The reason for this year’s warmer and drier winter is El Nino, a shift in the winds and ocean currents in the Pacific, Phillips said.

But what’s also at play, Phillips said, is the thinning of the polar ice cap.

Which is it? Or is this the I have to create doom and gloom so I get paid.

“In the last three to four years the ice in the Arctic has thinned,” he said. “And that means the refrigeration at the top of the world is not cooling like it did in the past.”

Isn't that statement ass backwards? Doesn't something have to cool the pole so the ice will form?

ever put an ice cube on a hot plate thats whats happening. warmer weather patterns are pushing north preventing the normal freezing to occur

Why is freezing good? Please be specific in your answer. Different is not bad per se.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

read a 1 page blurb in the latest discover magazine. using Kayaks to measure ice melt on Petermann Glacier have confirmed that the Glacier is melting 20X faster from the bottom than the top.

I can only assume that since a warmer liquid will melt ice faster than warmer air, that indeed the oceans waters are warming and melting polar ice

Glaciers are on land. So you have discovered a volcano under Greenland.

That can complement the volcano under the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

March 14, 2010 trivia

The size of a glacier is the determined by the ratio of winter addition to summer melt.

Colder winters carry less water (as snow) and thus add less in winter. Warmer summers can cause increased melt.

Warmer winters carry more water and cause the glacier to grow more in winter.

1) So if both summer and winter are both cooler or both warmer (the mean temperature shifts) glaciers are roughly in equilibrium -- all else being equal.

2) If the difference in extremes between summer and winter become smaller glaciers will grow and if greater they become smaller -- assuming greater or lesser around the same mean.

Case 1) is the simplistic view of global warming.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

So, what are the things that can happen to an atom or a molecule when it absorbs a single quanta of solar radiation (a photon)?

When it absorbs a single quantum (the singular as in quantum physics, for the record, Quantas is an airline) the molecule increases its rate of vibration and rotation. ... so far from addressing the aggregate effect on a gas that at the present rate it might be another week or two before you say something relevant...

Don't worry, we are getting there amidst all the spitting and cussing...

Thanks, almost spilt my coffee with the change of scale for the Quantas joke!


So... Now we get to use your favourite two words...

What is atomic/molecular vibration and rotation also known as? What does it mean to increase that vibration and rotation?


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

When it absorbs a single quantum (the singular as in quantum physics, for the record, Quantas is an airline) the molecule increases its rate of vibration and rotation.

BZZZZZZT!

Sorry, the electron jumps up from the ground state to a higher state. Very soon the electron will jump back down to a ground state emitting a new photon of the same energy as the one absorbed.

I would have to look it up to see if the length of the bonds increases. I would rather not bother as you playing a very silly game and are so far from addressing the aggregate effect on a gas that at the present rate it might be another week or two before you say something relevant to the claims of melters.

---

When it absorbs a single quantum (the singular as in quantum physics, for the record, Quantas is an airline) the molecule increases its rate of vibration and rotation.

BZZZZZZT!

Sorry, the electron jumps up from the ground state to a higher state. Very soon the electron will jump back down to a ground state emitting a new photon of the same energy as the one absorbed.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

There's a lot of the 'sometimes not' where interesting and useful other things happen. Life depends upon it.

The good vibrations is one of the 'sometimes not'.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So, what are the things that can happen to an atom or a molecule when it absorbs a single quanta of solar radiation (a photon)?

When it absorbs a single quantum (the singular as in quantum physics, for the record, Quantas is an airline) the molecule increases its rate of vibration and rotation. ... so far from addressing the aggregate effect on a gas that at the present rate it might be another week or two before you say something relevant...

Don't worry, we are getting there amidst all the spitting and cussing...

Thanks, almost spilt my coffee with the change of scale for the Quantas joke!

I have found a way to use coffee to become a snob cheaply if you are interested.

So... Now we get to use your favourite two words...

What is atomic/molecular vibration and rotation also known as? What does it mean to increase that vibration and rotation?

Regards,
Martin

What do we call a single molecule in a higher vibrational state? Trick question. The answer is, a single molecule in a higher vibrational state. A higher linear velocity could be interpreted as temperature but it is extremely rare to do so for single molecules.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

When it absorbs a single quantum (the singular as in quantum physics, for the record, Quantas is an airline) the molecule increases its rate of vibration and rotation.

BZZZZZZT!

Sorry, the electron jumps up from the ground state to a higher state. Very soon the electron will jump back down to a ground state emitting a new photon of the same energy as the one absorbed.

...

Yes and when talking about a single atom that is the simplest way to describe it. In molecules electrons are shared between atoms. The storage of the absorbed energy in vibration and rotation each being described as a degree of freedom. Oil has many more degrees of freedom than water which is why it holds more heat than the same volume of water.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

When it absorbs a single quantum (the singular as in quantum physics, for the record, Quantas is an airline) the molecule increases its rate of vibration and rotation.

BZZZZZZT!

Sorry, the electron jumps up from the ground state to a higher state. Very soon the electron will jump back down to a ground state emitting a new photon of the same energy as the one absorbed.

...

Yes and when talking about a single atom that is the simplest way to describe it. In molecules electrons are shared between atoms. The storage of the absorbed energy in vibration and rotation each being described as a degree of freedom. Oil has many more degrees of freedom than water which is why it holds more heat than the same volume of water.

Same applies to a molecule as an atom. Work out Schrödinger's equation.

In any case I thought the subject here was CO2. CO2 lases so it very much can absorb and emit photos of the correct energies in the manner described for atoms.

Heat however is a different matter. In that case a photon of random energy may run into the molecule. When that happens there is a transfer of momentum. The photon can't slow down so via E=mc2 it changes frequency. The molecule changes momentum by the opposite amount as there is conservation of momentum.

---

When it absorbs a single quantum (the singular as in quantum physics, for the record, Quantas is an airline) the molecule increases its rate of vibration and rotation.

BZZZZZZT!

Sorry, the electron jumps up from the ground state to a higher state. Very soon the electron will jump back down to a ground state emitting a new photon of the same energy as the one absorbed.

...

Yes and when talking about a single atom that is the simplest way to describe it. In molecules electrons are shared between atoms. The storage of the absorbed energy in vibration and rotation each being described as a degree of freedom. Oil has many more degrees of freedom than water which is why it holds more heat than the same volume of water.

Same applies to a molecule as an atom. Work out Schrödinger's equation.

The last I heard around 1998 the equation was solved for lithium but computers are still not fast enough to solve it for beryllium. Pardon if I decline the invitation.

In any case I thought the subject here was CO2. CO2 lases so it very much can absorb and emit photos of the correct energies in the manner described for atoms.

The subject is the impact of CO2 on CLIMATE. I am still waiting for this diversion to play out and the discussion return to the subject.

Heat however is a different matter. In that case a photon of random energy may run into the molecule. When that happens there is a transfer of momentum. The photon can't slow down so via E=mc2 it changes frequency. The molecule changes momentum by the opposite amount as there is conservation of momentum.

Last I heard there is momentum change when something reflects light as in a solar sail.

The mechanism here is the absorption of a far IR photon resulting in the increase in rotational and vibrational energy. This extra energy is transferred to other molecules as a consequence in inelastic collisions. Because of the energy transfer during collisions the average velocity of molecules increases and thus the increased energy (heat) results in a temperature increase when viewing this as via statistical thermodynamic models.

This is the mechanism of a greenhouse. The light adds energy to the solid material as in plants and dirt and floors which then transfers energy to the air which cannot escape due to it being enclosed.

If you scroll back to my mentions of convection and circulation and radiation into space you can see my attempt to short cut the discussion to climate and stop playing this truism game.

I would have thought the so far uncontested CO2 data I posted would have made my point of the almost unbridgeable distance between human fossil fuel CO2 emissions and the end of life as we know it.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

... The mechanism here is the absorption of a far IR photon resulting in the increase in rotational and vibrational energy. This extra energy is transferred to other molecules as a consequence in inelastic collisions. Because of the energy transfer during collisions the average velocity of molecules increases and thus the increased energy (heat) results in a temperature increase when viewing this as via statistical thermodynamic models.

Interestingly circuitous meandering there...

So... You accept that some wavelengths of light can be absorbed by a gas to then cause an increase in the temperature of the gas?

I would have thought the so far uncontested CO2 data I posted would have made my point of the almost unbridgeable distance between human fossil fuel CO2 emissions and the end of life as we know it.

All you posted were some random numbers without any comment or reference. I thought you were just proving to yourself that indeed anyone can post random numbers.

Would you like to choose one of the numbers and explain how that proves we have no concerns for our planet despite exponential growth of industrialisation and pollution?


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... The mechanism here is the absorption of a far IR photon resulting in the increase in rotational and vibrational energy. This extra energy is transferred to other molecules as a consequence in inelastic collisions. Because of the energy transfer during collisions the average velocity of molecules increases and thus the increased energy (heat) results in a temperature increase when viewing this as via statistical thermodynamic models.

Interestingly circuitous meandering there...

So... You accept that some wavelengths of light can be absorbed by a gas to then cause an increase in the temperature of the gas?

As I posted several times, that is something everyone knows. You now pretend it is an accomplishment on your part that I say is a fourth time. What is your point?

I would have thought the so far uncontested CO2 data I posted would have made my point of the almost unbridgeable distance between human fossil fuel CO2 emissions and the end of life as we know it.

All you posted were some random numbers without any comment or reference. I thought you were just proving to yourself that indeed anyone can post random numbers.

Would you like to choose one of the numbers and explain how that proves we have no concerns for our planet despite exponential growth of industrialisation and pollution?

Regards,
Martin

So far human production is less than the measurement error as shown by the numbers you say you cannot distinguish from random numbers. That means absolutely nothing can be said about it regarding the climate. In this case the word "said" means a number based upon theory that is measurable. Anyone can blather unverifiable qualitative stuff.

Where are you going with this?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Heat however is a different matter. In that case a photon of random energy may run into the molecule. When that happens there is a transfer of momentum. The photon can't slow down so via E=mc2 it changes frequency. The molecule changes momentum by the opposite amount as there is conservation of momentum.

Last I heard there is momentum change when something reflects light as in a solar sail.

Gosh, where did you get that false idea that the momentum of the system changed? You do remember: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." don't you?

The momentum of the photon is changed by the reflection. The opposite reaction is to change the solar sail's momentum. Momentum must be conserved.

The mechanism here is the absorption of a far IR photon resulting in the increase in rotational and vibrational energy.

The photon is not absorbed unless it happens to have a very specific frequency, one which will change an electron's orbital. Otherwise it is exactly the same as a solar sail! Why would it be different? Just because the thing being hit is a gas and not a solid?

---

Heat however is a different matter. In that case a photon of random energy may run into the molecule. When that happens there is a transfer of momentum. The photon can't slow down so via E=mc2 it changes frequency. The molecule changes momentum by the opposite amount as there is conservation of momentum.

Last I heard there is momentum change when something reflects light as in a solar sail.

Gosh, where did you get that false idea that the momentum of the system changed? You do remember: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." don't you?

The momentum of the photon is changed by the reflection. The opposite reaction is to change the solar sail's momentum. Momentum must be conserved.

So when talking about the absorption of a photon you say it is absorbed and the molecule changes momentum and then I point out momentum only changes on reflection and in response you want to talk about the total momentum of the system.

Have I missed something?

The mechanism here is the absorption of a far IR photon resulting in the increase in rotational and vibrational energy.

The photon is not absorbed unless it happens to have a very specific frequency, one which will change an electron's orbital. Otherwise it is exactly the same as a solar sail! Why would it be different? Just because the thing being hit is a gas and not a solid?

Molecules do not behave as atoms when it comes to absorption of photons. Were your statement the case then CO2 would absord only one specific frequency of IR which would be a trivial part of the entire IR spectrum and thus a negligible amount of heating would occur.

Have you thought this through? Do I have to ask?

As I said, I have no problem demonstrating melters have no idea of the science they pretend to talk about.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Heat however is a different matter. In that case a photon of random energy may run into the molecule. When that happens there is a transfer of momentum. The photon can't slow down so via E=mc2 it changes frequency. The molecule changes momentum by the opposite amount as there is conservation of momentum.

Last I heard there is momentum change when something reflects light as in a solar sail.

Gosh, where did you get that false idea that the momentum of the system changed? You do remember: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." don't you?

The momentum of the photon is changed by the reflection. The opposite reaction is to change the solar sail's momentum. Momentum must be conserved.

So when talking about the absorption of a photon you say it is absorbed and the molecule changes momentum and then I point out momentum only changes on reflection and in response you want to talk about the total momentum of the system.

Have I missed something?

Seems likely. Unless an electron jumps an orbit, no change in "vibration." I think you are confusing quantum vibration with what is called vibration in relation to temperature or Brownian motion.

The mechanism here is the absorption of a far IR photon resulting in the increase in rotational and vibrational energy.

The photon is not absorbed unless it happens to have a very specific frequency, one which will change an electron's orbital. Otherwise it is exactly the same as a solar sail! Why would it be different? Just because the thing being hit is a gas and not a solid?

Molecules do not behave as atoms when it comes to absorption of photons. Were your statement the case then CO2 would absord only one specific frequency of IR which would be a trivial part of the entire IR spectrum and thus a negligible amount of heating would occur.

Have you thought this through? Do I have to ask?

Only if you don't understand what is going on.

As I said, I have no problem demonstrating melters have no idea of the science they pretend to talk about.

I guess a physics lesson is in order.

Conservation of momentum. We have two items, "the system", they are the photon and the gas molecule. Photon strikes the molecule in an inelastic collision. The molecule rebounds with some change in its momentum. The photon also changes momentum. It however has more degrees of freedom to do so. It can remain traveling in the same direction, but change frequency so it changes rest mass. It can change direction as well. Or in a rare case of a head on collision the photon might transfer all its momentum to the molecule, call this absorption.

Now the gas molecule will gain the momentum the photon loses. Since it can't change mass it must change velocity. What happens in the gas is it quickly smashes into another gas molecule and transfers some of that extra momentum to that molecule. Then each of them do it again and again in a cascade. Rather quickly all the gas molecules are moving just a hare faster and the gas is warmer. Your "vibration" in the gas.

CO2 is very transparent to sunlight. It passes right on through to the ground. The ground isn't transparent to sunlight. It warms.

Now this is the tricky part. Molecules can spontaneously emit a photon. Obviously the maximum energy that photon can have is the momentum of the molecule, it comes to a stop, because as always, momentum must be conserved.

So the ground gives off photons. They aren't high energy light photons but low energy heat photons. CO2 isn't transparent to low energy heat photons, it reflects them. So they turn around and strike the ground, so it can't cool by emitting photons. This is how a greenhouse works. [1]

Science writers tend to over simplify as I have too.

[1] A glass green house does this with convective heat, a CO2 greenhouse does this for radiative heat.

---

[...]

CO2 is very transparent to sunlight. It passes right on through to the ground. The ground isn't transparent to sunlight. It warms.

Now this is the tricky part. Molecules can spontaneously emit a photon. Obviously the maximum energy that photon can have is the momentum of the molecule, it comes to a stop, because as always, momentum must be conserved.

So the ground gives off photons. They aren't high energy light photons but low energy heat photons. CO2 isn't transparent to low energy heat photons, it reflects them. So they turn around and strike the ground, so it can't cool by emitting photons. This is how a greenhouse works. [1]

Science writers tend to over simplify as I have too.

[1] A glass green house does this with convective heat, a CO2 greenhouse does this for radiative heat.

Thanks for such a clear description!

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So... You accept that some wavelengths of light can be absorbed by a gas to then cause an increase in the temperature of the gas?

As I posted several times, that is something everyone knows.

OK, I'll take it that you readily accept that and take it for granted.

Sorry, but in science nothing is taken for granted and we need to pedantically list what we do or do not agree on. Just to make sure that we are really discussing the same thing in both our minds.

Would you like to choose one of the numbers and explain how that proves we have no concerns for our planet despite exponential growth of industrialisation and pollution?

So far human production is less than the measurement error as shown by the numbers you say you cannot distinguish from random numbers. That means absolutely nothing can be said ...

Where are you going with this?

Can you agree that the following chart is true and accurate?



Chart showing atmospheric electromagnetic radiation absorption, from blog Climate Change: Reprise

A second more colourful version is:




Both charts have percentage absorption on the y-axis and increasing wavelength on the x-axis (uv-light, visible light, through to infra-red that we feel as heat radiation to the right). Temperatures are shown in Kelvin, subtract 273 to convert to degrees Celsius (Centigrade). In the second chart, the red filled area shows the radiation reaching the ground, the blue filled area shows the radiation that escapes to be lost to space.

The O2 + O3 "ozone" protects us from sunburn but also adds a small effect to reflecting infra-red radiation. You can see for yourself the effects of CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water).


Can you agree those charts are accurate?

Do you agree that CO2 has a wavelength dependant opacity for electromagnetic radiation?

Do you agree that the physics there shows a "greenhouse" effect?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Re ML1 post with charts:

I direct you attention to two bands on the chart, CO2 and water vapor. While it is difficult to find areas of the earth with a significant CO2 difference from average it is trivial to find areas where water vapor differs greatly from average. With water vapor we have deserts down to 10%, Antarctic ice fields approaching 1% and tropical rain forests approaching 100%

With differences in water vapor we find local temperatures are moderated. For example the Romans made "ice cream" in the desert with pits that were open at night to radiate heat and shiny shields during the day to keep out sun's heat. Literally 120 to below freezing is normal swing from day to night in a desert.

On the other hand tropical forests have a daily temperature swing on the order of 10 degrees. Here in the Tampa Bay area of Florida in the summer rainy season the swing is about fifteen degrees so forests are not needed.

I have tracked that kind of temperature swing myself in the developed city so mere trees and grass among black top streets and houses has the same effect without swamps, forests, farms or orchards. Local humidity in the rainy season is in the high 70s to low 80s before the late afternoon thunder storms. So humidity in that range is almost as good as a tropical rain forest. In other words there is a threshold effect, an S curve, where most of the moderating effect occurs well before maximum saturation.

The mechanism is quite simple. Heat is absorbed during the day and released at night. The more heat is stored the more there is to release at night. Water vapor increases the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. That is the same thing the charts show is happening with CO2.

CO2 and water vapor are doing the same thing, absorbing IR. Water vapor absorbs many times more than CO2 by the charts you present.

Tell me why a much smaller absorption band for CO2 would do something different from water which moderates temperature swings.

Tell me why CO2 does not do the same thing as water vapor, provide temperature moderation, in addition to the temperature moderation produced by water.

Where do you get temperature increase from the charts you posted?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Re ML1 post with charts:

I direct you attention to...

Matt, you're jumping ahead of yourself and of the game...

Firstly, can you answer whether:

You agree those charts are accurate?

You agree that CO2 has a wavelength dependant opacity for electromagnetic radiation?

Do you agree that the physics there shows a "greenhouse" effect?


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

While awaiting a means to suspend entropy let me post some facts on CO2.

[...]

Yeah Matt just a few comments on your so called CO2 "FACTS".

Those "FACTS" are a load of crap.

They should read...

[...]
5- Human activity CO2 contribution is about 24 Gigatons/yr
6- Over the last 20 Yrs the boundary of the Sahara dessert has moved South about 150 miles, and is thus expanding.

Thanks for debunking his 'facts'. Unfortunately, there's a lot more stuff like that for him to cut'n'paste from his favourite 'Wattsup' big oil sponsored prostitution site...

I'm hoping that his scientific credentials shine through for the series of the non-fudge science questions he's been kindly working through. I just hope the big jump to multiple graphs hasn't blurred his focus... Or given him too much of a headache. We're still working our way up to the level of Philosophy (Science) as was known in the 1800s...

So far, his comment about water and deserts has only emphasised the significance of the effect that increased CO2 is having on the atmosphere...

... where we can all learn how to save 80% on our nicotine addiction

Hey! We can do far better than that... Just completely give up smoking the crap in the first place!! Then you get 100%! :-)


More seriously, we've got various organisations such as "Alcoholics Anonymous" and "Narcotics Anonymous" and so on... Perhaps we need a similar organisation for Climate Deniers?

Are there groups for the Flat Earthers?

(And then there is Terry Pratchett's Discworld...)

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)