Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

In other words, you are not personally going to do anything about your fear of a future crisis. You want the government to fix the problem while you go on doing what you do. On the other hand, you want people who are concerned about global warming to take on the problem strictly by taking personal actions.No, I don't have a solution for global climate change that involves a bunch of people sitting on their butts ranting about government spending all the while sucking off the government teat. But then, I don't think that's a great way to judge a solution.

Right. So let's look at home heating. We can stop heating our homes or we can provide home heating that does not burn or does so more efficiently fossil fuels. You seem to think that only the first option is viable.Have you stopped using everything involving government spending? Or is it somehow only AGW that is a personal responsibility. Good for you. Now stop burning carbon without a plan to remove the 'ash' from the atmosphere. Let's get the government to do that too. And those holding government granted monopolies too.

Perhaps that's not an accurate description of the math. Nonetheless, an increase of 0.55 degrees C corresponds to approximately a 1 degree F increase in temperature. I have no idea if that is what marc9000 actually meant.

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. 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. This already has an explanation consistent with ACW. So we're going to need a bit more corroboration. Where are you getting this stuff?

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.

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.

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 | ITACAhttp://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.htmlTo 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.

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.

Are you satisfied with Dr. Adequate's answers?He's covered the bases, and even provided a reference. I'll add the fact that in the antarctic, even though sea ice is growing, the ice on land is decreasing.Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?I'll further add, that we've seen this stuff explained for something close to five years. The fact that you can still find a recent article full of crap does not invalidate old articles explaining exactly what has happened. Dr. Adequate did provide a recent article, but it turns out that this is old denier nonsense.Let me suggest that whatever the actual truth is about AGW, the scientist that believe in it are not idiots. If you think you have found some simple mistake, the way you and foreveryoung did, why not at least check for the scientific response before running off half cocked? And this stuff does not rise and fall with the credibility of Al Gore. I find it somewhat amusing that people think Al Gore's pocketbooks are an indicator, while those of people involved with the industry of burning carbon have motives as pure as the drive snow.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Al Gore cannot make is own predictions. Here is what Al Gore did say in his speech.

quote:

---

Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

---

So Al Gore referenced two scientist's studies that themselves are tentative. He makes no claim that the shorter one is more correct, but not only have those become Gore's predictions, but somehow Gore is stuck with a 2014 prediction rather than a 2029 prediction.Instead of repeatedly asking us what Gore said, why did you not simply reproduce it yourself?

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

Waves only exist in matter? Really? Perhaps you should let us look at the paper. Perhaps Ward said something that makes some sense. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Surely you realize that this is not any kind of argument. Sounds like we might have something to discuss.

That would not be an argument. That would be your assertion. An argument would require you to demonstrate what they said. So far I don't see any arguments from you.

You can measure the magnetic and electric field strengths at all points between the source and the destination. When you do so, you will find a time varying magnetic and electric field at every point and varying in both time and space. A propagating, time varying electo-magnetic field is a wave.