Map Makers Show Greenland Sections As Ice Free To Please AGW Advocates

[wirebender]

there is no connection between the photons expelled by the earth and the photon expelled by the excited CO2 molecule. they just pass by each other unaffected

So the narrow frequency of IR emitted by the CO2 molecule is excluded from the very broad IR frequency emitted by the earth? Is that your claim?

 

[IanC]

my claim is that any photon created to shed energy is a complete event and the photon continues on its merry way until it interacts with matter. if you shine a flashlight at the sun chances are some of the photons will make it through the atmosphere and carry on until they reach the matter of our home star.

virtual photons of a field become real when they find another particle capable of interaction and pass energy directly between the two particles involved. there is never a free real photon. adding and subtracting field strengths is simply calculation of the net force, and has no actual bearing on the number of photons which become real or the amount of energy transfered, which is determined by the charge and distance between the two particles.

one case involves an independent photon, the other case involves a photon created specifically to transfer a force and is never independently available to interact with other particles.

just give it some thought, it will come to you.

 

[wirebender]

my claim is that any photon created to shed energy is a complete event and the photon continues on its merry way until it interacts with matter. if you shine a flashlight at the sun chances are some of the photons will make it through the atmosphere and carry on until they reach the matter of our home star.

How do you suppose a massless particle of energy manages to travel upstream, so to speak, against an EM field of far greater magnitude.

virtual photons of a field become real when they find another particle capable of interaction and pass energy directly between the two particles involved. there is never a free real photon. adding and subtracting field strengths is simply calculation of the net force, and has no actual bearing on the number of photons which become real or the amount of energy transfered, which is determined by the charge and distance between the two particles.

Virtual photons do not enter into this discussion. Virtual photons are theoretical carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons and protons or neutrons, none of which have any part in this discussion.

one case involves an independent photon, the other case involves a photon created specifically to transfer a force and is never independently available to interact with other particles.

Again, virtual photons are theoretical carriers of the electromagnetic force between electrons and protons or neutrons. Not applicable to this conversation

just give it some thought, it will come to you.

I have, which is why I have a clue and you don't.

Here again is virtual photon defined by various sources.

The physics department at Oxford:

Virtual photons

Virtual photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.

When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.

http://www.theqxci.com/promorpheus/qxci_promorpheus_8.pdf

Photon - New World Encyclopedia

From this site, you might also read about wave particle duality:

Clip: The photon is considered to have both wave and particle properties. As a wave, a single photon is distributed over space and shows wave-like phenomena, such as refraction by a lens and destructive interference when reflected waves cancel each other out; however, as a particle, it can only interact with matter by transferring the fixed amount (quantum) of energy "E," where:


where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, and λ is the photon's wavelength. This is different from a classical wave, which may gain or lose arbitrary amounts of energy.

In short Ian, virtual photons are found within atoms, not zipping about the universe as free agents.

 

[TakePart]

The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images



LOLOLOLOL......you retards are priceless....

So what did happen? The Times Atlas of the World, which BTW is not a peer reviewed science journal, seems to have mistakenly exaggerated ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet and a whole bunch of scientists from various places criticized their recent edition saying that Greenland is indeed losing ice but not quite that fast. If, as you dingbat denier cultists believe, there is a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists to exaggerate the climate change crisis, why did all these scientists insist that the ice loss was less than the Atlas showed? The fact is, they are doing their jobs and striving for accuracy, as almost all scientists do.

Greenland is still losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.





A lot of great points! These people that believe in conspiracies theories really need to spend more time checking facts and to stop believing that people have some kind of ulterior motive. Do I believe that people should question things? Yes. But, when it comes down to people believing that scientists are pushing climate change as a way to screw a million people over, that is just ridiculous.

--TakePart

 

[gslack]

The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images



LOLOLOLOL......you retards are priceless....

So what did happen? The Times Atlas of the World, which BTW is not a peer reviewed science journal, seems to have mistakenly exaggerated ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet and a whole bunch of scientists from various places criticized their recent edition saying that Greenland is indeed losing ice but not quite that fast. If, as you dingbat denier cultists believe, there is a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists to exaggerate the climate change crisis, why did all these scientists insist that the ice loss was less than the Atlas showed? The fact is, they are doing their jobs and striving for accuracy, as almost all scientists do.

Greenland is still losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.





A lot of great points! These people that believe in conspiracies theories really need to spend more time checking facts and to stop believing that people have some kind of ulterior motive. Do I believe that people should question things? Yes. But, when it comes down to people believing that scientists are pushing climate change as a way to screw a million people over, that is just ridiculous.

--TakePart

LOL, konrad, they are called quote tags... TAGS as in plural, meaning there are two of them to make them work..

 

[Old Rocks]

Not vig links this time, G-cretin?

 

[gslack]

Not vig links this time, G-cretin?

Gee thats funny, but as it turns out trolling blunder was lying about the code not being there. Turns out it was there just as I said, he even did what I said to do and he sees it now too... But now he claims its every body's links..LOL

Socks, you are always a day late and a dollar short.. Must be hard being the last one to catch on all the time..

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit. The code was not in the links Rolling Thunder put in his posts. They were there when you tried to send them, ie, in your computer.

You are an idiot, a liar, and a really low minded person. You accuse others without basis. A real lowlife.

 

[gslack]

Bullshit. The code was not in the links Rolling Thunder put in his posts. They were there when you tried to send them, ie, in your computer.

You are an idiot, a liar, and a really low minded person. You accuse others without basis. A real lowlife.

Really? sure ya want to make that claim? Good lets fix your ass now too...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4290780-post146.html

"However when you finally, a few posts ago, mentioned the 'send link' trick, which you hadn't suggested before, that whole mess of code with the vigilink stuff in it showed up."

From trollingblunders own post #146 in that thread.. Seems I was right wasn't I tool..

No go back and tell your self I made it up... Asshole...

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4290780-post146.html

right click

properties

That is what I got. Same as I got on all his links.

 

[gslack]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4290780-post146.html

right click

properties

That is what I got. Same as I got on all his links.

Okay socks i explained this too you before but you obviously got so excited at the idea of me being wrong you didn't read it again...

By clicking properties the link only shows the destination URL. if you right click on the link and ( in google chrome) select "copy link address" and then paste into a plain text editor like notepad (in windows) you will get the viglink code in it..

I explained before that viglink does this to keep the code from being a nuisance and hide the use of their service to the average end-user.

Now if you still don't believe me ask your pal...he admitted its there now.

BTW, thats a link to the thread post socks not his linked article.. Next time give the proper names to the proper links socks...

 

[wirebender]

BTW, thats a link to the thread post socks not his linked article.. Next time give the proper names to the proper links socks...

Socks's knowledge of computers is clearly as vast as his knowledge of science.

 

[IanC]

my claim is that any photon created to shed energy is a complete event and the photon continues on its merry way until it interacts with matter. if you shine a flashlight at the sun chances are some of the photons will make it through the atmosphere and carry on until they reach the matter of our home star.

How do you suppose a massless particle of energy manages to travel upstream, so to speak, against an EM field of far greater magnitude.

virtual photons of a field become real when they find another particle capable of interaction and pass energy directly between the two particles involved. there is never a free real photon. adding and subtracting field strengths is simply calculation of the net force, and has no actual bearing on the number of photons which become real or the amount of energy transfered, which is determined by the charge and distance between the two particles.

Virtual photons do not enter into this discussion. Virtual photons are theoretical carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons and protons or neutrons, none of which have any part in this discussion.

one case involves an independent photon, the other case involves a photon created specifically to transfer a force and is never independently available to interact with other particles.

Again, virtual photons are theoretical carriers of the electromagnetic force between electrons and protons or neutrons. Not applicable to this conversation

just give it some thought, it will come to you.

I have, which is why I have a clue and you don't.

Here again is virtual photon defined by various sources.

The physics department at Oxford:

Virtual photons

Virtual photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.

When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.

http://www.theqxci.com/promorpheus/qxci_promorpheus_8.pdf

Photon - New World Encyclopedia

From this site, you might also read about wave particle duality:

Clip: The photon is considered to have both wave and particle properties. As a wave, a single photon is distributed over space and shows wave-like phenomena, such as refraction by a lens and destructive interference when reflected waves cancel each other out; however, as a particle, it can only interact with matter by transferring the fixed amount (quantum) of energy "E," where:


where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, and λ is the photon's wavelength. This is different from a classical wave, which may gain or lose arbitrary amounts of energy.

In short Ian, virtual photons are found within atoms, not zipping about the universe as free agents.

virtual photons are the possible energy carriers of magnetic/electric force. the energy is not transfered until an available particle interacts and makes the virtual photon into a real one. the field is there whether it is used or not, it needs two particles to actually transfer energy. there is no real photon until that happens unlike real photons emitted by a particle shedding energy. one process needs two particles, the other only needs one particle.

 

[wirebender]

virtual photons are the possible energy carriers of magnetic/electric force.

You have this way of ignoring the facts Ian, and simply stating your articles of faith as if they were real. Sure, virtual photons are the possible energy carriers of magnetic/electrical force. You have it right up to that point but you fail to grasp that they are the possible energy carriers of magnetic/electrical force between electrons and protons or neutrons within atoms and are not pertinent to this conversation as we are not talking about what goes on inside the boundries of an atom.

Your virtual photon strawman has absolutely nothing to do wtih EM fields outside the boundries of an atom.

 

[IanC]

my claim is that any photon created to shed energy is a complete event and the photon continues on its merry way until it interacts with matter. if you shine a flashlight at the sun chances are some of the photons will make it through the atmosphere and carry on until they reach the matter of our home star.

How do you suppose a massless particle of energy manages to travel upstream, so to speak, against an EM field of far greater magnitude.

virtual photons of a field become real when they find another particle capable of interaction and pass energy directly between the two particles involved. there is never a free real photon. adding and subtracting field strengths is simply calculation of the net force, and has no actual bearing on the number of photons which become real or the amount of energy transfered, which is determined by the charge and distance between the two particles.

Virtual photons do not enter into this discussion. Virtual photons are theoretical carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons and protons or neutrons, none of which have any part in this discussion.

one case involves an independent photon, the other case involves a photon created specifically to transfer a force and is never independently available to interact with other particles.

Again, virtual photons are theoretical carriers of the electromagnetic force between electrons and protons or neutrons. Not applicable to this conversation

just give it some thought, it will come to you.

I have, which is why I have a clue and you don't.

Here again is virtual photon defined by various sources.

The physics department at Oxford:

Virtual photons

Virtual photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.

When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.

http://www.theqxci.com/promorpheus/qxci_promorpheus_8.pdf

Photon - New World Encyclopedia

From this site, you might also read about wave particle duality:

Clip: The photon is considered to have both wave and particle properties. As a wave, a single photon is distributed over space and shows wave-like phenomena, such as refraction by a lens and destructive interference when reflected waves cancel each other out; however, as a particle, it can only interact with matter by transferring the fixed amount (quantum) of energy "E," where:


where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, and λ is the photon's wavelength. This is different from a classical wave, which may gain or lose arbitrary amounts of energy.

In short Ian, virtual photons are found within atoms, not zipping about the universe as free agents.

your first link is specific to particle accelerators
your second link is to a specific experiment
your third link- New World Encyl "has a problem"

I must admit that I dont know enough about this subject to teach someone else. and even worse, when you try to describe quantum effects to someone who hasnt been exposed to it you sound crazy.

here is a link that covers most of the points
Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles

 

[Old Rocks]

Still argueing with your friends, Bent, and G-idiot, Ian? Isn't that a bit counterproductive?

 

[wirebender]

I must admit that I dont know enough about this subject to teach someone else. and even worse, when you try to describe quantum effects to someone who hasnt been exposed to it you sound crazy.

It is clear by now Ian, that you know exactly squat about this topic. Virtual photons are not part of this discussion.

Once more Ian, I am embarassed for you. Your own link describes virtual photons as carriers of EM force between charged particles. NEWSFLASH. That is precisely what I have been saying. In case you weren't aware, electrons, protons and neutrons are, in fact, charged particles. No charged particles in the EM fields we are discussing Ian. Who, exactly, other than rocks do you think you are kidding Ian. You clearly don't know jack abou this topic and are doing nothing more than grasping for straws. Here is a hint, try a different bail of hay because the straws you are grabbing now don't even relate to the conversation.

 

[wirebender]

Still argueing with your friends, Bent, and G-idiot, Ian? Isn't that a bit counterproductive?

Clearly you know even less than he does about the topic rocks. Acting as if you have a clue when everyone knows that you don't just makes you look even more stupid than usual.