And so....right there....your raving insanity is laid bare for all to see.
Those scientists from UCAR and NCAR are just full of "false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics" but you are just the guy to set them all straight. Right?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMAO.......
The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases
How do greenhouse gases "work"?
If you are up on your chemistry, you may have noticed that all of the greenhouse gas molecules have three or more atoms. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2), the two most abundant gases in our atmosphere, each have only two atoms per molecule, and are not greenhouse gases. This is not a coincidence. As was mentioned earlier, GHG molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule. So why don't nitrogen and oxygen molecules absorb infrared photons?
Photons, including infrared photons, are of course a form of electromagnetic radiation. As such, they can also be understood as disturbances, or waves, of electromagnetic energy. Atoms, and the molecules they combine to form, have electrically charged particles (electrons and protons) in them. The gas molecules we are currently considering, nitrogen and oxygen and the various GHGs, have no net charge; they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. However, molecules that are on average neutral (in terms of their electrical charge) can still have localized charges, either some of the time (when they are vibrating) or all of the time. For example, surface tension in water is caused by the tendency of water molecules to stick together because the electrons that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms share are not shared equally. The shared electrons spend more time closer to the oxygen atom's nucleus, which has more protons and thus pulls on the electrons more strongly. The portion of each water molecule that is near the oxygen atom has a negative charge (excess electrons), while the areas around the two hydrogen atoms have positive charges (fewer electrons to offset the protons). Water molecules have localized areas of positive and negative charges, so individual water molecules tend to "stick" to one another (the positive hydrogen segments being attracted to the negative oxygen portion).
Molecules are not, however, rigid ball and stick figures as our chemistry class models may lead us to believe. Molecules are in motion; continuously bouncing around and jiggling and vibrating. Consider first a diatomic nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) molecule. A pair of balls attached by a spring is a good model of such a molecule. Pull the balls apart and release them; they alternately move closer together and further apart. This vibrational mode is extremely symmetric, however; the center of mass of the system always remains at the point midway between the two balls/atoms. Electromagnetic "disturbances" (waves) do not tend to interact with, or transfer energy to, such diatomic molecules (such as N2 or O2).
Molecules with three or more atoms, however, are a different story. The figure (below) shows three different vibrational modes of a carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. The first mode, (a), is symmetric; it is comparable to the vibrational mode of diatomic molecules. The center of mass, and of charge, of the system is not displaced during vibration. However, such is not the case for the other two modes, (b) and (c). In the latter two cases, the "center of charge" moves as the molecule vibrates, creating a "dipole moment". As explained for the the case of water above, electrons are not shared equally between the atoms in the CO2 molecule, so the molecule is not electrically neutral in all places. As the molecule oscillates, the center of charge moves; from side to side in case (b), and up and down in case (c). A passing electromagnetic "disturbance" (wave, or IR photon) can "excite" such a molecule, causing it to vibrate and transferring energy from the photon to the molecule. This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons.
Vibration modes of carbon dioxide. Mode (a) is symmetric and results in no net displacement of the molecule's "center of charge", and is therefore not associated with the absorption of IR radiation. Modes (b) and (c) do displace the "center of charge", creating a "dipole moment", and therefore are modes that result from EM radiation absorption, and are thus responsible for making CO2 a greenhouse gas.
Credit: Martin C. Doege
Not that rehashed oversimplification again...
Seriously you guys get a reading list you all post from or what? Trolling blunder, do you really think that most basic of explanations is how it actually works in the real world? LOL of course you do... Well then lets ask some questions shall we..
1. IF as the article states all these particles are constantly moving how in the hell do they know how each will be hit or redirected, absorbed, destroyed whatever in every single instance at any and all points in time and space?
Answer: They don't and they can't know. And whats worse they go on ahead and make climate models using this basic way to teach the greenhouse effect concept to kids, as if it is reality. In reality there is no way they can know how much heat will be retained in this greenhouse effect by CO2 alone unless they can accurately predict the positions of all particles, waves, EM fields, at their interaction points and the various trajectories. Its guess work, they know it and thats why the oversimplified drawings and unrealistic examples. If they actually gave you a really accurate conceptual of this entire maddening system at work and all the variables included it would show for the utter madness it is.
2. Do you really think all particles, waves, and their respective electromagnetic fields line up in a row like that pic shows waiting all still and quiet for a photon to come along and give them a gentle push in the perfect direction and give the perfect scripted response in the manner they show?
Answer: Of course you do, its all in the religion and you are one of the faithful... Its utter bunk, and you are too much of a cow-toeing ditto-head follower to question it. If you can show me a perfect reaction to photons hitting a 3 atom molecule that looks exactly as that drawing depicts I would love to see it.. So would a great many others I am sure...
3. You left out something in that article that is very relevant, why?
Answer : you left out this part....
Oh my... So they are guessing? Holy shit! Kind of like I said before huh.. Yeah exactly like i said before....
Now you can return to your mindless cut&paste trolling... Idiot...
Yeah Ian is a lukewarmer and that means he has already indoctrinated himself to the religion. In Religion the difference would something like that between a catholic and a protestant..
It "remains unanswered" only in your demented little brain, wiredwrong.
, so fooling you any more would be quite pointless...just like all of your retarded posts.
Yeah Ian is a lukewarmer and that means he has already indoctrinated himself to the religion. In Religion the difference would something like that between a catholic and a protestant..
Everybodys suspect but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.
Yeah Ian is a lukewarmer and that means he has already indoctrinated himself to the religion. In Religion the difference would something like that between a catholic and a protestant..
Everybodys suspect but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.
You got to admit that wirebender is intelligent enough to make a rather strong case that's very hard to argue against with the education I have. The reason, I say that is "he" could be wrong within the eye of a physics professor, but he makes a good case within my eye's to the point that I can't say he is wrong. The truth is protons do admit outwards(outbound IR Radiations) from nearly every point in a em field...It is shown that "energy" can't move from "cold to hot"....Not sure about the net thing, but knowing that energy can't be transferred to a molecule of co2 as all co2 molecules have the same energy level; well that brings great doubt within my mind.
His case that the detector of the energy reemitting towards the surface being cooled would also wouldn't break the law of thermodynamics. But proves that we haven't detected back radiation from co2.
Now, there is a hypothesis out there that says that it's only the net energy....But, let me just say this outright that not even Spencer at UAH is more knowledgeable then this guy. Or Hansen, on down the list. We're dealing with one smart person. One that can go up against someone that has spent there lifes in this field. You don't get to this point without being in a field and reading and challenging the idea's and hypothesis as a full blown scientist. I would be blow out of my seat to find out for real that this guy is just someone with a few terms of science under him. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Wirebender is some old Professor at the peak of his field that has his own theory's on how things work and may in fact be totally right, but he is here having some fun. Got to respect that.
The guy is a genius! Yes, I seen him go up against the entire stuff at Skeptical science and run them into the ground.
Right or wrong...Science is all about people challenging the evidence and looking for the truth. This means Professor wirebender could be right and has every right to challenge it.
Is it going to stop me from posting the monthly temperature or sea ice data. HELL NO. I enjoy doing that.
And so....right there....your raving insanity is laid bare for all to see.
Those scientists from UCAR and NCAR are just full of "false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics" but you are just the guy to set them all straight. Right?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMAO.......
The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases
How do greenhouse gases "work"?
If you are up on your chemistry, you may have noticed that all of the greenhouse gas molecules have three or more atoms. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2), the two most abundant gases in our atmosphere, each have only two atoms per molecule, and are not greenhouse gases. This is not a coincidence. As was mentioned earlier, GHG molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule. So why don't nitrogen and oxygen molecules absorb infrared photons?
Photons, including infrared photons, are of course a form of electromagnetic radiation. As such, they can also be understood as disturbances, or waves, of electromagnetic energy. Atoms, and the molecules they combine to form, have electrically charged particles (electrons and protons) in them. The gas molecules we are currently considering, nitrogen and oxygen and the various GHGs, have no net charge; they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. However, molecules that are on average neutral (in terms of their electrical charge) can still have localized charges, either some of the time (when they are vibrating) or all of the time. For example, surface tension in water is caused by the tendency of water molecules to stick together because the electrons that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms share are not shared equally. The shared electrons spend more time closer to the oxygen atom's nucleus, which has more protons and thus pulls on the electrons more strongly. The portion of each water molecule that is near the oxygen atom has a negative charge (excess electrons), while the areas around the two hydrogen atoms have positive charges (fewer electrons to offset the protons). Water molecules have localized areas of positive and negative charges, so individual water molecules tend to "stick" to one another (the positive hydrogen segments being attracted to the negative oxygen portion).
Molecules are not, however, rigid ball and stick figures as our chemistry class models may lead us to believe. Molecules are in motion; continuously bouncing around and jiggling and vibrating. Consider first a diatomic nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) molecule. A pair of balls attached by a spring is a good model of such a molecule. Pull the balls apart and release them; they alternately move closer together and further apart. This vibrational mode is extremely symmetric, however; the center of mass of the system always remains at the point midway between the two balls/atoms. Electromagnetic "disturbances" (waves) do not tend to interact with, or transfer energy to, such diatomic molecules (such as N2 or O2).
Molecules with three or more atoms, however, are a different story. The figure (below) shows three different vibrational modes of a carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. The first mode, (a), is symmetric; it is comparable to the vibrational mode of diatomic molecules. The center of mass, and of charge, of the system is not displaced during vibration. However, such is not the case for the other two modes, (b) and (c). In the latter two cases, the "center of charge" moves as the molecule vibrates, creating a "dipole moment". As explained for the the case of water above, electrons are not shared equally between the atoms in the CO2 molecule, so the molecule is not electrically neutral in all places. As the molecule oscillates, the center of charge moves; from side to side in case (b), and up and down in case (c). A passing electromagnetic "disturbance" (wave, or IR photon) can "excite" such a molecule, causing it to vibrate and transferring energy from the photon to the molecule. This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons.
Vibration modes of carbon dioxide. Mode (a) is symmetric and results in no net displacement of the molecule's "center of charge", and is therefore not associated with the absorption of IR radiation. Modes (b) and (c) do displace the "center of charge", creating a "dipole moment", and therefore are modes that result from EM radiation absorption, and are thus responsible for making CO2 a greenhouse gas.
Credit: Martin C. Doege
Not that rehashed oversimplification again...
Seriously you guys get a reading list you all post from or what? Trolling blunder, do you really think that most basic of explanations is how it actually works in the real world? LOL of course you do... Well then lets ask some questions shall we..
1. IF as the article states all these particles are constantly moving how in the hell do they know how each will be hit or redirected, absorbed, destroyed whatever in every single instance at any and all points in time and space?
Answer: They don't and they can't know. And whats worse they go on ahead and make climate models using this basic way to teach the greenhouse effect concept to kids, as if it is reality. In reality there is no way they can know how much heat will be retained in this greenhouse effect by CO2 alone unless they can accurately predict the positions of all particles, waves, EM fields, at their interaction points and the various trajectories. Its guess work, they know it and thats why the oversimplified drawings and unrealistic examples. If they actually gave you a really accurate conceptual of this entire maddening system at work and all the variables included it would show for the utter madness it is.
2. Do you really think all particles, waves, and their respective electromagnetic fields line up in a row like that pic shows waiting all still and quiet for a photon to come along and give them a gentle push in the perfect direction and give the perfect scripted response in the manner they show?
Answer: Of course you do, its all in the religion and you are one of the faithful... Its utter bunk, and you are too much of a cow-toeing ditto-head follower to question it. If you can show me a perfect reaction to photons hitting a 3 atom molecule that looks exactly as that drawing depicts I would love to see it.. So would a great many others I am sure...
3. You left out something in that article that is very relevant, why?
Answer : you left out this part....
Oh my... So they are guessing? Holy shit! Kind of like I said before huh.. Yeah exactly like i said before....
Now you can return to your mindless cut&paste trolling... Idiot...
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....and that, folks, is how an anti-science flaming retard explains away the scientific evidence to his own satisfaction. "Duh, I can't understand how it works so it must be wrong. Big words and diagrams confuse me. Duh..."
You're too big a fool already, wiredwrong
You got to admit that wirebender is intelligent enough to make a rather strong case that's very hard to argue against with the education I have. The reason, I say that is "he" could be wrong within the eye of a physics professor, but he makes a good case within my eye's to the point that I can't say he is wrong. The truth is protons do admit outwards(outbound IR Radiations) from nearly every point in a em field...It is shown that "energy" can't move from "cold to hot"....Not sure about the net thing, but knowing that energy can't be transferred to a molecule of co2 as all co2 molecules have the same energy level; well that brings great doubt within my mind.
His case that the detector of the energy reemitting towards the surface being cooled would also wouldn't break the law of thermodynamics. But proves that we haven't detected back radiation from co2.
Now, there is a hypothesis out there that says that it's only the net energy....But, let me just say this outright that not even Spencer at UAH is more knowledgeable then this guy. Or Hansen, on down the list. We're dealing with one smart person. One that can go up against someone that has spent there lifes in this field. You don't get to this point without being in a field and reading and challenging the idea's and hypothesis as a full blown scientist. I would be blow out of my seat to find out for real that this guy is just someone with a few terms of science under him. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Wirebender is some old Professor at the peak of his field that has his own theory's on how things work and may in fact be totally right, but he is here having some fun. Got to respect that.
The guy is a genius! Yes, I seen him go up against the entire stuff at Skeptical science and run them into the ground.
Right or wrong...Science is all about people challenging the evidence and looking for the truth. This means Professor wirebender could be right and has every right to challenge it.
Is it going to stop me from posting the monthly temperature or sea ice data. HELL NO. I enjoy doing that.
