Remember me
▼ Content

Atmospheric Heat Entropy



Page 2 of 2<12
22-03-2018 17:01
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Wake,
Air circulates in our atmosphere, convection. Do you and ITN have to be contrary on just about everything the 2 of you have to say ? That's what it seems like to me.
22-03-2018 17:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Into the Night wrote:
Actually, most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via convection, not conduction.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.



ITN,
..This is an example of you getting caught up in semantics. If you understood what he meant then convection/conduction doesn't matter.
..Your statement that most of the earth's radiance comes from the earth and not the Sun is wrong. Well over 99.9% of the energy in the earth's atmosphere comes from the Sun. This is what the earth radiates. But all you have are definitions and no understanding.
..Still, I disagree with what most of it is that the 2 of you has to say. I have my own thoughts. A book can only take a person so far. He must travel the rest of the way on his own understanding.


Nightmare talks to hear his own voice.

While YES over 99.9% if the energy on Earth comes from the emissions of the Sun and so this is almost the percentage of energy emitted by the Earth. It is absorbed on the order of over 75% by the oceans and land areas and not the atmosphere even though it does end up be radiated into the atmosphere and then through the act of conduction.

Try English. It works much better.

The surface is most of the radiance of Earth. The atmosphere is very little.

Wake wrote:
...deleted useless lengthy claim of credentials...

Claims of credentials are useless in forums. They do not support any argument and most people (including me) don't believe you.

The predicates support an argument. Nothing else. If the predicates are challenged, then they (which are also arguments at this point) are supported by THEIR predicates.

Too bad you never learned logic. I guess your stupid school figured hacking out a C++ program or running an oscilloscope didn't need it.

Or maybe you're just lying again.


The Parrot Killer
22-03-2018 17:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
Air circulates in our atmosphere, convection. Do you and ITN have to be contrary on just about everything the 2 of you have to say ? That's what it seems like to me.


Fine. Your point...?


The Parrot Killer
22-03-2018 21:52
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
Air circulates in our atmosphere, convection. Do you and ITN have to be contrary on just about everything the 2 of you have to say ? That's what it seems like to me.


Fine. Your point...?



..I'll not post and see what types of discussions either one of you can have.
22-03-2018 22:53
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
Air circulates in our atmosphere, convection. Do you and ITN have to be contrary on just about everything the 2 of you have to say ? That's what it seems like to me.


James - the heat that moves between molecules is carried via conduction. The motions of the heated or cooled air is via convection. I don't believe I disputed that with you.

In case you missed it, nightmare is the one that feels it necessary to dispute everything I say purely for the sake of it and not because he has any other answer.

Also, while we're at it. I never claimed that I was Jewish. I said that my grandfather spoke Yiddish. This means little. He was an Austrian, if his name is correct he was a member of the Austrian royal family. And again that means little. He could be a very distant relative and the only connection between them and him could be the surname. When he came to America he probably lived in the Bronx. There were so many German Jews there that he would have had to speak Yiddish to get along. This wasn't uncommon.

The only thing I was familiar with was Yiddish swear words and vulgar sayings that don't make any sense in English such as "you are like an onion and grow with your head in the ground."

You started this discussion with many errors pertaining to heat storage. I believe what you actually meant was that the gases in the atmosphere slow the egress of energy. That should come as no surprise since so does the oceans or land masses. Due to the greater freedom of the atmospheric gases heat moves through it faster than other heat capture mechanisms. The oceans and land areas capture some 78% of the Sun's emissions that make it through the atmosphere. When the applied energy is lower than the energy available to the emissions become plainly measurable.

When the Sun shows on the Mojave Desert the sand emits energy. But the amount of energy being absorbed from the Sunlight is higher than this and so the sand continues getting hotter until such a point that emissions and absorption is equal. At this point the temperature becomes stable.

This same principle is with all matter. Conduction is the energy motions between molecules and convection the motions of matter from one point to another where it can gain or lose energy via conduction.

Now I would guess that nightmare would make some stupid comment about lava since he doesn't understand what is being said and wants to put his two bits in.
23-03-2018 03:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
Air circulates in our atmosphere, convection. Do you and ITN have to be contrary on just about everything the 2 of you have to say ? That's what it seems like to me.


James - the heat that moves between molecules is carried via conduction. The motions of the heated or cooled air is via convection. I don't believe I disputed that with you.

No dispute anywhere it seems. Agreed.
Wake wrote:
In case you missed it, nightmare is the one that feels it necessary to dispute everything I say purely for the sake of it and not because he has any other answer.
I just agreed with a statement of yours, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
Also, while we're at it. I never claimed that I was Jewish. I said that my grandfather spoke Yiddish. This means little. He was an Austrian, if his name is correct he was a member of the Austrian royal family. And again that means little. He could be a very distant relative and the only connection between them and him could be the surname. When he came to America he probably lived in the Bronx. There were so many German Jews there that he would have had to speak Yiddish to get along. This wasn't uncommon.

The only thing I was familiar with was Yiddish swear words and vulgar sayings that don't make any sense in English such as "you are like an onion and grow with your head in the ground."

Meh.
Wake wrote:
You started this discussion with many errors pertaining to heat storage. I believe what you actually meant was that the gases in the atmosphere slow the egress of energy. That should come as no surprise since so does the oceans or land masses.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
Due to the greater freedom of the atmospheric gases heat moves through it faster than other heat capture mechanisms.
Heat is not captured. You cannot slow or trap heat. You cannot store heat.
Wake wrote:
The oceans and land areas capture some 78% of the Sun's emissions that make it through the atmosphere.

Argument from randU. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
When the applied energy is lower than the energy available to the emissions become plainly measurable.

Nope. Emissions are not measurable except under very controlled circumstances. It is not possible to measure the Planck emission from Earth.
Wake wrote:
When the Sun shows on the Mojave Desert the sand emits energy. But the amount of energy being absorbed from the Sunlight is higher than this and so the sand continues getting hotter until such a point that emissions and absorption is equal. At this point the temperature becomes stable.

This part is correct.
Wake wrote:
This same principle is with all matter. Conduction is the energy motions between molecules and convection the motions of matter from one point to another where it can gain or lose energy via conduction.

Convection does not require conduction.
Wake wrote:
Now I would guess that nightmare would make some stupid comment about lava since he doesn't understand what is being said and wants to put his two bits in.

The only one that brought up lava is YOU, just now.


The Parrot Killer
23-03-2018 18:58
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Wake wrote:
When the Sun shows on the Mojave Desert the sand emits energy. But the amount of energy being absorbed from the Sunlight is higher than this and so the sand continues getting hotter until such a point that emissions and absorption is equal. At this point the temperature becomes stable.[/quote]
Into the Night wrote:
This part is correct.

Wake wrote:
Now I would guess that nightmare would make some stupid comment about lava since he doesn't understand what is being said and wants to put his two bits in.

Into the Night wrote:
The only one that brought up lava is YOU, just now.[/quote]


..Did you mean magma or lava ? In the ground magma, out of the ground lava but same mass.
..You both got why a desert is hotter. When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer. This keeps it in the atmosphere longer. As a result heat is slowed. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs

edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.
Edited on 23-03-2018 19:16
23-03-2018 20:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
You both got why a desert is hotter. When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer.

The wavelength doesn't change.
James___ wrote:
This keeps it in the atmosphere longer.

All light travels at the same speed, regardless of its wavelength.
James___ wrote:
As a result heat is slowed.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
James___ wrote:
The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.

WRONG. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is because of energy absorbed from the Sun. Refraction does not warm anything.
James___ wrote:
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

Aquifers are important because they are a source of fresh water. How do you 'maintain' an aquifer?
James___ wrote:
edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.

Welcome to your new paradox.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-03-2018 20:08
23-03-2018 20:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James___ wrote:
When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer. This keeps it in the atmosphere longer. As a result heat is slowed. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs

edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.


Refraction is either the change in direction as light passes through a medium of varying density or angular reflections.

When sunlight hits the sand it absorbs all but the frequencies that compose the brown coloration. This is not changing the light - it is absorbing some and reflecting some. If the sunlight hits the sand at an oblique enough angle, say near sunrise of sunset, less sunlight is absorbed and the refracted light is a different color. But it hasn't been changed, but rather less has been absorbed.

Sunlight is in the visible range and hence it passes through the atmosphere in both directions at the same speed. That which is absorbed by the ground or the oceans reduces its temperature and so when it is radiated it is in the lower IR range and can be captured by atmospheric H2O. This occurs generally close to the ground - my estimate is 1 meter while another estimate I've seen in a study is 10 meters. From this point on conduction and convection moves it into the upper atmosphere.

Indeed you can consider this as slowing the exit of the energy because you are changing it from the speed of light to the speed of conduction in the troposphere.
23-03-2018 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer. This keeps it in the atmosphere longer. As a result heat is slowed. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs

edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.


Refraction is either the change in direction as light passes through a medium of varying density or angular reflections.

When sunlight hits the sand it absorbs all but the frequencies that compose the brown coloration. This is not changing the light - it is absorbing some and reflecting some. If the sunlight hits the sand at an oblique enough angle, say near sunrise of sunset, less sunlight is absorbed and the refracted light is a different color. But it hasn't been changed, but rather less has been absorbed.

Sunlight is in the visible range and hence it passes through the atmosphere in both directions at the same speed. That which is absorbed by the ground or the oceans reduces its temperature and so when it is radiated it is in the lower IR range and can be captured by atmospheric H2O. This occurs generally close to the ground - my estimate is 1 meter while another estimate I've seen in a study is 10 meters. From this point on conduction and convection moves it into the upper atmosphere.

Indeed you can consider this as slowing the exit of the energy because you are changing it from the speed of light to the speed of conduction in the troposphere.


Nope. The warmed H20 or CO2 is radiating all the time too, even while convection moves it upwards, even after it has conducted any excess thermal energy away to some other nearby gas.


The Parrot Killer
23-03-2018 22:28
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
James___ wrote:

The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is because of energy absorbed from the Sun. Refraction does not warm anything.


...ITN,
..I guess if I were in the 2nd grade I'd say that. Many scientists accept absorption and emission of solar radiation as refraction. An example is when plants refract solar radiation it's wavelength becomes green. This is because when a plant's cells absorb then emit solar radiation it has passed through a medium and it's wavelength has changed as a result.
..It's much easier to say refraction than to go into a lengthy analogy which you seem to require.
23-03-2018 23:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:

The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is because of energy absorbed from the Sun. Refraction does not warm anything.


...ITN,
..I guess if I were in the 2nd grade I'd say that. Many scientists accept absorption and emission of solar radiation as refraction.

No scientist calls refraction absorption. They are two completely separate things.
James___ wrote:
An example is when plants refract solar radiation

They don't. They absorb some wavelengths and reflect others. Plants don't refract anything but a radio wave.
James___ wrote:
it's wavelength becomes green.

Nope. Wavelengths don't change. The plant absorbs red and blue light and reflects green light (if it's healthy!).
James___ wrote:
This is because when a plant's cells absorb then emit solar radiation it has passed through a medium and it's wavelength has changed as a result.

WRONG. Plants are not 'magick mirrors'. A plant is a substance like any other. It emits infrared light because it has a temperature just like any substance around it. Wavelength doesn't change. They don't change any wavelength to green or to any other color.
James___ wrote:
It's much easier to say refraction than to go into a lengthy analogy which you seem to require.

It's much easier for you to be wrong too, than actually trying to learn any of this.

Sunlight contains many different wavelengths. When it strikes anything of a color (like a plant), the visible light that struck it is absorbed by the object EXCEPT the colors we see from it (in the case of a plant, green). That absorbed visible light doesn't heat the plant, it instead causes chemical changes. Stuff only really gets heated when infrared light is absorbed. That is also part of the spectrum put out by the Sun (most of the energy coming from the Sun is actually infrared).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-03-2018 23:41
23-03-2018 23:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer. This keeps it in the atmosphere longer. As a result heat is slowed. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs

edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.


Refraction is either the change in direction as light passes through a medium of varying density or angular reflections.



Reflection is not refraction. There is no 'angular reflection' that is refraction. Refraction only occurs when the density of the medium it is traveling through changes, such as air to water, or air to glass, or glass to air, or water to air.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-03-2018 23:45
24-03-2018 16:16
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer. This keeps it in the atmosphere longer. As a result heat is slowed. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs

edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.


Refraction is either the change in direction as light passes through a medium of varying density or angular reflections.



Reflection is not refraction. There is no 'angular reflection' that is refraction. Refraction only occurs when the density of the medium it is traveling through changes, such as air to water, or air to glass, or glass to air, or water to air.


..Reflection as you call it is refraction. Why does anything have color ? Because it is refracting light. This means it absorbs it on certain wavelengths and then emits a different wavelength that we perceive as color.
..When a mirror reflects light that light is passing through a medium that is different in density than our atmosphere. Mind if I ask how you missed this ? The image is reversed because of how the path of light is refracted. The order of the wavelengths in an image are reversed. A mere reflection would not reverse the image. A reversal of the image happens when the speed at which light is absorbed and then emitted changes it's velocity in the medium.
Edited on 24-03-2018 16:34
24-03-2018 17:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer. This keeps it in the atmosphere longer. As a result heat is slowed. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs

edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.


Refraction is either the change in direction as light passes through a medium of varying density or angular reflections.



Reflection is not refraction. There is no 'angular reflection' that is refraction. Refraction only occurs when the density of the medium it is traveling through changes, such as air to water, or air to glass, or glass to air, or water to air.


..Reflection as you call it is refraction.

Nope. Reflection and refraction are two completely different things.
James___ wrote:
Why does anything have color ? Because it is refracting light.

No, because some wavelengths are absorbed, and others are reflected or just simply pass through (such as colored glass).
James___ wrote:
This means it absorbs it on certain wavelengths and then emits a different wavelength that we perceive as color.

Wavelength does change. Absorption DESTROYS light...utterly.
James___ wrote:
..When a mirror reflects light that light is passing through a medium that is different in density than our atmosphere.

True. That is why mirrors can distort the image, sometimes producing a color fringe around the image or even double images.
James___ wrote:
Mind if I ask how you missed this ?

I didn't.
James___ wrote:
The image is reversed because of how the path of light is refracted.

Nope. The image is reversed because of reflection. The back of the mirror is silvered. Light must pass through the glass twice. This can produce distortions in the image due to refraction, but the prevalent image you see is due to reflection from the silvered coating.
James___ wrote:
The order of the wavelengths in an image are reversed.

Wavelengths have no order, other than by frequency. Wavelengths are not altered by a mirror.
James___ wrote:
A mere reflection would not reverse the image.

Yes it would. I suggest you should go read a good book on optics.
James___ wrote:
A reversal of the image happens when the speed at which light is absorbed and then emitted changes it's velocity in the medium.

Absorption destroys light...utterly.
The energy is converted into another form.

Light always has the same velocity in any medium regardless of its wavelength.

A good book on optics discusses how refraction and reflection work. It then goes on to discuss what various lenses do to light, and will often discuss why anything underwater experiences the phenomenon known as "Snell's Window" when it looks up at the surface from below.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2018 18:41
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer. This keeps it in the atmosphere longer. As a result heat is slowed. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs

edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.


Refraction is either the change in direction as light passes through a medium of varying density or angular reflections.



Reflection is not refraction. There is no 'angular reflection' that is refraction. Refraction only occurs when the density of the medium it is traveling through changes, such as air to water, or air to glass, or glass to air, or water to air.


..Reflection as you call it is refraction.

Nope. Reflection and refraction are two completely different things.
James___ wrote:
Why does anything have color ? Because it is refracting light.

No, because some wavelengths are absorbed, and others are reflected or just simply pass through (such as colored glass).
James___ wrote:
This means it absorbs it on certain wavelengths and then emits a different wavelength that we perceive as color.

Wavelength does change. Absorption DESTROYS light...utterly.
James___ wrote:
..When a mirror reflects light that light is passing through a medium that is different in density than our atmosphere.

True. That is why mirrors can distort the image, sometimes producing a color fringe around the image or even double images.
James___ wrote:
Mind if I ask how you missed this ?

I didn't.
James___ wrote:
The image is reversed because of how the path of light is refracted.

Nope. The image is reversed because of reflection. The back of the mirror is silvered. Light must pass through the glass twice. This can produce distortions in the image due to refraction, but the prevalent image you see is due to reflection from the silvered coating.
James___ wrote:
The order of the wavelengths in an image are reversed.

Wavelengths have no order, other than by frequency. Wavelengths are not altered by a mirror.
James___ wrote:
A mere reflection would not reverse the image.

Yes it would. I suggest you should go read a good book on optics.
James___ wrote:
A reversal of the image happens when the speed at which light is absorbed and then emitted changes it's velocity in the medium.

Absorption destroys light...utterly.
The energy is converted into another form.

Light always has the same velocity in any medium regardless of its wavelength.

A good book on optics discusses how refraction and reflection work. It then goes on to discuss what various lenses do to light, and will often discuss why anything underwater experiences the phenomenon known as "Snell's Window" when it looks up at the surface from below.



...ITN,
..All you wish is to create conflict. As you have said many times, what is a climate ? No one has given you a definition that YOU accept. How can you debate climate change when you do not accept any definition of what a climate is ?
..This is where I am mindful that you do not like Europeans because of what they did to Native Americans. This is where IMO you are like any other American. It's about you.
25-03-2018 15:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James___ wrote:
...ITN,
..All you wish is to create conflict. As you have said many times, what is a climate ? No one has given you a definition that YOU accept. How can you debate climate change when you do not accept any definition of what a climate is ?
..This is where I am mindful that you do not like Europeans because of what they did to Native Americans. This is where IMO you are like any other American. It's about you.


I would think that after all this time you would know what is going on with nightmare.

NOAA and NASA have a definition for climate change as changes over an averaged 30 years and he doesn't accept that because he thinks you can't measure mean global temperature. He doesn't accept that you can do that as long as you do it the same way every time. It wouldn't matter in the least if the actual MGT were different as long as it was always done in the same manner. But since he is a contrarian before everything else and he doesn't really understand science he will disagree.

It's like this BS he had all these years with litebrain and then suddenly he himself is a "native American" and not only that but has a Jewish wife who happens to speak Yiddish which is a rarity even among the Jewish community anymore. And she says that it is only German. Don't tell that to a German but that is what we get from nightmare.

What you should be concentrating on is studying science so that you don't get the idea that somehow the color of light is changed by reflection or refraction. The color you perceive can be changed but not the color itself. If you have a reflection off of a material that partially absorbs in one frequency, the color you see can look different because of that absorption but the color that is reflected is the same color that struck the reflector.
25-03-2018 17:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
When solar radiation refracts off of silica (brown sand/dirt) it's wavelength changes, it becomes longer. This keeps it in the atmosphere longer. As a result heat is slowed. The reason the desert ground becomes warm is directly amounted to the amount of solar/background radiation that is being refracted.
Kind of why I believe that maintaining our aquifers which are currently being depleted is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs

edited to add; to be technical longer wavelengths travel at the same velocity as shorter wavelengths. heat is considered to be slow because the longer the wavelength the more time it spends in our atmosphere.


Refraction is either the change in direction as light passes through a medium of varying density or angular reflections.



Reflection is not refraction. There is no 'angular reflection' that is refraction. Refraction only occurs when the density of the medium it is traveling through changes, such as air to water, or air to glass, or glass to air, or water to air.


..Reflection as you call it is refraction.

Nope. Reflection and refraction are two completely different things.
James___ wrote:
Why does anything have color ? Because it is refracting light.

No, because some wavelengths are absorbed, and others are reflected or just simply pass through (such as colored glass).
James___ wrote:
This means it absorbs it on certain wavelengths and then emits a different wavelength that we perceive as color.

Wavelength does change. Absorption DESTROYS light...utterly.
James___ wrote:
..When a mirror reflects light that light is passing through a medium that is different in density than our atmosphere.

True. That is why mirrors can distort the image, sometimes producing a color fringe around the image or even double images.
James___ wrote:
Mind if I ask how you missed this ?

I didn't.
James___ wrote:
The image is reversed because of how the path of light is refracted.

Nope. The image is reversed because of reflection. The back of the mirror is silvered. Light must pass through the glass twice. This can produce distortions in the image due to refraction, but the prevalent image you see is due to reflection from the silvered coating.
James___ wrote:
The order of the wavelengths in an image are reversed.

Wavelengths have no order, other than by frequency. Wavelengths are not altered by a mirror.
James___ wrote:
A mere reflection would not reverse the image.

Yes it would. I suggest you should go read a good book on optics.
James___ wrote:
A reversal of the image happens when the speed at which light is absorbed and then emitted changes it's velocity in the medium.

Absorption destroys light...utterly.
The energy is converted into another form.

Light always has the same velocity in any medium regardless of its wavelength.

A good book on optics discusses how refraction and reflection work. It then goes on to discuss what various lenses do to light, and will often discuss why anything underwater experiences the phenomenon known as "Snell's Window" when it looks up at the surface from below.



...ITN,
..All you wish is to create conflict.

The Church of Global Warming is creating conflict, not me. The Church of Ecofascism is creating conflict, not me. The Church of Karl Marx is creating conflict, not me. Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
As you have said many times, what is a climate ?

I have never said that. Climate is weather over a long time.
James___ wrote:
No one has given you a definition that YOU accept.

Everyone generally accepts this definition of climate. Do you? It not, what is YOUR definition?
James___ wrote:
How can you debate climate change

You can't. Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
when you do not accept any definition of what a climate is ?

I do. Climate is weather over a long time.
James___ wrote:
..This is where I am mindful that you do not like Europeans because of what they did to Native Americans.

Most Europeans were friendly with the natives. Only a few evil men caused much of their suffering. They tended to be liberals, like Pres. Jackson.

Where you got the idea that I hate Europeans is strange. I'm not a bigot when it comes to either Europeans or Native Americans.

James___ wrote:
This is where IMO you are like any other American.

It's about you.
[/quote]

Bigotry. You can shove it's ugly presence back where the Sun don't shine.

In my case, it is not about me. It's about the Church of Global Warming attempting to become the State religion. It's about people wanting to subvert and destroy the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the several States.

It's about Marxism. It's about establishing fascism and oligarchies as a form of government in the United States. It's about doing what I can do to stop it.

Marxism brings misery. The Utopia it promises will not come about. The government does NOT know how to run a business.

Fascism brings misery. Management of one's private property by the government results in waste and loss. The government does NOT know how to run a business.

Oligarchies bring misery. Government without representation causes loss, waste, and death.

The Church of Global Warming brings misery. It is an attempt to become a State religion and an oligarchy. YOU don't get to tell me what car to drive, what aircraft to fly, what fuel to use, what temperature my thermostat should be, what light bulb I can buy, what toilet I can install, or what refrigerant I can use. YOU don't get to change or deny science to accomplish your ends. I abhor the Church of Global Warming and all oligarchies. I will do what I can to subvert and destroy them. THEY cause conflict. If THEY push it far enough, THEY will start a civil war...the likes of which has never been seen in the United States.

I do not want that day to come.


The Parrot Killer
25-03-2018 18:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
...ITN,
..All you wish is to create conflict. As you have said many times, what is a climate ? No one has given you a definition that YOU accept. How can you debate climate change when you do not accept any definition of what a climate is ?
..This is where I am mindful that you do not like Europeans because of what they did to Native Americans. This is where IMO you are like any other American. It's about you.


I would think that after all this time you would know what is going on with nightmare.

Just what exactly? More of your insults?
Wake wrote:
NOAA and NASA have a definition for climate change as changes over an averaged 30 years

Why is 30 years significant? Who said climate is weather over thirty years and only thirty years? Most people define climate as weather over a long time. 'A long time' is not specified. Why do you think the government gets to specify it? What purpose does it serve?
Wake wrote:
and he doesn't accept that because he thinks you can't measure mean global temperature.

Not why I don't accept the 30 years figure. It's because is arbitrarily chosen by changing the definition of 'climate'.

And no, you can't measure the temperature of the Earth.

Wake wrote:
He doesn't accept that you can do that as long as you do it the same way every time.

No, you can't.

How many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth?

Wake wrote:
It wouldn't matter in the least if the actual MGT were different as long as it was always done in the same manner.

It's not done at all, even if you 'use the same manner'.

Wake wrote:
But since he is a contrarian before everything else and he doesn't really understand science he will disagree.

Not a science question. A math question. You deny the math.
Wake wrote:
It's like this BS he had all these years with litebrain and then suddenly he himself is a "native American" and not only that but has a Jewish wife who happens to speak Yiddish which is a rarity even among the Jewish community anymore. And she says that it is only German. Don't tell that to a German but that is what we get from nightmare.

Fixated on trying to build a case of bulverism, eh?
Wake wrote:
What you should be concentrating on is studying science

You should also. You should also study random number mathematics, probability mathematics, statistical mathematics, and the formalizations of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You should learn the difference between a constant, a dependent variable, and an independent variable. You should learn what a reference is.

For science, you should study what light is and how it propagates, what thermal energy is, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies (everywhere), and the theories of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the laws of thermodynamics and their history and how they were developed. Learn the difference between a reference point and a measured point and how a reference point is chosen. You might also look up the known properties of CO2, water, methane, etc.

For logic, learn why it's a closed system and it's axioms. Learn about the various fallacies and why they are a 'math error' in logic.
Wake wrote:
so that you don't get the idea that somehow the color of light is changed by reflection or refraction. The color you perceive can be changed but not the color itself. If you have a reflection off of a material that partially absorbs in one frequency, the color you see can look different because of that absorption but the color that is reflected is the same color that struck the reflector.

Badly worded. The color that is seen is that visible light which is not absorbed. It doesn't have to be reflected or refracted at all.


The Parrot Killer
25-03-2018 20:25
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:


Bigotry. You can shove it's ugly presence back where the Sun don't shine.



..You're the one who hates Europeans. That is bigotry. You even claimed to be married to a Jewish woman because Wake claimed to be Jewish to ridicule my father who was from Norway. That's bigotry. Even if Wake is Jewish, for him to ridicule my father or me because my father was from Norway is bigotry.
..And ITN, until you accept a definition of climate, how is it possible to consider if what has no definition changes ? It's not. You don't even know what the debate over climate change is about. Wake has already shown that he doesn't know either. Yet you both are debating something when you don't know what it's about.
25-03-2018 21:11
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Bigotry. You can shove it's ugly presence back where the Sun don't shine.



..You're the one who hates Europeans. That is bigotry. You even claimed to be married to a Jewish woman because Wake claimed to be Jewish to ridicule my father who was from Norway. That's bigotry. Even if Wake is Jewish, for him to ridicule my father or me because my father was from Norway is bigotry.
..And ITN, until you accept a definition of climate, how is it possible to consider if what has no definition changes ? It's not. You don't even know what the debate over climate change is about. Wake has already shown that he doesn't know either. Yet you both are debating something when you don't know what it's about.


I really don't know where you get these idea James. I didn't ridicule your father for being Norwegian. It came up in a conversation of what "white" people are.

They are Celts, Anglo-Saxons, north-western Europeans such as Fins and Norwegians etc., Northern French(Saxons), Western Germans and Northern Italians. Being Jewish is not a race but a religion though a large number of middle-easterners returned with the knights from during the Crusades.

My grandmother, I discovered recently, was Welsh and Wales is largely Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, but not of the Irish or Scottish brand of Celt. My grandfather was Austrian and while he spoke Yiddish that doesn't mean he was Jewish. Entire areas of Germany lower classes and New York City spoke Yiddish which would be easy to learn for a man who spoke Austrian which is a dialect of German. Most of my heritage is Croatian which is one of the, at least, 13 Slavic tribes of Europe.

While I had a lot of trouble with white people who tend to be quite racist, I don't bear anyone disdain for being what they were raised. I simply believe that they should actually think some about their beliefs as I think you should.

Racism appears to me to be almost exclusively in the lower classes. I was in middle management and I cannot honestly say that I ever saw a trace of it in upper classes. What I did see in upper classes was belief that they were superior than others by birth. And it didn't matter what race.

Inasmuch as most of them were not intellectually superior nor physically so, there was no birthright.
26-03-2018 05:31
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
..You're a poor liar Wake. You said that my father or myself were so ignorant that we didn't know the difference between Yiddish and Norwegian. That is when you and ITN were either Jewish or was married to a Jew.
.. And such statements are pure bigotry.
26-03-2018 09:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Bigotry. You can shove it's ugly presence back where the Sun don't shine.



..You're the one who hates Europeans.

But I don't.
James___ wrote:
That is bigotry.

It would be if I did, but I don't.
James___ wrote:
You even claimed to be married to a Jewish woman

I am.
James___ wrote:
because Wake claimed to be Jewish to ridicule my father who was from Norway.

Nope. It's because I am.
James___ wrote:
That's bigotry.

That is not bigotry. That is being married to a Jewish woman.
James___ wrote:
Even if Wake is Jewish, for him to ridicule my father or me because my father was from Norway is bigotry.

It would be, if that's what he did. You, however, seem to have little memory over what someone says.
James___ wrote:
..And ITN, until you accept a definition of climate,

I have.
James___ wrote:
how is it possible to consider if what has no definition changes ?

Climate is not quantifiable. It has no fixed time interval.
James___ wrote:
It's not. You don't even know what the debate over climate change is about.

Define 'climate change'. I know what the Church of Global Warming is about. It's about trying to become a State religion and force its will upon others to 'save the planet'.
James___ wrote:
Wake has already shown that he doesn't know either.

He actually generally does. He has a few points on science he is in error about, but he generally does understand what the Church of Global Warming is about.
James___ wrote:
Yet you both are debating something when you don't know what it's about.

No, you are just trying to avoid your lack of science by changing context and making general attempts to dismiss any arguments being made against you without counter-argument.


The Parrot Killer
26-03-2018 09:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Bigotry. You can shove it's ugly presence back where the Sun don't shine.



..You're the one who hates Europeans. That is bigotry. You even claimed to be married to a Jewish woman because Wake claimed to be Jewish to ridicule my father who was from Norway. That's bigotry. Even if Wake is Jewish, for him to ridicule my father or me because my father was from Norway is bigotry.
..And ITN, until you accept a definition of climate, how is it possible to consider if what has no definition changes ? It's not. You don't even know what the debate over climate change is about. Wake has already shown that he doesn't know either. Yet you both are debating something when you don't know what it's about.


I really don't know where you get these idea James. I didn't ridicule your father for being Norwegian. It came up in a conversation of what "white" people are.

I figured as such. He is claiming bigotry where there is none.
Wake wrote:
They are Celts, Anglo-Saxons, north-western Europeans such as Fins and Norwegians etc., Northern French(Saxons), Western Germans and Northern Italians. Being Jewish is not a race but a religion though a large number of middle-easterners returned with the knights from during the Crusades.

It's rather difficult to declare what 'white' people are. Races are so mixed these days. The question asked on various government forms is largely irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
My grandmother, I discovered recently, was Welsh and Wales is largely Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, but not of the Irish or Scottish brand of Celt. My grandfather was Austrian and while he spoke Yiddish that doesn't mean he was Jewish. Entire areas of Germany lower classes and New York City spoke Yiddish which would be easy to learn for a man who spoke Austrian which is a dialect of German. Most of my heritage is Croatian which is one of the, at least, 13 Slavic tribes of Europe.


While I had a lot of trouble with white people who tend to be quite racist, I don't bear anyone disdain for being what they were raised. I simply believe that they should actually think some about their beliefs as I think you should.[/quote]
Reasonably fair request.
Wake wrote:
Racism appears to me to be almost exclusively in the lower classes.

An interesting observation. I've seen it in 'upper' classes as well myself.
Wake wrote:
I was in middle management and I cannot honestly say that I ever saw a trace of it in upper classes.

I'm glad. I, however, have.
Wake wrote:
What I did see in upper classes was belief that they were superior than others by birth. And it didn't matter what race.

That is also a factor a lot of times.
Wake wrote:
Inasmuch as most of them were not intellectually superior nor physically so, there was no birthright.

Heh. Not according to them!


The Parrot Killer
26-03-2018 09:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
..You're a poor liar Wake. You said that my father or myself were so ignorant that we didn't know the difference between Yiddish and Norwegian. That is when you and ITN were either Jewish or was married to a Jew.
.. And such statements are pure bigotry.


Being married to a Jewish wife is not bigotry, dude.


The Parrot Killer
26-03-2018 12:55
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
..You're a poor liar Wake. You said that my father or myself were so ignorant that we didn't know the difference between Yiddish and Norwegian. That is when you and ITN were either Jewish or was married to a Jew.
.. And such statements are pure bigotry.


Being married to a Jewish wife is not bigotry, dude.


I don't know that you are but helping Wake to ridicule either my father or myself because I am 1/2 Norwegian is bigotry. And if the 2 of you can go there then I can say Americans are stupid. I think you're Native American but if you act like Wake then I can say to me you're just another American.
When Senator Bernie Sanders posted on his Facebook page that the people in Finland are the happiest people in the world and they have socialized healthcare, I said he gave the wrong example.
He should've used Great Britain whose healthcare is about 1/3 the cost per capita of the U.S. I mentioned that Americans hate Scandanavians because those are socialist countries. Americans are proud to support a capitalist system where it seems to be every person for themself.
26-03-2018 15:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James___ wrote:
..You're a poor liar Wake. You said that my father or myself were so ignorant that we didn't know the difference between Yiddish and Norwegian. That is when you and ITN were either Jewish or was married to a Jew.
.. And such statements are pure bigotry.


There's my point - you're so ignorant you believe that you were called ignorant because of your claimed nationality and not because of what you say. Do you think these sorts of things up in nightmare's nightmare?

As I said before, you seem on an even keel for a large part of the time and then you blast off into outer space with the most ignorant things. Is this connected to your medication?
26-03-2018 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
..You're a poor liar Wake. You said that my father or myself were so ignorant that we didn't know the difference between Yiddish and Norwegian. That is when you and ITN were either Jewish or was married to a Jew.
.. And such statements are pure bigotry.


Being married to a Jewish wife is not bigotry, dude.


I don't know that you are but helping Wake to ridicule either my father or myself because I am 1/2 Norwegian is bigotry.

I have to agree with Wake. Where do you get these strange thoughts? Is someone beaming them to you from the Orbital Mind Control Platform or something?
James___ wrote:
And if the 2 of you can go there then I can say Americans are stupid.

Bigotry.
James___ wrote:
I think you're Native American

Only in the sense that I was born in the United States.

I do have (not a lot) of Blackfoot tribe in my lineage, and also some Polynesian. Mostly though, I am white.

James___ wrote:
but if you act like Wake

How's that exactly?
James___ wrote:
then I can say to me you're just another American.

Of course I'm just another American. I was born in the United States and I live here. You seem to have a problem with that. Your bigotry I suppose.
James___ wrote:
When Senator Bernie Sanders posted on his Facebook page that the people in Finland are the happiest people in the world and they have socialized healthcare, I said he gave the wrong example.

What left field did this come from???
You jump from making bigoted comments about Americans then jump to Bernie Sanders??? WTF???
James___ wrote:
He should've used Great Britain whose healthcare is about 1/3 the cost per capita of the U.S.

Both healthcare systems fail their people.
James___ wrote:
I mentioned that Americans hate Scandanavians because those are socialist countries.

Bigotry. Americans don't hate Scandanavians. Only some do.
James___ wrote:
Americans are proud to support a capitalist system where it seems to be every person for themself.

It may seem that way, but capitalism is what produces a civilization out of wilderness. It's what makes the communities, towns, and cities happen in the first place. It's what makes products cheaper and what makes new products that never existed before. It creates wealth and prosperity where none existed before.

Marxism brings misery. Socialism brings misery. I will have no part of it. They are both theft of wealth.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Atmospheric Heat Entropy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Work and Heat3721-06-2018 18:48
Gulf of Mexico as heat sink2106-06-2018 20:41
Heat324-05-2018 20:48
Radio Ecoshock: The Heat Goes On324-05-2018 18:10
equatorial Ozone depletion atmospheric sluff due to heating1514-05-2018 06:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact