|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
There was 170,000 sq miles more polar ice this year than there was in 1979. Your question has already been addressed. To be clear though, your number is for polar sea ice only and not all of the polar ice. I don't see any indication of the thickness of the sea ice either. The polar parts of the oceans are a significant part of the earth, but they are not by any stretch the entire portion of the oceans. So yeah it is possible for the earth's oceans to be warmer overall and yet have the polar caps a bit colder. http://www.epa.gov/...ndicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
This is the data we have directly from the government
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My argument is that there is 170,000 sq miles more polar ice in 2015 than there was in 1979 when it was first recorded. So, do you agree that global warming is happening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Nucitelli and Cook have two papers purporting to debunk CFC theory as proposed by Lu of University of Waterloo in Ontario Canada. The objections were lightweight in my estimation and Lu published another paper debunking the objections. He just made better sense than Cook and Nucitelli who appear to be emotionally driven and obsessed with the Koch brothers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Ward is saying that waves only exist in matter and the matter must have bonds between them as we see in solids and liquids. There are no such bonds between molecules of gas and exist only fleetingly as gas molecules pass each other at great speeds. Therefore, according to Ward, it is erroneous to make calculations of energy assuming radiation exists as waves. Ward says radiation exists purely as frequency in free space and within gases and the only correct way to calculate its energy is through Plank's equation. This makes UV radiation much more energetic than infrared. As you pointed out however, for UV to take prominence over infrared in causing global warming, it must be shown that its flux ( quantity per square meter ) is at least close to that of infrared. I have not determined that yet. If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Ward is saying that waves only exist in matter and the matter must have bonds between them as we see in solids and liquids. Waves only exist in matter? Really? Perhaps you should let us look at the paper. Perhaps Ward said something that makes some sense.
Ward says radiation exists purely as frequency in free space and within gases and the only correct way to calculate its energy is through Plank's equation. Radiation exists purely as frequency? Does characterization "purely as frequency" make any sense to you? You've had a heat/light/sound type physics course, right? Electromagnetic radiation is a propagating traverse wave of time varying electric and magnetic fields. Frequency is a property of the wave and is not material in any way It is simply the number of oscillation of a wave passing by a point per second.
...UV radiation much more energetic than infrared. You don't need any of the BS to get me to accept this. The energy of a single photon of UV radiation is definitely greater than that of a single IR photon. That comparison remains even for light propagating through a vacuum.
it must be shown that its flux ( quantity per square meter ) is at least close to that of infrared. I have not determined that yet. Wrong. You have to show that the UV energy is a substantial part of all of the energy that reaches the earth from the sun.
If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ? No. Infra red is important because it can be trapped on the earth and not because it is the major means by which sunlight reaches the earth. Once the sun's energy reaches earth it can be reflected away or it can heat up the earth, but when it is re-radiated from the earth, it is re-radiated almost exclusively as IR regardless of how it arrived on earth. It might be far easier to simply show me where UV light is handled improperly in a scientific paper. That would carry some weight. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The objections were lightweight in my estimation Surely you realize that this is not any kind of argument.
The objections were lightweight in my estimation and Lu published another paper debunking the objections. Sounds like we might have something to discuss. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Ward is saying that waves only exist in matter and the matter must have bonds between them as we see in solids and liquids. There are no such bonds between molecules of gas and exist only fleetingly as gas molecules pass each other at great speeds. Therefore, according to Ward, it is erroneous to make calculations of energy assuming radiation exists as waves. Ward says radiation exists purely as frequency in free space and within gases and the only correct way to calculate its energy is through Plank's equation. This makes UV radiation much more energetic than infrared. As you pointed out however, for UV to take prominence over infrared in causing global warming, it must be shown that its flux ( quantity per square meter ) is at least close to that of infrared. I have not determined that yet. If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ? It sounds as though Ward has invented his own physics, ad hoc.
I have not determined that yet. If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ? But as NoNukes points out, the greenhouse effect is not about the IR that arrives but the IR that leaves. From WP: "The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed or reflected. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 26% is reflected back out to space by the atmosphere and clouds and 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds. Most of the remaining energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Perhaps the accepted physics is erroneous? Do you believe that radiation exists as waves in space? Do you believe waves don't need a medium to travel in? I know I wasn't specific but I assumed nonnukes would understand I was referring to infrared emitted from earth's surface.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
So you believe waves exist in empty space? How do you come to that conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
My argument is that nucitelli and cook have no argument whatsoever. Saying you are wrong and a koch supporter...nanny, nanny, boo boo is not an argument. Can you make the case that it is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps the accepted physics is erroneous? Don't hold your breath.
Do you believe that radiation exists as waves in space? Do you believe waves don't need a medium to travel in? Light does seem to travel in a vacuum, yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Electromagnetic radiation in space is a field. It is not a wave. Changes in that radiation propagate as a wave in that field but the radiation itself is not a wave. Anyone care to tell me why I'm wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
So you believe light exists between source and where it illuminates an object? Where is your evidence??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So you believe light exists between source and where it illuminates an object? Where is your evidence?? Light waves can interfere with each other between the source and the thing they're illuminating, which could hardly happen if they didn't exist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024