Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is caused by ozone depletion, not greenhouse gases



Page 3 of 4<1234>
30-11-2014 20:36
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
All matter emits energy. Planck's law tells us so. That takes place regardless of their surroundings. Two objects of equal temperature will both continue to radiate at each other but, being of equal temperature, will produce a net transfer of zero. I say again, a NET transfer of zero.

If YOU don't understand that, ask your Dr Grossman to explain it to you along with the effect of energy transfer from photons to gas molecules.

And, again, Planck's constant of proportionality only applies IN THE ABSENCE of matter. It DOES NOT APPLY to discussions of heat transfer within the Earth's atmosphere.
Edited on 30-11-2014 21:02
30-11-2014 23:36
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Your last posts 30-11-2014 19:27 and 19:36 prove beyond any doubt that you are not listening, do not understand, and are not making an effort to understand. As I have said many times above, as I develop in detail in the video and on the website, what we see is frequency. Waves in matter travel by deforming the bonds that hold matter together. There is no matter in space and there are no bonds. There is nothing there for waves to travel in. This was shown conclusively by studies of the luminiferous aether in the last half of the 19th century. We see distant galaxies and feel heat from the Sun as frequency. Heat in matter is directly related to the frequencies of oscillation of the bonds that hold matter together.

What travels in space is frequency just like the frequency transmitted by a radio station. Radiation is simply frequency traveling as an electromagnetic field. There is no doubt that radiation contains energy that we see and feel. This energy is equal to the frequency times the Planck constant. There is nothing else in radiation to be the energy we see and feel. There is certainly not wavelength. Radiation typically contains a spectrum of frequencies and it is the highest frequencies that have the highest energy and the highest color temperature and cause the greatest chemical change. By looking at the whole electromagnetic spectrum, we can observe this relationship between frequency, energy, and temperature quite clearly.

I have spent many years developing a scientifically rigorous and fully referenced website, an introductory video, a summary for non-specialists, three published papers, etc. I made them all public on November 18. That day I was invited by Jeppe Branner to start a new thread on his website climate-debate.com. I did so hoping to have an intelligent discussion where people made at least some effort to understand the issues raised on the ozonedepletiontheory.info website and the video and then expressed reactions, ideas, concerns, disagreements from which we all might learn and move Science forward. All postings by others in this thread do not appear to be informed by having read the summary, listened to the video all the way through, or even looked at the website. They have just been the standard defense for the greenhouse gas theory that is beginning to fray at the edges.

The well observed fact that mean global surface temperatures increased substantially from 1970 to 1998 but have changed very little, on average, since 1998 should cause thinking people to wonder how the greenhouse-gas theory can explain this. Several dozen papers have been published wondering about this global warming hiatus and trying to explain it. None are very convincing.

The IPCC was formed in 1988 to try to demonstrate to politicians a unanimity on the science of global warming so that the politicians would take action. Members of the IPCC have worked very hard over 26 years to demonstrate the unanimity, but an unfortunate side effect of this crowd science approach, is that it has limited debate under which Science normally thrives. As Planck said in 1936: "New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." Large group science does not give space for new ideas to be developed. Now my ideas may or may not be right, but they are well founded, well thought out, and deserve to be evaluated carefully and thoughtfully.

Scientists have worked very hard to convince the world to spend large amounts of money limiting CO2 emissions. They have a responsibility to the citizens of the world to be sure their science continues to be right and that does not mean by crushing dissent. It means objectively reviewing new data, new observations, new measurements, new problems that arise, and new ideas that address these problems. Widespread unanimity over greenhouse gases will not look very good for Science in hindsight when decreasing CO2 emissions does not decrease temperatures. But temperatures are not rising and the odds of taking significant political action are looking slimmer and slimmer. Are scientists going to continue to lead, or are they going to become irrelevant?

I wish you all well.
30-11-2014 23:58
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
OMG, Peter. How can you have missed out on over 100 years of physics that demonstrate that electromagnetic waves do, in fact, travel through the vacuum of space? You are confusing mechanical waves and electromagnetic waves.
02-12-2014 17:31
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
peterlward wrote:
Your last posts 30-11-2014 19:27 and 19:36 prove beyond any doubt that you are not listening, do not understand, and are not making an effort to understand.


And now you choose to make personal attacks. Peter, I have expressed strong opinions about some of your contentions here. I do not believe I have resorted to attacking you or impugning your motives, whatever they might be. I am reading and watching and listening to a great deal of your material. I may well have made errors or misinterpretations in what I got from that. You tell us you've spent ten years putting this together. I am an engineer, not a physicist and I have had something less than that to attempt to make sense of it. I get a bit frustrated with the lack of quantified evidence you present and that has likely made me short with your arguments. My apologies if I seem to have lost my temper or become frustrated. We (and I believe I can speak for a 'we') would appreciate it if you would return to these discussions.

peterlward wrote:
As I have said many times above, as I develop in detail in the video and on the website, what we see is frequency.


I'm sorry, but I don't know what that means. Any measurement of frequency or wavelength of an oscillating signal with a known propagation velocity gives us the other component as well. If we measure the frequency of EM, we have its wavelength. If we measure its wavelength, we have its frequency.

peterlward wrote:
Waves in matter travel by deforming the bonds that hold matter together.


Mechanical waves in solid matter do so. Mechanical waves in fluids (gases and liquids) do not deform bonds because bonds, per se, do not exist in those phases. Electromagnetic radiation does not propagate through any phase of matter by the deformation of bonds. For one thing, to do so would require matter to travel at c, a physical impossibility. That the passage through (and absorption by) of EM radiation through solids might cause the deformation of some bonds is not a demonstration of EM wave propagation.

peterlward wrote:
There is no matter in space and there are no bonds.


Which is, of course, the source of that famously scary Aliens line "In space, no one can hear you scream". ;-).

So, of course, there is no transmission of mechanical waves (vibrations, acoustics, etc) through a vacuum. But as we all know, it doesn't hinder the propagation of electromagnetic radiation in the slightest. This led to the many years of the otherwise insensible "aether"

peterlward wrote:
There is nothing there for waves to travel in. This was shown conclusively by studies of the luminiferous aether in the last half of the 19th century. We see distant galaxies and feel heat from the Sun as frequency. Heat in matter is directly related to the frequencies of oscillation of the bonds that hold matter together.


Studies attempted to find the luminiferous aether but they all failed. We see distant galaxies because its light stimulates the our retinal photoreceptors - or more accurately these days - it triggers cascades in chilled CCD arrays which, after a little processing, light up pixels whose photons stimulate our retinal photoreceptors. We feel heat from the sun because it's IR photons are absorbed by the molecules of our epidermal layer. And I might be going out on a limb here, but I don't believe increasing heat alters the frequency of the vibrations in the lattice bonds of rigid materials. I believe increasing temperature is an increase in the AMPLITUDE of those vibrations.

peterlward wrote:
What travels in space is frequency just like the frequency transmitted by a radio station.


Mr Ward, frequency is a characteristic of an oscillation. It is not a thing. It is not a type of energy. I know you are far more intelligent than necessary to see this point. Whatever point you are attempting to get across here, isn't making it - at least to me.

peterlward wrote:
Radiation is simply frequency traveling as an electromagnetic field.


Again, from my point of view and I think from the point of view of almost anyone with a familiarity with the topic, you've got this topsy-turvy. I'm quite certain it would be more correct, more accurate, to say that electromagnetic radiation moves through space and many types of matter - at velocity c - as oscillating, crossed electric and magnetic fields propagating through space. The frequency of the oscillation of those fields can have a wide range across the entirety of the EM spectrum: from fractions of a hertz to trillions of hertz. Thus they sport wavelengths that can vary from thousands of kilometers to microns. Electromagnetic radiation also features "wave-particle duality", a very unintuitive aspect of its quantum reality which allows (requires) that under many circumstances it behaves as a discrete particle, but that's more than this discussion requires.

peterlward wrote:
There is no doubt that radiation contains energy that we see and feel.


Correct

peterlward wrote:
This energy is equal to the frequency times the Planck constant.


The energy of quanta of electromagnetic radiation traveling through a vacuum, yes.

peterlward wrote:
There is nothing else in radiation to be the energy we see and feel.


There are the numbers of photons, the quanta of that radiation. A billion IR photons will have a great deal more effect than will one.

peterlward wrote:
There is certainly not wavelength. Radiation typically contains a spectrum of frequencies and it is the highest frequencies that have the highest energy and the highest color temperature and cause the greatest chemical change.
By looking at the whole electromagnetic spectrum, we can observe this relationship between frequency, energy, and temperature quite clearly.


There is certainly wavelength. Radiation contains a spectrum of wavelengths and it is the shortest wavelengths that have the highest energy rates and the relationship between wavelength and physical dimensions which control the extent of interaction between signal and receiver. By looking at the whole electromagnetic spectrum, we can observe this relationship between wavelength and energy quite clearly.

;-)

peterlward wrote:
I have spent many years developing a scientifically rigorous and fully referenced website, an introductory video, a summary for non-specialists, three published papers, etc. I made them all public on November 18.


And... did you expect that no one would argue with you? I am sure that we all would like to believe that if we clearly explain the bases of our beliefs, others will accept them without cavil. I am also sure that we have all been sorely disappointed putting that belief to the test. You're fully aware that your views regarding CO2 warming and the extent of warming produced by ozone depletion are shared, for all practical purposes, with no one. You've said so yourself. Surely then you expected people to point out what they believe to be flaws in your contentions, errors in your arguments, faulty conclusions and shortcomings in your data.

I also know that you'd much rather be spending your finite time arguing these points with your peers in the process of getting it published in a respectable journal somewhere. Nattering away your free time arguing with the internet is an unproductive use of anyone's time. My wife points this fact out to me daily.

peterlward wrote:
That day I was invited by Jeppe Branner to start a new thread on his website climate-debate.com. I did so hoping to have an intelligent discussion where people made at least some effort to understand the issues raised on the c website and the video and then expressed reactions, ideas, concerns, disagreements from which we all might learn and move Science forward.


I think several people, myself included, have made an effort to have an intelligent discussion, have made some effort to understand the issues involved and your views of them. We HAVE expressed reactions, ideas, concerns and disagreements and it is always possible to move Science forward from such things. I'm sorry that you are forced to explain things more than once and that even with the best explanations, not everyone will agree with you on these points. My personal suggestion would be to throw a few more numbers back in to the "summary for non-specialists" mix.

peterlward wrote:
All postings by others in this thread do not appear to be informed by having read the summary, listened to the video all the way through, or even looked at the website.


I am sorry Mr Ward, but if you expected every member of your audience to sit through an hour-long video AND a website with 26 tabs before making comment, you need to gain a little more familiarity with internet discussion practices. You spent ten years assembling all this. It is not to be absorbed in spare few minutes.

peterlward wrote:
They have just been the standard defense for the greenhouse gas theory that is beginning to fray at the edges.


If it has begun to fray at the edges, that is not discernible in the opinions of the vast majority of the world's scientists.

peterlward wrote:
The well observed fact that mean global surface temperatures increased substantially from 1970 to 1998 but have changed very little, on average, since 1998 should cause thinking people to wonder how the greenhouse-gas theory can explain this.


The behavior of of the Earth's average temperature is a result of a large number of factors only one of which is greenhouse warming. We are not talking about Angstrom's glass tube. There are a number of factors capable over overcoming greenhouse warming's radiant forcing on a transient basis. The power of greenhouse warming is that it is constant and of long duration. Additionally, in nearly perfect concurrence with the hiatus in SURFACE warming in 1998, warming of the deep ocean accelerated dramatically (which had the effect of cooling the ocean's surface). Several different, independent studies indicate this is due to changes in tropical wind patterns. And then there is the satellite measurement of the radiative imbalance at the ToA which did NOT decrease in 1998 and indicates by direct measurement that the Earth continues to accumulate solar energy.

peterlward wrote:
Several dozen papers have been published wondering about this global warming hiatus and trying to explain it. None are very convincing.


If you have evidence on your site or in your video to support that claim, I wish you would make some sort of reference to it so that we are not left with what appears no more than an unsubstantiated assertion. I am familiar with peer-reviewed papers covering several studies that all found accelerated warming below 700 meters, turn-over related reductions in SST and changes in tropical wind patterns capable of having caused the subduction necessary to have produced both those effects. I and a large number of climate scientists found them quite convincing.

peterlward wrote:
The IPCC was formed in 1988 to try to demonstrate to politicians a unanimity on the science of global warming so that the politicians would take action.


It was not. It was formed to attempt to determine whether or not global warming was taking place and, if so, what responsibility for that warming was born by human activities.

peterlward wrote:
Members of the IPCC have worked very hard over 26 years to demonstrate the unanimity, but an unfortunate side effect of this crowd science approach, is that it has limited debate under which Science normally thrives.


Unanimity has never been a goal of the IPCC. Keep in mind that the IPCC does not itself conduct one shred of research. Its work consists simply of a review of the literature. That the research, by thousands of scientists on thousands of different climate-related topics, should form a coherent theory with a very strong consensus among the experts is the best indication that the scientific method can give us that the theory is the most accurate we know.

peterlward wrote:
As Planck said in 1936: "New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." Large group science does not give space for new ideas to be developed.


Planck is correct, but this has no bearing on the validity of AGW nor of your own theories. A theory which does a better job of explaining observations, making accurate predictions and avoiding falsification, will eventually come to be accepted by a consensus among the experts in a given field. Look at the rate at which such revolutionary ideas as the acceleration of the expansion of space, pylobacter as the cause of ulcers, and CFCs forming the ozone hole became accepted once the evidence had reached a critical mass. A majority opinion among the experts is not an indication of mistaken views. At any moment in time, such opinions have the greatest likelihood of being correct.

peterlward wrote:
Now my ideas may or may not be right, but they are well founded, well thought out, and deserve to be evaluated carefully and thoughtfully.


Like anyone's serious ideas, they DO deserve to be carefully evaluated by others. It is that evaluation, however, that will determine whether or not they are well founded.

peterlward wrote:
Scientists have worked very hard to convince the world to spend large amounts of money limiting CO2 emissions.


No, they have not. They have worked very hard to determine whether or not the world is warming and, if so, what is causing that warming. What they have found we all know. That, as human beings, they have become convinced we need to act to curtail the process for which they've found us responsible, is a separate issue having nothing to do with the validity of AGW as a theory of the behavior of the Earth's climate.

peterlward wrote:
They have a responsibility to the citizens of the world to be sure their science continues to be right and that does not mean by crushing dissent.


That is correct. But it is not scientists who are crushing dissent, it is the science.

peterlward wrote:
It means objectively reviewing new data, new observations, new measurements, new problems that arise, and new ideas that address these problems.


Correct.

peterlward wrote:
Widespread unanimity over greenhouse gases will not look very good for Science in hindsight when decreasing CO2 emissions does not decrease temperatures.


IF. Neither will your theories look very good if continues resume their climb with no coincident decrease in ozone levels.

peterlward wrote:
But temperatures are not rising and the odds of taking significant political action are looking slimmer and slimmer. Are scientists going to continue to lead, or are they going to become irrelevant?


I don't know what that question has to do with the validity of either AGW or your theory.

I wish you all well.[/quote]

And I hope you and yours have an enjoyable holiday season.
02-12-2014 18:48
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Look, I do not have the time or energy to hold your hand through your personal very reluctant discovery process. I have much more important things to do. Act like a scientist. You clearly are very intelligent but you seem to think that your off the cuff opinions have some value. The value is in the depth of your though and the very carefully considered logic that you raise. Watch the video objectively trying to understand what I am saying rather than trying to prove me wrong after every word. Read the summary for non-specialists. Read the website. Read the paper published last month. Think about them. Think about how things fit together and why I have concluded what I have. Then, within that frame of reference, make some cogent comments for or against supporting your well thought-out comments with the observations and evidence. This is how science works.

My conclusions are shocking at first. They lead to a major upset to current thinking. But they are well founded. The fundamental issue is "what is EMR". We have argued about that for 2500 years. Carefully working through many observations and thoughtfully questioning some basic physical concepts not questioned by many for a long time, gives detailed support for my conclusions. In hindsight, it is intuitively obvious that EMR in space is frequency, that therefore greenhouse-gas theory is not physically correct, and that warming of Earth is primarily controlled by the optical thickness of the total ozone column. But it was 8 years of very hard work to discover these points with enough evidence to believe them. I am convinced the overall conclusions are very much on track. I am also sure that thoughtful review and criticism by others will lead to improvements. Good science takes hard work and careful thought.
02-12-2014 19:31
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
peterlward wrote:
Look, I do not have the time or energy to hold your hand through your personal very reluctant discovery process. I have much more important things to do. Act like a scientist. You clearly are very intelligent but you seem to think that your off the cuff opinions have some value. The value is in the depth of your though and the very carefully considered logic that you raise. Watch the video objectively trying to understand what I am saying rather than trying to prove me wrong after every word. Read the summary for non-specialists. Read the website. Read the paper published last month. Think about them. Think about how things fit together and why I have concluded what I have. Then, within that frame of reference, make some cogent comments for or against supporting your well thought-out comments with the observations and evidence. This is how science works.

My conclusions are shocking at first. They lead to a major upset to current thinking. But they are well founded. The fundamental issue is "what is EMR". We have argued about that for 2500 years. Carefully working through many observations and thoughtfully questioning some basic physical concepts not questioned by many for a long time, gives detailed support for my conclusions. In hindsight, it is intuitively obvious that EMR in space is frequency, that therefore greenhouse-gas theory is not physically correct, and that warming of Earth is primarily controlled by the optical thickness of the total ozone column. But it was 8 years of very hard work to discover these points with enough evidence to believe them. I am convinced the overall conclusions are very much on track. I am also sure that thoughtful review and criticism by others will lead to improvements. Good science takes hard work and careful thought.


The first improvement you can make is to take your paper to a well funded astronomical observatory and let the astronomers there pick it apart. If you do, I think you will find that your extraordinary claim that EMR has no wavelength component in outer space is simply hogwash unsupported by over 100 years of findings that soundly disproves it. When you do that, I think you will find your hypothesis needs a lot more work than you are attempting to lead us to believe. We are not stupid, so stop acting as if we are.

And speaking of acting like a scientist, it would behoove you to stop acting like a spoiled brat and consider what the man has to say. Abe IS a very intelligent man; you belittle his considered criticisms at your own expense.
03-12-2014 14:47
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
How about an explanation of your claim that EM energy traveling through space has frequency but not wavelength? Just that would help many of us a great deal. If that point is explained in your video or on your website, some sort of point out would be helpful.
03-12-2014 16:28
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Recognizing that radiation in space is frequency, not wavelength is extremely important. I introduce the concept in the introduction to the video, explain the background starting around minute 25 and in more detail starting around minute 36. At minute 48 I explain how this gives us new insight into cosmology. I discuss these issues several places on the website but primarily at https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/primary-problem-with-GG.html and https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/follow-the-energy.html. I strongly recommend that you also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether. We have gotten used to describing radiation as wavelength. But wavelength is a mathematical quantity not a physical property. We observe and measure frequency, not wavelength.
03-12-2014 22:03
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Luminiferous aether? Really? Pfff. One starts to wonder how you ever managed to get your PhD.
03-12-2014 23:24
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Is this wavelength or frequency?



I am looking through your movie for the explanations you noted.
Edited on 03-12-2014 23:49
03-12-2014 23:52
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Orogenicman: Scoffing at luminiferous aether is scoffing at a very important part of physics worked on intensely in the late 1800s. Show some interest in science. Read about it. Wikipedia gives a fairly complete and painless introduction. Waves deform matter, period. Waves in space cannot exist without some form of matter to deform.

Abraham3: I have said over and over that waves exist in matter but not in space.
04-12-2014 00:05
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
peterlward wrote:
Orogenicman: Scoffing at luminiferous aether is scoffing at a very important part of physics worked on intensely in the late 1800s. Show some interest in science. Read about it. Wikipedia gives a fairly complete and painless introduction. Waves deform matter, period. Waves in space cannot exist without some form of matter to deform.

Abraham3: I have said over and over that waves exist in matter but not in space.


I scoff at it for a very good reason. Like the Hollow Earth hypothesis and the Expanding Earth theory, it has been supplanted by a theory that actually explains the data.


'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
04-12-2014 01:39
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Mr Ward, I have just finished your video. I have a number of comments but I'd like to get my ducks in a row before I post anything. And there's also dinner ;-).
04-12-2014 04:00
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I want to try to do this as efficiently as possible. I want to restrict myself to a limited number of discrete questions based on my viewing of your material to give you a chance to explain some of what I found confusing.

1) When you tell us that electromagnetic energy traveling through the vacuum of space (or gases of the atmosphere) is "only a frequency", what action do you believe is taking place at that frequency? In a beam of light with a frequency of 100 terahertz, what is happening at 100 terahertz?

2) When you tell us that all the infrared radiation in the universe cannot burn us, did you mean that it would not give us a classic sunburn or that it simply would not increase our temperature?

3) What vulcanism - what specific eruptions - could have produced the rate of global heating observed from 1910 to 1941

4) Where, in the functioning of mammalian visual systems, do you see the correlated particles with shared quantum states required by every definition of the term "quantum entanglement"?

5) Without a greenhouse effect, what has been keeping the Earth's temperature so far above it's black body temperature?
04-12-2014 04:03
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
One more: have you considered submitting your work or perhaps a condensed explanatory article, to the WattsUpWithThat (www.wuwt.com) website?
04-12-2014 05:05
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I hate to be a picker of nits, but...

The total IR output of the sun represents considerably more energy than the total IR output of a drop of hot wax. Yet Planck's law would produce the same value from their parameters. IS there a difference in their energy output and if so, what is its cause?

On several occasions, you state that the assumption that energy content can be dependent on bandwidth is false. Yet on other occasions, you point out that the Planck spectrum at a given temperature cannot raise a body's temperature to a higher value because it lacks the greater spread of frequencies, ie, bandwidth. Which is it?


If radiation traversing a volume without chemical bonds has no wavelength, why did Planck give his Law in the altenative forms:


and

?


Planck's law calculates the maximum possible spectral radiance (ie, that of a black body) "in terms of the power emitted per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over, per unit frequency". Thus, across a spectrum, the term must be integrated with respect to frequency or wavelength. The obvious result is that radiance across a band is additive and increasing bandwidth increases energy content.


On the same page you identify the base of the denominator of the final term as "the Euler Constant e". That is not the Euler Constant (written and having a value of approximately 0.577...), it is the base of the natural logarithm e approximately equal to 2.718281828...
Edited on 04-12-2014 05:13
04-12-2014 05:18
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
peterlward wrote:
Abraham3: I have said over and over that waves exist in matter but not in space.


You repeatedly said "what we see is frequency".
04-12-2014 06:14
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
1) When you tell us that electromagnetic energy traveling through the vacuum of space (or gases of the atmosphere) is "only a frequency", what action do you believe is taking place at that frequency? In a beam of light with a frequency of 100 terahertz, what is happening at 100 terahertz?

The electromagnetic field is oscillating at that frequency. Heat in matter is the result of oscillation of the bonds that hold matter together. These oscillations on the surface of matter induce an electric field that induces a magnetic field, that induces and electric field, and so on. The oscillations in this field propagate at the speed of light exactly the same way a radio station transmits its frequency. Your radio receiver is tuned to resonate at the frequency of the station that you want to listen to.

2) When you tell us that all the infrared radiation in the universe cannot burn us, did you mean that it would not give us a classic sunburn or that it simply would not increase our temperature?

We have gone through this already. I am talking sunburn as defined in Wikipedia. It is energy (frequency) being high enough to cause a chemical reaction. The higher the frequency, the hotter the radiation.

3) What vulcanism - what specific eruptions - could have produced the rate of global heating observed from 1910 to 1941

Warming comes from small, primarily effusive volcanism. From https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/warm-drought-2012.html: "The drought of 2012 approached the intensity of the great Dust Bowl droughts of 1934 and 1936 (Brönnimann, 2009) when a highly unusual sequence of seven VEI 4 and 5 eruptions occurred from 1931 through 1933 in Indonesia, Japan, Kurile Islands, Kamchatka, Alaska, Guatemala, and Chile (Global Volcanism Program, 2013), providing at least a partial explanation for the well-known warming of mean northern hemispheric surface temperatures during the 1930s followed by cooling in the 1940s (black line, right) (Jones, 2013)."

The precise correlation of all known volcanism and quietly degassing volcanoes with climate has yet to be worked out but the biggest volcanoes and lava flows are quite clear.

4) Where, in the functioning of mammalian visual systems, do you see the correlated particles with shared quantum states required by every definition of the term "quantum entanglement"?

As I have explained now several times, the spookey action at a distance caused by the frequency content of radiation is what allows you to see. It is this spookey action that the mathematics of quantum mechanics seeks to explain. Given that quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics are based on wave-particle duality that I show does not exist, the precise mathematics is not what I expect to see happening.

5) Without a greenhouse effect, what has been keeping the Earth's temperature so far above it's black body temperature?

The temperature of Earth's surface is determined primarily by the highest energy solar radiation to reach Earth. The change in temperature of the Earth's surface is caused primarily by changes in the highest energy solar radiation reaching Earth. All the usual calculations for answering your question do not appear necessary or correct. This is part of the problem with the greenhouse energy calculations. One of my last slides shows the structure of the atmosphere on the left and the frequency (energy) of radiation reaching 5 different altitudes on the right. I touch on the above without a lot of description. I also talk about it on the website (Follow the Energy).

6. The total IR output of the sun represents considerably more energy than the total IR output of a drop of hot wax. Yet Planck's law would produce the same value from their parameters. IS there a difference in their energy output and if so, what is its cause?

The spectral radiance (amplitude) decreases as a function of the inverse square of the distance radiated. You have to correct for distance. See the dashed red line in https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/ImagePages/plancks-law.html

7. On several occasions, you state that the assumption that energy content can be dependent on bandwidth is false. Yet on other occasions, you point out that the Planck spectrum at a given temperature cannot raise a body's temperature to a higher value because it lacks the greater spread of frequencies, ie, bandwidth. Which is it?

Temperature relies on broad bandwidth as shown by the Planck law. But the energy is different for every frequency in this bandwidth. The energy is simply frequency time Planck constant. Higher temperature is associated with higher frequency and higher energy thru the Planck law, not thru some simple equation.


8. If radiation traversing a volume without chemical bonds has no wavelength, why did Planck give his Law in the altenative forms:


and

?


Planck's law calculates the maximum possible spectral radiance (ie, that of a black body) "in terms of the power emitted per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over, per unit frequency". Thus, across a spectrum, the term must be integrated with respect to frequency or wavelength. The obvious result is that radiance across a band is additive and increasing bandwidth increases energy content.

Most physicists from Maxwell's time to this day have thought of radiation as waves and wavelength. Most plots of the Planck law are for wavelength. But the most fundamental discovery I have made is that EMR is space is not waves. We can calculate wavelength and have many equations using it, but waves cannot exist in space. Furthermore spectral radiance should be amplitude, not watts per whatever. This is explained on the website. The problem goes back to how radiation was measured at that time and is still measured by most instruments monitoring the thermal effects of radiation on a thermocouple, thermopile, or tidbit of matter.

9. On the same page you identify the base of the denominator of the final term as "the Euler Constant e". That is not the Euler Constant (written and having a value of approximately 0.577...), it is the base of the natural logarithm e approximately equal to 2.718281828...

What page are you talking about? The e in the denominator of the Planck equation is the natural logarithm. I do not remember using the term Euler constant anywhere in reference to the Planck law.

I have not had time to think about what other climate sites I wish to encourage a discussion with. I got involved with this site because I was invited. There are many other sites that I am well aware of.
04-12-2014 12:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Sorry I don't have time to actively participate in this thread, but I am following it with interest.

I'd just make the point that diffraction and interference phenomena are pretty strong evidence for the wavelike behaviour of EM radiation, even in a vacuum.
04-12-2014 13:34
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Thank you very much for the response. I will get back to you as soon as I can.
04-12-2014 14:38
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Apparently the people at Hubble have gotten it wrong all these years. According to their web site, "the Hubble Space Telescope is able to measure wavelengths (in the vacuum of space) from about 0.1150 to 2 micrometers, a range that covers more than just visible light. These measurements of light (in the vacuum of space) enable astronomers to determine certain physical characteristics of (astronomical) objects, such as their temperature, composition, and velocity." Aren't we just lucky that we have you, Peter, telling us that we have been wrong all this time? Pfff.
04-12-2014 15:29
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
"diffraction and interference phenomena are pretty strong evidence for the wavelike behaviour of EM radiation"
You are quite correct and this is why the wave idea is so pervasive. But as I describe on the website, in all cases the wavelike behavior is when EMR interacts with matter. it is the bonds holding matter together that split the frequencies in a prism or lead to a rainbow or reflect or diffract light. Even in the classic double slit experiment, it is the matter that gets EMR to interfere with itself. For EMR, in space, the frequencies do not interact. If they did the Universe would look very different.

Orogenicman, your comments might be of more value if you acted more professionally. Nearly all scientists since Maxwell formulated his equations in the 1860s have thought of EMR as waves despite the fact that the search for the luminiferous aether proved no such matter allowing waves to exist in space could be found. The fact that wavelength can be calculated easily from frequency and velocity has helped perpetuate this idea. But what we measure about EMR is its frequency and its brightness. Plus energy in EMR is quantized by frequency. As I explain in the video, Maxwell's equations are the cornerstone of electromagnetism and they work really well in matter. But Maxwell assumed they also worked in space and most physicists today have not questioned that assumption. Maxwell also showed that the velocity of light is equal to 1 over the square root of the electric permittivity times the magnetic permeability, in other words the time it takes for and electric field to induce a magnetic field to begin to induce an electric field, the smallest time interval over which EMR can exist.

We have argued for 2500 years since Aristotle and Democritus whether light is a wave or a particle. As I explain in the video, the evidence is quite clear that light in space is neither, it is frequency. Please do some homework and actually try to understand what I am saying and why.
04-12-2014 15:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
peterlward wrote:
Even in the classic double slit experiment, it is the matter that gets EMR to interfere with itself.

No, that is simply incorrect, for the following reason:

The diffraction fringes produced when EMR passes through apertures (and the interference patterns produced by experiments such as the double-slit experiment) depend only on the wavelength of the EMR and the dimensions of the apparatus. There is no dependence whatsoever on the material that is used to construct the apparatus, so long as it is opaque to the EMR in question. For a mathematical derivation of the observed fringe intensities, see Fraunhofer diffraction (mathematics).
Edited on 04-12-2014 16:04
04-12-2014 16:13
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
The reason EMR has wavelength is because it is interacting with matter. It is the bonds in matter that give EMR an apparent attribute of wavelength. The double-slit experiment is typically explained the way you say. But without the matter containing the slits, EMR would not interfere as observed.
04-12-2014 16:15
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Nearly all scientists since Maxwell formulated his equations in the 1860s have thought of EMR as waves despite the fact that the search for the luminiferous aether proved no such matter allowing waves to exist in space could be found. The fact that wavelength can be calculated easily from frequency and velocity has helped perpetuate this idea


Actually, the search for aether proved that it only existed in the imaginations of some physicists. Its non-existence did not disprove the wave function of light. What it proved was that the wave function of light is not dependent on mediums, imaginary or otherwise.
04-12-2014 16:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
peterlward wrote:
The reason EMR has wavelength is because it is interacting with matter. It is the bonds in matter that give EMR an apparent attribute of wavelength. The double-slit experiment is typically explained the way you say. But without the matter containing the slits, EMR would not interfere as observed.

Change the wavelength of the EMR used or the dimensions of the apparatus, and the double-slit interference pattern will also change. Change the material containing the slits (steel, copper, wood, plastic, etc.), and you'll see no difference whatsoever. This, I think, pretty much proves that the diffraction patterns depend on intrinsic properties of the EMR and not on its interaction with the matter of the apparatus.
04-12-2014 18:56
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
The disproof of an aether showed there was no medium for waves to travel in. As physics moved on to quantum mechanics, the idea of a photon provided a theoretic way for EMR energy to propagate through space and wave-particle duality became the normal way of thinking and dealing mathematically with EMR in space.

Waves travel through matter by deforming the bonds that hold matter together. In space there is no matter and there are no bonds. Waves cannot physically travel through space even though we have lots of good mathematical equations that assume waves in space. I discuss extensively in the video and on the website why waves and photons do not exist in space. Please refer to that is you want to pursue this issue.

Similarly interference, refraction, reflection, birefringence, scattering, etc. of EMR can only occur in air/space when interacting with matter. What is important is the atomic scale of the bonds holding matter together. While the details of the bonds vary with the actual atoms involved, the differences are not huge. The biggest differences are between metals and non-metals, which is important for the photoelectric effect.
04-12-2014 19:09
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
peterlward wrote:
The disproof of an aether showed there was no medium for waves to travel in. As physics moved on to quantum mechanics, the idea of a photon provided a theoretic way for EMR energy to propagate through space and wave-particle duality became the normal way of thinking and dealing mathematically with EMR in space.

Waves travel through matter by deforming the bonds that hold matter together. In space there is no matter and there are no bonds. Waves cannot physically travel through space even though we have lots of good mathematical equations that assume waves in space. I discuss extensively in the video and on the website why waves and photons do not exist in space. Please refer to that is you want to pursue this issue.

Similarly interference, refraction, reflection, birefringence, scattering, etc. of EMR can only occur in air/space when interacting with matter. What is important is the atomic scale of the bonds holding matter together. While the details of the bonds vary with the actual atoms involved, the differences are not huge. The biggest differences are between metals and non-metals, which is important for the photoelectric effect.


Sound waves travel through matter by deforming bonds. Light waves do not interact in this way with matter, specifically if the matter is transparent to light. When a photon interacts with matter, it knocks an electron to a higher energy state. Once the energy state resumes its lower level, a photon is release. Bt none of this is really relevant to the fact that light waves can and do travel throuigh the vacuum of space. They have been observed doing so. They have beeen measured in great detail.


'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
04-12-2014 19:48
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Prove it. I have laid out a very simple argument that waves cannot travel in space. While many people assume they do and interpret observations in that way, waves cannot travel in space. I am quite aware in far more detail than you where and specifically how I disagree with "common knowledge". Your assertions are of little value. Where's the beef? Tell me scientifically why I might be wrong. We are dealing here with a very fundamental issue in physics that has huge implications. You are getting a chance to be on the front lines. What can you say other than I disagree with others, which is not news? What can you say scientifically?
05-12-2014 00:02
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
peterlward wrote:
Prove it. I have laid out a very simple argument that waves cannot travel in space. While many people assume they do and interpret observations in that way, waves cannot travel in space. I am quite aware in far more detail than you where and specifically how I disagree with "common knowledge". Your assertions are of little value. Where's the beef? Tell me scientifically why I might be wrong. We are dealing here with a very fundamental issue in physics that has huge implications. You are getting a chance to be on the front lines. What can you say other than I disagree with others, which is not news? What can you say scientifically?


You can make all the simple arguments you care to make, but if they don't jive with observations and experimentation, then you are beating a dead horse. And Peter, they've been making these observations and conducting these experiments for well over 100 years. And you know what? None of them substantiate your claim. Not a one. Next.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/em.cfm


'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
05-12-2014 02:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
peterlward wrote:
Similarly interference, refraction, reflection, birefringence, scattering, etc. of EMR can only occur in air/space when interacting with matter. What is important is the atomic scale of the bonds holding matter together. While the details of the bonds vary with the actual atoms involved, the differences are not huge. The biggest differences are between metals and non-metals, which is important for the photoelectric effect.

Again, the appearance of the interference patterns produced by the double slit experiment depends not one jot on the material used to make the double slits or the temperature of that material. How, then, can the interference patterns have anything whatsoever to do with the bonds holding the matter together? If they did, then one would expect to see different patterns for different materials. This is not the case, thus your hypothesis is disproved.
05-12-2014 04:06
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
And what do you imagine the physical process is for how EMR propagates? Some years ago I set out to try to find the actual physical process of a photon interacting with a molecule of CO2. While there is plenty of mathematics that assumes the energy is transferred, all the observations done in considerable detail show that the molecule absorbs certain spectral lines of energy from an EMR field. We know the field exists. We can measure it and map it in 3D. These spectral line details are documented at great length in the HITRAN database. So if you want to maintain that EMR travels as waves, what is waving? How does the wave propagate physically? And how can you explain the clear observation that energy in EMR in space is equal to frequency times a constant while energy in waves is proportional to the square of the amplitude?

I am convinced from extensive work that EMR travels in space as frequency. If you want to prove me wrong or argue for something different, you need to talk science, not history. I have laid out my case clearly. Have you even consulted it or are you just arguing that everybody knows that is not true? I really do not care what you think, unless you present some science to back up your thoughts. I am looking for thoughtful discussion, not opinion.
05-12-2014 06:13
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Some questions I would like to have you answer is why you published your paper in a journal (Thin Solid Films) having nothing to do with Climatology or Earth Science? Why they allowed such a paper in their journal that is irrelevant to their mission statement? What are the names of the journals you submitted it to that rejected it, and why they rejected it? And considering the fact that modern experiments have reduced the possiblily of the existence of the alleged aether to a number very close to zero, about 10^-17, why would a retired geologist of your standing even consider it?
Edited on 05-12-2014 06:26
05-12-2014 13:37
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Electric and magnetic fields do not require a medium to oscillate. THEY are oscillating. Let's apply power to a toroidal coil. It will create a large magnetic field. When we remove power, the field will collapse. Was any physical response REQUIRED of the air that field moved through? No. Would it behave the same way in a vacuum? Yes.
05-12-2014 15:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
peterlward wrote:
And what do you imagine the physical process is for how EMR propagates? Some years ago I set out to try to find the actual physical process of a photon interacting with a molecule of CO2. While there is plenty of mathematics that assumes the energy is transferred, all the observations done in considerable detail show that the molecule absorbs certain spectral lines of energy from an EMR field. We know the field exists. We can measure it and map it in 3D. These spectral line details are documented at great length in the HITRAN database. So if you want to maintain that EMR travels as waves, what is waving? How does the wave propagate physically? And how can you explain the clear observation that energy in EMR in space is equal to frequency times a constant while energy in waves is proportional to the square of the amplitude?

I am convinced from extensive work that EMR travels in space as frequency. If you want to prove me wrong or argue for something different, you need to talk science, not history. I have laid out my case clearly. Have you even consulted it or are you just arguing that everybody knows that is not true? I really do not care what you think, unless you present some science to back up your thoughts. I am looking for thoughtful discussion, not opinion.

What could be more scientific than experiments? The double-slit and similar experiments are performed every day by young physics students throughout the world; these experiments clearly demonstrate the wavelike properties of EMR. Similarly, experiments based on the photoelectric effect demonstrate the particle-like properties of EMR.

The current view, which regards EMR as a series of "wave packets", accommodates both of these aspects of the behaviour of EMR and forms the basis for a large part of modern technology. If your theory is to be taken seriously, then it must explain all of these observations at least as well as the currently accepted theories that you claim are at fault. So far, you've not been very convincing.
05-12-2014 17:48
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
If you have not watched my video and studied my website, you are in no position to decide whether I am convincing or not. Science takes work. Your comments are mere opinions unless you back them up with cogent thought and careful research.

Also the website contains every paper I have submitted for publication and the key parts of the editorial response. Journals such as Science and Nature reject more than 90% of papers without review so I am not singled out there. Although I chuckle over their standard rejection letter that states my work is not of broad enough interest. Their editorial policies are very conservative and they rarely contain ground-breaking research. The fact that not one of the 150 editors of Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, the ideal journal for my work, would even consider the paper, is a sadder day for Science. Plus they suggested that if I was friends with any of the editors, I was welcome to try to convince them personally. Do you belong to the club? ACP conducts most of its review on line where anyone can raise issues, a very good way to deal with new ideas.

I published the 2009 paper in TSF because the editor of that journal had reviewed my paper many times during its preparation, was aware of the groundless rejections, and offered to publish it. I also gave the opening plenary talk for the associated organization at their national meeting described in my 2010 paper.

The fact is that given decades of climate debate, the last thing any atmospheric scientist wants to consider is that there might be some problem with greenhouse-gas theory. That is human nature and I understand it. The fact, now acknowledged by most climatologists, that global mean surface temperatures have not changed much in the past 16 years while CO2 concentrations continue to rise at ever increasing rates strongly suggests there is some problem. Dozens of papers have addressed this problem without very convincing results. Ozone depletion theory explains the inflection points around 1970 and 1998 quite clearly. In other words, ozone depletion theory is the only line of reasoning that can explain the details of temperature observed since 1945 both clearly and simply based on observations.

I explain quite clearly in the video and on the website, that increased temperature in matter corresponds to increased frequency and increased amplitude of the oscillations of the bonds holding matter together. Oscillation of the bonds on the surface of matter induces EMR that travels through space as frequency in exactly the same manner as a radio station broadcasts its frequency. I explain why EMR cannot be photons and cannot be waves. I also explain that EMR causes wavelike phenomena when interacting with matter. The differences in molecular bonds are significant at the microscopic level but are relatively insignificant at the macroscopic level of the double-slit experiment. EMR does not interfere with EMR. This is well observed and well known. If it did, the Universe would look very different. The interference induced by a double slit comes from the matter. At this macroscopic level, it would take very careful experiments to see any difference for different materials. I know of no such efforts.

If you want to maintain that EMR travels through space as waves, you need to describe precisely the physics of how this can happen. Scoff as much as you want, the luminiferous aether work proves beyond any reasonable doubt that EMR cannot travel through space as waves despite what mathematical equations say. Think in detail about what is physically happening. I have and I explain it in detail. Listen to and read what I have said, and then your comments might be worth listening to.
06-12-2014 04:59
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
My apologies for taking so long to get this response together. I've been traveling.

Abraham said:
1) When you tell us that electromagnetic energy traveling through the vacuum of space (or gases of the atmosphere) is "only a frequency", what action do you believe is taking place at that frequency? In a beam of light with a frequency of 100 terahertz, what is happening at 100 terahertz?


Peter L Ward said:
The electromagnetic field is oscillating at that frequency. Heat in matter is the result of oscillation of the bonds that hold matter together. These oscillations on the surface of matter induce an electric field that induces a magnetic field, that induces and electric field, and so on. The oscillations in this field propagate at the speed of light exactly the same way a radio station transmits its frequency. Your radio receiver is tuned to resonate at the frequency of the station that you want to listen to.


Excellent. That is the common understanding and we are in agreement. However, we still have the issue of wavelength. I know you're aware of the definitional expression (lambda = 1 / frequency). What I do not know is how you comprehend the oscillating nature of light, propagating through space at c, without it possessing a wavelength? First, do you understand the quandary I'm trying to express? From my point of view and that of every other respondent here, claiming that a propagating signal can have a frequency but not a wavelength is akin to saying it has a Farenheit temperature but not one in centigrage or that it has mass but not momentum or velocity without direction. So, I would really appreciate it if you could clarify what you actually mean with this point.

Abraham said:
2) When you tell us that all the infrared radiation in the universe cannot burn us, did you mean that it would not give us a classic sunburn or that it simply would not increase our temperature?


Peter L Ward said:
We have gone through this already. I am talking sunburn as defined in Wikipedia. It is energy (frequency) being high enough to cause a chemical reaction. The higher the frequency, the hotter the radiation.


Good. I rather wish you'd used the term "sunburn" vice just "burn" as it is most certainly possible to suffer a burn injury from IR. Here and elsewhere you seem to exchange energy per quanta with total energy a little freely.

Abraham said:
3) What vulcanism - what specific eruptions - could have produced the rate of global heating observed from 1910 to 1941


Peter L Ward said:
Warming comes from small, primarily effusive volcanism. From https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/warm-drought-2012.html: "The drought of 2012 approached the intensity of the great Dust Bowl droughts of 1934 and 1936 (Brönnimann, 2009) when a highly unusual sequence of seven VEI 4 and 5 eruptions occurred from 1931 through 1933 in Indonesia, Japan, Kurile Islands, Kamchatka, Alaska, Guatemala, and Chile (Global Volcanism Program, 2013), providing at least a partial explanation for the well-known warming of mean northern hemispheric surface temperatures during the 1930s followed by cooling in the 1940s (black line, right) (Jones, 2013)."

The precise correlation of all known volcanism and quietly degassing volcanoes with climate has yet to be worked out but the biggest volcanoes and lava flows are quite clear.


Yes, they are quite clear. And it is clear that the rate and volume of eruptions through that period do not match the observed warming. There is simply not enough outgassed chlorine and sulfur.

Abraham said:
4) Where, in the functioning of mammalian visual systems, do you see the correlated particles with shared quantum states required by every definition of the term "quantum entanglement"?


Peter L Ward said:
As I have explained now several times, the spookey action at a distance caused by the frequency content of radiation is what allows you to see. It is this spookey action that the mathematics of quantum mechanics seeks to explain. Given that quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics are based on wave-particle duality that I show does not exist, the precise mathematics is not what I expect to see happening.


I realize that your contentions attempt to refute the fundamentals of quantum mechanics but I was attempting to restrict these questions and here I was only attempting to find some agreement on the specific meaning of "quantum entanglement". Whether you reject it or not, quantum entanglement concerns particles with common quantum states. The classic example is a pair of particles created simultaneously by the same event (ex: virtual particle pairs), forcing them to have complementary quantum characteristics such as spin, charge, color, etc. If the wave function of one of the particles is collapsed by observation, it provides knowledge of the state of both particles and it has been found experimentally that the wave function of the other particle also simultaneously - and otherwise spontaneously - collapses and can do so in apparent violation of the causality restrictions created by a subject's light cone. This is what Einstein was talking about when he used the phrase "spooky action at a distance". I'm sorry but none of this applies to any step in the process of vision.

Abraham said:
5) Without a greenhouse effect, what has been keeping the Earth's temperature so far above it's black body temperature?


Peter L Ward said:
The temperature of Earth's surface is determined primarily by the highest energy solar radiation to reach Earth. The change in temperature of the Earth's surface is caused primarily by changes in the highest energy solar radiation reaching Earth. All the usual calculations for answering your question do not appear necessary or correct. This is part of the problem with the greenhouse energy calculations. One of my last slides shows the structure of the atmosphere on the left and the frequency (energy) of radiation reaching 5 different altitudes on the right. I touch on the above without a lot of description. I also talk about it on the website (Follow the Energy).


The effective temperature of an idealized planet at the orbital radius of the sun - that is, one with no atmosphere but an albedo matching the Earth's - would be -18C. That takes into account the full spectrum of solar radiation. You say "All the usual calculations for answering your question do not appear necessary or correct". That value was calculated with the Stefan - Boltzmann equation. If you'd like to suggest SB is "not... correct", you will have to take Planck's Relation and Planck's Law out with it as well as they are all fundamentally conjoined.

So, the reason the Earth is 14C vice -18C is its atmosphere. It's atmosphere must be trapping solar radiation and converting at least some of it to sensible heat. And whether we are talking about trapping infrared, visible light or ultraviolet, such a process falls under the rubrik "greenhouse effect".

Abraham said:
6. The total IR output of the sun represents considerably more energy than the total IR output of a drop of hot wax. Yet Planck's law would produce the same value from their parameters. IS there a difference in their energy output and if so, what is its cause?


Peter L Ward said:
The spectral radiance (amplitude) decreases as a function of the inverse square of the distance radiated. You have to correct for distance. See the dashed red line in https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/ImagePages/plancks-law.html


There is no distance term in Planck's law. There is an area term (usually set to a unitary value). The point I was attempting to make is that the sun's IR is being radiated from a much larger area than is the IR of a drop of hot wax. Many more photons. By the way E=hv is the basis of quantum mechanics. You cannot accept it and reject photons.

Abraham said:
7. On several occasions, you state that the assumption that energy content can be dependent on bandwidth is false. Yet on other occasions, you point out that the Planck spectrum at a given temperature cannot raise a body's temperature to a higher value because it lacks the greater spread of frequencies, ie, bandwidth. Which is it?


Peter L Ward said:
Temperature relies on broad bandwidth as shown by the Planck law. But the energy is different for every frequency in this bandwidth. The energy is simply frequency time Planck constant. Higher temperature is associated with higher frequency and higher energy thru the Planck law, not thru some simple equation.


I get the impression you're getting the cart before the horse here. Those curves that Planck's law produces are not what is necessary to produce a certain temperature nor are they the precise radiated spectrum that a body at a given temperature will produce. That is the spectral radiance - ie, a power curve - for the power radiated at each frequency by a BLACK BODY at the given temperature. Of course it can be modified with an emmissivity term, but as written, Planck's law produces the theoretical maximum radiance per frequency (or per wavelength) of a body at a given temperature. The spectral radiance of a real world object will be significantly less.

Abraham said:
8. Planck's law calculates the maximum possible spectral radiance (ie, that of a black body) "in terms of the power emitted per unit frequency, per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over". Thus, across a spectrum, the term must be integrated with respect to frequency or wavelength. The obvious result is that radiance across a band is additive and increasing bandwidth increases energy content.


Peter L Ward said:
Most physicists from Maxwell's time to this day have thought of radiation as waves and wavelength. Most plots of the Planck law are for wavelength. But the most fundamental discovery I have made is that EMR is space is not waves. We can calculate wavelength and have many equations using it, but waves cannot exist in space. Furthermore spectral radiance should be amplitude, not watts per whatever. This is explained on the website. The problem goes back to how radiation was measured at that time and is still measured by most instruments monitoring the thermal effects of radiation on a thermocouple, thermopile, or tidbit of matter.


You agree that light is actually crossed, oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Light is moving. In the time it takes the electric and magnetic fields to complete one cycle of oscillation, the light has traveled a certain distance. That is the wavelength of light.

Light is NOT a mechanical wave and does not propagate as does a mechanical wave. Even when going through solid matter, light does not deform intra-molecular bonds. Instead it causes a transient increase in the energy state of electrons before effectively moving on to the next atom to repeat the process. Between these absorptions and emissions, it travels precisely as it does in a vacuum because, between atoms, it IS in a vacuum.

Abraham said:
9. On the same page you identify the base of the denominator of the final term as "the Euler Constant e". That is not the Euler Constant (written and having a value of approximately 0.577...), it is the base of the natural logarithm e approximately equal to 2.718281828...


Peter L Ward said:
What page are you talking about? The e in the denominator of the Planck equation is the natural logarithm. I do not remember using the term Euler constant anywhere in reference to the Planck law.


This is from "The Primary Problem with Greenhouse Gas Theory" page on your Ozone Depletion Theory website:

In his website, Peter L Ward said:
To derive his law, Planck had to postulate that the energy (E) contained in radiation equals the frequency of the radiation (v) times a constant (h) that has become known as the Planck constant. E=hv shows up in Planck's law in the numerator of the exponent of Euler's constant (e) where the denominator of the exponent (kB T) is the Boltzmann constant (kB) times temperature (T), the thermal energy carried by each microscopic degree of freedom within the system.


PS, I had an occasion to open Wikipedia's article "Timeline of Volcanic Eruptions on Earth". I found your name prominently mentioned.
Edited on 06-12-2014 05:07
06-12-2014 14:22
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Abraham said:
"My apologies for taking so long to get this response together. I've been traveling."

I am traveling too. I would much rather get well thought out comments later, than instant comments now.

Abraham said:
"Excellent. That is the common understanding and we are in agreement. However, we still have the issue of wavelength. I know you're aware of the definitional expression (lambda = 1 / frequency). What I do not know is how you comprehend the oscillating nature of light, propagating through space at c, without it possessing a wavelength? First, do you understand the quandary I'm trying to express? From my point of view and that of every other respondent here, claiming that a propagating signal can have a frequency but not a wavelength is akin to saying it has a Fahrenheit temperature but not one in centigrade or that it has mass but not momentum or velocity without direction. So, I would really appreciate it if you could clarify what you actually mean with this point."

Wavelength in matter is a physical entity that we can observe and measure and have a mathematical equation relating it to frequency and the velocity. But in space, waves cannot exist because matter does not exist and the bonds holding matter together do not exist. It is the restoring force of the chemical bonds that allow waves to propagate. So in space, wavelength cannot be observed or measured, but it can be calculated. Thus in space, wavelength is a mathematical entity, not a physical entity. This is an extremely important concept that is hard to get one's arms around because we have talked about radio waves and light waves for at least 150 years. But Maxwell's equations do not apply directly in space even though he and we have assumed they do.

The reason EMR travels in space is because EMR is oscillating. An alternating current in a wire induces an electric field that induces a magnetic field, that induces an electric field, ad infinitum. This field appears to propagate at the velocity of light, one over the square root of the electric permittivity times the magnetic permeability as Maxwell proposed.

Abraham said:
"Good. I rather wish you'd used the term "sunburn" vice just "burn" as it is most certainly possible to suffer a burn injury from IR."

You can get hot from infrared, but you cannot get burned by infrared as burn is precisely defined and not just sunburn. You cannot damage DNA with infrared radiation. There simply is not enough energy. I will use the word sunburn, however, to keep people on track.

Abraham said:
"Here and elsewhere you seem to exchange energy per quanta with total energy a little freely."

Note that energy is quantized by frequency not by energy. Each frequency has an energy. This hints at a major problem with quantum mechanics as formulated. You do not need to kick an electron to a higher state to have more energy although the effect of having more energy may cause an electron to relocate. Planck's postulate of E=nhv is not quite right because energy changes with frequency, not with multiples of energy. If you have trouble accepting this, please think about it carefully.

Abraham said:
"What vulcanism - what specific eruptions - could have produced the rate of global heating observed from 1910 to 1941. Yes, they are quite clear. And it is clear that the rate and volume of eruptions through that period do not match the observed warming. There is simply not enough outgassed chlorine and sulfur."

You cannot make that claim without doing the hard work. Very small volcanic eruptions can have major effects on warming. Eruptions from Hekla and other basaltic volcanoes in Iceland with VEI <=3 have had substantial effects on warming. And the historic record for eruptions this small is quite incomplete. It is also clear that the Little Ice Age was caused by major explosive volcanism, but the detailed correlation needs to be modelled with care. I have gone through the sulfate data from GISP2 in great detail at layer resolution (about 2 years per layer). The correspondence between sulfate and temperature proxy is most impressive at this resolution, but numeric modelling is needed once we agree on the difference between explosive and effusive volcanism.

Abraham said:
"I realize that your contentions attempt to refute the fundamentals of quantum mechanics but I was attempting to restrict these questions and here I was only attempting to find some agreement on the specific meaning of "quantum entanglement". Whether you reject it or not, quantum entanglement concerns particles with common quantum states. The classic example is a pair of particles created simultaneously by the same event (ex: virtual particle pairs), forcing them to have complementary quantum characteristics such as spin, charge, color, etc. If the wave function of one of the particles is collapsed by observation, it provides knowledge of the state of both particles and it has been found experimentally that the wave function of the other particle also simultaneously - and otherwise spontaneously - collapses and can do so in apparent violation of the causality restrictions created by a subject's light cone. This is what Einstein was talking about when he used the phrase "spooky action at a distance". I'm sorry but none of this applies to any step in the process of vision."

You are correct that the mathematical formalism of quantum entanglement does not seem to apply to visual systems and I have never claimed that it does. Since I have shown you that photons are not a physical reality, but are a very useful mathematical abbreviation, then the quantum formulation is not quite correct. But the physical process that this formalism seeks to quantify applies directly. According to Wikipedia: "Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole." The change in state of the rods and cones in your eyes can only be explained by the state of the molecule you are looking at. Your eye and the molecule can be very distant from each other and there is no apparent physical connection between them, although we now know that what joins them is frequency.

Abraham said:
"The effective temperature of an idealized planet at the orbital radius of the sun - that is, one with no atmosphere but an albedo matching the Earth's - would be -18C. That takes into account the full spectrum of solar radiation. You say "All the usual calculations for answering your question do not appear necessary or correct". That value was calculated with the Stefan - Boltzmann equation. If you'd like to suggest SB is "not... correct", you will have to take Planck's Relation and Planck's Law out with it as well as they are all fundamentally conjoined.
So, the reason the Earth is 14C vice -18C is its atmosphere. It's atmosphere must be trapping solar radiation and converting at least some of it to sensible heat. And whether we are talking about trapping infrared, visible light or ultraviolet, such a process falls under the rubrik "greenhouse effect"."

What you say is the standard way of looking at the problem today. All of this is assuming current radiation codes that I have shown are not correct. I can argue that the temperature of Earth's surface is determined primarily by the hottest solar radiation to reach the surface and that changes in the temperature of Earth's surface is determined primarily by changes in the hottest solar radiation to reach the surface. This is what ozone depletion tells us. Now how much heat is lost by Earth is an important question because the Earth system is in thermal balance. But we do not have the most significant term in the equation nailed down yet. And many of the ways of currently calculating heat loss are simply wrong physically. I explain these in the video and website and will explain them more cogently in the short paper I am working on about "The Physics of Global Warming."

Abraham said:
"There is no distance term in Planck's law. There is an area term (usually set to a unitary value). The point I was attempting to make is that the sun's IR is being radiated from a much larger area than is the IR of a drop of hot wax. Many more photons."

Planck's law is the radiation from the surface of a black body. It is well known and understood that the spectral radiance is proportional to the inverse square of the distance travelled from the surface and that the frequencies of the radiation do not change except for Doppler effects. The radiation is spreading out over the surface of a sphere whose area increases with distance. And photons do not exist physically.

Abraham said:
"By the way E=hv is the basis of quantum mechanics. You cannot accept it and reject photons."

A misunderstanding of E=hv is the basis for quantum mechanics. E=hv is an observed physical reality as I try to explain in the video looking at the whole electromagnetic spectrum.

Abraham said:
"I get the impression you're getting the cart before the horse here. Those curves that Planck's law produces are not what is necessary to produce a certain temperature nor are they the precise radiated spectrum that a body at a given temperature will produce. That is the spectral radiance - ie, a power curve - for the power radiated at each frequency by a BLACK BODY at the given temperature. Of course it can be modified with an emmissivity term, but as written, Planck's law produces the theoretical maximum radiance per frequency (or per wavelength) of a body at a given temperature. The spectral radiance of a real world object will be significantly less."

Planck's Law closely approximates the spectral radiance observed to be radiated from the surface of a black body at thermal equilibrium. Planck's law is empirical. He later tried to derive it, but it is defined by observations.

And the most important observation from Planck's law is that a body at a given temperature radiates over a broad range of frequencies where the spectral radiance has a characteristic distribution. These are observations. Now radiation with narrow bandwidth can warm a black body if the radiation is "hot enough", but when thermal equilibrium is reached, the net effect of this warming will be described by a Planck curve.

Abraham said:
"Planck's law calculates the maximum possible spectral radiance (ie, that of a black body) "in terms of the power emitted per unit frequency, per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over". Thus, across a spectrum, the term must be integrated with respect to frequency or wavelength. The obvious result is that radiance across a band is additive and increasing bandwidth increases energy content."

This is precisely the mistake being made to justify greenhouse gases. For E=hv, energy is not additive. I illustrate this with the prism diagram in the video and in the general summary. One also has to rethink what spectral radiance is as I explain on the web and in the video. Spectral radiance is amplitude of oscillation, brightness, and does not include energy (watts). It makes no sense to plot energy as a function of energy. The confusion stems from how radiant energy was measured in 1900 as explained on the website.

Abraham said:
"You agree that light is actually crossed, oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Light is moving. In the time it takes the electric and magnetic fields to complete one cycle of oscillation, the light has traveled a certain distance. That is the wavelength of light. Light is NOT a mechanical wave and does not propagate as does a mechanical wave. Even when going through solid matter, light does not deform intra-molecular bonds. Instead it causes a transient increase in the energy state of electrons before effectively moving on to the next atom to repeat the process. Between these absorptions and emissions, it travels precisely as it does in a vacuum because, between atoms, it IS in a vacuum."

You are not understanding what I have repeated over and over. There is no way for waves to travel in space. But light does interact with matter in a wavelike matter: reflection, refraction, birefringence, etc. by deforming the bonds holding matter together.

Abraham said:
"You identify the base of the denominator of the final term as "the Euler Constant e". That is not the Euler Constant (written and having a value of approximately 0.577...), it is the base of the natural logarithm e approximately equal to 2.718281828..."

You are correct. e in Planck's law is the Euler's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29), the base of the natural logarithm, not the Euler constant. Thank you for catching this.

Abraham said: "PS, I had an occasion to open Wikipedia's article "Timeline of Volcanic Eruptions on Earth". I found your name prominently mentioned."

Thanks for pointing this out. I put a huge amount of work into creating that table of volcanism.
06-12-2014 14:28
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Peter L Ward said:
If you have not watched my video and studied my website, you are in no position to decide whether I am convincing or not.


I have watched your entire video and read perhaps a fourth of your website.

Peter L Ward said:
Science takes work. Your comments are mere opinions unless you back them up with cogent thought and careful research.


All the research in the world will only show me that every other scientist I will find believes that light travels through space in waves, that light is essentially packetized into discrete quanta that may be termed photons and which occasionally act like particles and that quantum mechanics has been ENORMOUSLY successful as a predictive theory. More thought and more research will tell me that the vast majority of scientists, particularly climate scientists, believe - based on the evidence - that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate in the face of human GHG emissions and deforestation.

Peter L Ward said:
Also the website contains every paper I have submitted for publication and the key parts of the editorial response. Journals such as Science and Nature reject more than 90% of papers without review so I am not singled out there.


That's one way to put it.

Peter L Ward said:
Although I chuckle over their standard rejection letter that states my work is not of broad enough interest. Their editorial policies are very conservative and they rarely contain ground-breaking research. The fact that not one of the 150 editors of Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, the ideal journal for my work, would even consider the paper, is a sadder day for Science. Plus they suggested that if I was friends with any of the editors, I was welcome to try to convince them personally. Do you belong to the club? ACP conducts most of its review on line where anyone can raise issues, a very good way to deal with new ideas.


I read this before reading the response from JACP on your website. I did not see any suggestion that you could proceed if you were friends with any of their reviewers.

Peter L Ward said:
I published the 2009 paper in TSF because the editor of that journal had reviewed my paper many times during its preparation, was aware of the groundless rejections, and offered to publish it. I also gave the opening plenary talk for the associated organization at their national meeting described in my 2010 paper.


So... they published it because you were a friend of the editor? Was this same person your gateway into the Vacuum Coaters Bulletin? I would think it might bother you to publish your work in journals whose topic has nothing whatsoever to do with your work.

Peter L Ward said:
The fact is that given decades of climate debate, the last thing any atmospheric scientist wants to consider is that there might be some problem with greenhouse-gas theory. That is human nature and I understand it.


So you've said. Surely you understand that this neither invalidates their rejection nor adds value to your work. The same complaint could be made by anyone submitting any idea completely irrespective of merit.

Peter L Ward said:
The fact, now acknowledged by most climatologists, that global mean surface temperatures have not changed much in the past 16 years while CO2 concentrations continue to rise at ever increasing rates strongly suggests there is some problem.


That a system as massively complex as the Earth's climate and whose trends for this parameter have displayed significantly greater levels of noise in the past does NOT provide justification for the rejection of fundamental processes established over more than a century of observation and experimentation. Particularly when other observations: the acceleration of deep ocean warming and and continued radiative imbalance at ToA refute the simplistic assumption that Earth's accumulation of solar energy has ceased.

Peter L Ward said:
Dozens of papers have addressed this problem without very convincing results.


Results not very convincing to whom? On multiple occasions, in these discussions as well as your website and your video, you have exhorted your critics to practice good science. Yet I find you work peppered with comments like this one. Unsubstantiated assertions, particularly concerning the work of others, are not the practice of good science. Obviously, if you wish to convince your readership that yours is the superior explanation, you are justified in pointing out flaws in the currently held opinion but you are not justified in doing so without clear explanation, evidence and experimental results validating those comments.

Peter L Ward said:
Ozone depletion theory explains the inflection points around 1970 and 1998 quite clearly. In other words, ozone depletion theory is the only line of reasoning that can explain the details of temperature observed since 1945 both clearly and simply based on observations.


But it does NOT explain the inflection points at 1910 or 1941; either via CFCs or vulcanism.

Peter L Ward said:
I explain quite clearly in the video and on the website, that increased temperature in matter corresponds to increased frequency and increased amplitude of the oscillations of the bonds holding matter together.


But you omit to mention that in kinetic theory, temperature is proportional to the velocity of all particulate components of matter. Oscillations in the intramolecular bonds of asymmetric, triatomic molecules such as CO2: symmetric and antisymmetric stretching, scissoring, rocking, wagging and twisting all alter the dipole moment of those molecules. However, the motion of electrons within atoms due to their occupation of different energy levels incited by the absorption or emission of photons - is every bit as much a component of the heat process. The absorption of a photon - or a quantum of EM energy if you prefer - increases the temperature of that matter whatever its phase.

Peter L Ward said:
Oscillation of the bonds on the surface of matter induces EMR that travels through space as frequency in exactly the same manner as a radio station broadcasts its frequency.


Actually, your analogy is not really accurate. Infrared energy is produced by the resonant charge accelerations and dipole oscillations of all matter above absolute zero (ie, all matter). Radio waves are produced by transmit antennas because the driving signal forced into the antenna's conductors by high potentials produces orthogonal electric and magnetic fields, oscillating at the driven frequency, that radiate away from the antenna.

Peter L Ward said:
I explain why EMR cannot be photons and cannot be waves.


I'm sorry, but you do not. You simply make observations and then pose questions based on assumptions that every other physicist would reject.

Peter L Ward said:
I also explain that EMR causes wavelike phenomena when interacting with matter. The differences in molecular bonds are significant at the microscopic level but are relatively insignificant at the macroscopic level of the double-slit experiment.


I do not understand what you're trying to say here.

Peter L Ward said:
EMR does not interfere with EMR. This is well observed and well known.


As is the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering.

Peter L Ward said:
If it did, the Universe would look very different. The interference induced by a double slit comes from the matter.


It does not. As poster Surface Detail pointed out, the material has no effect on the pattern seen. I would add that if light itself were not quantized, energy would be left over from the sort of selective absorption you posit. We do not see that to be the case.

Peter L Ward said:
At this macroscopic level, it would take very careful experiments to see any difference for different materials. I know of no such efforts.


Your thought here reminds me of Invisi-Boy in the movie "Mystery Men" who had the power to make himself invisible, but only when no one was looking. He was obviously hiding in some of the more obscure of Feynman's many world's ;-)

From Wikipedia's article on the photon:

Wikipedia: PHOTON
Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[2][3] starting with Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized. In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these particles, and after 1927, when Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize for his scattering studies, most scientists accepted the validity that quanta of light have an independent existence, and the term photon for light quanta was accepted.

[quote]Peter L Ward said:
If you want to maintain that EMR travels through space as waves, you need to describe precisely the physics of how this can happen.


Asked and answered since Einstein. If you want to maintain that they do not, you need to describe what it is that prevents oscillating electric and magnetic fields from propagating through a vacuum.

Peter L Ward said:
Scoff as much as you want, the luminiferous aether work proves beyond any reasonable doubt that EMR cannot travel through space as waves despite what mathematical equations say.


The unsuccessful search for the luminerferous aether is not proof that EMR cannot travel as waves through a vacuum. It is evidence that no media is required. Light is not a mechanical wave.

Peter L Ward said: Think in detail about what is physically happening.


The world's physicist have been doing so for a great long while; tens of thousands of them, many of whom took up this field in their youth and spent all their lives researching this topic.

Peter L Ward said:
I have and I explain it in detail. Listen to and read what I have said, and then your comments might be worth listening to.


You have not explained it in detail. You have made a number of subjective observations and conjectures based on flawed assumptions and faulty understandings.

For instance:

1) Numerous experiments show that the wave-particle duality of EMR is an inherent property
2) EMR travels in a wave-like manner through matter and vacuum
3) EMR traveling between atoms or molecules IS traveling through a vacuum
4) The temperature of a gas is raised by the absorption of photons
5) The radiative forcing of CO2's absorption of IR in the Earth's atmosphere is significantly greater than that from ozone depletion
6) Ozone depletion does not explain the accelerated warming of the deep ocean
7) Ozone depletion does not explain the continued and increasing radiative imbalance at the ToA.
8) Ozone depletion theory does not explain the observed rate of warming throughout the 20th century
9) Ozone depletion theory does not explain the temperature trend changes of 1910 or 1941.
10) The contention that an oscillating signal propagating through space has frequency but not wavelength is semantical and logical nonsense.
Edited on 06-12-2014 15:08
06-12-2014 14:59
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
One drawback to taking all this time for careful thought is that our conversation tends to get out of phase.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Global warming is caused by ozone depletion, not greenhouse gases:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law32120-08-2019 07:20
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann815-04-2019 00:43
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact