Remember me
▼ Content

From ice core analysis to temperature curves



Page 5 of 7<<<34567>
14-08-2021 16:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi IBdaMann,

I told you the camera was set to manual for shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and focus. Seems you just can't accept that...

The Sun feels hotter at 2:00 p.m. than 5:30 p.m., but doesn't appear brighter.

What I meant by degree is, how can you measure the wavelength, frequency, and amplitude of visible light?

Here are 2 examples of visible light acting like a wave and particle.



The top picture shows visible light reflecting off water and showing a pattern like a wave would.

The bottom picture shows visible light shining through a window and showing a pattern like a particle would.

Usually visible light appears to show a pattern like a particle would, unless it passes through something like water, or when a dim laser passes through 2 tiny slits inside a darkened box.

Since radiation is measured in wavelength, that sounds to me like it is usually a wave.

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-08-2021 16:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi James,

On clear summer days, it is often not warmer at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m., and radiation is always less powerful at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m. In my experience of these kinds of summer days, the temperature usually plateaus around 1 to 4 p.m. and then starts cooling off after 4 p.m. Today in Des Moines high noon is about 1 p.m. That's when radiation peaks, then plateaus. The radiation power feels pretty close to the same from 1 to 4 p.m. In Des Moines today, the temperature climbs a bit from 1 to 4 p.m., then dips by 5 p.m., which I think shows there is a lag time between when the most radiation hits, and when temperature climbs in response. There is also a lag time between when radiation decreases, and when temperature decreases. Of course in Des Moines, the temperature doesn't instantly drop to 60 F as soon as the sun sets.

Unlike the radiation on summer days, which starts decreasing after 4 p.m., and is noticeably quite less by 5:30 p.m., the visible corona of sunshine around the Sun appears to increase.

I think the increase in the visible corona of sunshine around the Sun is due to greater reflection and refraction when the Sun shines through greater thickness of our Sky.

The question I'm wondering, does more Nitrogen and Oxygen reflect and refract more visible light? I thought these particles act like a veil, and absorb sunshine more than they reflect and refract sunshine...



Since we have differing opinions, we can observe recorded meteorological data and see what it shows.

When you ask;
The question I'm wondering, does more Nitrogen and Oxygen reflect and refract more visible light? I thought these particles act like a veil, and absorb sunshine more than they reflect and refract sunshine


Your pictures showed that as the albedo effect decreases, the Sun appears larger. Your pictures and I am merely agreeing with you. I did say I was wrong and what you observed is real. Why is it real?
I think that's what we need to be on about.


I have my own theory. When you say nitrogen and oxygen you are actually referring to N2 and O2.

Emissivity does not change due to angle of light. It is a constant.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-08-2021 16:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James___ wrote:
What people in here need to accept is that I will say what you observed is real. The albedo effect is dependent on refraction/reflection. Your images suggest something else. This does not agree with accepted science. Your pictures shows radiance is dependent on an atmosphere changing the behavior of incoming solar IR.


Radiance is not dependent on an atmosphere.
Radiance is not light.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-08-2021 16:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry. And if what your pictures shows is correct, in science they could be an important discovery. Proper context.


Science is not observations. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Observation (and the data obtained from them) is subject to the problems of phenomenology.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-08-2021 20:45
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry. And if what your pictures shows is correct, in science they could be an important discovery. Proper context.


Science is not observations. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Observation (and the data obtained from them) is subject to the problems of phenomenology.



Can I have some of what you're on? Your logic is undeniable. It's your logic and nothing more. And if you believe 2 + 2 = 3, you would be right because that is what you believe.
14-08-2021 20:53
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry.

You should bring him up to speed.





I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle. At the same time observations like his helps us to better understand how our atmosphere works. It does prove that atmospheric gasses does affect sunlight that is passing through it.
Why this matters is most scientists will say that only certain gasses are affected by solar radiation. They say that solar radiation passes through O2 and N2 without affecting causing either gas to react to it.
14-08-2021 23:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)


James___ wrote:I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle.

In what manner does atmospheric CO2 support the Chapman cycle, according to the IPCC ... serve hors d'oeuvres? ... cheer it on perhaps? Does atmospheric CO2 provide financial backing?

Frankly, I don't believe the IPCC has a position on the Chapman cycle because it involves the sun being the controlling factor, not humans.

James___ wrote:At the same time observations like his helps us to better understand how our atmosphere works.

Our atmosphere works? What does the atmosphere do such that we need to better understand how the atmosphere does it?

James___ wrote: It does prove that atmospheric gasses does affect sunlight that is passing through it.

Who insisted otherwise that Spongy Iris wished to convince?

James___ wrote: Why this matters is most scientists will say that only certain gasses are affected by solar radiation.

Don't pretend to speak for "most scientists." There aren't any scientists who want you speaking for them.

Also, it would seem that you believe that most scientists are scientifically illiterate. I have to ask you, what is your definition of a scientist?

15-08-2021 00:56
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote:I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle.

In what manner does atmospheric CO2 support the Chapman cycle, according to the IPCC ... serve hors d'oeuvres? ... cheer it on perhaps? Does atmospheric CO2 provide financial backing?

Frankly, I don't believe the IPCC has a position on the Chapman cycle because it involves the sun being the controlling factor, not humans.




This is from NOAA;
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.


Those gasses are from humans. The work that I've been pursuing if successful will explain why. Neither photolytic or halogen processes allow them to understand why.
15-08-2021 04:01
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi IBdaMann,

I told you the camera was set to manual for shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and focus. Seems you just can't accept that...

The Sun feels hotter at 2:00 p.m. than 5:30 p.m., but doesn't appear brighter.

What I meant by degree is, how can you measure the wavelength, frequency, and amplitude of visible light?

Here are 2 examples of visible light acting like a wave and particle.



The top picture shows visible light reflecting off water and showing a pattern like a wave would.

The bottom picture shows visible light shining through a window and showing a pattern like a particle would.

Usually visible light appears to show a pattern like a particle would, unless it passes through something like water, or when a dim laser passes through 2 tiny slits inside a darkened box.

Since radiation is measured in wavelength, that sounds to me like it is usually a wave.

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.



Maxwell showed that electric and magnetic fields travel in the manner of waves, and that those waves move essentially at the speed of light. This allowed Maxwell to predict that light itself was carried by electromagnetic waves – which means light is a form of electromagnetic radiation

Is this a work of fiction?


duncan61
15-08-2021 20:58
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
Into the Night wrote:

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.


Then is this picture I copied from a physics website false?




15-08-2021 22:49
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
Into the Night wrote:

Emissivity does not change due to angle of light. It is a constant.


I think this statement is false, because there is more powerful radiation at high noon, then at sunrise and sunset. You can easily feel it.

IMO, the extra thickness in the atmosphere is too minor to explain the major difference in radiation power.

Here in an example. Look up the weather forecast of Manhattan.

It's sunny Monday. High is forecast of 80. It's cloudy and rainy Wednesday. High is forecast of 80. The extra thickness of the atmosphere, in the form of more clouds, between Monday and Wednesday makes an insignificant difference in the high temperature.

But temperature in Manhattan will rise by a significant amount from 10 to 1, and will fall by a significant amount from 4 to 7.

So the radiation emitted from the sun doesn't appear to be constant.


15-08-2021 22:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)


Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.


Then is this picture I copied from a physics website false?


I get a kick out of your total confusion.

He said radiation is not measured in wavelengths because radiation is measured in units of power. Your light bulb has a rating (measure) in Watts, not in wavelengths.

I'm waiting for Into the Night to tell you that liquids are not measured in "color" only to have you post a picture of the ocean and ask if the picture is false. Liquids are measured in units of volume, not in color. Radiation is measured in power, not in wavelength.

A photon's wavelength is a dependent variable computed by the photon's speed through whatever medium it happens to be traveling divided by its frequency.

Let me know if you have any questions, and don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

15-08-2021 22:59
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
IBdaMann wrote:

He said radiation is not measured in wavelengths because radiation is measured in units of power. Your light bulb has a rating (measure) in Watts, not in wavelengths.

A photon's wavelength is a dependent variable computed by the photon's speed through whatever medium it happens to be traveling divided by its frequency.


How do you figure out a photon's speed and frequency?


15-08-2021 23:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)


Spongy Iris wrote:How do you figure out a photon's speed and frequency?

To determine a photon's frequency, just note the number of times it returns to the same Y-value on the sine curve in the span of one second. It helps if you can count really fast.

To determine a photon's speed, just use a stopwatch.

16-08-2021 00:09
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
IBdaMann wrote:

To determine a photon's frequency, just note the number of times it returns to the same Y-value on the sine curve in the span of one second. It helps if you can count really fast.

To determine a photon's speed, just use a stopwatch.



Maybe we need to go even more basic...

How are photons observed?


16-08-2021 01:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)


Spongy Iris wrote:Maybe we need to go even more basic...

How are photons observed?

En masse.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.




I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-08-2021 01:19
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

To determine a photon's frequency, just note the number of times it returns to the same Y-value on the sine curve in the span of one second. It helps if you can count really fast.

To determine a photon's speed, just use a stopwatch.



Maybe we need to go even more basic...

How are photons observed?



Thee guys can't answer the questions that you're asking. When you ask;

How are photons observed?

Things get complicated and with these guys, 2 + 2 = 3. Things can be that bad.
16-08-2021 01:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
James___ wrote:Thee guys can't answer the questions that you're asking.

Take another look. I'm answering all of his questions with completely, technically correct answers.

I notice that you cannot say the same.




I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-08-2021 02:01
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
IBdaMann wrote:

En masse.


Is there no way to observe an individual photon?


16-08-2021 02:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)


Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:En masse.
Is there no way to observe an individual photon?

Nope. You need to brush up on your quantum mechanics.

Quantum particles can only be studied "statistically" and a sufficiently huge sampling is required for any conclusions to be of any value.

As for any single quantum particle, the more you know about its position, the less you know about its momentum and vice versa.

There is no sensor known to humanity that can isolate a single photon. There is no known process for singling out any photon for isolation from an electromagnetic field.

Nonetheless, we are well overdue for a reminder from James__ of Planck's energy equation:



So James__, whenever you are ready, the floor is yours.




I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-08-2021 04:22
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

En masse.


Is there no way to observe an individual photon?



With 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s being Planck's constant, that is the energy of a single photon. If you consider E = hv, then basically a photon of a specific frequency times about 300,000 km/second.
If you multiply h by 300,000 then divide by Hz, you'll get your answer. It's pretty simple. Just having sum fun with you Spongy but that's the math.
With actually observing a single photon, it might be too minute to detect.
16-08-2021 06:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry.

You should bring him up to speed.





I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle.

CO2 is not involved in the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
At the same time observations like his helps us to better understand how our atmosphere works.

It doesn't 'work'. It just sits there.
James___ wrote:
It does prove that atmospheric gasses does affect sunlight that is passing through it.

So?
James___ wrote:
Why this matters is most scientists will say that only certain gasses are affected by solar radiation.

All gasses absorb energy from the Sun.
James___ wrote:
They say that solar radiation passes through O2 and N2 without affecting causing either gas to react to it.


O2 absorbs many frequencies, from ultraviolet down to below infrared.
N2 absorbs many frequencies, from ultraviolet down to below infrared.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-08-2021 06:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote:I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle.

In what manner does atmospheric CO2 support the Chapman cycle, according to the IPCC ... serve hors d'oeuvres? ... cheer it on perhaps? Does atmospheric CO2 provide financial backing?

Frankly, I don't believe the IPCC has a position on the Chapman cycle because it involves the sun being the controlling factor, not humans.


It is not possible to measure the global concentration of ozone. Holes as the poles naturally form in the winters of those poles. No sunlight, you see.


This is from NOAA;
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.


Those gasses are from humans. The work that I've been pursuing if successful will explain why. Neither photolytic or halogen processes allow them to understand why.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-08-2021 06:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi IBdaMann,

I told you the camera was set to manual for shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and focus. Seems you just can't accept that...

The Sun feels hotter at 2:00 p.m. than 5:30 p.m., but doesn't appear brighter.

What I meant by degree is, how can you measure the wavelength, frequency, and amplitude of visible light?

Here are 2 examples of visible light acting like a wave and particle.



The top picture shows visible light reflecting off water and showing a pattern like a wave would.

The bottom picture shows visible light shining through a window and showing a pattern like a particle would.

Usually visible light appears to show a pattern like a particle would, unless it passes through something like water, or when a dim laser passes through 2 tiny slits inside a darkened box.

Since radiation is measured in wavelength, that sounds to me like it is usually a wave.

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.



Maxwell showed that electric and magnetic fields travel in the manner of waves, and that those waves move essentially at the speed of light. This allowed Maxwell to predict that light itself was carried by electromagnetic waves – which means light is a form of electromagnetic radiation

Is this a work of fiction?


Einstein showed that light is also a particle. It is both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg explains why.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-08-2021 06:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.


Then is this picture I copied from a physics website false?


It's not radiation.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-08-2021 07:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Emissivity does not change due to angle of light. It is a constant.


I think this statement is false,

If course you do. Because you do not understand what emissivity is or the nature of light.
Spongy Iris wrote:
because there is more powerful radiation at high noon, then at sunrise and sunset. You can easily feel it.

The radiance of the Sun is the same. You're just more directly exposed to it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
IMO, the extra thickness in the atmosphere is too minor to explain the major difference in radiation power.

There is no change in the radiance of the Sun. It may look red to you at sunset, but it's noon elsewhere at the same time, and dawn elsewhere at the same time.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here in an example. Look up the weather forecast of Manhattan.

Meh. I could care less about Manhattan.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It's sunny Monday. High is forecast of 80. It's cloudy and rainy Wednesday. High is forecast of 80. The extra thickness of the atmosphere, in the form of more clouds, between Monday and Wednesday makes an insignificant difference in the high temperature.

Clouds do not make the atmosphere thicker.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But temperature in Manhattan will rise by a significant amount from 10 to 1, and will fall by a significant amount from 4 to 7.

So?
Spongy Iris wrote:
So the radiation emitted from the sun doesn't appear to be constant.

It is constant. Manhattan has moved.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-08-2021 07:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
IBdaMann wrote:


Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.


Then is this picture I copied from a physics website false?


I get a kick out of your total confusion.

He said radiation is not measured in wavelengths because radiation is measured in units of power. Your light bulb has a rating (measure) in Watts, not in wavelengths.

I'm waiting for Into the Night to tell you that liquids are not measured in "color" only to have you post a picture of the ocean and ask if the picture is false. Liquids are measured in units of volume, not in color. Radiation is measured in power, not in wavelength.

A photon's wavelength is a dependent variable computed by the photon's speed through whatever medium it happens to be traveling divided by its frequency.

Let me know if you have any questions, and don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.



The color of some liquids are measured, since they are indicators in chemistry.
However, you are right. Liquids are no measured in color, though we do measure the color of a liquid from time to time.

While this sounds like a paradox, it isn't. Liquids have many properties of interest. They have mass, they have volume, they have color, they have turbidity, they have convective activity, they have velocity, they have viscosity, they have adhesiveness, they have temperature, they have varying surface tension.

Any one of these characteristics is an important one for the use of that liquid.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-08-2021 20:46
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:

Einstein showed that light is also a particle. It is both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg explains why.



Electrons have a wave/particle duality. When they orbit a nucleus, they are both a particle and a wave at the same time.
16-08-2021 20:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Einstein showed that light is also a particle. It is both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg explains why.



Electrons have a wave/particle duality. When they orbit a nucleus, they are both a particle and a wave at the same time.

While true, the discussion is about light.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-08-2021 22:33
S@ve0ur3arth
☆☆☆☆☆
(29)
James___ wrote:
hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)



You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Thank you so much for sharing this paper with us. These types of documents always come in handy to fully understand some of the most delicate topics.
16-08-2021 22:33
S@ve0ur3arth
☆☆☆☆☆
(29)
James___ wrote:
hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)



You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Thank you so much for sharing this paper with us. These types of documents always come in handy to fully understand some of the most delicate topics.
17-08-2021 04:08
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
No proxy data is useable.It is just not possible for the research team to say after months of work we have nothing or they will not get to go again next year.Have a think about it and stop believing the boy cows poop.
17-08-2021 05:23
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
James___ wrote:
hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)



You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Thank you so much for sharing this paper with us. These types of documents always come in handy to fully understand some of the most delicate topics.



Your welcome. I get into science a little more than most people in here. I think there is still a lot left to learn about our atmosphere and what we're doing to it.
This is where if someone knows how to write a spreadsheet then they can create their own graph(s).
17-08-2021 05:27
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Einstein showed that light is also a particle. It is both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg explains why.



Electrons have a wave/particle duality. When they orbit a nucleus, they are both a particle and a wave at the same time.

While true, the discussion is about light.



Are you referring to the photoelectric effect? That is where refracted electromagnetic radiation becomes an electron. This is not a wave/particle duality but is merely energy being changed from one form to another. The inverse is a light bulb converting electrons into electromagnetic radiation.
Only with a bound electron does it behave simultaneously as both light and electron.
17-08-2021 07:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)


James___ wrote:Are you referring to the photoelectric effect?

No, he was not. He was referring to particle/wave duality.

James___ wrote:That is where refracted electromagnetic radiation becomes an electron.

Nope. Electromagnetic energy does not become matter (electrons are matter). The photoelectric effect is the effect of electromagnetic energy causing matter to emit its electrons. The electromagnetic energy does not itself transmute into electrons.

James___ wrote: This is not a wave/particle duality but is merely energy being changed from one form to another.

While we're on the subject, electrons also behave as waves. In fact, an electron is just a probability curve in a quantum mechanics equation.

James___ wrote: The inverse is a light bulb converting electrons into electromagnetic radiation.

The electrons remain electrons. It's the electrical energy that is converted to electromagnetic energy.

James___ wrote:Only with a bound electron does it behave simultaneously as both light and electron.

If they are physically active electrons then they certainly won't be fat and are bound to be light. Their problem is that they are always so negative and meet with resistance from all matter they encounter, but they always seem to prevail with their current potential (It's their special power).

17-08-2021 18:55
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote:Are you referring to the photoelectric effect?

No, he was not. He was referring to particle/wave duality.

James___ wrote:That is where refracted electromagnetic radiation becomes an electron.

Nope. Electromagnetic energy does not become matter (electrons are matter). The photoelectric effect is the effect of electromagnetic energy causing matter to emit its electrons. The electromagnetic energy does not itself transmute into electrons.

James___ wrote: This is not a wave/particle duality but is merely energy being changed from one form to another.

While we're on the subject, electrons also behave as waves. In fact, an electron is just a probability curve in a quantum mechanics equation.

James___ wrote: The inverse is a light bulb converting electrons into electromagnetic radiation.

The electrons remain electrons. It's the electrical energy that is converted to electromagnetic energy.

James___ wrote:Only with a bound electron does it behave simultaneously as both light and electron.

If they are physically active electrons then they certainly won't be fat and are bound to be light. Their problem is that they are always so negative and meet with resistance from all matter they encounter, but they always seem to prevail with their current potential (It's their special power).




How do you think a solar panel works? It converts electromagnetic radiation into electrons.
17-08-2021 19:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)


James___ wrote:How do you think a solar panel works? It converts electromagnetic radiation into electrons.

Nope. Solar panels convert electromagnetic energy into electrical potential (energy).

Electrons are moved, generating a positive charge where they were and a negative charge where they accumulate.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

18-08-2021 03:16
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
James___ wrote:
What people in here need to accept is that I will say what you observed is real. The albedo effect is dependent on refraction/reflection. Your images suggest something else. This does not agree with accepted science. Your pictures shows radiance is dependent on an atmosphere changing the behavior of incoming solar IR.
And Spongy, if such is true, Langley made images of the Sun. Think about it.

p.s., if you need a clue, his drawings are still used in school today. He was known for elevating the University of Pittsburgh about 1900 before becoming the head of the Smithsonian Institution. If people aren't familiar with this, it's not my position to educate them.

p.s.s., Spongy, I am comparing your pictures to the drawings Langley made over 100 years ago. Suck it up. I have said that I think you proved something very important about the Earth's atmosphere. I've now given you proper context.


I thought of another visual experiment to explain the effect.

Check out these 3 pictures of the same lighter.



They were all captured using my camera's manual setting, at the same zoom, focus, white balance, ISO, and shutter speed.

The picture on the left has the biggest corona. It was behind 2 panes of glass shower screen.

The picture in the middle has the 2nd biggest corona. It was behind 1 pane of glass shower screen

The picture on the right has the smallest corona. It was behind no glass.


18-08-2021 06:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
James___ wrote:
hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)



You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Thank you so much for sharing this paper with us. These types of documents always come in handy to fully understand some of the most delicate topics.

These papers only discuss random numbers.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-08-2021 06:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James___ wrote:
S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
James___ wrote:
hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)



You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Thank you so much for sharing this paper with us. These types of documents always come in handy to fully understand some of the most delicate topics.



Your welcome. I get into science a little more than most people in here. I think there is still a lot left to learn about our atmosphere and what we're doing to it.
This is where if someone knows how to write a spreadsheet then they can create their own graph(s).

You deny science. Random numbers are not data.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 5 of 7<<<34567>





Join the debate From ice core analysis to temperature curves:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Co2 ice samples1102-06-2022 22:44
Low temperature breaks record set over 100 years ago, proving climate change is real2801-06-2022 06:03
Torque curves4321-05-2022 09:46
Arctic sea ice cover1909-04-2022 08:29
New Ice age by 203014004-04-2022 16:10
Articles
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact