• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Weather Channel founder eviscerates CNN over Global Warming

RAMOSS said:
You do know that when it comes to the type of physics solid state physics studies, CO2 in the atmosphere is not something that is used in that field of study, right?? It is in atmospheric physics.

Boy, are are getting desperate to show that someone without qualifications is qualified.
Click to expand...
At the quantum level, the physics is the same, if you do not understand that, then you are not qualified
to make a determination of who is and is not qualified.
 
Yawn. Partisan political positions are simply not important.
 
longview said:
At the quantum level, the physics is the same, if you do not understand that, then you are not qualified
to make a determination of who is and is not qualified.
Click to expand...

That is not relavant, when it comes to 'how does the physics effect things at a macro level'. It's a very desperate move of yours to try to make someone whose expertise is with solid state physics to be an expert in climate, particularly when he admitted that is knowledge comes from spending a half a day on google for climate change.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is not relavant, when it comes to 'how does the physics effect things at a macro level'. It's a very desperate move of yours to try to make someone whose expertise is with solid state physics to be an expert in climate, particularly when he admitted that is knowledge comes from spending a half a day on google for climate change.
Click to expand...
At the core of the concept know as AGW is the idea that added CO2 causes atmospheric warming, via a quantum effect.
The Scientist who claim to understand this like James Hansen, are still dealing with unknowns,
which is why after 20 years of funded research, the range of uncertainty has not been reduced.
We are still at the 1.5 to 4.5 C, we were at in 2001 with Baede, et al 2001 (The IPCC's key concepts in climate science document.)
Any active physicist, especially one with Ivar Giaever's background, can look at the basic concepts of AGW,
and see it is wanting for empirical evidence.
AGW has two parts, the input warming caused from the doubling of the CO2 level,
and then the amplified feedback of that input.
We really are incapable of measuring even the first part to validate the most basic portion of the Physics.
 
longview said:
At the core of the concept know as AGW is the idea that added CO2 causes atmospheric warming, via a quantum effect.
The Scientist who claim to understand this like James Hansen, are still dealing with unknowns,
which is why after 20 years of funded research, the range of uncertainty has not been reduced.
We are still at the 1.5 to 4.5 C, we were at in 2001 with Baede, et al 2001 (The IPCC's key concepts in climate science document.)
Any active physicist, especially one with Ivar Giaever's background, can look at the basic concepts of AGW,
and see it is wanting for empirical evidence.
AGW has two parts, the input warming caused from the doubling of the CO2 level,
and then the amplified feedback of that input.
We really are incapable of measuring even the first part to validate the most basic portion of the Physics.
Click to expand...

Uh. No. The greenhouse effect is not something on the quantum level. You do love spewing misinformation, don't you.
 
Anagram said:
He doesn't really make an argument. He just says that CNN and the government are wrong and that the science is 100% on his side.

That's not an argument, that's just negation. And it's certainly not an evisceration.

If some scientist who believed in climate change had come on and said that the science is absolutely on his side and that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, but didn't put down any further argument, would you find that scientist persuasive?
Click to expand...

He has a journalism degree and presented weather forecasts for 60 years or so. Barely qualifies him for climate science any more than the "expert" deniers here.
 
RAMOSS said:
Uh. No. The greenhouse effect is not something on the quantum level. You do love spewing misinformation, don't you.
Click to expand...
So tell me, if you don't think the greenhouse effect is something on a quantum level, how is the 15 um photon absorbed by the CO2 molecule?
The energy states of all atomic structures are quantum events.
 
longview said:
So tell me, if you don't think the greenhouse effect is something on a quantum level, how is the 15 um photon absorbed by the CO2 molecule?
The energy states of all atomic structures are quantum events.
Click to expand...

All interesting replies. Can't say I understood it all :mrgreen: but I have an idea (small as it may be) what you were getting at.

I'm not sure to what degree your comments pertain specifically to the laws of physics but I do know the laws of physics and chemistry apply to what drives the biological processes of plants and humans, heat from stars, waves of the ocean, and really anything to do with climate and greenhouse gases. Basically, physics and chemistry explain every operation in the universe, big or small.

Climate science draws on multiple physical sciences. But the laws of physics and chemistry govern all of them. It's these laws which make things predictable. Well, as predictable as can be given the body of our knowledge for the day and the tools of the day we have to investigate. I suppose a lot of things we still don't grasp and can't quite predict at the quantum level. You can correct me if I'm wrong?

I think one error we lay people of science often make is we think laws of physics and chemistry do not apply to physical things in this or that scenario. Be it climate change or aliens traveling to earth.
 
FastPace said:
All interesting replies. Can't say I understood it all :mrgreen: but I have an idea (small as it may be) what you were getting at.

I'm not sure to what degree your comments pertain specifically to the laws of physics but I do know the laws of physics and chemistry apply to what drives the biological processes of plants and humans, heat from stars, waves of the ocean, and really anything to do with climate and greenhouse gases. Basically, physics and chemistry explain every operation in the universe, big or small.

Climate science draws on multiple physical sciences. But the laws of physics and chemistry govern all of them. It's these laws which make things predictable. Well, as predictable as can be given the body of our knowledge for the day and the tools of the day we have to investigate. I suppose a lot of things we still don't grasp and can't quite predict at the quantum level. You can correct me if I'm wrong?

I think one error we lay people of science often make is we think laws of physics and chemistry do not apply to physical things in this or that scenario. Be it climate change or aliens traveling to earth.
Click to expand...
My point was that a person with a PhD in Physics and a Nobel Prize in Physics, is like capable of
seeing that the concept of AGW lacks much of the evidence we expect from a Science that claims it is settled.
The portion of AGW that is based on actual physics is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and doubling it's concentration
in the atmosphere will cause some warming. Almost all scientist agree with this!
The amount of warming from the CO2 forcing is also in relative high agreement, but there are aspects,
of the forcing that are poorly understood.
(like the majority of the observed warming has been with nighttime lows not getting as cold.)
Where the scientific disagreement is with the second part of the AGW prediction, the amplified feedback.
The basic concept looks like this, double CO2 causes 1.2 C of forcing warming,
The 1.2 C of warming is then amplified by a collection of open loop feedbacks, to cause total warming between 1.5 and 4.5C.
So with 1.2 C as the input, the output will increase between .3 and 3.3 C.
The problem with this is that the results of the predicted amplified feedbacks, have not been observed in a
way that can be measured!
 
longview said:
My point was that a person with a PhD in Physics and a Nobel Prize in Physics, is like capable of
seeing that the concept of AGW lacks much of the evidence we expect from a Science that claims it is settled.
The portion of AGW that is based on actual physics is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and doubling it's concentration
in the atmosphere will cause some warming. Almost all scientist agree with this!
The amount of warming from the CO2 forcing is also in relative high agreement, but there are aspects,
of the forcing that are poorly understood.
(like the majority of the observed warming has been with nighttime lows not getting as cold.)
Where the scientific disagreement is with the second part of the AGW prediction, the amplified feedback.
The basic concept looks like this, double CO2 causes 1.2 C of forcing warming,
The 1.2 C of warming is then amplified by a collection of open loop feedbacks, to cause total warming between 1.5 and 4.5C.
So with 1.2 C as the input, the output will increase between .3 and 3.3 C.
The problem with this is that the results of the predicted amplified feedbacks, have not been observed in a
way that can be measured!
Click to expand...

The important part (from the atomic level on greater) that is used in atmospheric physics is on the macro level. The part you are quoting is on the macro level, and not quantum.
 
RAMOSS said:
The important part (from the atomic level on greater) that is used in atmospheric physics is on the macro level. The part you are quoting is on the macro level, and not quantum.
Click to expand...
No! The absorption and re emission of photons and radio waves from CO2 is exactly a quantum interaction.
A 15 um photon contains .0827 electron volts, once the energy is absorbed by the CO2 molecule, the excited,
state starts decaying, each decay step throws off a photon containing the quantum energy between the old level and the new.
The step down continues until the molecule is back at ground state.
Quantum processes
 
Last edited:
longview said:
No! The absorption and re emission of photons and radio waves from CO2 is exactly a quantum interaction.
A 15 um photon contains .0827 electron volts, once the energy is absorbed by the CO2 molecule, the excited,
state starts decaying, each decay step throws off a photon containing the quantum energy between the old level and the new.
The step down continues until the molecule is back at ground state.
Quantum processes
Click to expand...

But, heat transfer , which is important to the mechanism for greenhouse gases, is not quantum. It is classical physics. From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer_physics

Heat is transferred to and from matter by the principal energy carriers. The state of energy stored within matter, or transported by the carriers, is described by a combination of classical and quantum statistical mechanics. The energy is also transformed (converted) among various carriers. The heat transfer processes (or kinetics) are governed by the rates at which various related physical phenomena occur, such as (for example) the rate of particle collisions in classical mechanics. These various states and kinetics determine the heat transfer, i.e., the net rate of energy storage or transport. Governing these process from the atomic level (atom or molecule length scale) to macroscale are the laws of thermodynamics, including conservation of energy.
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
But, heat transfer , which is important to the mechanism for greenhouse gases, is not quantum. It is classical physics. From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer_physics
Click to expand...
There would be nothing to transfer, if there were not a quantum interaction.
The delaying mechanism of CO2, is that it has a quantum absorption of the 15 um photon,
and then re emits a collection of photons, whose total energy equals the 15 um photon absorbed.
The re emitted photons are emitted in random directions, some of which are down.
This process delays the energy leaving the earth. Again this is a quantum process!
quantum.jpg
 
longview said:
There would be nothing to transfer, if there were not a quantum interaction.
The delaying mechanism of CO2, is that it has a quantum absorption of the 15 um photon,
and then re emits a collection of photons, whose total energy equals the 15 um photon absorbed.
The re emitted photons are emitted in random directions, some of which are down.
This process delays the energy leaving the earth. Again this is a quantum process!
View attachment 67218603
Click to expand...

Yes, part of it is quantum. However, not the part when it comes to it works in the atmosphere.. .. read up on how heat absorption and transfer works. And you still haven't shown that someone who got their climate change information from a 'half a day on google' is qualified. This is just a deflection.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes, part of it is quantum. However, not the part when it comes to it works in the atmosphere.. .. read up on how heat absorption and transfer works. And you still haven't shown that someone who got their climate change information from a 'half a day on google' is qualified. This is just a deflection.
Click to expand...
I suspect you are intentionally not following, If there were not a quantum process involved
then the 15 um photon would simply continue on to space. The CO2 molecules would stay at ground state,
and not energy change would occur.
Also a person with a PhD in physics and a Nobel prize in Physics, is more than qualified to see if the
evidence matches up with the hypothesis.
 
longview said:
I suspect you are intentionally not following, If there were not a quantum process involved
then the 15 um photon would simply continue on to space. The CO2 molecules would stay at ground state,
and not energy change would occur.
Also a person with a PhD in physics and a Nobel prize in Physics, is more than qualified to see if the
evidence matches up with the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

That is only a small part of the physics about heat transfer and absorbtion. You make claims.. but you are using red herrings, and nonsense.. and that does not change the fact that you are promoting as an expert in atmospheric physics someone who 'spent half a day on google'.

That reeks of desperation.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is only a small part of the physics about heat transfer and absorbtion. You make claims.. but you are using red herrings, and nonsense.. and that does not change the fact that you are promoting as an expert in atmospheric physics someone who 'spent half a day on google'.

That reeks of desperation.
Click to expand...
Please point out where I am wrong?
Without a quantum process, greenhouse gas warming would not exists!
In addition a Nobel laureate in Physics, with a PhD in Physics, is more than capable of
looking at the basic claims of AGW, and seeing if the concepts are plausible.
Perhaps you would also like to discuss why you think Richard Lindzen is wrong?
 
longview said:
Please point out where I am wrong?
Without a quantum process, greenhouse gas warming would not exists!
In addition a Nobel laureate in Physics, with a PhD in Physics, is more than capable of
looking at the basic claims of AGW, and seeing if the concepts are plausible.
Perhaps you would also like to discuss why you think Richard Lindzen is wrong?
Click to expand...

Do you know what Richard Lindzen actually said?? have you read what his papers said about Global Warming? Do you have anything more than a quote mine from him???

Did you even read your own source about Richard Lindzen, and see the points he made, and what position he holds?? It doesn't seem you do.
 
RAMOSS said:
Do you know what Richard Lindzen actually said?? have you read what his papers said about Global Warming? Do you have anything more than a quote mine from him???

Did you even read your own source about Richard Lindzen, and see the points he made, and what position he holds?? It doesn't seem you do.
Click to expand...
I read Lindzen Choi, et al 2011, have you?
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Lindzen's concept of an atmospheric iris is very interesting!
I am not sure I agree with his level of feedback, but he arrives at an ECS range of .5 to 1.3 C.
His ideas might be a better fit for the observations and diurnal asymmetry in the warming.
 
longview said:
I read Lindzen Choi, et al 2011, have you?
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Lindzen's concept of an atmospheric iris is very interesting!
I am not sure I agree with his level of feedback, but he arrives at an ECS range of .5 to 1.3 C.
His ideas might be a better fit for the observations and diurnal asymmetry in the warming.
Click to expand...

You know the greenhouse gas forcing actually predicts that diurnal asymmetry, right? You keep bringing this up as if it's contrary to the greenhouse model.
 
Deuce said:
You know the greenhouse gas forcing actually predicts that diurnal asymmetry, right? You keep bringing this up as if it's contrary to the greenhouse model.
Click to expand...
I know that the level of observed diurnal asymmetry exceeds the amount predicted.
Hansen in 1994 said the level of T-max would catch up to the level of T-Min, but it has not.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
We can safely predict that on the long run the effect of the diurnal damping on maximum temperatures will be small,
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom