Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[IanC]

it is you that has to explain your miraculous 'expended photon' theory not me. I know (roughly) how electric and magnetic fields can be added together with the net effect being measurable. you consider the non-reactive radiation 'EM field' of the earth to have the same properties as electric or magnetic flux fields.

You don't understand how energy is expended? You don't grasp how one EM field can diminish or cancell another? Oh, that's right; you don't. You believe that a photon is a "thing" as opposed to just the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field. Well hell ian, there is your problem. You don't know, or understand what a photon is just like the remote native doesn't understand what a zippo is. Learn what a photon actuall is and it won't seem like magic or a miracle any more.

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

if your theory is correct then two flashlights aimed at each other should at least partially cancel out.

And they are. You believe they don't because you are unable to look deeply enough into the senario. You are looking at the flashlights instead of the filaments. If there is a difference between the temperature of the filaments, then no photon from the cooler filament ever reaches the warmer one.

where does the energy go?/'quote]

Where does it go? Geez ian, is your understanding of physics really that limited and distorted? When two EM fields are in opposition, work is happening. The reduction of magnitude is the result of the energy being expended (work) as they oppose each other.

Try running a current in both directions along a wire. The current won't run in but one direction. That is, the direction propagated by the EM field of the greatest magnitude. The current on the other end of the line will be reduced, however, by the magnitude of the current you tried to run in the other direction.




Read any text on the consideration that must be taken when setting up a radio tower, or a microwave tower, or a cell tower, or a short wave transmitter, or practically any EM transmitter that may be subject to interference or cancellation by another transmitter transmitting on the same wavelength.

I have on numerous occasions shown you links to constructive and destructive wave interference that state no energy is transfered in such cases, and the photons continue on their path unchanged after leaving the area of interference but that is not the effect you are talking about. show us a link that describes something akin to the magical disappearance you claim exists.

So your claim is that one radio signal, or one shortwave signal, or one microwave transmission can't reduce the magnitude or entirely cancell out another? It is a simple yes or no question ian. State for the record that one EM field can't measurably diminish or cancell out another. Sorry your education failed you so miserably.

do your best wirebender. I expect you are going to post the same link as before but hopefully you have found something new. typically your 'proof' does nothing more than disprove your mistaken belief that vitual photons only reside inside atoms and have no consequences in everyday reality.

why are you bringing up electrical currents opposing each other in a wire? what does that have to do with excited CO2 molecules emitting photons, some towards the surface? surely you dont think that there is anything other than a trivial connection between photons created to expel energy from an excited atom and the photons created to impart force in a magnetic or electric field?

 

[wirebender]

do your best wirebender. I expect you are going to post the same link as before but hopefully you have found something new. typically your 'proof' does nothing more than disprove your mistaken belief that vitual photons only reside inside atoms and have no consequences in everyday reality.

I am not going to post anything ian. Till you grasp the subtraction of EM fields, there is nothing more you can learn. You are immovably locked into your misunderstanding by your belief that a photon is a thing rather than a bit of energy.

As to virtual photons, they are all virtual as the word photon is nothing more than a word that describes the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field. There is no such "thing" as a photon. Not a single one has ever been detected between point A and point B.

 

[IanC]

do your best wirebender. I expect you are going to post the same link as before but hopefully you have found something new. typically your 'proof' does nothing more than disprove your mistaken belief that vitual photons only reside inside atoms and have no consequences in everyday reality.

I am not going to post anything ian. Till you grasp the subtraction of EM fields, there is nothing more you can learn. You are immovably locked into your misunderstanding by your belief that a photon is a thing rather than a bit of energy.

As to virtual photons, they are all virtual as the word photon is nothing more than a word that describes the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field. There is no such "thing" as a photon. Not a single one has ever been detected between point A and point B.

I will admit that photons are very strange entities. just because we dont understand them completely doesnt mean we dont have very precise predictions as to how they behave. we have even less understanding about gravity but we can predict its effects too.

explain to me why you think photons 'disappear' rather than get used up in competing EM fields. what would the physical differences be? are all types of EM fields alike?

say something in your own words so that we may better understand your somewhat confused position.

 

[bobgnote]

Aaaaand the circle-jerk continues. Wienerbitch still won't explain how his momentary EM theory applies, under what conditions. Ian can see bullshitting Wienerbitch is addled, but Ian can't pin Wienerbitch down to any set of conditions for Wienerbitch's fanciful application of EMFs because Wienerbitch is a complete bullshitter, who never or rarely posts anything, which shouldn't be pissed on.

Your EM criterion are WHAT, WienerfuckingBITCH? Finally, how do your EMFs apply, relative to what jostling particles, in what atmosphere, you punkass, ranting queer, from the scum, around a Log Cabin Club shit-bowl? If ***** won't explain practical EMF applications, after several pages of ranting, at Hanson and Greenland threads, it is time for ***** to move on, to the flame zone.

Ian, if you want Wienerbitch to talk some more science, you probably have to beat it out of him/her. Unless you start pissing on Wienrbitch, you aren't giving him/her what he/she deserves and wants. You have to postulate, ***** wants to **** AND fight, so get it on. You geeks are farting and shitting up the Hanson thread and the Greenland glaciers thread, without settling a false controversy.

Post another picture, of EMFs marking the tides, at La Jolla, Wienerbitch.

 

[wirebender]

I will admit that photons are very strange entities. just because we dont understand them completely doesnt mean we dont have very precise predictions as to how they behave. we have even less understanding about gravity but we can predict its effects too.

We have predictions of WHAT will happen and a story that we have fabricated about HOW it happens ian, and that is all. And the story we have fabricated about photons has some pretty serious errors which Enistein himself pointed out. He didn't accept photons as actual entities, why do you?

You remain stuck in misunderstanding till you come to terms with the fact that photons are not entities. They are not things. Photon is a word that describes the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field. That's it. There is no such "thing" as a photon unless you are calling the smallest measurable bit of energy in a field "A THING".

explain to me why you think photons 'disappear' rather than get used up in competing EM fields. what would the physical differences be? are all types of EM fields alike?

More lies ian. You are apparently incapable of discussing this topic without twisting, mischaracterizing, and fabricating upon everything I say.

Photons are bits of energy ian. Nothing more. When the energy in an EM field is expended, photons are expended. The word photon, as it applies to EM fields means the magnitude of the field. These two sentences regarding the mangnitue of EM fields have the same meaning:

How many of the smallest measurable bits of energy is it composed of?

How many photons is it composed of?

There is no "disappearing" or magic, or anything at all supernatural going on ian. There is simply energy being expended. The decrease in magnitude of an EM field as a result of destructive interference by another field is well known and documented ian and it is a critical consideration with every microwave dish, cell phone tower, communication satellite and satellite receiver, radio tower, and any other means of communication that involves the transmission and reception of EM fields.

I doubt that you will find any scientific source that states that the number of photons the field is made of is decreased via destructive interference because by definition the field is composed of photons. At that level, authors expect that you at least know the basic definitions of the words they use and can apply them to the topic. By definition, a photon is the quanta, that is the smallest measurable bit, of an EM field. When the magnitude of a field is reduced, the number of photons has been reduced. Where did they go? They were expended doing work. Energy is expended when work is performed ian. The reduction of the magnitude of one EM field by another via destructive interfernce constitutes work.

Your continued misrepresentation of what I have said over and over has grown so tiresome that I don't really care to talk to you ian. It is impossible to simply discuss the topic because as in this post, nothing new is being discussed. The whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to set right, your dishonest characterization of what I have already said.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a photon is and till you get past your notion that it is a "thing" you can't move forward.

say something in your own words so that we may better understand your somewhat confused position.

It has all been my own words ian. I rarely need to cut and paste to simply discuss a topic.

As to confusion, the only one confused is you and it really isn't confusion. It is misunderstanding. You don't grasp what the word photon means and therefore you can't apply it to EM fields or their subtraction. You apparently can add EM fields because it only involves adding photons to a field but when it comes to subtraction, a well known and documented phenomena, you can't get it because it doesn't jibe with the picture you have in your head of what a photon is.

You can't grasp that when an EM field expends energy in opposition to another EM field that photons are being expended as they are nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of the field. I can't help you ian because you can't grasp what I am saying. You can't jibe what you believe with the fact that we know undeniably that EM fields can diminsih, or in fact, cancel each other out so you simply can't hear it. To accept the fact that a photon is not a thing but just the smallest measurable bit of energy that makes up an EM field would start a cascade which would ultimately require that you discard your silly notion that CO2 can cause warming and you simply aren't prepared to do that. You are a believer ian and you hold your belief in the face of the laws of phyiscis and the defnition of every science dictionary I could lay my hands on.

 

[bobgnote]

Start a queer-flashlight thread, Wienerbitch. Write up dueling flashlights. Eat shit, queer.

 

[IanC]

I see you have again ducked the issue and perhaps are walking back from your past position.

I say photons cannot be created, absorbed, or transformed in any way except in the presence of matter. therefore constructive/destructive interference only exists if we measure it or there is some other matter capable of putting the photons 'to the test'. electric or magnetic fields only transfer force when there is a particle of matter present to accept that force.

you and gslack insisted that the presence of matter was optional and that photons disappeared via subtraction of fields and/or destructive interference all the time and that is the reason why CO2 cant send a photon to the surface. if you wish I can link you to your derisive comments on this, whereas I have never been able to find your explanation of how it is done.

again i ask you - where, when and how do photons magically disappear? actually an answer to any one of the three questions will probably allow me to disprove your answer.

so, step up to the plate and enlighten us.

or at least post that link about radio tower interference so I can show people how incorrect your thinking is on reactive virtual photons.

 

[bobgnote]

Hey. Ian Crapforbrains! You and Wienerbitch have hijacked two threads, instead of sending PMs, you haven't settled each other's shit, since you are blow-buddies, you don't have an application to any thread topic area, for many pages, of either the Hanson thread or the Greenland thread, at ENVIRIONMENT, since you both suck, so if you don't like the quantum thread, already up, start another quantum thread, over at SCIENCE AND TECH:

Science and Technology - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/228678-quantum-physics.html

 

[IanC]

Hey. Ian Crapforbrains! You and Wienerbitch have hijacked two threads, instead of sending PMs, you haven't settled each other's shit, since you are blow-buddies, you don't have an application to any thread topic area, for many pages, of either the Hanson thread or the Greenland thread, at ENVIRIONMENT, since you both suck, so if you don't like the quantum thread, already up, start another quantum thread, over at SCIENCE AND TECH:

Science and Technology - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/228678-quantum-physics.html

if a moderator was going to step in, it would be to ban you for unacceptable language.

your solution is easy, simply put one or both of us on your ignore list. I am pretty sure you are on a few of the other posters ignore lists

 

[bobgnote]

Hansen is part of Makiko's page, at CU:

Makiko's Page

Hanson has many letters and publications, since 2005, so 2005+ is how he should be reviewed, meaning the OP of this thread, re 1988 is pure deflection:

Dr. James E. Hansen — Communications

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Hansen notes in 2009, how the Copenhagen Conference was not going to produce any good media:

Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist | Environment | The Guardian