Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9049 total)
400 online now:
jar, nwr, Tangle (3 members, 397 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,600 Year: 5,246/14,102 Month: 167/677 Week: 26/26 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 77 of 881 (750450)
02-15-2015 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by frako
02-13-2015 9:15 AM


How hot it is going to get due to co2 greenhouse forcing?....miniscule compared to the heat due to less sunlight being reflected back into space since 1970 from significantly less cloud cover compared to pre-1970 times.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 9:15 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2015 8:23 AM foreveryoung has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 80 of 881 (750480)
02-16-2015 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
02-16-2015 8:23 AM


Data and references later as time permits.
Which fails to explain the continued trend to hottest years on record -- 15 of the last 16?

If less low level cloud cover caused the temperature increase from 1970 to 1998, why could it not also explain the warming of the last 16 years which was puny in comparison to the aforementioned years?
If the earth is still warming and the cloud cover is less than before then energy available for warming is greater than the cooling effect of reflected energy that was lost due to cloud cover changes ... yes?

You mean greater shortwave radiation available for later entrapment by the greenhouse effect? Yes, but I'm not sure that is what you meant. If so, then that only strengthens my point. I am claiming that the energy reflected back into space by low level clouds is many magnitudes greater than the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide at today's concentration. The amplification of the energy from extra sunlight without the clouds is neglible compared to the extra energy being amplified.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2015 8:23 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2015 4:51 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2015 9:21 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2015 12:22 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2015 9:09 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 83 of 881 (750500)
02-16-2015 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by NoNukes
02-16-2015 4:51 PM


The science is supposedly settled right? We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that manmade carbon dioxide is the by far the biggest causal factor in the atmospheric warming since 1970? Case closed, debate over right? Do we know how much sunlight has been reflected into space prior to 1970 and from 1970 onward? If there is as much as a 4% decrease in reflected sunlight since 1970 compared to a similar amount of time before 1970, the amount of energy supposedly being trapped by greenhouse gasses is small in comparison. If that is the case, the debate is far from over. I don't save every paper I read. Sometimes it is hard to find the same paper again if you haven't looked at it in awhile. Next post will list one paper and highlight the portion that states what I just said. Here is one of the papers..http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837#.VOK3GqAo7qB

You can download the PDF after you pull up the link. I will pull up other papers as I have time to find them and quote the portions that I paraphrased from distant memory in my prior two posts.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2015 4:51 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 02-16-2015 10:15 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2015 11:08 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2015 9:34 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 138 of 881 (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 responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 140 of 881 (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 responded

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

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 141 of 881 (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 responded

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

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 144 of 881 (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 responded

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

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 146 of 881 (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 responded

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

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 169 of 881 (766659)
08-19-2015 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by NoNukes
08-19-2015 12:33 AM


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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2015 12:33 AM foreveryoung has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 170 of 881 (766662)
08-19-2015 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by NoNukes
08-19-2015 12:33 AM


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% ?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2015 12:29 AM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2015 1:08 AM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 191 by Taq, posted 08-20-2015 5:13 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 174 of 881 (766668)
08-20-2015 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Dr Adequate
08-20-2015 1:08 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2015 1:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2015 1:40 AM foreveryoung has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 175 of 881 (766669)
08-20-2015 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by NoNukes
08-20-2015 12:29 AM


So you believe waves exist in empty space? How do you come to that conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2015 12:29 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2015 12:06 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 176 of 881 (766670)
08-20-2015 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by NoNukes
08-20-2015 12:33 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2015 12:33 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 08-20-2015 3:35 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2015 11:57 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 178 of 881 (766675)
08-20-2015 2:05 AM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 08-20-2015 3:14 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 179 of 881 (766676)
08-20-2015 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
08-20-2015 1:40 AM


So you believe light exists between source and where it illuminates an object? Where is your evidence??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2015 1:40 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2015 2:39 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2015 12:02 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021