Recent Comments

Prev  2528  2529  2530  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  Next

Comments 126751 to 126800:

126751. Philippe Chantreau at 14:22 PM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        RSVP: the photon is massless but has a relativistic momentum. Its energy is not dependent on its mass but momentum. If you call p the momentum, c the speed of light and E the energy of the photon, you have E=pc. That can be easily found by using the expanded special relativity equation, the one that can apply to all cases, not only massive particles. That formula does not say that mass and energy are equivalent, it says that the energy of a particle is a function of the speed of light, the mass and the momentum of the particle. All this is easy to find on physics web sites and such. Like all elementary particles, it has characteristics of both wave and particle, as in the double slit experiment.
126752. WeatherRusty at 14:03 PM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        The light is also refracted or bent when encountering a discontinuity in density such as a glass surface or from air to water for instance.
126753. WeatherRusty at 13:52 PM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        RSVP, I would suggest that you consider when light passes through a discontinuity or medium of suddenly changing density, the light is diffracted or bent along it's path. The distance traveled to the receiver is thus increased and the time required to get there is increased. Light traveling though a gas is scattered by atoms and molecules repeatedly thus requiring greater time to reach a given point.
126754. Henry Pool at 13:39 PM on 2 November 2009
        How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
        Gheewhizz -- it got awully quiet now? Check this graph here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/ The most interesting thing about this graph is that the forcing due to the brightening of earth in 2005 is more than 6 W/m2 larger compared to 2000. This alone is like double the forcings attributed to the greenhouse gases. (but the forcing of the greenhouse gases is in the opposite direction). If this trend continued past 2005 then this more than cancels each other out. Taking the earth's albedo of 2000 as zero, then in 2005 we were back at where it was in 1985 So the effect of the global warming is now being undone! If this carries on long enough we will go back to a situation where we were will go into global cooling. Why is this happening? Apparently in one report I read that this brightening is due to an increase in the absorptive wavelengths of a) carbon dioxide b) oxygen (ozone) c) water (I hope I can still find that report again) This does make sense to me: a) I have been saying this along: there must be a cooling effect of CO2! So as CO2 increases, so will some of earth's albedo increase! The correct answer in 127= 1)!!!! b) back in 1985 I was still working in the electronincs industry desperately trying to get rid of CFC's. Working in a team at a big multi national we eventually succeeded by 1990 at replacing all the processes where we used CFC's. It was not long afterwards that the rest of the electronics industry followed us.(Our slogan was: we are ozone friendly) The refrigeration industry also found alternatives.So it seems all CFC's were banned. Some human activities produce ozone. So obviously what is happening now is that ozone must be increasing - hence more UV light is being blocked and is emitted by earth. c) Going by plane you notice that one of the activities most easily observed from above is the gathering of water by man. You see many dams, mostly for irrigation but also consumption. This is usually very shallow water, which easily warmps up. As a result, there must be an increase in the formation of water vapor. We know that water vapor reflects a lot of radiation! So, if this trend of an increasing albedo of earth continues, there is of course no more global warming. I donot know what the trend after 2005. I will try to find out, unless someone has these figures?
126755. RSVP at 07:08 AM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Somewhere I read that light is a particle. I wont say who said this. Light propagates more slowly in anything but a vacuum. If for instance it is propagating through air and then hits a new medium like glass it somehow "decelerates" instantaeously, then when emerges out a slower medium will "accelerate" instantaneously. Supposedly photons are particles containing energy. Physics says that energy and mass are equivalent, so when the photon decelerates or accelerates instantaneiously, why doesnt this require or release an infinite amount of energy? Is a photon massless? If so, how then can it contain energy if mass and energy are equivalent? I suspect there is some off-the-shelf explanation for this question containing semantic gyrations that satisfies conventional wisdom.
126756. Mizimi at 06:14 AM on 2 November 2009
        Polar bear numbers are increasing
        See Cold Beer Please post in the Artic Ice thread: "Beginning in early January 2009, sensor drift caused an underestimation of ice that grew until the error was finally caught in the mid-February. Internet visitors who look to the NSIDC for data sent emails to the center and, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean. (See NSIDC)" From NCPA: "Though polar bears are uniquely adapted to the Arctic region, they are not wedded solely to its coldest parts nor are they restricted to a specific Arctic diet. Aside from a variety of seals, they eat fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses. In addition, as discussed above, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived. Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline: Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing. Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable. Another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears - are increasing. The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown. Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations." www.ncpa.org/pub/ba551/ -
126757. Mizimi at 05:59 AM on 2 November 2009
        Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
        The formation of Atlantic hurricanes also appears to be strongly influenced by Saharan dust. The dust from the Sahara tracks westwards into the ocean and causes local cooling, depressing the temp. below thresholds needed for hurricanes to form. ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.../20080039568_2008038939.pdf - summarises the work by Lau & Kim.
126758. Riccardo at 05:30 AM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, thank you for your copy and paste some of the relevant physcal concepts. But you forgot a couple, heat trasnfer and absorption. After that you can expand the them.
126759. Philippe Chantreau at 04:59 AM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord @ 131, you're not answering the question. The question is in fact a thought experiment, which is as follows: We are observing 2 IR photons emitted simultaneously from the surface of the Earth. One is going its merry way to the TOA unhindered. The other bumps into a gas molecule, becomes kinetic energy, the molecule re-radiates that kinetic energy quantum as a photon at the proper wave length, that photon heads out in a random direction, bumps again in a gas molecule, and so on and so forth until it reaches the TOA. Which photon arrives first at the TOA? In the case of the objects at different temperatures, there will be photons emitted by the cooler object toward the warmer object. Representing their sum as a vector is only that: a representation, which is convenient. However, that does not change the fact that, physically, there will be photons emitted by the cooler object toward the warmer object. What happens to them? We could consider vectors as forces, since you mentioned it, which was a good idea. An individual is applying a force to a solid in certain direction. It makes the solid move in that direction. Another individual is applying a lesser force to that same solid in the exact opposite direction. The solid, and its movement, are affected by the lesser force, are they not? The direction will not change, the velocity will, but the surface of the solid, if somewhat soft, will deform at the point of application of the lesser force, will it not? In the links and quotes above, seems to me you are playing on words. These quotes don't say whay you say they say. Their fault is to somewhat abuse language for the sake of simplification, but the expectation is that one knows the obvious fact that the direction of the net energy flow (to space) is conserved. Especially for John's quote; in his context, "warms" means "changes the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation." The result is raised equilibrium temperature. You're playing around with the fact that words are employed outside of their pure thermodynamic meaning. Yet you do the same thing, merrily interchanging radiative energy and net heat flow. Here is another thought experiment: Hot object A radiates energy in the form of IR EM radiation. Object B, next to A, radiates same type of energy at 2/3 the rate of A. According to your interpretation of the 2nd law as you expressed it earlier, no IR EM energy at all can travel from B to A. We add objects B2 through B12 (they all have the same characteristics) in the vicinity of A, all the B objects are evenly spaced around A. What is the net heat flow for object A? According to your interpretation of the 2nd law, none of the B objects can radiate any heat toward A, and A should still radiate and not absorb. Is that really what is going to happen?
126760. chris at 04:48 AM on 2 November 2009
        High CO2 in the past, Part 2
        Leisureguy, Figure 2: The aim in this figure is to determine the radiative forcing according to a very broad, low resolution understanding of the solar and greenhouse forcings exisiting throughout the last 500 million years. In general, on long time scales the earth surface temperature is a result of the solar output and greenhouse amplification. Variation of either will affect the surface temperature (on shorter timescales volcanic aerosolic forcing, ocean currents etc. will modulate this further). The long term variation in solar output is well understood (the sun is getting steadily "brighter" as time passes; 400-odd million years ago solar insolation was around 4% weaker than now). So if we know broadly what the CO2 concentrations in the deep past, we can determine the net forcing that determines variation in earth temperature on the million of year time scale. The CO2 concentrations have been estimated based on an understanding of weathering, continental positions, major catastrophic tectonic events that release high conscnetrations of CO2 etc. This has been modelled by Berner, and is the dotted line in the figure (labelled GEOCARBIII). It's broadly consistent (on the 10 million year timescale) with the CO2 levels determined by intermittent proxies (see Figure 1 here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-has-been-higher-in-the-past.html) The point is that low radiative forcing (weak sun; low CO2) results in cold/glacial periods, and we don't expect cold/glacial periods when the net radiative forcing is high (high CO2 even if the solar constant is lowish as in the Ordovician period). Thus the apparent short glacial period in the late Ordovician, 440ish MYA is potentially anomalous at first sight.
126761. Leisureguy at 04:05 AM on 2 November 2009
        High CO2 in the past, Part 2
        I have to say that I don't understand figure 2 at all, nor do I follow the explanation.
        Response: As Chris mentions in comment #3, I go into more detail on Figure 2 in the post CO2 has been higher in the past. Read that post, come back here and if there is still confusion, post a comment saying which part you don't understand and I'll try to clarify my language.
126762. Steve L at 03:46 AM on 2 November 2009
        High CO2 in the past, Part 2
        Elementary question: why was weathering high after volcanic activity declined? Is it that the new volcanic rock weathers quickly relative to other rock, but slowly enough such that there was plenty of volcanic rock around to weather (remove CO2) long after outgassing from volcanoes had slowed down?
126763. Tom Dayton at 03:32 AM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, in answer to my question, you wrote "Hot objects produce a larger EM field (and force) than Cold objects so heat energy can only flow from Hot to Cold!….The direction of the larger force!" That statement is incorrect, and seems to be the crux of your confusion. The vector EM field propagating from a warmer object does not sum with (interfere with) the vector EM field propagating from a colder object, halfway between the objects. If they did, you are right that the result would be a net field aimed at the colder object. But in reality, the two fields pass each other and hit their respective targets. The field that hits the colder object imparts a lot of energy, because that field has a lot of energy, because that field arose from a warm object. So the colder object gets a lot warmer. The field that hits the warmer object imparts less energy, because that field has less energy, because that field arose from a colder object. So the warmer object gets only a little warmer. The net result of those two fields' impacts on their respective targets is that the colder object warms more than the warmer object warms. A frequent and easily misinterpreted way of rephrasing that last sentence is that heat flowed from the warmer object to the colder object.
126764. Gord at 00:52 AM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        WeatherRusty - re: your post #132 You said... "The greenhouse effect doesn't work that way. Heat is not being transfered from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface." I wonder how many times I have to repeat this? Here are the links to the "Greenhouse Effect" that say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR POST! Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona “In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere. However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere: it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere — for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model.” http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html The Greenhouse Effect “Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html Both examples violate the 2nd Law because there is heat energy flowing from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth. The above Greenhouse Effect links describe a Perpetual Motion Machine, actually a Perpetual Motion Machine in a Positive Feedback Loop. --------- Trenberth's Energy Budget Diagram clearly shows 324 w/m^2 of Back Radiation from the Colder atmosphere being ABSORBED by a warmer Earth surface ! http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR POST ! --------- John Cook's response to my very first Post #15 said: "Response: The atmosphere doesn't create energy. Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared energy, preventing some of it from escaping out to space. The absorbed infrared energy is then reemitted in all directions, some of it heading back to Earth where it warms the surface. It's not an argument or a theory that CO2 causes global warming. It's an experimentally observed physical reality." Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR POST ! Advice to WeatherRusty....READ before you comment! I really am getting tired of constantly repeating my posts. ------------------------------- You said... "The warmth that is accumulated during the daytime is slowed in it's radiative release to space by the greenhouse effect." Did you not read my Post #131? I really am getting tired of constantly repeating my posts. ------------------------------ You said... "The entire troposphere (all the gases) and surface are warmed by the greenhouse effect.." Gee, I thought you said... "The greenhouse effect doesn't work that way. Heat is not being transfered from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface." ------------------------------ I could continue, on and on, with more of what you posted but...Enough said.
126765. WeatherRusty at 00:14 AM on 2 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        This discussion is irrelevant in any case because it is not postulated that a colder atmosphere is warming the surface to higher temperature by direct radiation at higher energy such as is the case with direct solar warming. The greenhouse effect doesn't work that way. Heat is not being transfered from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. The warmth that is accumulated during the daytime is slowed in it's radiative release to space by the greenhouse effect. The confusion here derives from the notion that the atmosphere radiates photons in all directions, including down toward the surface. These are "colder" photons, but they still represent energy that otherwise would have escaped directly to space if the atmosphere where not opaque to particular wavelengths in the IR spectrum. The entire atmosphere is radiating thermal radiation, not just the greenhouse gas molecules at specific wavelengths. The entire troposphere (all the gases) and surface are warmed by the greenhouse effect and thus they radiate at higher energy than they otherwise would have in the absence of a greenhouse effect. This then leads us to the concept of radiative forcing of climate, an entirely different matter which is however entirely based on an enhancement to this greenhouse effect. Thus the desire by some to dispute the greenhouse effect's very existance.
126766. Gord at 23:14 PM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Philippe Chantreau - Re:your post#122 Electomagnetic Fields travel at the speed of light in a vacuum and ALL EM fields "carry" Photon energy. The only variable that can lower the "speed" is the "dielectric constant" of the medium that the wave propagates through. Wave propagation speed Calculating velocity of propagation V = 1/ K^0.5 where V = speed of light and K is the dielectric constant of the material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagation The dielectric constant of AIR is 1.00058986 +/- 0.00000050 !!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_constant
126767. Gord at 23:13 PM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Philippe Chantreau - Re:your post#121 The Laws of Science are called "Laws" because they have never been shown to be falsified....EVER! “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3 ANY flow of heat energy from cold to hot without work being done will result in a VIOLATION of the 2nd Law. When there is a violation of the 2nd Law, it will show up as a violation other Laws of Science.....usually as a violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy. (see my many posts that demonstrate this like post#109) ---------------- Yes, "All objects that Absorb energy HAS to increase in temperature." Even starlight when absorbed will produce a small increase in temperature. It may have to be concentrated by a lens or a parabolic dish (ex. radio astronomy with cooled detectors) but ABSORBTION will ALWAYS will produce an increase in temperature. This is absolutely verified by other Laws of Science called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (that relates the absorbed EM field to temperature) and The Law of Conservation of Energy. It is also "common sense". ----------------------- Do you really think that you can somehow dis-prove these Laws of Science? Science Professionals accept Laws of Science as being "fundamental truths of Science" and they are used as "first principles" for evaluating the validity of any process. Perhaps your time could be better spent if you adopted a similar approach instead of trying to dis-prove established Laws of Science.
126768. RSVP at 21:20 PM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Philippe Chantreau, For the person who always is making irreverent remarks about why you could POSSIBLY be wasting your time with such meaningless discussion, it is now surprising you have posed a question about "seeing" stars out in deep space. First of all, is this person wearing a protective "insulated" space suit, clothes, or just stark naked? If he is seeing stars, are these in his head as he is approaching unconsciousness, or through the glass of his protective head gear? My point is, the problem statement as posed lacked a specific piece of data that was relevant to your real question. I assume that your real point is that if a body is already warm (and-or generating heat) and subject to a tenuious amount of radiation, it is able to absorb radiation, but it will not be warmed by that radiation. All this to show that the statement "All objects that Absorb energy HAS to increase in temperature." is questionable. I think the issue you are bringing up is definitely interesting, but unless the question is framed properly, and there is a little more patience and good will on all sides for clarifying semantics it will all be a waste of time. I think my initial answer actually agrees with your view that energy can be absorbed by a warmer object. That was my first thought, but I will not put my hand in the fire (no pun intended) as things here may depend on semantics and how exactly you want to look at things. The fact that the starlight is not OBSERVED as contributing to temperature rising may have more to do with the fact that we are talking about a TRANSITIONAL condition, as opposed to a STEADYSTATE condition. All this would need to be clarified. On the other hand, and in the same way, Gord's statement may also be lacking the necessary qualifications in terms of INSTANTANEOUS vs STEADYSTATE, etc. A simple analogy may be found in the way air affects a falling object's velociy as compared to what the equations predict for a falling body in a vacuum. Theory is theory, but you have to qualify the conditions.
126769. Gord at 20:31 PM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        SNRatio - re:your post#117 (Another attempt of actually getting my post to display without deletion) What "well proven" theory are you talking about? ---- Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science* Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2 -------------------- Well let's look at AGW and the Greenhouse Effect. Facts: a) The Sun is the primary source of Energy for the Earth. The gravitional forces and the Earth's molten core are other sources of Energy, but are totally ignored by those that support AGW. The Atmosphere is NOT an energy source and cannot "create" energy. Proof: If the Sun were removed the Earth and atmosphere would rapidly cool to near absolute zero. b) The average temperature of the atmosphere is about -20 deg C. c) The average temperature of the Earth's surface is about +15 deg C. d) The AGW and Greenhouse Effect rely on a colder atmosphere heating a warmer Earth. There are ZERO Laws of Science and ZERO measurements to support this. e) The AGW and Greenhouse Effect violate The Law of Conservation of Energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Actual measurements confirm this. ---------- Laws: - The Law of Conservation of Energy says that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". - “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.” --------- As you can see, AGW and the Greenhouse Effect do not qualify as a Hypothesis or a Theory. In fact, AGW and the Greenhouse Effect, are dis-qualified as a Hypothesis or a Theory because they violate Laws of Science and are disproved by actual measurements. ------------ Yet, you continue to say that AGW is a solid theory supported by climatology research? Please provide ANY Laws of Science or ANY measurements that support AGW and the Greenhouse Effect. This should be no problem since over $200 Billion has been spent on this garbage already and there are thousands of papers on the subject. You can't produce ANY Laws of Science or ANY measurements that support AGW and the Greenhouse Effect because THEY DON'T EXIST. Stop posting your "opinions" and deal with the FACTS!
126770. Gord at 20:28 PM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Ricardo - re: your Post #116 (Another attempt of actually getting my post to display without deletion) I'm really tired of your not checking out the Physics for yourself! ----------------- Heat "Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object - this is properly called heating." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/heat.html --------------- Heat Radiation Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 --------------- Heat flux "Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux ---------------------- "Power Density and Radiated Power The Poynting Vector P is defined as: P(vector) = (1/2) E(vector) X H(vector) which is a power density with units of W/m2. Figure 4.1.3 The w/m2 Varies with Position on the Surface of a Sphere "n = unit normal directed outward from the surface." "We now continue to calculate the total radiated power from an antenna. It is the number of watts per square meter that happens to be at a given point and the direction of the vector is the direction of the power flow." http://www.engr.psu.edu/cde/courses/ee497c/M4L1.pdf
126771. Gord at 20:26 PM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Tom Dayton - re:your post #113 (Another attempt of actually getting my post to display without deletion) It's really astonishing how little people understand about Physics and especially Electromagnetic Physics! Do you understand that Photons do not propagate by themselves? Propagating Electromagnetic Fields "CARRY" Photon energy. If an Electromagnetic Field has zero magnitude it will not propagate, hence Photon energy cannot move. The Photon energy is CARRIED in the DIRECTION of the LARGER Electromagnetic Field!...and EM fields ARE VECTOR FIELDS! ----------------------------- Photon "In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force CARRIER for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon --- Heat Radiation Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 --- Properties of electromagnetic waves "An electromagnetic wave, although it CARRIES no mass, does CARRY energy." "A more common way to handle the energy is to look at how much energy is CARRIED by the wave from one place to another." http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/EMWaves.html --- Heat flux "Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux ------------------------------- If people can't understand Electromagnetic Physics they should at least understand what FORCE is. I wonder if you are even remotely aware that there are four "fundamental forces" and one of these forces is the "Electromagnetic Force"? ------------------------------ Electromagnetic force "The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are: the strong nuclear force (which holds quarks together, along with its residual strong force effect that holds atomic nuclei together to form the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (which causes certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces." "In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules. "The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons." "The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force --------------------------- Hot objects are not “spatially aware” any more than a block of wood “knows” that it is supposed to move in the direction of greatest force when two opposing forces are applied to the block of wood! - Heat Radiation is accomplished by propagating EM fields. - EM fields are Force fields, in fact the Electromagnetic Force is one of the four fundamental forces. - EM fields carry “Photon Energy”. - Photons have zero Mass. Is it so surprising that opposing EM fields and corresponding Forces will only move the zero mass Photon energy in the direction of the larger force? The “block of wood” analogy should be apparent except that, unlike a “block of wood”, a Photon has zero mass. Hot objects produce a larger EM field (and force) than Cold objects so heat energy can only flow from Hot to Cold!….The direction of the larger force! This is really what 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is fundamentally saying! “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3 When some say that Heat can flow from Cold to Hot it’s like saying the “block of wood” will move in the direction of the weaker force! ------------------------ Now go back and really read what you said in your post.
126772. Philippe Chantreau at 15:24 PM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        The stars would not warm you up, because you will always radiate vastly more than you're receiving from them, although you are receiving some radiation. Only if you get close enough to one so that the incoming radiation exceeds the outgoing will your temperature rise. Gord did not specify IR only, he said "radiative energy" and the rest of his comments imdicates he means EM radiation at large. It does not matter what the original source is, a photon is a photon is a photon. My question on the 2 objects of different temp still is relevant, albeit a paraphrase of Chris' question on the filament. I'm curious what the answer could be. The other question about the time to reach TOA is still relevant also. In fact it should even mention that some of these photons will go back to the surface and then be re-radiated from there again. Details.
126773. RSVP at 04:31 AM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        conjecture to 124 if you are seeing a cooler object, you are seeing light reflected from a warmer source if your vision was IR, it would be "black" and yes the stars would theoretically warm you with whatever part of the starlight you could absorb sort of like how much the Earth accelerates when you jump,
126774. Tom Dayton at 03:46 AM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, I doubt that John Cook has been deleting your replies. The server has been acting strangely for the past couple of days. A few of my replies did not appear until the next day.
        Response: Actually, I have been deleting Gord's replies. I'm getting tired of the tone of some of these comments. In the past, if someone was rude or disrespectful towards another commenter, I might let their comment remain if it had other interesting content. Nowadays, I'm older and grumpier - I just delete the entire content if the tone is not civil and respectful.
        
        For the record, I will now be deleting off-topic comments also.
126775. Philippe Chantreau at 03:40 AM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Question for Gord: if a photon is absorbed by a molecule, converted into kinetic energy (note that the energy does not disappear, it becomes kinetic), then re-emitted as an IR photon at that molecule wave length, then the process repeats a great number of times, will the time taken by the photon to go from surface to TOA be the same as the time taken by a photon going directly, without being absorbed and re-emitted?
126776. Philippe Chantreau at 03:25 AM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord says: "Warmer objects receive radiative energy from cooler objects.." That VIOLATES the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." If this were true, i.e. warm objects can not receive radiative energy from cooler objects, we could not see any object colder than our retina. Let's further reflect (no pun intended): 2 objects of different temperatures emit radiative energy in all directions; according to this same statement, the energy coming from the cooler object that is emitted toward the warmer object has to, somehow, either disappear (which would violate the first law) or be rerouted in another direction. This could be detected, as the energy budget somewhere would reflect the "extra" energy that did not end up on the warmer object. I don't know of any experimental setting that shows this. Also this statement: "All objects that Absorb energy HAS to increase in temperature." Formulated this way, it would imply that, if you're floating in deep space, looking at stars, the light from these stars is going to make your body increase in temperature.
126777. WeatherRusty at 01:44 AM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        In any collection of matter composed of individual molecules and atoms, the random velocities of those constituent components will range from near zero to very high velocity. The higher the temperature the greater the average velocity of the component molecules and atoms, but there will always be some in a low energy state.. These lower energy state components are able to absorb energy from a source radiating a full spectrum of ER as all warm bodies do. Some ER emanating from a relatively cooler body will resonate with some relatively few components making up a body of warmer temperature. The warmer body will not experience a rise in temperature because while it is absorbing low energy ER it is simultaneously emitting ER of higher energy, therefore experiencing a net loss in energy. Make sense?
126778. Riccardo at 01:01 AM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        RSVP, there will be less energy consumed during winter at high latitude and more energy consumed during summer at middle and low latitudes. Nevertheless, human behaviour is an important issue, no question about it. We definitely have to modify our attitudes to waste energy; we can't afford it anymore.
126779. RSVP at 00:49 AM on 1 November 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord and Tom I dont know if anyone is deleting posts or the poor server software has simply maxed out for thread space. If this does get to you, I like Tom's question and would like to throw in my half pence. There seems to be an inconsistency in the mental model of a light source in comparing it as if it were some kind of hose spewing photons. In working with radio, you find that impedance is everything in terms of electromagnetic energy transfer efficiency. The source and sink have to be "matched" in terms of impedance for optimal energy transfer. As far as a mental model, how the heck does the source "know" that the load is matched before it "spews" out radiation? It cant. Something is gravely wrong with the conceptual model in keeping with the idea of a "before" and "after". And since light is also supposedly the same kind of thing, electromagnetic radiation, the same principal must apply, as well as the same conceptual inconsistency. We use a language to describe what is not happening, and thus a lot of confusion and arguing. Aside from the issue with modeling of basic physics, I do have a more prosaic and rather mundane thing to say. And that is that whether CO2 is causing global warming or not, as things warm up, there SHOULD be less energy consumed at least during the winter. This should contribute to less CO2, and therefore human behavior is likely one of the most important feedback mechanisms to consider. Behaviorism is considered science... maybe not so hard, etc.
126780. birdbrainscan at 23:28 PM on 31 October 2009
        There is no consensus
        Re: dopeydrjohn in 172 through 179 You sound like you really don't like the conclusion of Doran & Zimmerman, so you're looking high and low for objections. I'll try to answer a few of your specific points, but start with the big picture: they obtained an independent directory of earth scientists, and got permission to send an email survey to all of them. They had the survey questionnaire vetted by independent survey design experts. They set up the online survey engine so that each person could only be counted once. They got around 30% response rate, and they cite sources confirming that this is about the expected participation rate for such polls (researchers get a HUGE amount of email, have very busy schedules, sometimes spend weeks or months on a ship, outdoors, in the Arctic, on mountains, etc.) You try to make it sound like D&Z committed fraud by not "following up" with the non-responders. That's way out of line! The survey design was that they would make it easy to respond, but they would not pester people who did not want to take part or did not have time. Your posts #177-179 are really overheated. You've already made up your mind, and whatever evidence D&Z present about the actual opinions of the actual scientists doesn't seem to get through the walls you have put up. Look, rather than posting your vehement arguments about how D&Z might be wrong, why not spend some more time getting familiar with the views of the actual scientists themselves? I've set up a website listing a lot of the most widely published and cited authors in this field, with a link to their home page. (Someone linked to my site back in the 150's in this thread, but nobody much picked up on it.) http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html You can look through my lists and see for yourself who says what. I've annotated which scientists have signed public declarations calling for action to cut GHGs, as well as those who signed "skeptic" statements like the Leipzig or Manhattan Declarations. I've covered every name on eleven different skeptic declarations, yielding a list of about 480 self-declared climate skeptics. The catch is, very few of them have any standing or publication history in this field. The skeptics' statements are padded with non-experts. Their median number of pulished works mentioning "climate" is ... two, while some 169 of the 469 skeptic signers have ZERO published works mentioning "climate." http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table_by_clim.html Compare working group 1 of the IPCC, with a median of 93 climate publications. http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table_by_clim.html In the top 100, only Roger Pielke Sr. shows up as a climate 'skeptic' - and he doesn't even dispute that CO2 drives warming. http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html All told, I found about 2.5 to 3% of authors publishing on this subject are self-declared skeptics. This dovetails quite closely with D&Z. There simply are far, far more scientists saying this IS a problem than saying it is not. Suppose the percentage is double or even triple what both D&Z and I are finding? That still wouldn't even get you to 10%.
126781. SNRatio at 22:50 PM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, I challenged you to produce a clear example where the standard basic teory gives wrong predictions. When you maintain that a standard, well-proven theory is wrong, it's your business to show where it produces false predictions. Not the defenders' - this is basic scientific conduct. If you don't want to confirm to that, I think your behavior may be said to border on trolling. And you requext that we "explain" seems utterly misplaced to me - there are hundreds of treatments of these phenomena available. I'll be more than happy to see you refute established theory! But I'm still awaiting your crucial counter example.
126782. Riccardo at 21:18 PM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, oh well, as for the ONLY point i made you were able to answer, you confirm your wrong picture without even noticing the absurdity of energy appearing from nowhere. But it dooes not come as a surprise. You that ironically shout "PROVE I'M WRONG" are only able to copy and paste pices of physics you clearly do not understand and, as a consequence, can't use your own model to check if its predictions are indeed correct. No surprise that you can't, there are a lot of flaws in your knowledge of physics. - You don't know the difference betweeen heat and EM radiation. Plenty of time you interchanged this two concepts. - You don't know that a photon can annihilate (be absorbed) and disappear, hence you don't know how the interaction between matter and radiation works. Indeed you keep repeating that they must be re-emitted in any case, which contraddict everyone's everyday experience. In you view there is no way to warm a body by irradiation given that each and every photon absorbed must be re-emitted. - you don't understand what the vectorial nature of the electic field of the electromagnetic radiation imply. You make confusion between direction of propagation and direction of the electric field. You immagine the latter fixed becuase you don't know what polarization is. - you also use the concept of interference without knowing that emission from exicted gas molecules (and any warm body as well) is incoherent. - you don't understand what a flux is, let alone a balance between fluxes. Indeed, you subtract the fluxes from earth surface and from atmosphere downward whitout realizing that this reduces the net flux from earth surface. Then, I understand that you don't want reply and that it's a waste of time, you'd be forced to obsessively repeat the same story avoiding to look at it, to use it, to understand it. You are not able to question your ideas and confront them with your everyday experience, let alone apply them to more complex systems like climate. So yes, I agree with you that you're wasting your time. Writing and reading in this blog is like the quadrature of the circle. For you.
126783. Philippe Chantreau at 21:18 PM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 has been higher in the past
        I'm sure I'd want to respond to what appears to be some sort of insinuation if I had any idea what the heck you're trying to talk about. I don't and don't feel curious enough to go through the hassle of deciphering it.
126784. Gord at 19:58 PM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Ricardo - re:your post#112 You said... "given that we were not able to explain the physics" What Physics?...and pertaining to What? ---------------- You said... "- the atmosphere absorbs 390 W/m^2 from the earth and emits the same amount but both upward and downward, twice the amount it absorbs" Wrong. If the atmosphere absorbs 390 w/m^2 it will radiate 390 w/m^2 in all directions. How did you get the atmosphere radiating twice the amount it absorbs? -------------------- The rest of your post is a jumble of errors and contradicting "babbling". Replying to all those errors and "babbling" would be very tedious and just a waste of my time.
126785. Gord at 19:56 PM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        WeatherRusty - re:your post#111 You said... "Yes, until absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule. The photon has at that moment ceased to exist, being converted to and added to the kinetic energy of the molecule." Wrong. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Whatever energy the gas absorbed will be re-emitted. -------------- You said... "The propagation of energy is interrupted by greenhouse gas absorption. The propagation to space is not at the speed of light, the propagation between subsequent absorptions and emissions, reflecting the free path of the photon, is at the speed of light. The flow of energy exiting the system is slowed down." Wrong. ALL propagating EM waves travel at the speed of light....they are light...only the frequency varies! HAHAHA....Tell that "story" to the Cop that gives you your next 'radar' speeding ticket. Now, that would be funny. --------------- You said... "With respect to the directionality of energy, electromagnetic radiation is not heat and heat is not radiation. By the above statement you clearly confuse the two." You are hilarious! Ever hear of Field Vectors ? (HAHAHA..They have been used for over a hundred years) Vector addition of fields... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/mulpoi.html#c3 ------ Heat Radiation Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 ------- Heat flux "Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux ------------------------ Why don't you look up the Physics for yourself instead of just contantly "babbling"? ------------------------ You said... "Radiation is emitted in all directions, no direction is preferred for any reason. Heat, or more specifically a temperature gradient within matter will tend toward equalization as determined by the second law, entropy." -Pick a point. -Draw a line from the emitting body to the point. -That will give the direction. -The length of the line will determine the magnitude (inverse distance^2 loss). -Now you have a FIELD VECTOR. (By the way, the radiation from the emitting object will be at a 'right angle' to the emitting surface.)
126786. RSVP at 19:23 PM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 has been higher in the past
        Philippe Chantreau This very circular. The only way out is for me to concede and find things that I can agree on. For instance, you are right that a person's personal life should not be a determining factor in evaluating a person's achievements. As it turns out, this appears to be what happened to Arrhenius' detractor, Knut Angstrom for being politically insignificant. As you imply, image should not be the concern, and that it was unfair that Angstrom's critique of Arrhenius' greenhouse theory should be dismissed based on an issue of status as opposed to considering Arrhenius was a chemist, while Angstrom dedicated his life to investigating solar physics. (But, unfortunately, as we have witnessed, the world operates on politics and the truth sometimes has to wait.) http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/029/mwr-029-06-0268a.pdf ------------ To adress you question. I also agree with you that there are many good things that could never be accomplished by an individual. I think up to here, that is about all I can agree on, so I will not go on, lest this discussion never end.
126787. Tom Dayton at 13:03 PM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Okay, Gord, since you answered my question #2 by saying the lamp filament cannotabsorb the reflected energy, here is the crucial followup question: What happened to the photons that were innocently traveling from the mirror toward the filament, having started their journey from the mirror blissfully unaware that their destination was hotter than the mirror they came from? 1. Did they self-destruct before they got there? If so, where did their energy go? How far away from the filament did they self-destruct? Is the distance from the filament what triggers their destruction, or is there some other trigger? 2. Or did the photons maneuver to the side of the filament to avoid it? If so, how did they maneuver--did they do it themselves, or did some outside force move them? How close to the filament did they get before they swerved? 3. Or were there no photons emitted by the filament straight toward the mirror, because the filament emitted those photons at an angle in order to avoid a head-on reflection? 4. Or did the filament emit fewer photons, because it refrained from emitting any straight toward the mirror?
126788. Riccardo at 11:53 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, given that we were not able to explain the physics, let's try a different approach and see some consequences of your model. Just to make it simple, assume that all the radiation coming from the earth surface is totally absorbed. - the atmosphere absorbs 390 W/m^2 from the earth and emits the same amount but both upward and downward, twice the amount it absorbs; - the atmosphere changes it's temperature but not the earth surface; alternatively, the atmosphere does not warm upon absorption but then it must be at 0 K. - the net flux between atmosphere and earth surface is zero but the earth does not warm while still receving the flux from the sun; - the temperature of a planet is determined only by the distance from the sun and its albedo. For example, the moon (albedo 0.12) must be warmer than earth and Mercury (albedo 0.12 and nearer to the sun) warmer than Venus (albedo 0.7). For the same reason, the temperature variations of the earth across millennia are explained only by solar forcing and albedo feedback, both in timing and magnitude; a pretty regular pattern, indeed. - the same reasoning must apply to incoming solar radiation as well; if it is totally absorbed by the atmosphere the only change at the earth surface can be that it is now diffused radiation as opposed to direct radiation but temperature is unchanged. These are the first five i can think about. Many other both related and non-related to planetary climate can be immagined. But if you find even just one of the above not matching reality, the model is incomplete (at the very minimum) or plainly wrong.
126789. WeatherRusty at 11:04 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, You Said: "Photon energy is carried by Electromagnetic Fields that propagate at the speed of light." Yes, until absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule. The photon has at that moment ceased to exist, being converted to and added to the kinetic energy of the molecule. "All surfaces that have a temperature will radiate energy according to their temperatures....at the speed of light...they don't speed up or slow down." The propagation of energy is interrupted by greenhouse gas absorption. The propagation to space is not at the speed of light, the propagation between subsequent absorptions and emissions, reflecting the free path of the photon, is at the speed of light. The flow of energy exiting the system is slowed down. "The NEW WAVE produced will have a magnitude of [Earth Radiation w/m^2 - Atmosphere w/m^2] and a direction toward the colder atmosphere." With respect to the directionality of energy, electromagnetic radiation is not heat and heat is not radiation. By the above statement you clearly confuse the two. Radiation is emitted in all directions, no direction is preferred for any reason. Heat, or more specifically a temperature gradient within matter will tend toward equalization as determined by the second law, entropy.
126790. Disclaimed at 09:31 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 has been higher in the past
        Great site John. Are there any papers out there that have examined extinctions and CO2 levels throughout the Phanerozoic?
126791. Gord at 09:27 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        SNRatio - re:your post#106 You said... "Gord shows no respect for that principle, on the contrary, he continues to make absurd claims like requesting us to explain "how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C". Exactly, my greenhouse glassing heats the greenhouse!" "This is rather elementary radiation physics, well understood, and it is Gord's business to walk through the textbook examples, and point out where they are wrong - NOT where he thinks they are wrong, but where they produce demonstrably false predictions." Really? If it is "rather elementary radiation physics, well understood" then it should be a "snap" for you to explain it and back-up your answer with Physics...right? Intead of "babbling" about it why don't you just DO IT? You CAN'T because it requires a VIOLATION of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and a VIOLATION of The Law of Conservation of Energy. COME ON....PROVE ME WRONG! HAHAHA...Good Luck!
126792. Gord at 09:26 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Tom Dayton - re:your post#105 You asked... Question 1: Is your answer the same as in #101? "...do you agree with me that light from the flashlight traveled to the mirror, reflected off the mirror, traveled to your eyes, and was absorbed by your eyes? Answer: Yes to both. Your eyes are lenses that concentrate the reflected EM energy at a focal point. ------ You asked... "Now angle the flashlight so it is aimed directly at the mirror, so if you were inside the flashlight you would see the full image of the flashlight's lit lamp head-on. Question 2: Do you agree with me that the light from the flashlight's lamp travels to the mirror, reflects off the mirror, and illuminates the interior of the flashlight, including the lamp?" No, the hot lamp filament CANNOT absorb the reflected energy because it has a smaller flux density w/m^2 compared to w/m^2 leaving the filament. If the filament absorbed the reflected light it would have to increase the filament's energy and temperature. If the filament increased in temperature, it would produce more light. More light would be reflected back to the filament causing it's temperature to rise again, producing more light etc. The process would continue until the filament reached an infinite temperature producing infinite energy. This would be called a Perpetual Motion machine in a positive feed-back loop. Just like the FANTASY "Greenhouse Effect" produces.
126793. Gord at 09:24 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        WeatherRusty - re:your post#103 RE: Please describe (and back-up by Physics) how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C to a whopping +15 deg C. You said... "I don't have to describe how that might happen because it does not and can not happen the way you assume it must, in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. You are the one arguing outside the mainstream in defiance of well understood physics." If it is "well understood physics"...then don't "babble" about it....POST THE PHYSICS! ------ You said.... "Atmospheric greenhouse gases increase the time required for the dissipation of energy to space by effectively decreasing the mean free path of individual photons. A surface that cools more slowly ends up being a warmer surface. It can't be described any more simply." Photon energy is carried by Electromagnetic Fields that propagate at the speed of light. All surfaces that have a temperature will radiate energy according to their temperatures....at the speed of light...they don't speed up or slow down. "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." The NEW WAVE produced will have a magnitude of [Earth Radiation w/m^2 - Atmosphere w/m^2] and a direction toward the colder atmosphere. This is also confirmed by the 2nd Law. This NEW WAVE also travels at the speed of light. It can't be described any more simply.
126794. Gord at 09:23 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Tom Dayton - re:your post#102 I answered your post#100 in my post#101 Now re: Droppings along the bunny trail Saturday, March 21, 2009 The Second Law and its Criminal Misuse "If the Clausius statement referred to any flow of heat when the two disks were placed opposite each other B would have to stop radiating towards A because if it did not, heat would be transferred between a body at lower temperature to a body at higher temperature. This is obviously absurd. The ability of either disk to radiate does not depend on the presence of another disk that absorbs the emitted radiation." "The ability of either disk to radiate does not depend on the presence of another disk that absorbs the emitted radiation." is correct. The rest is utter nonsense! Rabett obviously does not understand that the radiated Electromagnetic Fields are VECTOR fields and must be treated as such. Gerlich and Tscheuschner made that point very clear in their paper. Rabett's explaination is so dense it is astounding. The simple existance of the Interference Properties Of Waves proves that Rabett has absolutely zero knowlege of Electromagnetic Physics. Interference (wave propagation) "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that results in a NEW WAVE pattern." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) Electromagnetic Physics has been in constant use by Electrical Engineers and Physicists for over a hundred years. Every Antenna radiation pattern design, every TV-Radio transmission, every Satellite link, every Microwave link, every Optical/IR link etc. uses Electromagnetic Fields as VECTOR fields. Somebody should explain that to the "Rabett"! Maybe he could make the big leap in understanding to include the late 19th Century Physics. ---------- Rabett's Heat Transfer examples totally ignore Electromagnetic Field Vectors and can also be easily disproven using The Law of Conservation of Energy. Example: Look at Rabett's diagram where he has the Surface T = 300K and Atmosphere T = 260K. Surface T = 300K is due to the ONLY energy source...The Sun....that's ALL the energy it can receive PERIOD. The Surface and Atmosphere ARE NOT ENERGY SOURCES! If ANY energy flows from the Colder Atmosphere T = 260K to the warmer Surface T = 300K then Surface T would have to increase in temperature thus CREATING energy. This is as basic as it gets....YOU CAN'T GET MORE ENERGY OUT OF A SYSTEM THAN YOU PUT IN! --------------------- Rabett Run is perfectly named...."droppings along the bunny trail".
126795. PeterPan at 08:12 AM on 31 October 2009
        Working out climate sensitivity
        Thanks Tom! I read that post a couple of months ago and I didn't connected it to this, but I think that the clue is in the main article: Given that there's no trend in TSI since the 50s, the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere should have been decreasing since then until reaching a new equilibrium. However, what we have observed is just the contrary (more energy in than out). I guess that should be true regardless of any amplfication... Thnks again!
126796. Tom Dayton at 07:12 AM on 31 October 2009
        Working out climate sensitivity
        PeterPan, maybe the comments starting with Chris's on a different thread on Skeptical Science will have enough pointers? Dunno, I haven't read them all.
126797. PeterPan at 06:50 AM on 31 October 2009
        Working out climate sensitivity
        Skeptics have suggested that there may be feedbacks that only react to certain forcings. They base this on Shaviv 2003, claiming that the ocean heat flux correlated to the 11-year solar cycle needs 5-7 times more radiative forcing than the radiativee forcing associated with just the TSI variation. If someone could give me some context on this, I'd be very grateful.
126798. Mizimi at 06:46 AM on 31 October 2009
        It's cooling
        It is worth looking at fig 6 in Trenberth's paper...it shows ocean heat content derived from 4 sources; GODAS, JMA, ECCo-GECCO & ECCO-GODAE. Two data sets show an increasing trend in OHT and two show the beginning of a steep decline. You can download the ECCO report from http://www.ecco-group.org/pdfs/reports/report44.pdf and compare it with the graphs from GODAS ( Google Meridional Overturning Circulation Simulated by NCEP GODAS...quick view). GODAS seems to show warming is essentially confined to the North Atlantic..the tropics and N. pacific show no trend, whilst the S pacific, S. Indian and S. Atlantic show steep declines since around 2006. So which do we believe??
126799. Philippe Chantreau at 06:23 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 has been higher in the past
        Arrhenius, or any other author will not be invoked because of his credibility as an individual but because of credibility as an author, proven by work that was subsequently confirmed through innumerable other publications and loads of data. Who the author is and what kind of political opinions he has, or what kind of life he lives has no bearing on that.. Only their work on that subject matters. You were the one starting the ad-hom against Arrhenius, here is the exact quote from post #9 above: "Also, in terms of establishing this man's credibility," and then it goes on with other stuff and the Eugenics blurb. You don't seem to understand what an ad-hom is. If I said that your opinion on matters of atmospheric physics is garbage because you don't understand the basic physics that would not be an ad-hom argument, whether or not it is correct. OTOH, if I said that your opinion on atmospheric physics is trash because you engage in morally reprehensible activities, that would be an ad-hom, whether or not the accusation is true, once again. Your engaging in these activities would have no bearing whatsoever on reflections on atmospheric physics, whereas your ignorance of basic physics would. The reason why we often insist on reliability of sources is to avoid giving undue weight to stuff produced by people who are not qualified. Researchers who are active in a given field are good sources about that field. Work that has been confirmed throughout a century of subsequent research confers credibility to its author on that subject. Last, refrain from half veiled insults comparing me to religious authorities siding with philosophy against data. It is unwarranted. You're also implying that I am ready to jail or silence by force anyone dissenting (without specifying exactly with what) even if based on valid work. There is NOTHING in any of my posts that could even remotely allow to draw such conclusion. If there is, be so kind as to cite the exact quote and explain how you interpret it. You are using once again a poor rethoric tactic that consists of demonizing the opponent. I have my opinion about what transpires of your ideology, I will keep it to myself since it adds nothing to a discussion of the existing science on our subject, which is the focus of this blog. If I wanted to, I could easily return the favor and compare you to Stalin who ignored the findings of genetics because he was clueless enough to go for Lysenko and what was ideologically more fitting. But I won't do that. It would add nothing. Finally explain how a "committee", unable to integrate information, successfully launches remotely operated vehicles to Mars and all that other stuff. I don't get it. Looks to me that some pretty darn good integration of info was done there.
126800. SNRatio at 02:40 AM on 31 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        In order to have a serious scientific discussion, we have to agree on the description of phenomena. Gord shows no respect for that principle, on the contrary, he continues to make absurd claims like requesting us to explain "how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C". Exactly, my greenhouse glassing heats the greenhouse! This is rather elementary radiation physics, well understood, and it is Gord's business to walk through the textbook examples, and point out where they are wrong - NOT where he thinks they are wrong, but where they produce demonstrably false predictions. It's very interesting whenever someone is able to show that a theory gives false predictions, but in order to do that, you have to get "inside" the theory. Not belief-wise, but technically, so you are sure that you are not mis-applying it. Gord does not seem to be in the position to apply the standard basic theory correctly. The inconsistencies he perceives come from his lack of understanding, not the basic theory itself.

Prev  2528  2529  2530  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  Next