The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds

[emoneyjoe]

The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds


Evaporation from the ocean alone is far
more cooling than the "warming" effects of
water vapor in the atmosphere because
it is the surface where temperature counts.
And tree and foliage transpiration results
in more cooling than any of the other warming
GH processes.
And besides the transpiration cooling,
photosynthesis results n converting radiation
energy (which otherwise might end up as thermal
energy) into chemical energy.
If a single tree can transpire 30 gallons of
water a day into water vapor (depending on soil
saturation), then the total cooling of that process
rivals the cooling effect of ocean evaporation
even though the area of the oceans is greater.

Regardless of whether CO2 cools the
atmosphere, water, water vapor and clouds
provides a lot of cooling even before the
water vapor in the atmosphere radiates
any energy to space.


I challenge any climate scientist to
calculate the temperature the atmosphere
of Earth would be if there was only N2
and O2, and no other gases or water
present.

I'm guessing about 130 F at the
surface.

[Will Janoschka]

Without "any" water much much hotter.
Water with its very high latent heat of
vaporization That is radiated from the
atmosphere not the ground is the thing
that keeps this planet livable for mammals
and plants.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

check out a water vapor loop, transporting energy around the globe, in
effect smoothing out the distribution of heat across the surface
[ average temperatures :) ]

[James]

"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:p3klo8113mv4ui4vv...@4ax.com

> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
>
>
>

> Regardless of whether CO2 cools the
> atmosphere, water, water vapor and clouds
> provides a lot of cooling even before the
> water vapor in the atmosphere radiates
> any energy to space.
>
>
> I challenge any climate scientist to
> calculate the temperature the atmosphere
> of Earth would be if there was only N2
> and O2, and no other gases or water
> present.
>
> I'm guessing about 130 F at the
> surface.

I'll bet Josephus can do it with his compiler.

[emoneyjoe]

But latent heat is limited to the total
precip which is about 3 or 4 feet annually,
plus possibly that much more to dew and
frost and settling mist too fine to be seen.

[Will Janoschka]

That one cubic meter per square meter-year.
is 74 Wattsper square meter continuously
radiated. Far the largest single factor in the
heat leaving the earth and its atmosphere.>
>
>
>

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
>
> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because

WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
Earth from freezing. That fact has been explained to you literally
more than 200 times; that fact has been known since the mid 1800s.

> it is the surface where temperature counts.

No. It is the oceans' global average temperature that counts, as it is
the oceans that control Earth'sclimate.

> And tree and foliage transpiration results in more cooling than any
> of the other warming GH processes.

What the fuck? No.


--
"'Not good science?' Why, before writing _RELIC_ we did extensive scientific
research on the worldwide problem of brain-eating monsters infesting museums.
What more could you want?" -- Douglas Preston

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
>>
>> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
>> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
>
>WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
>one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
>Earth from freezing.

There is the problem with the entire AGW
mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
the Earth.

The sun warms the Earth, stupid, and
the rocks and soil radiate IR away.
The N2 and O2 do not radiate much,
and that is what holds the heat, the gases
that do not radiate much.

>That fact has been explained to you literally
>more than 200 times; that fact has been known since the mid 1800s.

Not that many, and it is false, the error
may have originated with a statement made
in a paper long ago about the Earth without
an atmosphere being much colder.

Do any of the crystal ball gazers realize
that an Earth without an atmosphere is NOT
an Earth with an N2 and O2 atmosphere?

Apparently not.

>> it is the surface where temperature counts.
>
>No. It is the oceans' global average temperature that counts, as it is
>the oceans that control Earth'sclimate.

It is where the data used in the average
annual global temperature is recorded.

The oceans are cold, and it requires
a lot more thermal energy to raise the
temperature of water one degree than
it takes to raise the temperature of air.

>> And tree and foliage transpiration results in more cooling than any
>> of the other warming GH processes.
>
>What the fuck? No.

Absolutely, because most of the
GH processes involve radiating IR
to space, the entire atmosphere is
cooled by IR radiation to space,
by GHGs, otherwise the N2 and O2
would retain a lot more heat than
at present.

Ask any AGW crystal gazer what
cools the atmosphere and see what
they say.

If they don't say GreenHouse Gases,
they are either lying, or as stupid as you.

[josephus]

it just shows you dont know anything about programming. it requires data.
josephus

--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

[RedAcer]

What would the average temperature of the earth be if it had no atmosphere?

[Dawlish]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 11:32:23 PM UTC+1, emoneyjoe wrote:

> Ask any AGW crystal gazer what
>
> cools the atmosphere and see what
>
> they say.
>
>
>
> If they don't say GreenHouse Gases,
>
> they are either lying, or as stupid as you.

Nobody would contradict that, but all would say that, very probably and overall, they warm - as would every single physicist. That's highly likely to be why the world is warming.

You are a nutbar. Why would anyone believe your crap about GHGs producing an cooling effect. That is bizarre when the world has clearly warmed.

[emoneyjoe]

Is that a joke?

The question of what GHGs do is not
answered by considering an Earth without
an atmosphere, it is answered by the
consideration of an Earth with the same
atmosphere as it has at present , but
without GHGs and without water.

If the Earth was warmer with just
an N2 and O2 atmosphere than it is
now, that shows that GHGs cool
the atmosphere.

Then the question is, would more
CO2 cool the Earth more?

More CO2 clearly cools the upper
atmosphere.

[RedAcer]

Bu;, what would the average temperature of the earth be if it had no
atmosphere?
Would it have one? Do you know it? Could you calculate it? Have you
looked it up?
>
>
>
>
>

[Dawlish]

You seem to have avoided the question, joey boy.

[Dawlish]

More CO2 warms the lower atmosphere by a greater extent, as the optical depth increases. Ask a physicist.

[emoneyjoe]

You aren't being funny, humor is not
going to hide the fact that there is a flaw
in AGW, and it was caused by the gossip
about an Earth without an atmosphere.

Even that thought is flawed, because
an average temperature doesn't mean
much if the extremes are too far apart,
the atmosphere retains heat, but not
as much as just N2 and O2 would retain,
because N2 and O2 could not radiate
much heat to space.

I wish the AGW cult wasn't so stupid,
and could do rational thinking, rather
than just using gossip as the only source
for ideas.

Rational thought became more useful
when the lead pencil was invented, being
able to write something down, and think
about it more is what lead to the rapid
progress in science and technology.

Too bad there is a group that ignores
rational thought and thrives on gossip.

[James]

"josephus" <dog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QNqdnYNLxtEAFBHM...@earthlink.com

> James wrote:
>> "emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>> news:p3klo8113mv4ui4vv...@4ax.com
>>> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether CO2 cools the
>>> atmosphere, water, water vapor and clouds
>>> provides a lot of cooling even before the
>>> water vapor in the atmosphere radiates
>>> any energy to space.
>>>
>>>
>>> I challenge any climate scientist to
>>> calculate the temperature the atmosphere
>>> of Earth would be if there was only N2
>>> and O2, and no other gases or water
>>> present.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing about 130 F at the
>>> surface.
>>
>> I'll bet Josephus can do it with his compiler.
>
> it just shows you dont know anything about programming. it requires
> data. josephus

I used to be a programmer. Have you ever heard of gigo?

[RedAcer]

Let's just stick to one thing at a time. Can a bare planet, without an
atmosphere, have a temperature? Its a simple question. Assume it's
rotating fast enough so that it doesn't have time to cool down much
before the sun rises again.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 08:15:24 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Then when can I expect to see this warmth?

[emoneyjoe]

If it doesn't have time to cool down,
how does it have time to heat up?

AFAIK, all solid and liquid materials
radiate a lot, some gases do not, so it
is the gases that don't radiate that retain
heat after being warmed some way.

And there may be gases that absorb
UV or visible light, but that can't radiate
in those wavelengths at the temperature
they are at, and can't radiate IR either.

Everything has a temperature, but
not a fever.

I don't know where you are going
with this, is it time for the AGW punch line?

[RedAcer]

There is no punchline. It was a simple honest question. If it is any
easier, assume the planet is not spinning and one side always faces the
sun. In principle does the surface acquire a fixed temperature.(It may
vary with latitude). Could this temperature be calculated with known
physics?

>
>
>
>
>
>

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:32:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
> >>
> >> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> >> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
> >
> >WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
> >one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
> >Earth from freezing.

> There is the problem with the entire AGW mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
> the Earth.

What?

--
"Looking at a few plants growing better due to more CO2 is like
ignoring that you killed a patient while curing their hangnail."

[emoneyjoe]

With a known reference object, yes,
and the temperature on the moon is known,
it is at about the same distance from the
sun as the Earth.

You are about the most open-minded
AGW nut, so what next, maybe it will be
helpful.

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:23:39 -0600, Desertphile

<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:32:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
>> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
>> >>
>> >> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
>> >> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
>> >
>> >WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
>> >one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
>> >Earth from freezing.
>
>> There is the problem with the entire AGW mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
>> the Earth.
>
>What?

GHGs cool the atmosphere, get used to
hearing and reading that, there is no way the
GHG warming falsehood can last forever.

[Will Janoschka]

All the bare rock planet have many many temperatures the temperatures
all depending on spatial and spectral reflectivity at that point To
assume
that any physical thing acts anywhere near a black-body is a fatal
mistake.
this parameter has never even been measured even here on Earth by
your Climate Clowns. They are way to busy spouting nonsense.

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 20:55:39, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
> >
> > Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> > the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
>
> WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
> one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
> Earth from freezing. That fact has been explained to you literally
> more than 200 times; that fact has been known since the mid 1800s.

This is a bold faced lie. You clowns try but fail to male the Earth
act like a black-body. It ius anything but a black-body

>
> > it is the surface where temperature counts.
>
> No. It is the oceans' global average temperature that counts, as it is
> the oceans that control Earth'sclimate.
>
> > And tree and foliage transpiration results in more cooling than any
> > of the other warming GH processes.
>
> What the fuck? No.
>

[Will Janoschka]

All of the "physiicists", say exactly the opposite, except your
Climate Clowns.


All the bare rock planets have many many temperatures the temperatures

[josephus]

that accounts for your ignorance. I am still a programmer and I have
a compiler that can calculate orbits and ephemeris. not just
compute GW.

[Dawlish]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 4:24:20 AM UTC+1, Will Janoschka wrote:


> All of the "physiicists", say exactly the opposite, except your
>
> Climate Clowns.

They are physicists, nutbar.

I know it's hard to understand the science when you can't actually spell physicist. <laughing>

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:12:12 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

wrote:

> On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:23:39 -0600, Desertphile
> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:32:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
> >> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
> >> >>
> >> >> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> >> >> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
> >> >
> >> >WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
> >> >one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
> >> >Earth from freezing.
> >
> >> There is the problem with the entire AGW mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
> >> the Earth.
> >
> >What?

> GHGs cool the atmosphere

Yet all of the world's physicists say the opposite. How do you explain
that?


--
"When asked by the arraignment judge, 'Why did you shoot the man 6 times?'
The woman replied under oath, 'Because, when I pulled the trigger the 7th
time, it only went click.'" --- The value of human life in Texas

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 05:58:45 -0500, josephus <dog...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

You have a 25 year old DOS 6 compiler
modified to run on windows Command Prompt,
don't you think it is time to upgrade?

[Will Janoschka]

Name one!!!

[Will Janoschka]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:55:50, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:12:12 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:23:39 -0600, Desertphile
> > <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:32:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
> > >> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> > >> >> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
> > >> >
> > >> >WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
> > >> >one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
> > >> >Earth from freezing.
> > >
> > >> There is the problem with the entire AGW mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
> > >> the Earth.
> > >
> > >What?
>
> > GHGs cool the atmosphere
>
> Yet all of the world's physicists say the opposite. How do you explain
> that?
>

All of the "physicists", say exactly the opposite, except your
Climate Clowns.
>

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:55:50 -0600, Desertphile

<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:12:12 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:23:39 -0600, Desertphile
>> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:32:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
>> >> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
>> >> >> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
>> >> >
>> >> >WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
>> >> >one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
>> >> >Earth from freezing.
>> >
>> >> There is the problem with the entire AGW mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
>> >> the Earth.
>> >
>> >What?
>
>> GHGs cool the atmosphere
>
>Yet all of the world's physicists say the opposite. How do you explain
>that?

I don't think they say the opposite,
but if they do, they are lying, because
they know nothing else can cool the
atmosphere.

[Will Janoschka]

Joe, all of the world's physicists agree with
you, ratrher than with Climate Clowns.

Without any explanations from the learned.
CO2 levels are up. Weather is more volitile.
Temperatures are not up. So WTF.

Could be CO2 or not. No measurements:
Does increasing atmospheric CO2
increase volitile weather. I do not know!

The partial derivitive of atmospheric CO2
with respect to everything else that changes
is not known. It will not be known before all
now living "stuff" is long dead.

Pick somthing easy, like insuring that you
always will win at Bingo.
>
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/11/13 10:11 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Without any explanations from the learned. CO2 levels are up.
> Weather is more volitile. Temperatures are not up. So WTF.

What's happening, Will, is that the earth is absorbing 0.6 W/m^2 more
radiation than it's giving up. That's a lot of energy, Will, and it's
making the weather more volatile. Temperature are going up... higher
than you can shake a fist at... especially ocean temps... melting ice
like crazy, man.

What the climate science shows is that this warming is caused by
human activity and that *rate of warming* is *faster than* anything
recorded in the *geologic record*.

[benj]

Will you just don't understand science the way that technician Wormley
does. CO2 is heating the earth dramatically and rapidly and higher than
it ever did before even in prehistory! And it's all caused by YOU!

That HUGE flow of temperature melts polar ice kills virtual penguins and
virtual polar bears, but before it gets to heat the land, it suddenly
sinks to the bottom of the ocean where it heats the cold water there.
This completely explains our current weather emergencies like spring
blizzards and the current cold weather. It's because all that temperature
that is causing damage and extreme weather quickly sinks to the ocean
bottom AFTER causing the damage but BEFORE causing heating! It's so
obvious!

This is what "climate science" says, Will. You need an education. But
until then all you need to do is just send Sam your wallet. Preferably
full of money. Nuff said.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:37:38 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

All figments of somebody's imagination,
1974 was a year with many times more tornados,
Galveston was the biggest loss of life in a US
hurricane, if ice were melting fast the oceans
would be rising faster than the usual erosion
rate, and temperatures haven't gone up a
degree or as much as the max year to year
difference in temperature.

It really takes a lot of cooks to take
whole number data and manipulate it
to give an anomaly of a couple of tenths
of a degree.

[Will Janoschka]

Ben I am proud to not understand Worm-lies climate science..
If Sam wants to make a point, he can do so by dying first!!!

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/11/13 11:36 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> If Sam wants to make a point, he can do so by dying first!!!

That seems harsh, Will, do you talk to people like that when you
are looking them in the face?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 03:37:38, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/11/13 10:11 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > Without any explanations from the learned. CO2 levels are up.
> > Weather is more volitile. Temperatures are not up. So WTF.
>
> What's happening, Will, is that the earth is absorbing 0.6 W/m^2 more
> radiation than it's giving up.

Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates
thar the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more
than it is receiving, causing such cold weather!

If you wihs to curb the use of fossile fuel, please die immidiately!
We will not burn your body, but just let it stink!.

[josephus]

there is proof of INTELLIGENCE but you dont seem to have any.

[josephus]

prove it. you asserted it. SHOW US.

[gordo]

To sum up. The earth continues to warm. That is not in dispute.Now
what the hell were you saying?
>
>
>
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/12/13 12:01 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
> the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
> receiving, causing such cold weather!

"The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per
square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over
the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the
rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding
400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how
much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we
want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391
ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to
restore energy balance and prevent further warming". -- James Hansen


> Confusion over the Basics
> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/
>
> Heat Transfer Basics
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/heat-transfer-basics-part-zero/
>

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:24:11 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/12/13 12:01 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
>> the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
>> receiving, causing such cold weather!
>
>
> "The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per
> square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over
> the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the
> rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding
> 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how
> much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we
> want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391
> ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to
> restore energy balance and prevent further warming". -- James Hansen

And we must wash our underwear to
prevent smelling like the above paragraph.

>> Confusion over the Basics
>> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/
>>
>> Heat Transfer Basics
>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/heat-transfer-basics-part-zero/

Most fossil fuels are burned to provide
space heating and transportation.

To get back to 350 ppmV, the whole
world would have to shut off all heating
systems, and park all vehicles.

Then an efficient way to remove 50 ppmV
CO2 from the air would have to be invented.

Sure, Sam, there are two ways that will
happen:

When hell freezes over, and

In a pig's ass.

[Will Janoschka]

Would you like to comne 'roung and see, Religions Nut that you are?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:24:11, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/13 12:01 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
> > the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
> > receiving, causing such cold weather!
>
>
> "The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per
> square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over
> the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the
> rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding
> 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how
> much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we
> want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391
> ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to
> restore energy balance and prevent further warming". -- James Hansen
>

Have you ever made a measurement Sam? Why do you spout nonsense?

[Will Janoschka]

Show your partial derivitives of atmospheric CO2

with respect to everything else that changes

I did make the claim that such is not known.

It will not be known before all now living "stuff"
is long dead.

Make the measurements and disprove my clam!

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/12/13 6:05 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Have you ever made a measurement Sam? Why do you spout nonsense?
>
> Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
> the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
> receiving, causing such cold weather!
>

I spent a career making measurements in physics and astronomy (radio),
Will--and calculating the error bars!

Will, did you ever consider that satellites can measure the incoming
radiation to the earth.... and that satellites can measure the
outgoing radiation coming up from the planet below? Well, Will, did
you ever consider that?

[Sam Wormley]

Should I bring a knife, gun or rope? You seem pretty hostile.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:46:23 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Is that how the stupid 0.6 watts per m^2 comes from?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 23:46:23, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/13 6:05 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > Have you ever made a measurement Sam? Why do you spout nonsense?
> >
> > Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
> > the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
> > receiving, causing such cold weather!
> >
>
> I spent a career making measurements in physics and astronomy (radio),
> Will--and calculating the error bars!

You certainly do not demonstrate such a capability here. Can you give
an
example of anything you did measure?

>
> Will, did you ever consider that satellites can measure the incoming
> radiation to the earth.... and that satellites can measure the
> outgoing radiation coming up from the planet below? Well, Will, did
> you ever consider that?
>

Your satellites cannot and do not measure the amount of sensible heat
absorbed
by the earth surface causing its temperature to rise. The downward
spaceborn
radiometers measure only the zenith radiation from the earth and
atmosphere to
the colder photofdetector. They do not and cannot measure the outgoing

radiative heat transfer. Such would require a orbit greater than that
of Mars
and be perpendicular to the plane of the elliptic Next stupid
question Sam?

[Will Janoschka]

To Religions Nuts OI always are bring the wepon of choice and
of course you Skeptical Science Buble ti protect you.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/12/13 8:28 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 23:46:23, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Will, did you ever consider that satellites can measure the incoming
>> radiation to the earth.... and that satellites can measure the
>> outgoing radiation coming up from the planet below? Well, Will, did
>> you ever consider that?
>>
> Your satellites cannot and do not measure the amount of sensible
> heat absorbed by the earth surface causing its temperature to rise.
> The downward spaceborn radiometers measure only the zenith radiation
> from the earth and atmosphere to the colder photofdetector.

Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
which results in the earth warming globally.

Try to focus on the measurement, Will.

[Sam Wormley]

I take it you have no interest in discussing climate science, Will.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 21:13:35 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Except the average temperature goes
up and down.

Do these measurements differentiate
between reflected solar energy and other
radiation?

I hope better science is being done
for the amount of money wasted than
just measurements from orbit.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I take it you have no interest in discussing climate science, Will.

Most people have not interest in discussing climate science in a physics
group, ass hat.

Take it to a climate group.




--
Jim Pennino

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 04:14:15 -0000

Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
in discussing underlaying physics.

For such people is taking discussion
out of physics group good choice.

--
Poutnik

[Dawlish]

It's the way willy thinks that no-one has ever done this before that just makes you shake your head. As if he's the first one to ever think of it.

There are so many Nobel prizes that ought to be awarded to climate deniers, so many.........

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:32:41 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Never mind, just a little warm weather would
be enough, if it ever gets here, I hope the sun
melts the frost off my car windows when I get
ready to leave in the morning.

[Dawlish]

You really struggle with the concept of "global", don't you nutbar?

[Will Janoschka]

Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have
ever made such a measurement lier!!

[Will Janoschka]

Sam there is njo such thing as climate science,
You only want to spout climate FRAUD.

[Dawlish]

You are nuts, as well as so angry you can't spell, aren't you?

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:13:55 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 04:14:15 -0000
>
>
>>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I take it you have no interest in discussing climate science, Will.
>>
>> Most people have not interest in discussing climate science in a physics
>> group, ass hat.
>>
>> Take it to a climate group.
>
>Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
>in discussing underlaying physics.

Mowst AGW trolls here are not discussing the physics of climate
science.

They are spreading FUD and screeching about tipping points.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On May 13, 5:05 am, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:"Mowst AGW trolls

here are not discussing the physics of climate science."

On May 10, 8:55 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:"The link appeals
to *your* narrow interests; you assume everyone else shares your
narrow interest; and you assume everyone is reading your "post" in
Google Groups."
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/8a743dcb7d2a70c7

Ok so you claim that some are no interested in science, but when you
had a choice to discuss the science, you avoided the study with
another stupid reply. Why do you lazy trolls think you can have it
both ways?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 4:16 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Sam there is njo such thing as climate science, You only want to
> spout climate FRAUD.

You sure about that, Will? Only fumb duckers deny climate science.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 4:13 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have ever made such a
> measurement lier!!
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/12/13 10:31 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> Except the average temperature goes up and down.

Try looking at temperature with the "noise" removed.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm
> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/FR11_All.gif


> Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term
> noise.
>
> The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long
> term climate change over a relatively short period of time. Only
> over a period of decades can you confidently discern climate trends.
> Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate.
>
> Nevertheless, several important questions remain - what's caused the
> warming of global surface temperatures to slow in the short-term?
>

[RedAcer]

On 11/05/13 00:53, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 22:33:08 +0100, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/13 20:32, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:49:39 +0100, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/05/13 16:16, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:57:47 +0100, RedAcer
>>>>> <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/05/13 14:49, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:19:35 +0100, RedAcer
>>>>>>> <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/05/13 23:32, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
>>>>>>>>> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe
>>>>>>>>>> <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and
>>>>>>>>>>> Clouds
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more
>>>>>>>>>>> cooling than the warming effects of water vapor
>>>>>>>>>>> in the atmosphere because
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in
>>>>>>>>>> Earth's atmosphere one would need a great deal more
>>>>>>>>>> CO2 than it currently has to keep Earth from
>>>>>>>>>> freezing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is the problem with the entire AGW mess, the
>>>>>>>>> premise that GHGs are what warms the Earth.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The sun warms the Earth, stupid, and the rocks and
>>>>>>>>> soil radiate IR away. The N2 and O2 do not radiate
>>>>>>>>> much, and that is what holds the heat, the gases that
>>>>>>>>> do not radiate much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That fact has been explained to you literally more
>>>>>>>>>> than 200 times; that fact has been known since the
>>>>>>>>>> mid 1800s.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not that many, and it is false, the error may have
>>>>>>>>> originated with a statement made in a paper long ago
>>>>>>>>> about the Earth without an atmosphere being much
>>>>>>>>> colder.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do any of the crystal ball gazers realize that an
>>>>>>>>> Earth without an atmosphere is NOT an Earth with an
>>>>>>>>> N2 and O2 atmosphere?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it is the surface where temperature counts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. It is the oceans' global average temperature
>>>>>>>>>> that counts, as it is the oceans that control
>>>>>>>>>> Earth'sclimate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is where the data used in the average annual
>>>>>>>>> global temperature is recorded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The oceans are cold, and it requires a lot more
>>>>>>>>> thermal energy to raise the temperature of water one
>>>>>>>>> degree than it takes to raise the temperature of
>>>>>>>>> air.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And tree and foliage transpiration results in
>>>>>>>>>>> more cooling than any of the other warming GH
>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the fuck? No.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely, because most of the GH processes involve
>>>>>>>>> radiating IR to space, the entire atmosphere is
>>>>>>>>> cooled by IR radiation to space, by GHGs, otherwise
>>>>>>>>> the N2 and O2 would retain a lot more heat than at
>>>>>>>>> present.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ask any AGW crystal gazer what cools the atmosphere
>>>>>>>>> and see what they say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If they don't say GreenHouse Gases, they are either
>>>>>>>>> lying, or as stupid as you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would the average temperature of the earth be if
>>>>>>>> it had no atmosphere?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that a joke?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question of what GHGs do is not answered by
>>>>>>> considering an Earth without an atmosphere, it is
>>>>>>> answered by the consideration of an Earth with the same
>>>>>>> atmosphere as it has at present , but without GHGs and
>>>>>>> without water.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the Earth was warmer with just an N2 and O2 atmosphere
>>>>>>> than it is now, that shows that GHGs cool the
>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then the question is, would more CO2 cool the Earth
>>>>>>> more?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More CO2 clearly cools the upper atmosphere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bu;, what would the average temperature of the earth be if
>>>>>> it had no atmosphere? Would it have one? Do you know it?
>>>>>> Could you calculate it? Have you looked it up?
>>>>>
>>>>> You aren't being funny, humor is not going to hide the fact
>>>>> that there is a flaw in AGW, and it was caused by the gossip
>>>>> about an Earth without an atmosphere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even that thought is flawed, because an average temperature
>>>>> doesn't mean much if the extremes are too far apart, the
>>>>> atmosphere retains heat, but not as much as just N2 and O2
>>>>> would retain, because N2 and O2 could not radiate much heat
>>>>> to space.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish the AGW cult wasn't so stupid, and could do rational
>>>>> thinking, rather than just using gossip as the only source
>>>>> for ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rational thought became more useful when the lead pencil was
>>>>> invented, being able to write something down, and think about
>>>>> it more is what lead to the rapid progress in science and
>>>>> technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad there is a group that ignores rational thought and
>>>>> thrives on gossip.
>>>>
>>>> Let's just stick to one thing at a time. Can a bare planet,
>>>> without an atmosphere, have a temperature? Its a simple
>>>> question. Assume it's rotating fast enough so that it doesn't
>>>> have time to cool down much before the sun rises again.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't have time to cool down, how does it have time to
>>> heat up?
>>>
>>> AFAIK, all solid and liquid materials radiate a lot, some gases
>>> do not, so it is the gases that don't radiate that retain heat
>>> after being warmed some way.
>>>
>>> And there may be gases that absorb UV or visible light, but that
>>> can't radiate in those wavelengths at the temperature they are
>>> at, and can't radiate IR either.
>>>
>>> Everything has a temperature, but not a fever.
>>>
>>> I don't know where you are going with this, is it time for the
>>> AGW punch line?
>>
>> There is no punchline. It was a simple honest question. If it is
>> any easier, assume the planet is not spinning and one side always
>> faces the sun. In principle does the surface acquire a fixed
>> temperature.(It may vary with latitude). Could this temperature be
>> calculated with known physics?
>
> With a known reference object, yes, and the temperature on the moon
> is known, it is at about the same distance from the sun as the
> Earth.
>
> You are about the most open-minded AGW nut, so what next, maybe it
> will be helpful.
>

If you calculate the average temperature of the earth you get ~ -15C,
but the observed average is ~ +15C, that's 30 degrees higher.
If you look at the frequency range of radiation emitted from a body at
-15C then you will find that oxygen and nitrogen have no absorption
bands in that range. So all the radiation will go into space. So the
question is, why is the earth so much warmer than expected and warmer
than the moon which is roughly at the same distance from the earth.
(the earth and moon have different albedos so you wouldn't expect them
to be at exactly the same temperature)

[Will Janoschka]

You lie Sam. No such measurement hsas been made!

[Will Janoschka]

Sam: Only fumb duckers claim any science climate FRAUD!

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:26:40, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/13 10:31 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> > Except the average temperature goes up and down.
>
> Try looking at temperature with the "noise" removed.

Why Sam The noise is where the information is.
-snip BS-

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 04:14:15 -0000
>
>
>>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I take it you have no interest in discussing climate science, Will.
>>
>> Most people have not interest in discussing climate science in a physics
>> group, ass hat.
>>
>> Take it to a climate group.
>
> Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
> in discussing underlaying physics.

If I can make any sense of that gibberish, that is not relevant to posting
the crap in sci.phyisics.

Most of the climate crap posted here is science free, doom and gloom
speculations.

> For such people is taking discussion
> out of physics group good choice.

Gibberish; I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
temperature and it is not.

So, either no such meansurement was made or someone screwed up the
measurement, ass hat.




--
Jim Pennino

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 16:34:00 -0000

>
> > Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
> > in discussing underlaying physics.
>
> If I can make any sense of that gibberish, that is not relevant to posting
> the crap in sci.phyisics.
>
> Most of the climate crap posted here is science free, doom and gloom
> speculations.
>
> > For such people is taking discussion
> > out of physics group good choice.
>
> Gibberish; I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.

I do not pretend my English is perfect, as I am not native.

But I use it everyday in work. Very most people
do not have problems with my English, nor with sense I put in.

So, perhaps you may have problems with English or understanding.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 16:37:59 -0000

>
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/13/13 4:13 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> >> Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have ever made such a
> >> measurement lier!!
> >>
> >
> > Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
> > top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
> > which results in the earth warming globally.
>
> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
> temperature and it is not.

Same as temperature is continually increasing or decreasing
during switching seasons ? ;-)

>
> So, either no such meansurement was made or someone screwed up the
> measurement, ass hat.



--

Poutnik

[AM]

Don't worry, the rest of us understand you just fine.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 10:48 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>
> Why Sam The noise is where the information is.

If only that were true, Will.

>
> Try looking at temperature with the "noise" removed.

> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm
> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/FR11_All.gif

[Sam Wormley]

Why do you claim that, Will?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 11:37 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
>> top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
>> which results in the earth warming globally.

> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
> temperature and it is not.

Bingo--The earth is increasing in temperature! The jimp's narrow
concept of temperatures doesn't take into account all of the earth!

The jimp is easily fooled!

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:26:40 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think you messed up the attributes,
I don't talk about trends over decades,
that is all BS, there is no trend in a random,
self controlling, chaotic weather system.

The lack of non-volatile limited
electronic storage is no excuse for
not having the original data, if all
of the "research" was in a well
managed company, all the
"scientists" would have been
fired long ago.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 16:34:00 -0000
>>
>> > Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
>> > in discussing underlaying physics.
>>
>> If I can make any sense of that gibberish, that is not relevant to posting
>> the crap in sci.phyisics.
>>
>> Most of the climate crap posted here is science free, doom and gloom
>> speculations.
>>
>> > For such people is taking discussion
>> > out of physics group good choice.
>>
>> Gibberish; I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.
>
> I do not pretend my English is perfect, as I am not native.

Well, that explains why you sound like an idiot on drugs most of the time.

> But I use it everyday in work. Very most people
> do not have problems with my English, nor with sense I put in.

Yes, I would imagine you have no problems asking for directions to
the restroom.

> So, perhaps you may have problems with English or understanding.

I do not speak whatever flavor of pidgen English it is that you speak.

A non-native speaker would, if he had any sense, consult an appropriate
dictionary before getting in a snit over the meaning of an English
word, such as "physics".



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 16:37:59 -0000
>
>
>>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/13/13 4:13 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> >> Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have ever made such a
>> >> measurement lier!!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
>> > top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
>> > which results in the earth warming globally.
>>
>> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
>> temperature and it is not.
>
> Same as temperature is continually increasing or decreasing
> during switching seasons ? ;-)

No, moron.

The annual global average would be continually increasing and it is not.




--
Jim Pennino

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 17:11:12 -0000

>
> A non-native speaker would, if he had any sense, consult an appropriate
> dictionary before getting in a snit over the meaning of an English
> word, such as "physics".

Perfect English does not prevent from being a native Usenet troll.
Even more, most of troll are native speakers.

--
Poutnik

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/13 11:37 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
>>> top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
>>> which results in the earth warming globally.
>
>> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
>> temperature and it is not.
>
> Bingo--The earth is increasing in temperature! The jimp's narrow
> concept of temperatures doesn't take into account all of the earth!

The jimp's concept of temperature is that which is measured by a thermometer,
ass hat.

Thermometers show the Earth is not currently increasing in temperature
and hasn't been for quite some time now.

> The jimp is easily fooled!

The jimp has known how to read a thermometer since grade school, ass hat,
when are you going to learn how to do it?




--
Jim Pennino

[emoneyjoe]

Only a stupid egotist would say they can
measure the total radiation of the Earth to
0.60 watts out of hundreds of watts.

It is BS, and they know it is BS.

[emoneyjoe]

You need to specify what conditions
you are talking about. No atmosphere?

>If you look at the frequency range of radiation emitted from a body at
>-15C then you will find that oxygen and nitrogen have no absorption
>bands in that range.

Are you obsessed with IR radiation,
when did conduction and convection and
UV and visible light stop working?

>So all the radiation will go into space. So the
>question is, why is the earth so much warmer than expected and warmer
>than the moon which is roughly at the same distance from the earth.
>(the earth and moon have different albedos so you wouldn't expect them
>to be at exactly the same temperature)

Are you intentionally being dense?

The Earth has a massive atmosphere
of N2, all thought experiments must retain
that, and the N2 would be absorbing
sensible heat by conduction with the
hot rocks, 4 times the area than now
if there was no water.

If you can't address those facts
directly and give up the no atmosphere
baloney, then you are as bad as the
AGW drones.

[Dawlish]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:05:21 PM UTC+1, Wally W. wrote:

> Mowst AGW trolls here are not discussing the physics of climate
>
> science.
>
>
>
> They are spreading FUD and screeching about tipping points.

Oh dear, where's wally. No-one needs to. They just refer to published papers in which scientists do.

[RedAcer]

Jeez. Have you forgotten how this sub thread started.
Look further up. In my first post I said :-

"What would the average temperature of the earth be if it had no
atmosphere?"

>
>

>> If you look at the frequency range of radiation emitted from a body at
>> -15C then you will find that oxygen and nitrogen have no absorption
>> bands in that range.
>
> Are you obsessed with IR radiation,
> when did conduction and convection and
> UV and visible light stop working?

Check out the emission spectrum for a body at -15C.

>
>
>> So all the radiation will go into space. So the
>> question is, why is the earth so much warmer than expected and warmer
>> than the moon which is roughly at the same distance from the earth.
>> (the earth and moon have different albedos so you wouldn't expect them
>> to be at exactly the same temperature)
>
> Are you intentionally being dense?
>
> The Earth has a massive atmosphere
> of N2, all thought experiments must retain
> that, and the N2 would be absorbing
> sensible heat by conduction with the
> hot rocks, 4 times the area than now
> if there was no water.

Sure it would get a small amount of heat by conduction. But remember the
average temperature i -15C.

>
> If you can't address those facts
> directly and give up the no atmosphere
> baloney,

If you don't consider the temperature of the earth *without* an
atmosphere, how can you possible know by how much the atmosphere does
actually warm the earth? Please explain.

>then you are as bad as the
> AGW drones.

Translation. Emoney throws out an insult to deflect from his cluelessness.

>
>
>
>
>

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

Perhaps true but totally irrelevant to the point that you haven't a
clue what you are talking about, i.e. the definition of "physics".



--
Jim Pennino

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:14:07 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You are the one fooled by peer reviewed
papers, there is no way the thermal energy
the AGW nuts claim is missing could be
measurable in the oceans, the difference
in specific heat between water and air
is too great, a whole degree in the air
would be less than a tenth of a degree
in water, unless you want to claim all
the heat is running and hiding in the
same place.

It isn't in the Bermuda Triangle, is it?

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:27:38 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

Translation:

Perfect English does not prevent a native from
being a Usenet troll.

Even more, most trolls are native speakers.


Not a lot of difference, but, I hope it helps.

[benj]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:26:40 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/12/13 10:31 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>> Except the average temperature goes up and down.
>
> Try looking at temperature with the "noise" removed.
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-
january-2008-intermediate.htm
>> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/FR11_All.gif
>
>
>> Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term
>> noise.

This is blatant lie. Global temperatures have not risen for well over a
decade. YOU climate clowns are using statistical variations to promote
your criminal tax schemes.

>> The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long
>> term climate change over a relatively short period of time. Only over
>> a period of decades can you confidently discern climate trends.
>> Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate.

Your "flaw" ass-hat is that when confronted with the THIRTY YEARS
(1940-1970) when temperature went DOWN while CO2 went UP you suddenly
lose your hearing. That's not a mistake. That is blatant dishonesty.
Sam, your dishonesty has NO place in real science.

>> Nevertheless, several important questions remain - what's caused the
>> warming of global surface temperatures to slow in the short-term?

Oh sure, "it slowed" rather than has been essentially flat! Sam, perhaps
the answer to your question is that no scientists were recently able to
get away with fudging climate data because in increased scrutiny and
that's why recent temperatures have not been "dramatically rising". (Even
though you repeat over and over and over that they are)

[emoneyjoe]

And that is what early GHG thought was,
and it is flawed.

I have to tell you that you are not using
good sense when you continue thinking about
no atmosphere.

>>> If you look at the frequency range of radiation emitted from a body at
>>> -15C then you will find that oxygen and nitrogen have no absorption
>>> bands in that range.
>>
>> Are you obsessed with IR radiation,
>> when did conduction and convection and
>> UV and visible light stop working?
>
>Check out the emission spectrum for a body at -15C.

Right, less radiation, so conduction
becomes a bigger factor, and any gas
that retains heat like N2 and O2 will
get hotter because of less radiation.

But the conduction does not stop
transferring heat at the average, it
continues as long as the rocks are
warmer than the air.

So even your physics is bad.

>>> So all the radiation will go into space. So the
>>> question is, why is the earth so much warmer than expected and warmer
>>> than the moon which is roughly at the same distance from the earth.
>>> (the earth and moon have different albedos so you wouldn't expect them
>>> to be at exactly the same temperature)
>>
>> Are you intentionally being dense?
>>
>> The Earth has a massive atmosphere
>> of N2, all thought experiments must retain
>> that, and the N2 would be absorbing
>> sensible heat by conduction with the
>> hot rocks, 4 times the area than now
>> if there was no water.
>
>Sure it would get a small amount of heat by conduction. But remember the
>average temperature i -15C.

Average doesn't enter into maximum
temperature of thermal transfer, it only
affects speed of transfer.

>> If you can't address those facts
>> directly and give up the no atmosphere
>> baloney,
>If you don't consider the temperature of the earth *without* an
>atmosphere, how can you possible know by how much the atmosphere does
>actually warm the earth? Please explain.
>
>>then you are as bad as the
>> AGW drones.
>
>Translation. Emoney throws out an insult to deflect from his cluelessness.

No, I am trying to get you to understand
that the no atmosphere BS was flawed
thinking back when, and it is even more
flawed now that more is known.

There is no way anybody can deny
that N2 and O2 retain heat, and GHGs
radiate heat.

That means the atmosphere would
be warmer without GHGs and water.

[Wally W.]

No, they claim the warm water defies bouyancy, sinks a half-mile down,
and hides there ... waiting for the mother of all tipping points,
which is not to be confused with all the tipping points that have
passed before.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 11:37 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
> temperature and it is not.

Global Temperature Update Through 2012
> http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 12:13 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> The annual global average would be continually increasing and it is not.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 12:25 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> The jimp's concept of temperature is that which is measured by a thermometer,
> ass hat.
>
> Thermometers show the Earth is not currently increasing in temperature
> and hasn't been for quite some time now.