't it?

If one can get to 'warmest' with 'warming', I'd like to see how.

so when did that warming happen? obviously not in the last decade because the temps have been flat. the 1990's had warming, the 2000's did not.

the staircase of natural variation of temperature encompasses the range we have been in the last 50, 500 or 5000 years. there is nothing special about the few degrees difference or the specific temperature we are at right now.

 

[wirebender]

Look back to the early days of the formation of the DDT myth. NG was right on board.

The only DDT myths I know of are: It's been banned completely and millions of deaths have resulted.

A. DDT has only been banned in agricultural use, not for the control of pest populations.

B. Increased deaths are the result of resistance developed by insect populations due to over-use.

As ususal, you demonstrate that you know very little. Here is a list of about 100 things you obviously don't know about DDT. The scientific claims are referenced to published, peer reviewed papaers.

100 things you should know about DDT

 

[wirebender]

But doesn't work result in heat or a higher energy state? The energy is still there, it's just changed form. You haven't shown how it escapes earth, thereby adding credence to GW theory! The energy is ALWAYS there, no matter how much you want it to just disappear.

So you believe in perpetual motion. If the energy is still there but in a different form then by using that different form of energy you should be able to continue to power your machine.

The energy is not there knonradv. The energy has been converted into work. The work done was a slight diminishment of the EM field radiated by the earth. Geez you just get further and further away from reality with every post.

 

[wirebender]

Energy shifts from kinetic to potential and then the reverse.

On the other hand, if energy is never converted, then we would never have decreases in temperature.

True, but the basic question is, what happens to IR photons that are scattered back towards earth by CO2? That energy has to be accounted for, if you want to disprove AGW theory.

The energy is accounted for, you moron by the slight decrease in magnitude of the EM field radiated by the earth.

 

[wirebender]

It's absorbing and re-emitting photons, some of which travel back towards earth. Those photons would tend to warm the earth, unless there's another way the energy is dissipated. It's that fact that leads AGW theorists to predict warming, not retention by CO2. Basically, it intercepts some of the reflected IR photons heading towards space and redirects them back towards earth. The more CO2, the more redirected photons.

So you are claiming the recycling of energy in order to raise the temperature of the earth beyond that which its only energy source can manage. Sorry guy but that is a violation of the law of conservation of energy.