Global Warming is legit

[wirebender]

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

None make it back to the surface. Second law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, Stefan-Boltzman law and all that.

 

[wirebender]

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.

Alas ian, it is you who has the problem with the simplest of concepts. Your issue begins with your inability to grasp what a photon is. You view it as a free agent zipping about the universe until such time as it encounters a solid object.

Here, once more, the definition of photon

Photon | Define Photon at Dictionary.com

Look down the page to the science dictionary.

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

Photon - Physics Terms and Definitions by Health Dictionary

photon - A discrete quantity of electromagnetic energy. Short wavelength (high frequency) photons carry more energy than long wavelength (low frequency) photons. See Electromagnetic Radiation.

photon - Definition of photon

photon - Particle Physics a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation

And since you are so farr off in your mind on what a photon is, I doubt that you know what the word quantum means.

quantum - 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.

That being said, and shown, and duely proven, know ian, that we are talking about electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic fields. Not free agents zipping about the universe. A photon is nothing more than theoretical smallest bit of measurable energy within an electromagnetic field and EM fields obey certain laws of physics and behave as I have been describing to you for months.

If you want to try and prove your case, show me a legitimate dictionary definition of a photon as a free agent that zips about the universe and never stops till it hits some solid bit of matter; or name the physical law that actually predicts and supports your claims.

Now ian, you can go on ad nauseum (which you have) about my strange ideas and my strange theories but don't you find it odd that the science dictionary defines the terms being used as I use them and my claims are in accordance with the laws of nature? It is you who is off the reservation.

 

[wirebender]

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

I have over and over ian but your actual knowledge of physics (as opposed to your imagined knowledge of physics) is simply to small to grasp that you have been given an answer over and over for months now.

A photon according to every scientific dictionary I can lay my hands on is nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field. Claiming that a discrete photon means anything unless it is a part of a larger EM field is like claiming that a free electron outside of an electric current means anything. When we are talking about radiation from the earth or the atmosphere, ian, we are talking about electromagnetic fields.

The scientific dictionaries back up my description of what a photon is and represents. The laws of physics back up my claims of what is happening with regard to the interaction of these EM fields and those self same and very well known and understood physical properties and phenomena associated with EM fields are all that is at work here. Fire two microwave streams (electromagnetic radiation by the way) of different magnitudes at each other and the one of greater magnitude cancels the other out. The smaller microwave stream diminishes the greater one to the degree of its own magnitude. The radiation from only the greater field continues on its way. The smaller field was expended doing work against the greater field and the work done is represented by the fact that the larger field is now continuing on its way at a reduced magnitude.

This isn't difficult to grasp if you will let go of your flawed notion of what a photon is. Look at the dictionary definitions ian, they are saying what I am saying and none backing you up. Look at the physics and planning involved in setting up microwave arrays, short wave towers, radio towers, or any other means of transmitting electromagnetic radiation. They are trying to avoid precisely what I have been telling you is happening between the EM field radiated by the earth and that radiated by the atmosphere. You simply can't imagine that you are wrong even though no dictionary matches your definition and the physical laws don't support your claims of what is happening.

In short ian, you are wrong and will continue to be wrong till you can grasp what the word photon means and apply it to the actual physical laws as opposed to the corrupted and bastardized laws you are presently working with.

 

[wirebender]

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.

So now you are referencing star trek. Not surprising since you are and have been operating in the realm of science fiction all along. Of course the quality of your own science fiction is no where near that of Roddenberry. You keep looking for an example and don't find it odd that you are unable to find one. You also don't find anything strange about the fact that I can pull a definition matching my use of the terms from any science dictionary and need only list off the physical laws as they are stated to make my case.

There you are torturing the statements of physical laws to the breaking point, and referencing star trek in an attempt to make your argument.

Hell ian, are you, in reality nothing more than perhaps konradv's sock?

 

[konradv]

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

I have over and over ian but your actual knowledge of physics (as opposed to your imagined knowledge of physics) is simply to small to grasp that you have been given an answer over and over for months now.

A photon according to every scientific dictionary I can lay my hands on is nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field. Claiming that a discrete photon means anything unless it is a part of a larger EM field is like claiming that a free electron outside of an electric current means anything. When we are talking about radiation from the earth or the atmosphere, ian, we are talking about electromagnetic fields.

The scientific dictionaries back up my description of what a photon is and represents. The laws of physics back up my claims of what is happening with regard to the interaction of these EM fields and those self same and very well known and understood physical properties and phenomena associated with EM fields are all that is at work here. Fire two microwave streams (electromagnetic radiation by the way) of different magnitudes at each other and the one of greater magnitude cancels the other out. The smaller microwave stream diminishes the greater one to the degree of its own magnitude. The radiation from only the greater field continues on its way. The smaller field was expended doing work against the greater field and the work done is represented by the fact that the larger field is now continuing on its way at a reduced magnitude.

This isn't difficult to grasp if you will let go of your flawed notion of what a photon is. Look at the dictionary definitions ian, they are saying what I am saying and none backing you up. Look at the physics and planning involved in setting up microwave arrays, short wave towers, radio towers, or any other means of transmitting electromagnetic radiation. They are trying to avoid precisely what I have been telling you is happening between the EM field radiated by the earth and that radiated by the atmosphere. You simply can't imagine that you are wrong even though no dictionary matches your definition and the physical laws don't support your claims of what is happening.

In short ian, you are wrong and will continue to be wrong till you can grasp what the word photon means and apply it to the actual physical laws as opposed to the corrupted and bastardized laws you are presently working with.

Photons aren't electromagnetic. They don't have a charge, so do not create an EM field as they travel.

 

[wirebender]

Photons aren't electromagnetic. They don't have a charge, so do not create an EM field as they travel.

You f'ing idiot. How much stupider can you possibly get. Photons ARE the EM field Again, refer to the scientific definition of photon:

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

photon - A discrete quantity of electromagnetic energy. Short wavelength (high frequency) photons carry more energy than long wavelength (low frequency) photons. See Electromagnetic Radiation.

photon - Particle Physics a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation

quantum - 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.

You have proven beyond any doubt that you don't have a clue konradv. If you weren't so f'ing stupid, you would realize how badly you are embarassing yourself in public. The fact that you don't see it is testament to how profoundly ignorant you are. The very fact that you have multiple definitions of photon from scientific dictionaries stating explicitly that photons are what make up EM fields coupled with your response that photons have nothing to do with EM fields is, frankly, one of the most idiotic that I have ever had uttered to me. Congratulations konradv, you have introduced me to a whole new level of stupid.[/QUOTE]

 

[konradv]

Photons aren't electromagnetic. They don't have a charge, so do not create an EM field as they travel.

You f'ing idiot. How much stupider can you possibly get. Photons ARE the EM field Again, refer to the scientific definition of photon:

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

photon - A discrete quantity of electromagnetic energy. Short wavelength (high frequency) photons carry more energy than long wavelength (low frequency) photons. See Electromagnetic Radiation.

photon - Particle Physics a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation

quantum - 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.

You have proven beyond any doubt that you don't have a clue konradv. If you weren't so f'ing stupid, you would realize how badly you are embarassing yourself in public. The fact that you don't see it is testament to how profoundly ignorant you are. The very fact that you have multiple definitions of photon from scientific dictionaries stating explicitly that photons are what make up EM fields coupled with your response that photons have nothing to do with EM fields is, frankly, one of the most idiotic that I have ever had uttered to me. Congratulations konradv, you have introduced me to a whole new level of stupid.

[/QUOTE]

Where does the EM field come from? All I see is reflection of photons off the surface of the earth. This EM field seems to be a figment of your imagination. You postulate it without telling us how it comes into existence in the first place!!!

 

[IanC]

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.

So now you are referencing star trek. Not surprising since you are and have been operating in the realm of science fiction all along. Of course the quality of your own science fiction is no where near that of Roddenberry. You keep looking for an example and don't find it odd that you are unable to find one. You also don't find anything strange about the fact that I can pull a definition matching my use of the terms from any science dictionary and need only list off the physical laws as they are stated to make my case.

There you are torturing the statements of physical laws to the breaking point, and referencing star trek in an attempt to make your argument.

Hell ian, are you, in reality nothing more than perhaps konradv's sock?

I brought up the Star Trek tractor beam to point out your confusion that all photons are the same. photons created by electric and magnetic fields can be attractive or repulsive and are only found with a sending and receiving particle. we cant make a laser out of attractive photons because we cant make stand alone attractive photons. they are fundementally different than the simple packets of energy and momentum emitted by excited atoms or molecules trying to get closer to ground state.

you are using a general definition and then imbibing it with specific details that are not there.

 

[IanC]

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

I have over and over ian but your actual knowledge of physics (as opposed to your imagined knowledge of physics) is simply to small to grasp that you have been given an answer over and over for months now.

A photon according to every scientific dictionary I can lay my hands on is nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field. Claiming that a discrete photon means anything unless it is a part of a larger EM field is like claiming that a free electron outside of an electric current means anything. When we are talking about radiation from the earth or the atmosphere, ian, we are talking about electromagnetic fields.

The scientific dictionaries back up my description of what a photon is and represents. The laws of physics back up my claims of what is happening with regard to the interaction of these EM fields and those self same and very well known and understood physical properties and phenomena associated with EM fields are all that is at work here. Fire two microwave streams (electromagnetic radiation by the way) of different magnitudes at each other and the one of greater magnitude cancels the other out. The smaller microwave stream diminishes the greater one to the degree of its own magnitude. The radiation from only the greater field continues on its way. The smaller field was expended doing work against the greater field and the work done is represented by the fact that the larger field is now continuing on its way at a reduced magnitude.

This isn't difficult to grasp if you will let go of your flawed notion of what a photon is. Look at the dictionary definitions ian, they are saying what I am saying and none backing you up. Look at the physics and planning involved in setting up microwave arrays, short wave towers, radio towers, or any other means of transmitting electromagnetic radiation. They are trying to avoid precisely what I have been telling you is happening between the EM field radiated by the earth and that radiated by the atmosphere. You simply can't imagine that you are wrong even though no dictionary matches your definition and the physical laws don't support your claims of what is happening.

In short ian, you are wrong and will continue to be wrong till you can grasp what the word photon means and apply it to the actual physical laws as opposed to the corrupted and bastardized laws you are presently working with.

you are insane. we have been over this again and again. you are confusing the electic or magnetic field with the photons that carry the force. if an electron is placed in a magnetic field it will receive energy according to the field strength and work will be done. if no electron is placed in the field then no photons are produced and no work is done.

in a radiative field (eg a flashlight or a CO2 molecule), the photons are produce and sent on their way. until those photons meet a particle of matter they just continue on. if they meet another photon of suitable energy and direction they will have a local interference pattern but then continue on exactly as if nothing had hapeened. no energy transfered, no work done. I have shown you university lecture diagrams showing the various types of interference patterns, and the specific statement that no energy is tranfered and no photons are destroyed or used up. you simply dont understand.

 

[wirebender]

Where does the EM field come from? All I see is reflection of photons off the surface of the earth. This EM field seems to be a figment of your imagination. You postulate it without telling us how it comes into existence in the first place!!!

konradv, you are living proof that physics can't be explained to a hamster. If you can't grasp the fact that the EM field radiating from the atmosphere is the result of the absorption and emission of IR by, among others, CO2 molecules, then you are completely hopeless. As I have stated before and you have so aptly proven, you simply are not up to this coversation. The whole subject is so far over your head that your pretense at understanding it is, literally, painful to watch.

 

[wirebender]

you are insane. we have been over this again and again.

So you keep saying and yet, the description I give of photons is precisely that which is found in scientific dictionaries, and the description of the physical laws involved is precisely that listed in physics texts. The exchanges I describe are precisely those predicted by said physical laws. I have no problem at all naming the physical laws which support and predict my claims and you, ian can't find an example of the process you claim is happening outside of science fiction like Star Trek, you can't provide a definition of photon that even remotely describes them as you do and you can't name a single physical law that either supports or predicts your claims.

That being said, which one of us is most likely to have a loose screw or at least has perhaps consumed just a bit too much kook aid for his own good?

you are confusing the electic or magnetic field with the photons that carry the force.

The only one confused here is you ian. The definiton of photon is that the photon is the "stuff" that the field is "made" of. Like konradv, this topic is clearly way over your head and your unwillingness to look at the material that explicitly states you are wrong is why it will remain over your head.

in a radiative field (eg a flashlight or a CO2 molecule), the photons are produce and sent on their way. until those photons meet a particle of matter they just continue on.

That isn't what the scientific dictionaries say about photons at all ian. The science dictionaries define a photon as the smallest possible measurable bit of an electromagnetic field. There is no argument that EM fields can diminish each other or cancel each other out. It is well known and understood and every single communications array ever designed takes that well known bit of phsics into consideration for both design and placement. When one EM field diminishes another, it is the number of photons that are bieng diminished. When the magnitude of an EM field reduces, it is because there is less of the "stuff" that makes up the field present. As I have already pointed out over and over by providing multiple credible scientific dictionaries as sources photons are, in fact, the "stuff" that the EM field is "made" of.

What you can't grasp is that the picture you of what a photon is that you have in your head is a fiction. You don't grasp what they are and therefore you can't grasp how they behave. How do you suppose the magnitude of an EM field might be diminished unless the number of photons it is composed of diminishes as well?

You are wrong ian, your claims are not supported by either the laws of physics or the scientific dictionaries. You are wrong and far to arrogant to admit so apparently the only alternative left to you is to drag your intellect through the gutter till you end up looking as stupid as konradv. Congratulations.

 

[code1211]

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?

You are saying that the Conservation of Energy is actively occurring and must be increasing the climate of the planet and yet the climate has stubbornly plateaued.

You have described the cause and seem to be predicting an effect that is not occurring.

Are you saying that what you are discussing has no impact on climate whatsoever?

 

[code1211]

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.

Doesn't the theory demand that CO2 warms the planet and more CO2 warms the planet more?

The CO2 increased throughout the last decade and the temperature did not.

The warming was either nil or negative.