Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 136 of 944 (751324)
03-02-2015 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by RAZD
03-02-2015 9:31 AM


Re: snoballs and polar vortexation
And if you still don't understand the difference between a data point and a data set:
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 9:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by glowby, posted 03-03-2015 3:15 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(4)
Message 137 of 944 (751528)
03-03-2015 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
03-02-2015 11:02 AM


Re: snoballs and polar vortexation
Stephen Colbert had a similar gag:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 11:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 138 of 944 (766180)
08-13-2015 8:09 PM


Is carbon dioxide really warming the planet? How much energy does co2 absorb in infrared radiation from the earth over a period of a day? How much energy is absorbed by the earth from incident ultraviolet radiation that reached the earth because of ozone depletion of the last 50 years over the course of a day? If you measure the energy of infrared radiation by multiplying planks constant by the frequency of the infrared radiation, and doing the same for mid level ultraviolet radiation, you will find the energy of the latter to be 48 times greater than that of the former.
This completely rules out co2 as the culprit behind global warming since 1950. The reason consensus scientists disregard this is because they measure the energy of radiation by its wavelength as if it were a wave.
The corroborating evidence for this is the nearly flat rate of increase in global temperatures since 1998 when compared to the rate of increase from 1970 to 1998.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2015 8:57 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 944 (766181)
08-13-2015 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by foreveryoung
08-13-2015 8:09 PM


If you measure the energy of infrared radiation by multiplying planks constant by the frequency of the infrared radiation, and doing the same for mid level ultraviolet radiation
I want to see some numbers. But my first objection is that your calculation does not take into account the relative intensity of UV and IR. The calculation you describe gives a per photon result. We've known from the nineteenth century that high energy photons take lots of energy to make and are thus disfavored with regards to emission from black bodies.
The reason consensus scientists disregard this is because they measure the energy of radiation by its wavelength as if it were a wave.
There is no difference between using wavelength or frequency to calculate the energy of a photon. In fact, wavelength is simply inversely proportional to frequency for light waves(exactly for vacuum and pretty close for air).It is also possible to use energy intensity measurements as well as wave math to achieve the same result. I call total BS on this part. But I'm willing to be shown that scientists have been complete idiots.
The corroborating evidence for this is the nearly flat rate of increase in global temperatures since 1998 when compared to the rate of increase from 1970 to 1998.
This already has an explanation consistent with ACW. So we're going to need a bit more corroboration. Where are you getting this stuff?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by foreveryoung, posted 08-13-2015 8:09 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by foreveryoung, posted 08-13-2015 9:20 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 141 by foreveryoung, posted 08-13-2015 9:34 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 144 by foreveryoung, posted 08-13-2015 10:39 PM NoNukes has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 140 of 944 (766182)
08-13-2015 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by NoNukes
08-13-2015 8:57 PM


What bearing does the disfavored release of UV radiation from black bodies have on my point? Are you saying the intensity of UV photons striking the earths surface is small in comparison to that of infrared radiation being absorbed by co2?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2015 8:57 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2015 10:37 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 141 of 944 (766183)
08-13-2015 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by NoNukes
08-13-2015 8:57 PM


You say there is no difference between using wavelength or frequency when calculating energy. The following from Geophysicist Peter Langdon Ward will explain the difference.
"The primary problem with greenhouse gas theory is that it is based on the pervasive assumption that electromagnetic radiation propagates through space and through Earth's atmosphere in a manner similar to waves in matter so that radiant energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the waves and is thus summable across some finite bandwidth. From this perspective, the total infrared energy absorbed by carbon dioxide over the broad band of wavelengths from 13,100 to 17,300 nanometers (blue circle in the figure to the right) is much larger than the total ultraviolet-B energy that reaches Earth when ozone is depleted in the very narrow wavelength band from 300 to 330 nanometers (red circle)."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2015 8:57 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2015 10:09 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 944 (766185)
08-13-2015 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by foreveryoung
08-13-2015 9:34 PM


he primary problem with greenhouse gas theory is that it is based on the pervasive assumption that electromagnetic radiation propagates through space and through Earth's atmosphere in a manner similar to waves in matter so that radiant energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the waves and is thus summable across some finite bandwidth
From a geophysicist eh?
Note that calculation described here does not use the wavelength in the calculation as you suggested in your original post. Hence my comment that you can use wavelength to calculate energy. That's not the same thing as what Ward says at all, which is that energy is calculated using an inappropriate amplitude (or amplitude squared).
In any event, it is okay to use the amplitude to calculate energy as long as the amplitude is of the proper value such as watt-hr/square meter or joules/square meter. What I want to see here is an example calculation that does not use enery/cm2 but instead uses some inappropriate value of amplitude.
The second thing I'd note is that all colors of light contribute to warming and not just infra red. Infra-red is important because it is the dominant color of re-radiated light due to the low temperature of the earth's surface. The correct comparison is all colors light reaching the earth pre-ozone hole vs the augmented amount due to the ozone hole and not just infra-red vs ultraviolet.
Also, it is not the absorption by CO2 that is important, it is the heating effect on the earth.
Show me an erroneous calculation in a relevant paper. You might also show us the paper you are quoting from.
Here is an example graph from which it is okay to use amplitude to calculate the energy for various frequencies.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by foreveryoung, posted 08-13-2015 9:34 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by foreveryoung, posted 08-18-2015 6:09 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 944 (766186)
08-13-2015 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by foreveryoung
08-13-2015 9:20 PM


Are you saying the intensity of UV photons striking the earths surface
I am saying that current amount of UV radiation emitted from a body with a surface temperature of 5700 degrees, like sol, is small compared to the amount of other energy emitted. I was probably incorrect about absorption of UV not being an issue if we are talking about CO2 being kept in the atmosphere.
But the UV light is just absorbed by earthly materials and then primarily re-radiated as infra-red. That's why CO2's affect on infra-red is important. The earth's temperature is so low that it radiates hardly any UV light.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by foreveryoung, posted 08-13-2015 9:20 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 144 of 944 (766187)
08-13-2015 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by NoNukes
08-13-2015 8:57 PM


The intensity of infrared radiation emitted from earths surface is 359 w/m2 assuming a black body. The intensity of UV radiation reaching earths atmosphere is 1400 w/m2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2015 8:57 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2015 11:56 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 944 (766188)
08-13-2015 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by foreveryoung
08-13-2015 10:39 PM


The intensity of infrared radiation emitted from earths surface is 359 w/m2 assuming a black body. The intensity of UV radiation reaching earths atmosphere is 1400 w/m2.
Assuming that those numbers are correct, are those values really something that we want to compare? Even now, with the hole in the ozone layer, the amount of UV reaching the earth is far less than 1400 w/m2.
But where did you get that number? An estimate of the amount of sunlight reaching the earth;s atmosphere over all frequencies, is on average about 1400 w/m2. So I don't have much faith in what you are telling me about UV alone.
The two references below both cite 1370 w/m2 based on the suns output (based on suns color) and the inverse square law.
Part 2: Solar Energy Reaching The Earth’s Surface | ITACA
http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html
To put those numbers into perpective, what is the intensity of all light reaching the earth in the same units, and what percentage of that is UV.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by foreveryoung, posted 08-13-2015 10:39 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 146 of 944 (766503)
08-18-2015 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by NoNukes
08-13-2015 10:09 PM


Give me some time to understand what exactly ward is saying is erroneous about the current way of calculating radiant energy. It just seemed obvious to me cfcs were responsible for late twentieth century warming since its mechanism used radiation 48 times stronger than infrared and the cfcs high concentration tracked the period of warming exactly whereas co2 has been roughly increasing at the same rate before and after this period of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2015 10:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2015 12:33 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 944 (766545)
08-19-2015 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by foreveryoung
08-18-2015 6:09 PM


just seemed obvious to me cfcs were responsible for late twentieth century warming since its mechanism used radiation 48 times stronger than infrared and the cfcs high concentration tracked the period of warming exactly
There have been some recent papers addressing and purporting to debunk claims that cfcs are responsible. You might want to be prepared to discuss that once you get the Ward's issue straightened out.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by foreveryoung, posted 08-18-2015 6:09 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 9:38 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 169 by foreveryoung, posted 08-19-2015 11:20 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 170 by foreveryoung, posted 08-19-2015 11:39 PM NoNukes has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 148 of 944 (766567)
08-19-2015 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by NoNukes
08-19-2015 12:33 AM


Change
Hi NoNukes,
I get the idea that you truly believe the earth is getting hotter.
Al Gore predicted the polar caps would be gone by now. He really believed in global warming or with lining his pockets with other peoples money. Which he did.
But I have a question that you might can clear up for me.
As of May 2015 the Polar ice is 5% larger than the 1979 size was.
If the earth is getting so much warmer due to our emissions into the air how is that possible?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2015 12:33 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2015 9:44 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2015 11:12 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 08-19-2015 4:31 PM ICANT has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 944 (766569)
08-19-2015 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICANT
08-19-2015 9:38 AM


Re: Change
Al Gore predicted the polar caps would be gone by now.
No he didn't.
But I have a question that you might can clear up for me.
You're welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 9:38 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 10:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2015 10:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 150 of 944 (766573)
08-19-2015 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2015 9:44 AM


Re: Change
Hi Dr,
Dr writes:
You're welcome.
You did not answer my question. I did not ask what the conditions were in 2008.
I asked how NoNukes would explain the fact that in May of 2015 the polar ice was 5% larger than it was in 1979.
What does an article from 2008 have to do with the Polar ice in May of 2015?
quote:
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
So what do you explain NASA's latest observations?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2015 9:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2015 10:18 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 156 by ramoss, posted 08-19-2015 1:39 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024