A radio search for artificial emissions from 'Oumuamua

December 5, 2018, SETI Institute
An artist's depiction of interstellar object 'Oumuamua. Credit: ESA/Hubble; NASA; ESO; M. Kornmesser

It's the first time a visitor from another star system has been seen nearby. But what is it? An asteroid, a comet … or an alien artifact?

Scientists at the SETI Institute have attempted to address this question by using the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) to observe 'Oumuamua when it was about 170 million miles away, or slightly less than the diameter of Earth's orbit. The intention was to measure artificial radio transmissions which, if found, would be strong evidence that this object is not simply a rock tossed into space by a random gravitational slingshot interaction that occurred in its home star system.

"We were looking for a signal that would prove that this object incorporates some technology – that it was of artificial origin," says Gerry Harp, lead author of a paper to be published in the February 2019 issue of Acta Astronautica. "We didn't find any such emissions, despite a quite sensitive search. While our observations don't conclusively rule out a non-natural origin for 'Oumuamua, they constitute important data in accessing its likely makeup."

Following its discovery in October 2017, 'Oumuamua was the subject of popular speculation about a possible non-natural origin largely because it brought to mind the interstellar spaceship in Arthur C. Clarke's novel Rendezvous with Rama. Its highly elongated shape and the fact that no coma was observed strengthened this hypothesis for some, as these are uncharacteristic of asteroids and comets.

A recent paper published in Astrophysical Journal Letters by researchers at Harvard has also suggested the possibility that 'Oumuamua is a deliberate construction. The Harvard researchers argue that the slight, unexpected acceleration observed for this object could be caused by pressure from sunlight as 'Oumuamua swung around the Sun. Their hypothesis is that the object might be a light sail, either deliberately or accidentally sent our way. A deliberate origin is considered somewhat more likely because our solar system is a very small target for any object that is not being aimed.

Such arguments strengthen the importance of observations such as those conducted on the ATA that can constrain the true nature of 'Oumuamua.

Observations were made between November 23 and December 5, 2017, using the wide-band correlator of the ATA at frequencies between 1 and 10 GHz and with a frequency resolution of 100 kHz. No signals were found at a level that would be produced by an omnidirectional transmitter on-board the of power 30 – 300 milliwatts. In portions of the radio spectrum that are routinely cluttered by artificial satellite telemetry, the threshold for detection was as high as 10 watts. In all cases, these limits to the powers that could be detected are quite modest – comparable to that of cell phones or citizen band radios.

While no signals were found coming from 'Oumuamua, the types of observations reported by SETI Institute scientists may have utility in constraining the nature of any interstellar objects detected in the future, or even the small, well-known objects in our own solar system. It has been long-hypothesized that some of the latter could be interstellar probes, and radio observations offer a way to address this imaginative, but by no means impossible, idea.

Explore further: NASA Learns More About Interstellar Visitor 'Oumuamua

More information: G.R. Harp et al. Radio SETI observations of the interstellar object ′OUMUAMUA, Acta Astronautica (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.10.046

Shmuel Bialy et al. Could Solar Radiation Pressure Explain 'Oumuamua's Peculiar Acceleration?, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda8

Related Stories

NASA Learns More About Interstellar Visitor 'Oumuamua

November 14, 2018

In November 2017, scientists pointed NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope toward the object known as 'Oumuamua—the first known interstellar object to visit our solar system. The infrared Spitzer was one of many telescopes pointed ...

'Oumuamua one year later

October 22, 2018

One year ago this week astronomers discovered an unusual object moving through space not too far from the Earth's orbit. In just a few days they realized it could not be a normal asteroid or comet – its path showed that ...

Could 'Oumuamua be an extraterrestrial solar sail?

November 1, 2018

On October 19th, 2017, the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System-1 (Pan-STARRS-1) in Hawaii announced the first-ever detection of an interstellar asteroid, named 1I/2017 U1 (aka, "Oumuamua). In the months that ...

Recommended for you

New bright high-redshift quasar discovered using VISTA

December 18, 2018

Using the Visible and Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy (VISTA), astronomers have detected a new bright quasar at a redshift of about 6.8. The newly identified quasar, designated VHS J0411-0907, is the brightest object ...

NASA's 1st flight to moon, Apollo 8, marks 50th anniversary

December 18, 2018

Fifty years ago on Christmas Eve, a tumultuous year of assassinations, riots and war drew to a close in heroic and hopeful fashion with the three Apollo 8 astronauts reading from the Book of Genesis on live TV as they orbited ...

Mystery of coronae around supermassive black holes deepens

December 18, 2018

Researchers from RIKEN and JAXA have used observations from the ALMA radio observatory located in northern Chile and managed by an international consortium including the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) to ...

67 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rrwillsj
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2018
Well. at least the SETI researchers admitted, grudgingly, that they did not detect any artificial signals from the "chip-off-the-old-block".

It is our misfortune that such null results will be disregarded as all the other evidence that Oumuamua was nothing more than a randomly coursed, solid shard remnant from a asteroidal core.

All the woocultists & comicbook fabulists will be abusing the fact that any scientific research was done? As proof-positive that Oumuamua must have been an alien spacecraft!

There's just too much money to be made selling fairytales to the gullible & intellectually challenged.
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2018
"selling fairytales to the gullible & intellectually challenged"

It's funny when people who support mainstream cosmology refer to others this way...just so you know, you now believe in a negative gravity fluid permeating all space. Hope nobody makes fun of you for it....
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2018
@redp
just so you know, you now believe in a negative gravity fluid permeating all space
not unless there is validation

theredpill
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2018
"not unless there is validation"

So...this particular peer review doesn't stand up to your strict method of evaluation for theoretical science...but you can link a bunch of greenhouse experiments involving plants as proof of coupling between IR wavelengths the atmosphere cannot absorb and atmospheric temperature rise as a result of increasing CO2 levels. What is that method you use? It could benefit from a little consistency.

No matter, the mainstream have begun the era of repulsive force modelling which means they just jumped light years beyond their current standing of attraction only. But you are right, you should wait for validation before jumping on the gravity fluid boatride...give em a break, they are new at this.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2018
EM waves move far to slow for them to be useful in interstellar communication unless intended for short term use by a nearby reciever such as the foreign mining operation on Ceres which could also double as observation. Likely MANY foreigners from all over the galazy are out there prospecting or minor colonizing and have been for eons. Real commo from Omuamua are likely to be Quantum Entanglement based, or based on gravity waves. We cannot with present tech intercept QECommo, but may be able to at least get a bit if our GravComm detectors were a bit more developed. Grav waves are instantly detected with no or very small delay, and are not affected by distance as they are non local, possibly due to the universe's low or very high elasticity and low plasticity up to a certain 'activation energy' inflection when inflation/deflation becomes possible. Warp drives take small volume advantage of this bu using negative energy in a small place. We wake up to truth to seek our destiny
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2018
EM waves move far to slow for them to be useful in interstellar communication unless intended for short term use by a nearby reciever such as the foreign mining operation on Ceres which could also double as observation. Likely MANY foreigners from all over the galazy are out there prospecting or minor colonizing and have been for eons. Real commo from Omuamua are likely to be Quantum Entanglement based, or based on gravity waves. We cannot with present tech intercept QECommo, but may be able to at least get a bit if our GravComm detectors were a bit more developed. Grav waves are instantly detected with no or very small delay, and are not affected by distance as they are non local, possibly due to the universe's low or very high elasticity and low plasticity up to a certain 'activation energy' inflection when inflation/deflation becomes possible. Warp drives take small volume advantage of this bu using negative energy in a small place. We wake up to truth to seek our destiny
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2018
EM waves move far to slow for them to be useful in interstellar communication unless intended for short term use by a nearby reciever such as the foreign mining operation on Ceres which could also double as observation. Likely MANY foreigners from all over the galazy are out there prospecting or minor colonizing and have been for eons. Real commo from Omuamua are likely to be Quantum Entanglement based, or based on gravity waves. We cannot with present tech intercept QECommo, but may be able to at least get a bit if our GravComm detectors were a bit more developed. Grav waves are instantly detected with no or very small delay, and are not affected by distance as they are non local, possibly due to the universe's low or very high elasticity and low plasticity up to a certain 'activation energy' inflection when inflation/deflation becomes possible. Warp drives take small volume advantage of this bu using negative energy in a small place. We wake up to truth to seek our destiny
rderkis
5 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2018
Kind of reminds me of someone in the future electronically probing a outhouse to see if it was intelligent.
Osiris1
3 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2018
#rdkerkis , Maybe those neighbors in remote bases like on Ceres maybe want to see if our 'outhouse' is maybe dangerous to 'their outhouse'. Maybe IS from their point of view. Look, we snuck in out of the dark and cold of space and went into ORBIT around them for over a YEAR.

We, or more precisely our 'government' with the only power to be dangerous to them KNOW the truth that they are keeping from US the long abused people that PAY that government to 'protect' us. Only our government knows the true motivation for spending hundreds of MILLIONS of OUR money to go to spy on them that they likely already KNEW were there. All we hear are lies, cover-ups, and propaganda. The outlanders based on Ceres KNOW the situation MUCH better, and likely rightly fear what we may do. Hence the probe. OR.. the probe is sent by their commercial competition to check US out before LEANING on THEM...maybe. Islamics say the price of truth is never known.. Maybe they have something?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2018
@redp
What is that method you use? It could benefit from a little consistency
it's perfectly consistent and logical

a singular study (like above) is a point of interest. it has evidence superior to just making a claim ( http://www.auburn...ion.html )

a validated study, like the CO2 studies that you not only ignored and failed to read but that you dismiss out of hand because you're ignorant and fear the challenge to your political ideology, is considered scientific fact because it has secondary validation from unrelated source(s)

just because you refuse to make yourself conversant in the scientific method doesn't mean that everyone is equally ignorant of it
But you are right, you should wait for validation
I know I am right
I don't have a vested interest in promoting a delusional religious-like ideology like *some* people who aren't conversant in the sciences
Osiris1
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2018
Assume the Cerians are there to mine valuable commodities of stuff not available for mining on Planets 'cuz' it is so heavy and extreme transuranic that such could only exist in our core which we can no way today reach. The will have to be paid for their labor and investments like any other business run by sentients. Only these are not OUR sentients.....or ARE they. The Cerians will need to sell their goods. Maybe the contract is 'exclusive' ..only ONE buyer (their government or whoever) Ceres is FAR from their home so supervision maybe a bit 'loose', so maybe the lure of cheating or 'skimming' is strong. Maybe..and just MAYBE, they would trade with US.
Trouble is the only commodity WE have the Cerians would maybe want is probably SLAVES. Any government trading slaves would classify the activity VERY secret. Revolutions are made of such!!.. ANYWHERE in space!! So the crooks, ours AND theirs would keep the secret, work our slaves to death, undiscovered!? Til Omuamua!
theredpill
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2018
"I don't have a vested interest in promoting a delusional religious-like ideology like *some* people who aren't conversant in the sciences "

Hmmm, if you believe you are conversant in science why is it that you cannot tell the difference between valid evidence and fluff presented as evidence in a scientific fashion? You claim to follow the scientific method yet you don't seem to comprehend physics very well if at all. Like the CO2 studies you believe are evidence, yet every single one is devoid of a coupling mechanism to get the heat from the CO2 into the rest of the air...

I don't believe I ever once saw you post anything to the effect of a repulsive force requirement to accurately model galactic motion, no, you just pushed the dogma as with *others* here and cited whatever paper supported it. In other words you didn't know enough to be skeptical...

"I know I am right"

Yeah...me too.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2018
@redp
In other words you didn't know enough to be skeptical...
says the ideological fanatic who is ignoring a century of evidence proving him wrong
"I know I am right"

Yeah...me too.
except you're not, and that was demonstrated with your CO2 arguments

you are *literally* ignoring tens of thousands of experiments from almost as many sources that directly contradict your claims while then claiming that you're correct, regardless of the validated studies that directly prove you wrong about CO2 being a GHG, much like your epic failure about CO2 toxicity and the studies I linked

considering you can't even figure out how to quote here, it's not surprising that you are ignoring the scientific evidence against you
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2018
@redp
You claim to follow the scientific method yet you don't seem to comprehend physics very well if at all
honest question:

if you understand physics well
and
if you "know enough to be skeptical"
then
why aren't there any studies refuting CO2's GHG ability?

moreover, where is your paper establishing the lack of "a coupling mechanism to get the heat from the CO2 into the rest of the air"?

you're the one claiming to be cognizant of physics and thermodynamics but making claims directly refuted by the evidence and a century of science

to repeat an oft-used phrase:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

you made the claim - you prove it with evidence
rrwillsj
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2018
Oh wow... Beset by benni, redpill & osiris? Yeeks, someone call an exterminator! There are three blind mice running up & down the clock. Shitting all over the internet.

Oh & Captain, I haven't bothered learning the "quote" function. either.
I'm just too damn lazy to learn.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2018
Oumuamua was nothing more than a randomly coursed, solid shard remnant from a asteroidal core.


Probably, however, the real question is whether it is worth the expense of devising a cutting edge mission to chase it down in view of the facts as we know them. Considering that everybody enjoys a high speed chase, it might be a lot of fun to go after Oumuamua with everything we got. For the record, I expect to find an unusual, but completely natural object.

These folks think it is doable is we act quickly enough:

Project Lyra: Sending a Spacecraft to 1I/'Oumuamua (former A/2017 U1), the Interstellar Asteroid

https://arxiv.org...11.03155
rderkis
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
We, or more precisely our 'government'


You are right! OUR government. We pay them a lot of money to try to keep us safe. If that entails secrets, lies and hidden facts then so be it. How can you get it so right and draw such stupid conclusions from it? I would call you and anyone else trying to circumvent those efforts by the government to protect us TRAITOR. Or do you just figure your smarter than everyone else? Or perhaps you make money from spreading conspiracy theories? For whatever reason TRAITOR fits.

Don't get me wrong if someone in our government is doing it for personal monetary gain that would be anouther matter.
guptm
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
The shape of the object should not be the point of doubt. That way asteroid Itokawa (one can see body like shape) can be alien too! Aliens can come on a spherical object too.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2018
@rrwillsj
Oh & Captain, I haven't bothered learning the "quote" function. either.
I'm just too damn lazy to learn
best option: just use the quote button

once you do that you will see the following: left square bracket + q + right square bracket
it will look like this (without the spaces) [ q ]

the closing quote will be the same but with a slash before the Q (smaller case can be used)
again, just delete the spaces: [ / q ]

HenryE
not rated yet Dec 06, 2018
While Oumuamua is most likely a natural object, we can't rule out the possibility that it is a probe sent through our system. The lack of any obvious power signature within our detection abilities, does not conclusively prove natural origins for Oumuamua.

The smartest move for a probe sent through a strange system, would be to have it as stay as quiet as possible in the RF spectrum whiile gathering data on the system as fast as it could.

Backtracking wouldn't necessarily tell us where it came from, if it was artificial. For that matter, are we certain it is still on the same trajectory now that it has left us far behind?

It is a shame that we were unable to get any clear images of the object, that may have helped to answer a lot of questions surrounding our enigmatic visitor from the cosmos.
Charles Johnson
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
This object could have been sent by aliens who observed the Voyager spacecraft fly by them in deep space. Voyager flew in straight line, not colliding with them, so they communicated back to us in friendly way by not striking Earth, and having object tumble in a binary way opposite of Voyager's linear trajectory. They might have wanted to communicate in binary form to convey that they are not us and are a second, binary civilization. It's like two people getting together, they aren't the same person. Also object might be the sail talked about at Harvard. Object might be hollow, might have alien machines inside as concretions build around metal objects underwater. Object might could have interior of solid gold, or gaseous, or water. It is cool to think that is not from our solar system.
theredpill
1 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2018
"except you're not, and that was demonstrated with your CO2 arguments"

Yes, I am...and twice now where your lack of ability to comprehend physics has left you stating you are correct whereas reality is showing I am. As demonstrated by citing how the physics of CO2 works, you cited statistical gymnastics for the simple minded as proof you are correct, and still, none of the papers you referenced from Lacis et al show a coupling of CO2 to the atmosphere for heat transfer. The fact that you keep arguing and don't even have a clue as to how the system works is interesting though. You do fit in well with one of the cliques here, too bad it is the one being left behind during the transition back to actual science.

"why aren't there any studies refuting CO2's GHG ability?"

Why would there be? It does absorb heat and re-transmit it at the same wavelength. Like I said, if you understood physics this point is moot when it comes to heating the atmosphere.

theredpill
1 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
"moreover, where is your paper establishing the lack of "a coupling mechanism to get the heat from the CO2 into the rest of the air"?"

Again you show your lack of physics understanding, you just asked for a paper to prove air is transparent to the wavelengths Co2 absorbs/transmits...do you know what "transparent" means in physics?

"you made the claim - you prove it with evidence"

This is an interesting mental loop you have yourself in, better repeat the physics I guess. CO2 cannot transfer the heat it absorbs to the rest of the atmosphere due to the wavelengths it absorbs and transmits. You believe any paper written that claims to connect the two, but no paper physically can, so any paper that claims to cannot be considered actual science. It's a shame the simplicity of the physics keeps soaring over your head.

"Oh & Captain, I haven't bothered learning the "quote" function. either.
I'm just too damn lazy to learn."

LMAO....might as well whine about something.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
@redp
whereas reality is showing I am
yeah... all those studies that validate your claims...
O, wait! you had none!

Obviously, the problem isn't how we define evidence so much as how you define "reality"

PS- I like how you keep moving he goalposts so that your argument starts as
present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms
(Arrhenius laid the foundation, others referenced showed the specific mechanisms - https://phys.org/...igh.html )
debunked you, so you then moved to
can it act like a furnace?
blatant idiocy regarding physics on your part, so you move the goalpost again to
you didn't know enough to be skeptical
ending with
CO2 cannot transfer the heat
all the while you ignored relevant papers proving you wrong

were they too hard?
Here!
dumbed down for you: http://co2science...ouse.php
theredpill
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
From your link:
" The earth's surface, in turn, emitts a portion of this energy upwards toward space as longer wavelength or thermal radiation. Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere's CO2 molecules back toward earth's surface, providing an additional source of heat energy. "

Nothing about heating air (the atmosphere). Blatant idiocy that you think this passes as any description of how Co2 heats the air. As mentioned, you have no idea how physics works if you think this serves as a sufficient response to the query for a MECHANISM...do you know what that is in physics?

"yeah... all those studies that validate your claims... "

Just the WIKI page on CO2 is enough, physics, not propaganda, stop linking propaganda as though it is physics based. Or, better yet, why don't you and your claimed understanding take the quote out of one your links showing the coupling mechanism, (the way to get the heat into the air). You haven't got a prayer...
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
@redp
As mentioned, you have no idea how physics works if you think this serves as a sufficient response to the query for a MECHANISM...do you know what that is in physics?
apparently, you are illiterate
1- it's not like I've not provided multiple links explaining the "MECHANISM" you seek
start with Arrhenius and then actually read the others referenced (see link above)

2- the mental gymnastics are getting quite convoluted on your part - from moving goalposts to changing the topic. why is that?
stop linking propaganda as though it is physics based
since when is making a claim from evidence and repeated experimentation that is validated considered propaganda?

That is *literally* how establishing scientific facts in physics works

it's why "You haven't got a prayer"
take the quote out of one your links
because you have a history of *literally* ignoring facts, changing the topic (see above), moving goalposts (again, see above) and more

Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
@redp
if only modern physicists would pay attention to you, eh?

if only the scientific community would read your comments here, they would learn why the various physicists, scientists and contributors to science articles are wrong because you and your claimed understanding know better (like water prophet )

what's next? a bowl of water explaining the atmosphere and why CO2 isn't a GHG?

and since you're ignoring the science, don't forget to continue to ignore Lacis et al with the CO2 and GHG argument as it is directly related and an important point

.

So...

what part will you change this time?
You got the "MECHANISM" and paper *as requested*, which prompted your changing goalposts as noted

you are *literally* ignoring the physics papers which explain the "MECHANISM" & how it heats the earth and atmosphere

you've already told everyone how smart you are and how obviously ignorant we are

you can't actually provide evidence for your claims

so what is next?

theredpill
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
"- it's not like I've not provided multiple links explaining the "MECHANISM" you seek"

Oh but Captain you claim the mechanism is in the links, so quote the precise text describing it, it's time for you to put up or shut up (although the latter appears unlikely). You just keep saying "here's the paper with the conclusions I support"...Even with the above 2 responses, you have not cited any mechanism, just papers you think contain the answer.

Ya see, I am quoting physics relating directly to CO2. Along with the precise relationship between CO2 and air that doesn't exist which has to in order for CO2 to heat air. You cannot do this, you just keep saying "these guys say it what it is and so do those guys"...so what is it Captain, show me you understand physics by defining the mechanism you claim is contained within your papers that you have read and understand.

For the record, I know you will not do this....you will attempt to respond with more of the above. Pathetic.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
Thanks Captain, but well, lazy!

O Henry & Charlie. As a raving paranoid myself. I think I have a few clues as to the mindset.
If I am going to send a reconnaissance probe across thousands of years of space? That will not report back until thousands of years later?

I'd pretty much insist on getting a little more for my investment than a slapdash quickie of "Hello & Goodbye!"

Aren't the Aliens smart enough to do it right?

Instead of whipping the slagmite around the Sun. Which flung it completely out of this System?

Using the close approach to the Sun for the gravitational well to drag Oumuamua into a polar orbit. A key vantage point for observing the Earth during it's annual orbit. & a very difficult rendezvous for the clever monkeys to attempt!

Even if we had the level of tech able to detect it up there.
Yeah, no, we don't.

The "Big O" was not spotted until it passed the Sun & was re-crossing the Earth's orbit. Forty days later.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
@redp
Oh but Captain you claim the mechanism is in the links
it is
it's time for you to put up or shut
you first
show me you understand physics by
I'm still waiting on your evidence that the validated studies are wrong, or did you forget?

remember this? you specifically asked
if you can present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-greenhouse-gas-atmosphere-high.html

so I gave you what you wanted

now, it's your turn to provide evidence that said studies are wrong

not claims or unsubstantiated conjecture, but verifiable evidence

.

For the record, I know you will not do this....you will attempt to respond with more of the above because you know you are lying and that there is no evidence debunking the physics and thermodynamics you claim are all wrong above. Pathetic
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
@rrwillsj
Thanks Captain
you bet!

Always willing to help
but well, lazy!
I am an incredibly fast typist so it's easier for me

.

.

@redp

Ya see, I am quoting physics relating directly to CO2

would you care to take this discussion to a moderated forum?

what about putting some $$ on the line?

how much risk are you willing to take on the ignorance you perceive in others?

let me know...

and if we can get a slew of scientific-minded posters here to chime in on it too, we can examine you a little closer, eh?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
Ya see, I am quoting physics relating directly to CO2. Along with the precise relationship between CO2 and air that doesn't exist which has to in order for CO2 to heat air.


No, you are talking bollocks, as usual. CO2 causes heating due to absorbing a photon of IR, exciting the molecule, and causing it to emit another IR photon. Much of the IR absorbed will be from the heating of the land. CO2 then effectively stops some of this heat radiation escaping. Therefore causing the Earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be. Without CO2 and other GHGs, the Eath would have a temperature of -18 C (iirc). Why do you think Venus is so hot?

Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
@jones
No, you are talking bollocks, as usual
he is using projection as a defensive "MECHANISM" [to satirise his capitalisation]

if you'll note, he keeps asking for me to present an explanation in my own words while quoting the specifics of the papers linked. this serves a dual purpose as he is ignorant of the specifics as well as presenting him a means to obfuscate with ignorant rantings based on his interpretations

he has demonstrated this in multiple climate science threads

I've tried to help him by linking educational resources but even those get ignored - mostly because of his ideology and need for peer acceptance where stupidity is a benefit to a higher status among his "peers" and friends

Also, note how much his argument mirrors other known socks here on PO?
like alchemist/water prophet?

theredpill
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
"No, you are talking bollocks, as usual. CO2 causes heating due to absorbing a photon of IR, exciting the molecule, and causing it to emit another IR photon. Much of the IR absorbed will be from the heating of the land. CO2 then effectively stops some of this heat radiation escaping. Therefore causing the Earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be. Without CO2 and other GHGs, the Eath would have a temperature of -18 C (iirc). Why do you think Venus is so hot?"

So 400PPM of the atmosphere is warmer than the rest of it, and it cannot transmit that heat to the rest of it because physics says the rest is transparent to the wavelengths it absorbed. How does the heat get into the air? I have been asking some goof who claims he understands physics to quote the specific text describing the coupling, he just keeps saying it's there it's there like he's talking about DM or something, but cannot actually produce what he claims exists...shit, maybe he is a mainstream physicist!

Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
@redp

thank you for validating my point about you "presenting ... a means to obfuscate with ignorant rantings based on his interpretations"
and it cannot transmit that heat to the rest of it because physics says the rest is transparent to the wavelengths it absorbed. How does the heat get into the air?
to learn about the "MECHANISM" and physics you would have to read the papers I linked

not only do they take you through the theory but they also present the evidence, which leads to papers explaining the "MECHANISM"
but cannot actually produce what he claims exists
except that I've already presented numerous papers and links/references so jones doesn't feel a need to re-post or link them?

if you're going to ignore evidence you're going to have to do better than just lie about it
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
"if you'll note, he keeps asking for me to present an explanation in my own words while quoting the specifics of the papers linked. "

LMAO...um, no. I actually asked - "Oh but Captain you claim the mechanism is in the links, so quote the precise text describing it"

Your own words come out...well...look up.

You see, if you had this information to quote, you would have. But you do not, so you keep dancing around it with whatever you can come up with all the while claiming you understand physics. I mean, you would think if it actually is there this would be a slam dunk to win a debate, and would be taken advantage of...but instead we get what we see above. Pretty much babble.

As with interacting with Jones, It has been a good laugh. If you ever find that text that wins this one feel free to post it any time, in any thread.

Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
yet every single one is devoid of a coupling mechanism to get the heat from the CO2 into the rest of the air...


Even a young child, but apparently not an adult Denier, can understand that sunlight heats the surface of the Earth. The energy received from sunlight and re-emitted back into space must balance for the surface temperature to be in equilibrium. Now add a "blanket" of greenhouse gases like CO2 that absorb mid-range IR. The energized CO2 can either transfer vibrational energy by bumping into other molecules or re-emit infrared light in all directions, including back down to the surface. Either way you end up with more atmospheric heating.

The blanket analogy is pretty good here. A blanket redirects some body heat that would otherwise be lost back to the body, allowing the body and air between the body and blanket to warm up more than it otherwise would. As a first approximation, the more blankets you pile on, the warmer you get.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
@redp
LMAO...um, no
apologies and I stand corrected: you didn't ask me to use my own words

you asked
if you can present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms
I did
you ignored it

so now we're at a point where you can't address the studies you steadfastly refuse to read

in multiple papers, the "MECHANISM" you want to know about is clearly defined, yet you want me to show you
[I] understand physics by defining the mechanism [I] claim is contained within [my linked or referenced] papers that you have read and understand
Why?

seriously: when do you show anyone that you're able to read by actually reading the referenced material?

I mean, you would think if you actually read what is there this would be a slam dunk to win a debate for you, and it would be taken advantage of...but instead we get what we see above. Pretty much babble

thanks for validating me yet again
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
As with interacting with Jones, It has been a good laugh. If you ever find that text that wins this one feel free to post it any time, in any thread.


Cop out! Lol. I've kicked your scientifically illiterate arse every time you've hung it out to dry!

Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
While all this middle school Earth science is certainly fascinating, How about getting back on topic regarding Oumuamua?

If you want an alien theory, how about the fact that the course correction the asteroid executed was observationally useless, but provided a good test OUR abilities. Our science has to be advanced enough to detect the object and its course change, we have to be curious enough to go after it, and our engineering has to be advanced enough to catch it.

I honestly don't think it is an alien probe, but let's go after it, just for fun.

https://arxiv.org...11.03155

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2018
How does the heat get into the air?


Only an uneducated cretin could ask such a question! Lol. The heat, you tosspot, comes from the heating of the Earth's surface. It irradiates back to space in IR. However, some of it is prevented from escaping by GH gases, you moron. Put more GH gases in the atmosphere, and there is going to be more trapping. Yes? F***ing idiot.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
Mark, II agree wholeheartedly with your proposal ti chase down Oumuamua. (with a robot) If only to give the woowhooists a good bitch-slapping dose of reality!

I believe it would be a better use of what resources we have available to do a methodical search for any new interstellar jetsam coming inbound.
However, that is a totally unpredictable opportunity. Oumuamua is a bird within expensive reach.

All we could discover will be specific to that slagmite.

I would bet, that whatever interstellar driftrock we discover in the future? Will, mostly, be unique specimens. Each with it's own special characteristics of material consistency, possible origins & natural history.

Now that will be interesting research. To be compared against all the different types of native debris we might reach in this system.

With the news that Phoebe might have been a interstellar wanderer captured by Saturn? Finally a good reason to assemble & launch a fleet of robots to check it out.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
@Mark T
I honestly don't think it is an alien probe, but let's go after it, just for fun
Hell yeah!

just catching it would be a good test of engineering, but it would be better still if we could land something on it and actually sample it. a drill, GCMS, etc

that sample data alone would be f*cking awesome, IMHO

of course, we should be careful in case it's one of Mothra's twins, eh?
[should I clarify that the latter is offered in humour?]
TuringTest
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
coupling mechanism to get the heat from the CO2 into the rest of the air...


I think I see the problem here Theredpill. I don't think anyone has realized you are child in grade school, grammar school, whatever your local vernacular calls it. I apologize on behalf of everyone here insulting you.

They clearly presumed you were an adult with at least a basic understanding of thermodynamics. Being that we (much of life on earth) are the proverbial frog in the pot heading toward a boil (which would cook us, oh no!) it's understandable that they would get frustrated with adults, who are perfectly capable of understanding these basics, when they say "screw turn the heat up!" or worse "There's no heat! There never was any heat!" for the sake of profit.

But anyway yeah go catch Oumuamua and bring it back. Then in a few thousand years we can hollow it out and fill it with stairs for everyone to walk up and down (pretty much all I remember from Rama)
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
I love this place!!! No quote describing the mechanism from the Captains sources yet he claims he understands the physics, Jones is delusional as always and some random post from yet another person incapable of understanding the most basic physical concept.

Staring here:"It irradiates back to space in IR. However, some of it is prevented from escaping by GH gases, you moron. Put more GH gases in the atmosphere, and there is going to be more trapping. Yes? F***ing idiot."

Wavelengths which are transparent to air means no heat mixing between the Co2 and the rest of the atmosphere dumbasses. I have to keep coming back because every time one of you doesn't understand this it just gets funnier. CS claims he understands physics and the scientific method...yet he cannot find information in a paper he claims to have read. Jones is again confused by photons, and a fan of code beakers who is clearly a sock and has the intelligence of an actual sock...love this place.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
@illiterate redp
CS claims he understands physics and the scientific method...yet he cannot find information in a paper he claims to have read
I read them, and the information is in there - this is how I know you did *not* read any of them

this should help you:
http://readingbear.org/

I love this place!!!
most trolls do love it

they never get banned for trolling or posting pseudoscience

so... do you enjoy your trolling?
theredpill
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
"The energized CO2 can either transfer vibrational energy by bumping into other molecules"

That isn't heat, is it? No photon transfer...no heating, enjoy middle school when you get there.

" or re-emit infrared light in all directions, including back down to the surface. Either way you end up with more atmospheric heating."
Except the wavelengths are transparent to the rest of the atmosphere so there can be no mixing of heat from CO2.
"Now add a "blanket" of greenhouse gases"

At 400PPM...it is at best a spider web...not a blanket. So we have a miniscule trace gas that cannot share it's absorbed heat with the rest of the atmosphere.
" yet you want me to show you"
That you understand physics as you claim. What you have done instead is the equivalent of claiming to be a chef and declining to tell someone how to fry an egg. Anyone help the captain out with a coupling mechanism? He doesn't understand how to find it in his links....

theredpill
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
"I read them, and the information is in there - this is how I know you did *not* read any of them"

You are flat out lying, not that you read the papers, but clearly about understanding physics and further that in any of those papers there is a specified mechanism to transfer heat from the IR frequencies CO2 emits/absorbs to ones that can heat the rest of the atmosphere.

It appears you need to look up a few definitions: Mechanism, transparent, transfer. ...and maybe look up the definition of physics, you might stop thinking you understand it when you find out what it entails.

You are correct I did not read them, but if you can show me what I am asking for in one of them I will. BTW, if you are ever in a formal debate, rebutting with a reference to a publicized work without citing the portion of the work that supports your stance is a no no.

It's not a game of "I have a secret".
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
@illiteratti redp
You are flat out lying
says the man who can't read? LFMAO

this should help you understand:
https://ocw.mit.e...ll-2015/

https://ocw.mit.e...ng-2006/

https://ocw.mit.e...ll-2006/

https://ocw.mit.e...ll-2002/

see also:
free - A Heat Transfer Textbook, 4th edition - John H. Lienhard IV, University of Houston
John H. Lienhard V, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Copyright (c) 2000-2018, John H. Lienhard IV and John H. Lienhard V. All rights reserved.
https://web.mit.e...htt.html

Bergman, Theodore L., Adrienne S. Lavine, Frank P. Incropera, et al. Introduction to Heat Transfer. Wiley, 2011. ISBN: 9780470501962

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
@illiterati redp
It's not a game of "I have a secret"
it's also not a game of "lets ignore sh*t because I don't want to accept reality"
You are correct I did not read them
I already know that one

you didn't have to admit it because it's obvious

It appears you need to look up a few definitions: Mechanism, transparent, transfer radiative forcing, radiation (and radiant), Greenhouse Gas, ...and maybe look up the definition of physics, you might stop thinking you understand it when you find out what it entails.
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
Still not able to find it...didn't think you would. Thanks for the schematic on the gas turbine, it really supports your claim of understanding physics that you would link it to prove a coupling mechanism to use IR wavelengths that a medium cannot absorb to show how said IR wavelengths can still heat said medium. Now you are a chef who when asked how to fry an egg responded by taking a shower.

I have read many papers on heat transfer and radiative forcing likely referenced in the textbook from your last link, how do you think I know about the lack of coupling and that you will never be able to show how it is accomplished? perhaps for your next point you can link the ingredients to a can of spam to support your position....

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
@illiterati redp
Still not able to find it
it's much harder to find given that you admit to not reading them
Thanks for the schematic on the gas turbine, it really supports your claim of understanding physics
wow
you didn't even read any of the above education links! LMFAO

the links above are to 4 separate Thermodynamics courses to help you learn about: Mechanism, transparent, transfer radiative forcing, radiation (and radiant), Greenhouse Gas and physics

the last link is to a free textbook called "A Heat Transfer Textbook, 4th edition" which contains thermodynamics information supporting the courses (and is a textbook in one of the courses)
I have read many papers on heat transfer and radiative forcing
calling bullsh*t on this one - and quit moving the goalpost

that makes you a chef when asked how to fry an egg responded by sh*tting on the neighbour's bed and then complaining because the dog had fleas

https://isotropic...cken.pdf
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
Wavelengths which are transparent to air means no heat mixing between the Co2 and the rest of the atmosphere dumbasses.


Jesus, what a clueless clown. "Wavelengths that are transparent to air"? WTF is that supposed to mean? CO2 is not transparent to IR you tool. Neither is H2O. And CH4. They cause heating because they prevent heat, in the form of IR, from escaping, you moron.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
Oh flatirepillock, It is obvious that you were reading the blank side of the page. Now turn the paper over.

Good boy! I knew you could do it.

Now you are glaring dully at all the confusing text & mathematics you have no competency to understand.

Your lips quivering... You are giving me that sad puppy look. You know I hate it!

Okay, jere is a Commemorative Collection of Mighty Mouse comicbooks.

There it is! My little boy's smile is back.

Jebus, I need a beer after that...
theredpill
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
"calling bullsh*t on this one - and quit moving the goalpost"
The goalpost is where it has been from start...your inability to hit the net is what is frustrating you. Coupling mechanism as per one of your links....still waiting.

"Jesus, what a clueless clown. "Wavelengths that are transparent to air"? WTF is that supposed to mean?"
Well, for the physically illiterate, it means the other 99.8 percent of the atmosphere that is not a GHG.
" CO2 is not transparent to IR you tool. Neither is H2O. And CH4."
At no point did I claim any of these were, and in Co2's case have actually stated they absorb and emit IR wavelengths. Was the language too complicated for your over taxed brain cell to grasp?

"They cause heating because they prevent heat, in the form of IR, from escaping, you moron."

400 molecules out of every 1,000,000 absorbing and storing heat that they cannot pass along to the rest of the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to warm eh? r-e-t-a-r-d
theredpill
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
rrwillsj - Took you off ignore to see if you actually said anything to do with physics, science or anything actually pertinent to the topics of the articles here, won a bet that you hadn't, put you back on ignore.

At least Jones tries to pretend he understands physics, and Captain Stumpy does pretend fairly well although cannot follow through with much of anything when put to the task. But you, well...they used to euthanize defective babies, you're lucky the 20th century happened.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2018
@illiterati redP
The goalpost is where it has been from start...your inability to hit the net is what is frustrating you
except you're wrong as *demonstrated* by my 6th post above on DEC 06, with links and references proving that not only are you moving the goalpost but that, by your own admission, you "did not read" the reference material that you requested and proved you wrong

What we have here is a failure of you to admit the overwhelming evidence likely because it directly contradicts your claims as well as provides you with *literally* reams of evidence against your belief, be it CO2 acting as a GHG or your anti-AGW stance

at this point, it doesn't matter if I were to run your "experiment" (yet again, since it's been done) because even if I did, and you were present as a witness, you would simply move the goalpost, and that is only *if* you were to accept the conclusions you witnessed without appealing to deception (or some other delusion)

theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
"What we have here is a failure ....."

Of you to provide any kind of quote that you claim exists in the papers you linked which could show CO2 heating the atmosphere and the mechanism under which it does so given the physics of IR transfer. Same Goalpost...same non response.

This is reminiscent of asking my son if he has his homework done, him saying yes and me saying show me...all of a sudden the dance is on as there is no homework to show, but he's gonna do his best to come up with something that can pass for an answer.

In all those "reams of evidence" you must be able to pull something which demonstrates the coupling required to get IR radiation into the atmosphere from CO2....reams of evidence and the guy cannot find a single coupling mechanism....gonna link your favorite toothpaste this time?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
@illiterate redp
Same Goalpost...same non response
erm - no
your original goal was
present one paper that specifically shows how it (CO2) does regulate the atmospheric temperature along with the physical mechanisms
to which I provided multiple papers as a reference, from modern to historical, including some that run your experiment
https://phys.org/...igh.html

because we now know you didn't read the papers, we have demonstrated that this is the reason why you moved the goalpost to "provide any kind of quote"

IOW - you're lying

first, you are making a claim that is directly refuted by the evidence by stating [paraphrased] that there is no mechanism or ability for CO2 to act as a GHG

then you state [paraphrased] that CO2 can't be a linked cause of warming

your claims have no evidence, yet you want me to provide quotes from the evidence used to refute you that you'll ignore (as demonstrated)

now, you'll repeat your lie
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
At least Jones tries to pretend he understands physics,


I do. Far better than you do, at least. Mind you, that isn't saying much.
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
"your claims have no evidence, "

My claim, that CO2 cannot transfer heat to the atmosphere has no evidence? Even though every scientific paper about CO2 specifically states that it absorbs and emits in IR bands that the rest of the atmosphere cannot absorb. Sir, you are on crack.

And still nothing from any of those papers that makes heat transfer possible....what's funny is that you claim to have read all of those papers, yet you have to do this artful dodge when pressed for specifics you claim are in them.

Are you online in a prison? You answer questions like a politician who didn't fulfil a single campaign promise.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
@illiterate redPP
My claim, that CO2 cannot transfer heat to the atmosphere has no evidence?
wow

you're not even reading posts now before lying! LMFAO
And still nothing from any of those papers that makes heat transfer possible
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer

it's how cults work though, so perhaps you're trying to tell us something?
what's funny is that you claim to have read all of those papers, yet you have to do this artful dodge when pressed for specifics you claim are in them
artful dodge?

it's an outright refusal to give you what you want because I know from experience that you will simply ignore it and move the goalpost yet again *as demonstrated in this conversation alone*

Are you online in a prison or a mental ward? You answer questions like a paedophile politician who never learned how to read and is trying to shred evidence before being charged with a federal crime

https://isotropic...cken.pdf
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
"it's an outright refusal to give you what you want because I know from experience that you will simply ignore it "

You wish this was true. But in reality you simply cannot provide what you claimed you could, it is really the only reason you would carry this on in this fashion. Every response under the sun to "have you got your homework done?" but the actual homework.

"repeating a lie doesn't make it truer"

It worked for the AGW crowd...you believe every lie you have been told , so they made it truer for you.
"it's how cults work though"
You would know....
"You answer questions like a paedophile politician "
You know a lot of them too? Yeesh.....no wonder you are so miserable. Did you tell your parents?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
@illiterate redP
You wish this was true
LOL - not! you've demonstrated it above, in the linked threads and in every conversation we tend to have
But in reality you simply cannot provide what you claimed you could
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer
it is really the only reason you would carry this on in this fashion
not really
I carry on because I want to see how much factual data you're willing to ignore in order to preserve your delusional beliefs
It worked for the AGW crowd
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer

if you could prove any AGW was false you would be rich beyond your wildest dreams from the koch bro's alone
You would know
true
I study people like you in cults
You know a lot of them too?
I just told you I study people like you all the time
no wonder you are so miserable. Did you tell your parents?
why would I tell my parents about you?

are you really that narcissistic?

.

so - read those studies yet?

I thought not
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared
Burch, D. E. et al. (1962)
http://sci-hub.tw...1.000759

Just one of many papers showing the laboratory tests on CO2, proving it is a GH gas.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
By the way, the lab set-up for the above paper is described in another paper by the authors;

Total Absorptance by Nitrous Oxide Bands in the Infrared
Burch, D. E. & Williams, D.
http://sci-hub.tw...1.000473
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
And more papers here, for those capable of obtaining and understanding them (EUists are therefore f***ed!);

https://agwobserv...perties/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.