New paper shows that sulfur from developing country's are stopping global warming

[wirebender]

That, while interesting, isn't on point. The concern is with the emitted radiation going towards earth, thereby warming it. The fact that some may encounter another CO2 and not be re-absorbed is irrelevant to the AGW thesis.

That particular clip was for IanC who declared adamantly that it was "a basic concept of physics that molecules emit and absorb at the same wavelengths".

As to emitted radiation from the atmosphere going towards the earth; it isn't happening. Do describe, if you like, which law of physics you base the assumption that energy can travel in two directions simultaneously along the same EM vector. Which law predicts such a thing? Show me the math that supports such a claim.

Or at least be a grownup and acknowledge that the concepts are over your head and you believe it happens because someone you trust for purely political reasons told you that it is happening.

 

[konradv]

That, while interesting, isn't on point. The concern is with the emitted radiation going towards earth, thereby warming it. The fact that some may encounter another CO2 and not be re-absorbed is irrelevant to the AGW thesis.

That particular clip was for IanC who declared adamantly that it was "a basic concept of physics that molecules emit and absorb at the same wavelengths".

As to emitted radiation from the atmosphere going towards the earth; it isn't happening. Do describe, if you like, which law of physics you base the assumption that energy can travel in two directions simultaneously along the same EM vector. Which law predicts such a thing? Show me the math that supports such a claim.

Or at least be a grownup and acknowledge that the concepts are over your head and you believe it happens because someone you trust for purely political reasons told you that it is happening.

I never claimed that energy can travel in two directions simultaneously, regardless of vector. Could you cite the post where I made such a claim? I'm talking about photons. They only travel in one direction, as far as I know, so those heading towards earth contribute to the overall energy/heat on earth. What's "over my head" about that?

 

[kiwiman127]

Sulfur emissions cause Acid Rain that kills wild life, plants/forests and pollutes our lakes, streams.

 

[wirebender]

I never claimed that energy can travel in two directions simultaneously, regardless of vector. Could you cite the post where I made such a claim?

Of course you have made such a claim. You made it in every post in which you suggest that energy from the atmosphere is radiated down to the surface of the earth.

I'm talking about photons. They only travel in one direction, as far as I know, so those heading towards earth contribute to the overall energy/heat on earth. What's "over my head" about that?

What is over your head is the fundamental nature of photons. You are the victim of a foundational misconception of what a photon is. You, like others on this board seem to believe that photons are free agents that go zipping about the universe on thier own and independent of electromagnetism. You could not possibly be further off base.

I have already been over this once with you but will do it again. I am sure you will get nothing from it but someone who reads this without an agenda may pick up something that they didn't know before.

As I have told you already, and provided supporting documentation, photons are not free agents that do their thing independent of electromagnetic forces. I gave you some of these definitions at an earlier date and clearly you didn't grasp their meaning but perhaps repetition will help get the message through to you.

Before I give you the definitions of photon, it is important that you understand what the word quantum means and implies. Quantum is defined as: the smallest quantity of some physical property, such as energy, that a system can possess according to the quantum theory. That means that if a "thing" is defined as the quantum of another thing, the thing that is the quantum is the actual "stuff" that the greater thing is made of.

photon - The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

What these definitions are saying konradv is that the EM fields in question, that is the EM field generated by the atmosphere and the EM field generated by the earth are, in fact, made of photons. The photons are not independent of the fields, they are the "stuff" that makes up the fields.

Here are some more definitions:

photon - (Physics) - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation energy, such as light, having both particle and wave behaviour.

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

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation, usually considered as an elementary particle that is its own antiparticle and that has zero rest mass and charge and a spin of one. Symbol: γ

photon - the fundamental particle or quantum of electromagnetic radiation (radiant energy).

photon - Smallest packet of the electromagnetic force field; messenger particle of the electromagnetic force

photon - The quantum particle of the electromagnetic field

photon - A quantum (or packet) of energy emitted in the form of electromagnetic radiation

photon - A particle that has no rest mass, no electrical charge and whose energy is determined by its electromagnetic wavelength. A photon is considered to be an amount of electromagnetic radiation energy that is proportional to the frequency of that radiation.

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle. See Note at electromagnetic radiation

electromagnetic radiation - Energy in the form of transverse magnetic and electric waves. In a vacuum, these waves travel at the speed of light (which is itself a form of electromagnetic radiation). The acceleration of electric charges (such as alternating current in a radio transmitter) gives rise to electromagnetic radiation. Other common examples of electromagnetic radiation are x-rays, microwaves, and radio waves. A single unit, or quantum, of electromagnetic radiation is called a photon

I don't know how much more clear, or simple I can make this for you. Photons are not free agents. They only move in EM fields and they do not move "upstream" of more powerful EM fields than the field they are part of.

When two EM fields are in opposition as with the EM field generated by the atmosphere, and the EM field generated by the earth, the directon of energy flow is determined by the direction of propagation of the field with the greater magnitude. Energy from the weaker fiedl does not flow against the stronger field.

When two fields are in opposition, you must subtract the two and the result tells you in which direction the field is moving. When you subtract the fields, you are, in essence, subtracting photons. The energy represented by the photons is expended in opposing the greater field. The field of greater magnitude is weakened (or reduced in magnitude) by the weaker field but its direction of propagation still determines which direction the energy is flowing and photons can not flow along any vector from the stronger field from the direction of the weaker field. They can not flow against the direction the greater field is propagated from.

The EM field emitted by the earth is of a greater magnitude than the EM field generated by the atmosphere and the field generated by the earth is moving outward in a straight line, at the speed of light along every possible vector. There are no "cracks" in which the weaker field emitted by the atmosphere can reach the earth and energy (read photons) can not move in two directions along a single vector. The EM field emitted by the earth dictates the direction of energy flow on every possible vector from the surface of the earth.

Now, if you artificially cool the surface of the earth, or an instrument, for example, you can get radiation from the atmosphere down to that artificially cooled surface. The cooler surface will radiate an EM field that is weaker than that of the atmosphere and along those vectors, you can get radiation from the atmosphere down to the surface of to your instrument.

Radiometers, for example are artificially cooled to a temperature far below the atmosphere to allow radiation from the atmosphere to radiate down along those vectors to the instrument so as to be able to measure the radiation. Those instruments are not measuring anything that is happening in the real world however because the only reason the energy from the atmosphere reaches them is because they are cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere so as to allow the EM field emitted by the atmosphere to "overpower" the EM field emitted by the instrument.

If you believe that something else is happening allowing energy, or photons, or whatever picture you have in your head to reach the surface of the earth from the atmosphere, then describe the physical law that allows it to happen and show me the math to prove it.

Or, once again, simply admit that you really don't know but beleive what someone whom you believe on a purely political basis has told you.

 

[wirebender]

Sulfur emissions cause Acid Rain that kills wild life, plants/forests and pollutes our lakes, streams.

Pollution is a good enough, and honest, reason to clean up coal, and other emissions. Fabricated fancies and monster tales such as man made global warming and manmade climate change are not adequate.

 

[IanC]

I never claimed that energy can travel in two directions simultaneously, regardless of vector. Could you cite the post where I made such a claim?

Of course you have made such a claim. You made it in every post in which you suggest that energy from the atmosphere is radiated down to the surface of the earth.

I'm talking about photons. They only travel in one direction, as far as I know, so those heading towards earth contribute to the overall energy/heat on earth. What's "over my head" about that?

What is over your head is the fundamental nature of photons. You are the victim of a foundational misconception of what a photon is. You, like others on this board seem to believe that photons are free agents that go zipping about the universe on thier own and independent of electromagnetism. You could not possibly be further off base.

I have already been over this once with you but will do it again. I am sure you will get nothing from it but someone who reads this without an agenda may pick up something that they didn't know before.

As I have told you already, and provided supporting documentation, photons are not free agents that do their thing independent of electromagnetic forces. I gave you some of these definitions at an earlier date and clearly you didn't grasp their meaning but perhaps repetition will help get the message through to you.

Before I give you the definitions of photon, it is important that you understand what the word quantum means and implies. Quantum is defined as: the smallest quantity of some physical property, such as energy, that a system can possess according to the quantum theory. That means that if a "thing" is defined as the quantum of another thing, the thing that is the quantum is the actual "stuff" that the greater thing is made of.

photon - The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

What these definitions are saying konradv is that the EM fields in question, that is the EM field generated by the atmosphere and the EM field generated by the earth are, in fact, made of photons. The photons are not independent of the fields, they are the "stuff" that makes up the fields.

Here are some more definitions:

photon - (Physics) - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation energy, such as light, having both particle and wave behaviour.

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

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation, usually considered as an elementary particle that is its own antiparticle and that has zero rest mass and charge and a spin of one. Symbol: γ

photon - the fundamental particle or quantum of electromagnetic radiation (radiant energy).

photon - Smallest packet of the electromagnetic force field; messenger particle of the electromagnetic force

photon - The quantum particle of the electromagnetic field

photon - A quantum (or packet) of energy emitted in the form of electromagnetic radiation

photon - A particle that has no rest mass, no electrical charge and whose energy is determined by its electromagnetic wavelength. A photon is considered to be an amount of electromagnetic radiation energy that is proportional to the frequency of that radiation.

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle. See Note at electromagnetic radiation

electromagnetic radiation - Energy in the form of transverse magnetic and electric waves. In a vacuum, these waves travel at the speed of light (which is itself a form of electromagnetic radiation). The acceleration of electric charges (such as alternating current in a radio transmitter) gives rise to electromagnetic radiation. Other common examples of electromagnetic radiation are x-rays, microwaves, and radio waves. A single unit, or quantum, of electromagnetic radiation is called a photon

I don't know how much more clear, or simple I can make this for you. Photons are not free agents. They only move in EM fields and they do not move "upstream" of more powerful EM fields than the field they are part of.

When two EM fields are in opposition as with the EM field generated by the atmosphere, and the EM field generated by the earth, the directon of energy flow is determined by the direction of propagation of the field with the greater magnitude. Energy from the weaker fiedl does not flow against the stronger field.

When two fields are in opposition, you must subtract the two and the result tells you in which direction the field is moving. When you subtract the fields, you are, in essence, subtracting photons. The energy represented by the photons is expended in opposing the greater field. The field of greater magnitude is weakened (or reduced in magnitude) by the weaker field but its direction of propagation still determines which direction the energy is flowing and photons can not flow along any vector from the stronger field from the direction of the weaker field. They can not flow against the direction the greater field is propagated from.

The EM field emitted by the earth is of a greater magnitude than the EM field generated by the atmosphere and the field generated by the earth is moving outward in a straight line, at the speed of light along every possible vector. There are no "cracks" in which the weaker field emitted by the atmosphere can reach the earth and energy (read photons) can not move in two directions along a single vector. The EM field emitted by the earth dictates the direction of energy flow on every possible vector from the surface of the earth.

Now, if you artificially cool the surface of the earth, or an instrument, for example, you can get radiation from the atmosphere down to that artificially cooled surface. The cooler surface will radiate an EM field that is weaker than that of the atmosphere and along those vectors, you can get radiation from the atmosphere down to the surface of to your instrument.

Radiometers, for example are artificially cooled to a temperature far below the atmosphere to allow radiation from the atmosphere to radiate down along those vectors to the instrument so as to be able to measure the radiation. Those instruments are not measuring anything that is happening in the real world however because the only reason the energy from the atmosphere reaches them is because they are cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere so as to allow the EM field emitted by the atmosphere to "overpower" the EM field emitted by the instrument.

If you believe that something else is happening allowing energy, or photons, or whatever picture you have in your head to reach the surface of the earth from the atmosphere, then describe the physical law that allows it to happen and show me the math to prove it.

Or, once again, simply admit that you really don't know but beleive what someone whom you believe on a purely political basis has told you.

wirebender is a wacko. his EM theory is the equivalent to saying two men on horseback are shooting machine guns at each other and every bullet obliterates its opposite until the winner is the one with more ammo or a faster gun. atomic scale entities are unbelievably small and perfectly matched vector quantities are so rare that they have no real world consequenses at the scale we live in.

 

[wirebender]

wirebender is a wacko. his EM theory is the equivalent to saying two men on horseback are shooting machine guns at each other and every bullet obliterates its opposite until the winner is the one with more ammo or a faster gun. atomic scale entities are unbelievably small and perfectly matched vector quantities are so rare that they have no real world consequenses at the scale we live in.

You ridicule a lot but to date, you have yet to point out a single error in either my mathematics, or a misapplied physical law. It is hard not to note that here again, on this topic, you have no specific objection to my explanation of the relation of photons to EM fields to konradv. Where, exactly did I give him any false information?

Do you believe there are openings in the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth in which radiation from the atmosphere can "sneak" down to the surface and be reabsorbed?

Two men shooting guns at each other are firing single projectiles at each other and there are innumerable paths that either bullet may travel. Each bullet, from each firearm, however, originates from a single point that may or may not ever be repeated exactly and may or may not ever form an intersection with a bullet from the other firearm.

The EM field from the earth, however radiates out in the direction of every possible vector. Any incoming radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, therefore, must have "travelled" in along a vector in which the EM field radiated by the earth was already outbound. In order for that EM field vector (or vectors) to actually reach the surface, their magnitude must have been greater than that emitted by the surface of the earth unless you are claiming that radiation from two opposing EM fields can travel in opposite directions along the same vector.

Is that your claim? If so, upon what physical law do you base the claim? Once you name the law, kindly show your math. You are quick to call names and claim that I am wrong. If only you were so quick in describing exactly where, and how I am wrong and able to show the work to prove me wrong; and you are very slow, I have noticed, to admit when you are wrong.

If you believe that I am mistaken, prove it. If you can, do it. If you can't, then it is an admission that you really don't know one way or another and appeals to authority are the best you can muster and face it, if you can't prove me wrong, you have no idea whether your authority is right or not.

By the way, I have no EM theory. The workings of EM fields is not my theory. It is, however required study for any PhD in physics and I doubt that any of my old college professors would object to a single word that I have said.

 

[IanC]

I think it was Heisenberg who dropped the ultimate insult after listening to a third rate presentation. "He's not even wrong". wirebender falls into this category when he discusses his amazing EM theory that no one else is smart enough to understand.

 

[wirebender]

I think it was Heisenberg who dropped the ultimate insult after listening to a third rate presentation. "He's not even wrong". wirebender falls into this category when he discusses his amazing EM theory that no one else is smart enough to understand.

Of course Heisenberg could show why the paper in question was wrong. You are apparently just talking to hear yourself talk because you damned sure aren't pointing out any specific problems with anything I have said and I don't even see the first hint that you will be able to begin to do the math to prove I am wrong.

And again, I might wish I had developed the EM field theory but alas, I didn't. Tell me Ian how is it that you believe the "mechanics" of EM fields do not apply to the fields emitted by the surface of the earth and the atmosphere? Why would those two fields, of all possible EM fields in the universe be exemp from the laws of physics that determine their "workings"?

You are sounding a great deal like old rocks here Ian. Claiming that someone is wrong when you are completely unable to even take the first step towards proving them wrong. Old Rocks is sad when he does it and you are sad when you do it. Sorry I don't believe in the magical properties of CO2 like you do. I have the laws of physics on my side, and the mechanics of EM fields, and the math necessary to prove my statements. What exactly do you have other than name calling and appeals to authority?

 

[wirebender]

Wirebender seriously James Hansen has a PHD in Physics. That takes a shit load of math. The Astronomy ms alone is something to be respected. Believe me you don't fight your way through Physics without understanding it inside and ******* out by that level. You don't even get out of 200 level physics without working your ass off.

Of course I'm not saying that your not making a good case, but Hansen should know his shit.

Before you put to much faith in hansen and his PhD, take a look at some of the things he has predicted over the years. You tell me if the fact that he has a PhD means that what he says should be taken seriously.

From an interview with Reiss in1989: He predicted these events within 20 to 30 years:

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”


“Hansen predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’” AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, “ The Press-Courier,(Milwaukee) June 11, 1986

“Hansen said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.” AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, “ The Press-Courier (Milwaukee), June 11, 1986

"The 1 [deg]C level of warming is exceeded during the next few decades in both scenarios A and B; in scenario A that level of warming is reached in less than 20 years and
in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years." J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9346

"The computed temperature changes are sufficient to have a large impact on other parts of the biosphere. A warnting of 0.5[deg] C per decade implies typically a poleward shift of
isotherms by 50 to 75 km per decade. This is an order of magnitude faster than the major climate shifts in the paleoclimate record, and faster than most plants and trees are thought to be capable of naturally nilgrating [Davis, 1988]” J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9357

“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”. Sandy Grady, “The Heat is On,” -- The News and Courier, June 17th 1986

“The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.” --Jim Hansen, “Climate change: On the edge” The Independent, 17th February, 2006

"How long have we got? We have to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable.” Jim Hansen, “Climate change: On the edge” The Independent, Friday, Feb 17, 2006

[Note: In the quote from the News and Courier June 1986 he said that 1 degree would make it warmer than anytime in the past 100,000 years. In the quote directly above he claims that 1 degree will make it warmer than anytime in the past half a million years. Clearly the man says whatever comes to his mind in an effort to scare people]

“If scientist James Hansen is correct, humankind may be turning planet Earth into a giant steamer and the population into unwilling clams. The director of the Goddard Institute for Space studies in New York City, who spoke Wednesday at the University of Florida, forecasts the average global temperature rise as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030. This, he said, would more than double the annual number of days in many U. S. cities with weather in the 90s.” John Wood, “Earth is heating Up, Space Scientist Warns, “ Gainesville Sun, Sept 4, 1986, p. 1

I won't even get into his "ocean heat" predictions which, by the way, seems to be conspicuously AWOL. The point is that, if anything, hansen should give you pause before you accept anything from anyone based on the letters they put behind thier name. hansen makes a mockery of the letters Phd.

It is obvious that the man is a hand wringing hysteric, a zealot, a nut ball. He long ago left behind any scientific integrity in favor of his quazi religious earth cultism. If you are going to make appeals to authority and point out education as justification for that appeal, it wouldn't hurt to at least look at the sort of things they claim based on that same education.

Considering the epic failure of hansen's predictions and his computer models, it is surprising to me that anyone holds him up as an example of anything other than the inherent danger associated with trusting someone merely because they are a well known scientist.

 

[konradv]

What about CO2 acting like a blanket don't you understand, wirebender? If your theory of EM propagation was true, modern communication would be practically impossible, as most of it is EM going in all directions at all different intensities. Are you saying only the strongest get through? That would make cell phones and low-power radio impossible, don't you think?