current IPCC report has dropped all mention of "hockey stick" What does it mean?
Bawana
that the current IPCC report has dropped all mention of the formerly
sensational "hockey stick" graph developed by Michael Mann which
was such a feature of the 2001 report?
kT
It means that it's now accepted as self evident.
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
Bawana
> Bawana wrote:
> > What does it mean, for example, commentators ask,
>
> > that the current IPCC report has dropped all mention of the formerly
> > sensational "hockey stick" graph developed by Michael Mann which
> > was such a feature of the 2001 report?
>
> It means that it's now accepted as self evident.
It's a classic UN/IPCC, Roseanne Roseannadanna channeling, collective
"never mind".
It means even the IPCC will not publish known works of fraud.
They don't have too...
They have hundreds of unknown frauds (future frauds) to publish.
> All truth passes through three stages.
> First, it is ridiculed.
It's exposed for selective stats.
> Second, it is violently opposed.
The Mann-oids present their side of the story...
> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Mann-oids go Al Capone with the latex foam mattress, pillows and beds.
They wear astro-diapers while bloviating CO2 inanities at
realclimax.com, or something...
Hey dickie! What was that URL?
I have a tip for them: crack the windows if you have any.
James
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:7Q0zh.11$sD...@newsfe05.lga...
> Bawana wrote:
>
>> What does it mean, for example, commentators ask,
>>
>> that the current IPCC report has dropped all mention of the formerly
>> sensational "hockey stick" graph developed by Michael Mann which
>> was such a feature of the 2001 report?
>
> It means that it's now accepted as self evident.
>
> All truth passes through three stages.
>
> First, it is ridiculed.
>
> Second, it is violently opposed.
>
> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
>
> Arthur Schopenhauer
There is another 3 stages for things.
First it is hailed as fact and peer reviewed.
Second, it is agreed that there is a 100% consensus in it's acceptance.
Thirdly, it is never mentioned again.
Bawana
Now THAT'S funny!
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
It's part of the grander bait and switch tactics of the Global Warming
Industrial Complex. The really ironic thing about the hockey stick is
that nobody--except the typical enviro whacko--would take the global
warming hypothesis seriously without the hockey stick. It was and
still is the closest thing to proof that they ever had (and ever will
have). Now that it's been exposed as fraudulent the global warming
cultists are pretending not to notice.
James
John M.
See:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html
for a fair assessment of the rights and wrongs of the HSG
John M.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html
for a fair assessment of the rights and wrongs of Mann et al.'s HSG.
James
"John M." <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1171040603....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> See:
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html
>
> for a fair assessment of the rights and wrongs of Mann et al.'s HSG.
>
The science is settled. The consensus is overwhelming.
Bawana
wrote:
Have a spine and opinion,
It will not hurt you,
What does it mean:
Roger Coppock
I means that you haven't read the full report.
Bawana
Dazzle us, Co2puck.
Where is the "hockey stick" graph in the current IPCC report?
I hope it's not between any stuck-together pages of your hard-copies.
Forgive me, you have it in 10 different formats, don't ya?
It shouldn't be too hard for you to provide a cite.
Roger Coppock
> On Feb 9, 1:40 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:47 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What does it mean, for example, commentators ask,
>
> > > that the current IPCC report has dropped all mention of the formerly
> > > sensational "hockey stick" graph developed by Michael Mann which
> > > was such a feature of the 2001 report?
>
> > I means that you haven't read the full report.
>
> Dazzle us, Co2puck.
raylopez99
> lefties.
>
> I wish politics didn't play such a big role in the AGW debate. So
> much is being skewed.
Once I read a paper that tried to use four (4) tree trunks as proxy
data for an area in Europe around the size of France. Even the paper
said the proxy data was unreliable.
Bottom line: we need more data going forward. If temperatures
stabilize or drop, it will refute the GW or AGW hypothesis.
RL
Bawana
The only people mentioning Mann and hockey stick are Mann and his -
oids.
Can you find me anybody mentioning Mann and the hockey stick that are
not connected with Mann and realclimax.org?
Dazzle us, Co2puck.
Paul E. Lehmann
All scientists always want more data.
In this case, there is a way to do just that.
The National Weather Service has program in which
there are weather sensors installed on commercial
aircraft that record and downlink such things as
temperature, atmospheric pressure etc. It either
will or already has replaced weather ballons.
My idea is to add to the sensors and include
sensors for the GHG, and also sensors for such
things as mercury, sulphur compounds etc.
These sensors, coupled with GPS location
information would give researchers a time slice
through the atmosphere from the time the aircraft
took off, climb to cruising altitude and descent
to landing.
The data could then be value added to include the
generation of graphics to show the three
dimensional location and concentration of these
measurements.
Perhaps someone like Google could be a partner in
this venture and furnish the storage for the data
as well as generate the graphics. It might fit
in well with their Google Earth and Google Maps
products.
Roger Coppock
Why would I want to do that?
Real Climate is a reliable source.
The Question is settled, The IPCC has NOT dropped the
"Hockey Stick" from the latest series of reports.
To quote my source:
Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing
any reference to the infamous 'hockey stick' ". Not only are the three
original "hockey stick" reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report
shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they
are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even
stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be
anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just
the past 1000 years."
-- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/wsj-editorial-
board-head-still-buried-in-the-sand/
If that doesn't satisfy you,
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
Bawana
> On Feb 9, 3:07 pm, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 2:54 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 11:39 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 9, 1:40 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 9, 7:47 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > What does it mean, for example, commentators ask,
> > > > > > that the current IPCC report has dropped all mention of the formerly
> > > > > > sensational "hockey stick" graph developed by Michael Mann which
> > > > > > was such a feature of the 2001 report?
>
> > > > > I means that you haven't read the full report.
>
> > > > Dazzle us, Co2puck.
>
> > >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/wsj-editorial-b...
>
> > The only people mentioning Mann and hockey stick are Mann and his -
> > oids.
>
> > Can you find me anybody mentioning Mann and the hockey stick that are
> > not connected with Mann and realclimax.org?
>
> Why would I want to do that?
> Real Climate is a reliable source.
Like you don't know Real Climate is manned by Mannoids...liar
> The Question is settled, The IPCC has NOT dropped the
> "Hockey Stick" from the latest series of reports.
> To quote my source:
What the Mannoids are saying about it:
> <snip>
> If that doesn't satisfy you,
> DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
I did.
The only hits about Mann and the hockey stick are from Mann and the
hockey stickers
Nobody is mentioning Mann and the hockey stick
but Mann and the hockey stickers at realclimax.
Prove me wrong, Co2puke.
Clifford
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1171069841.2...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 3:07 pm, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2:54 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 9, 11:39 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On Feb 9, 1:40 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Feb 9, 7:47 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > What does it mean, for example, commentators ask,
>> > > > > that the current IPCC report has dropped all mention of the
>> > > > > formerly
>> > > > > sensational "hockey stick" graph developed by Michael Mann which
>> > > > > was such a feature of the 2001 report?
>>
>> > > > I means that you haven't read the full report.
>>
>> > > Dazzle us, Co2puck.
>>
>> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/wsj-editorial-b...
>>
>> The only people mentioning Mann and hockey stick are Mann and his -
>> oids.
>>
>> Can you find me anybody mentioning Mann and the hockey stick that are
>> not connected with Mann and realclimax.org?
>
> Why would I want to do that?
Because it would be the right thing to do.
> Real Climate is a reliable source.
LMAO!
Wake up and smell the coffee.
As I pointed out to you prior, you refuse to acknowledge anything contrary
to your set beliefs!
You have a pre-determined mindset that AGW is real and refuse ANYTHING that
contradicts
that.
> Real Climate is a reliable source.
...and the hockey stick is undisputed...
> Real Climate is a reliable source.
If you say it enough times, you'll believe it.
> Real Climate is a reliable source.
Because AlGore says so...
<rest of tripe snipped>
Hydrogen TRUTH
> On Feb 9, 7:47 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What does it mean
Re: current IPCC report has dropped all mention of "hockey stick" What
does it mean? -- It means H2-PV Economy has cancelled Global Warming
by 2048.
It means that on or before 2048 there will no longer be a gallon of
gasoline sold anywhere on earth. It means the END of Exxon and the END
of Chevron and the END of Peabody Coal and the END of Western Fuels.
It means the END of monthly utility bills.
It means the END of Mass Murders for OIL.
It means the END of kissing ass of Sheiks of Arabique.
It means the END of Exxon-front operations paid trolls like Claudius
Denk and Ray Lopez.
hanson
Grandpa Leon Kuntz aka "Awe Shit" decided the "Hydrogen TRUTH"
<Hydrog...@HydrogenTRUTH.info> and wrote in message
news:1171072043.7...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 8:53 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 7:47 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > What does it mean
>
> Re: current IPCC report has dropped all mention of "hockey stick" What
> does it mean? -- It means H2-PV Economy has cancelled Global Warming
> by 2048.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/e6377b030d0479fd
No, it doesn't.
Besides what'ya going to do about it, besides saying "Awe Shit"
>
["Awe Shit"]
> It means that on or before 2048 there will no longer be a gallon of
> gasoline sold anywhere on earth. It means the END of Exxon and the END
> of Chevron and the END of Peabody Coal and the END of Western Fuels.
>
INo, it doesn't.
Besides what'ya going to do about it, besides saying "Awe Shit"
>
["Awe Shit"]
> It means the END of monthly utility bills.
>
That's what they said when the atomic age dawned. Look what happend!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/300a43bcbf8937a1
>
["Awe Shit"]
> It means the END of Mass Murders for OIL.
> It means the END of kissing ass of Sheiks of Arabique.
> It means the END of Exxon-front operations paid trolls like
> Claudius Denk and Ray Lopez.
>
Hey Grandpa!... That only seems to you to be this way because
you know so little, including forgetting me, "hanson, the chauffeur"!
But thanks for the laughs, "Awe Shit".... ahahaha
ahahaha... ahahanson
John M.
> lefties.
>
> I wish politics didn't play such a big role in the AGW debate. So
> much is being skewed.
Perhaps you should join the UCS and help to redress what you see as
political bias. There is no restriction on membership, nor on forum
discussions as long as these are decorous.
As a liberal neocon, pinko-fascist centrist myself, I believe this is
your only possible way forward.
John M.
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
The current IPCC report is stuffed with 'Hockey stick' graphs - 9 of
them on page 11 alone. Do you really believe that tens of thousands of
scientists around the world are fudging data like old-time witch-
hunters during the Inquisition? If you do, you're a twerp.
Bawana
wrote:
How 'bout a cite, John Moron.
Realclimax.org don't count.
> Do you really believe that tens of thousands of
> scientists around the world
Temperature-taking, CO2-ghost-chasing, booger-eaters, John Moron.
Good mindless work, if you can get it.
> are fudging data like old-time witch-
> hunters during the Inquisition?
Ya can't help throwing in statements from the lunatic fringe,
can ya John Moron?
James
Science is going the way of the liberal media John. I suggest reading
Bernard Goldbloom's book "Bias" wherbye the liberal media don't look at
themselves as liberal. They look at things from their own point of view. ie.
Anyone right of center is a right wing conservative while everybody else is
middle of the road including anyone left of center. Liberal is never ever in
their vocabulary. IOW, they are too shallow to even consider a different
point of view.
Wayne
> Science is going the way of the liberal media John. I suggest reading
> Bernard Goldbloom's book "Bias" wherbye the liberal media don't look at
> themselves as liberal. They look at things from their own point of view. ie.
> Anyone right of center is a right wing conservative while everybody else is
> middle of the road including anyone left of center. Liberal is never ever in
> their vocabulary.
>
morons who are incapable of analytical thought and must be fed their ideas like
a baby is fed pabulum
James
"Wayne" <wro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2037bb3e6...@news.motzarella.org...
Apparently it works on you.
Lloyd
OK, Idiot Alert.
>
> Nobody is mentioning Mann and the hockey stick
> but Mann and the hockey stickers at realclimax.
>
Google turns up a hit at the BBC, Scientific American, and many more.
So you are a liar.
> Prove me wrong, Co2puke.
Bawana
That's why you have posted all those hits, eh lardass?
Nobody is mentioning Mann and the hockey stick
but Mann and the hockey stickers at realclimax.
Come on Tturd Packer, prove me wrong.
Ol' pus brained roger Co2puke couldn't do it.
> > Prove me wrong, Co2puke.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Why would I want to do that?
> Real Climate is a reliable source.
> The Question is settled, The IPCC has NOT dropped the
> "Hockey Stick" from the latest series of reports.
> To quote my source:
>
> Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing
> any reference to the infamous 'hockey stick' ". Not only are the three
> original "hockey stick" reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report
> shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they
> are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even
> stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be
> anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just
> the past 1000 years."
>
With all those hockey sticks, they're going to have to get a caddy
when they go ice golfing. A hockey stick for any hazard they may
encounter??
It is part of IPCC's deliberate fraud to not release their scientific
reports at the same time as their 90% smoking gun, no debate,
political, economic, propaganda report. (extra bonus this year, a bag
of hockey sticks)
That way they can defer the actual scientific analyses amidst their
continued propaganda in their statements that only fossil fuel
industry or vested interest opposes their economic restructering based
upon their invalid science. These weasels defer their burden of proof
to some unreleased scientific estimation which has in actuality no
valid theoretical science.
The high council of priests of the CO2Phobiac religion will just have
to wait until they release their own scientific reports. I'm sure they
can afford a caddy to carry their bag of hockey sticks. In the
meantime, I guess they can have fun with all those hockey sticks
they're preparing to unleash upon us. The power of the multiple hockey
sticks and the 90% smoking gun. Who could resist?? Give me a couple
shares in CO2 futures!!!!!!
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
Deatherage
birdog
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:45cdf5ca$1...@news.iglou.com...
I kinda agree with him, James. Paraphrasing, Hitler said that it was
fortunate for government that the people do not think. Whatever else Hitler
was, stupid wasn't one. Crazy, but not stupid.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On 9 Feb, 18:53, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:47 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What does it mean, for example, commentators ask,
>
> > > that the current IPCC report has dropped all mention of the formerly
> > > sensational "hockey stick" graph developed by Michael Mann which
> > > was such a feature of the 2001 report?
>
> > Industrial Complex. The really ironic thing about the hockey stick is
> > that nobody--except the typical enviro whacko--would take the global
> > warming hypothesis seriously without the hockey stick. It was and
> > still is the closest thing to proof that they ever had (and ever will
> > have). Now that it's been exposed as fraudulent the global warming
> > cultists are pretending not to notice.
>
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html
>
> for a fair assessment of the rights and wrongs of the HSG
Why don't you point out what it is you think you see. Keep in mind
that I don't have direct access to your imagination.
Eric Swanson
kdt...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Feb 9, 7:10 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would I want to do that?
>> Real Climate is a reliable source.
>> The Question is settled, The IPCC has NOT dropped the
>> "Hockey Stick" from the latest series of reports.
>
>The high council of priests of the CO2Phobiac religion will just have
>to wait until they release their own scientific reports. I'm sure they
>can afford a caddy to carry their bag of hockey sticks. In the
>meantime, I guess they can have fun with all those hockey sticks
>they're preparing to unleash upon us. The power of the multiple hockey
>sticks and the 90% smoking gun. Who could resist?? Give me a couple
>shares in CO2 futures!!!!!!
>http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
Same old stuff from McKitrick.
Like Figure 3, which is a figure lifted from the SAR, (IPCC 95).
Last year, the preson responsible for that graph testified before the Barton
Committee that that was a cartoon. Notice there are no lables on the vertical
axis. It's a cartoon and was representative of the best guess more than 10
years ago. Then, there's the bore hole estimate in Figure 4. The error bars
are rather large, even for the more recent time periods. Care to explain how
the error range tapers to zero at 1600 CE, as the graph crosses the zero line?
Besides, now there are many more reconstructions that go way back before the
1400 start date for MBH 1998. These results show similar trends as seen in
Mann's work. Remember that this paper is from a guy that doesn't know the
difference between degrees and radians when using trig functions. He can't
even get the date right on this paper, as it shows "2003" an every page except
the title, which shows "2005". He probably took an old paper and added a few
lines, forgetting to change the header date. Sloppy work, if you ask me.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
kdt...@yahoo.com
> In article <1171212145.670852.288...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who really cares. The hockey stick is fabrication. There was a
mediaeval warm period. Perhaps this is why Greenland was named
Greenland. There were periods in the past when they grew grapes in
England. Temperatures are now below what they were in mediaeval times.
It is not the purpose of you or AGW to give us a valid representation
of the facts. It is your purpose to cull and omit the facts to best
suit your end conclusion.
If you can't figure out the fabrication from step one of this bullshit
theory to which you have been indoctrinated, it's only because your
own dishonesty prohibits you from accumulating truth in your
superstition laden brain.
You idiots convert frequency to wavelength for your Planck curve. This
makes it appear that the sun doesn't radiate in the infrared. Here's a
proper Planck curve of the sun.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
Are you going to attack this source in order to maintain your
superstition???
Heres a little graph that shows the bullshit distribution that serves
your purpose.
http://www.wmo.ch/web/sat/en/im2-01.htm
Of course it must be considered that the sun's energy begins at 90
million Watts per meter sq and is diminished by distance to the 1370
of the solar constant This displaces the intensity of the frequencies
for the energy of the temperature. But the sun radiates much greater
than the earth in the near infrared and mid infrared which the earth
radiates virtually no energy. The distribution of a blackbody is not
so important. It is more important the most probable energy state of
the oscillator at temperature or Wiens Law.
This is however the critical basis of your theory. That if energy is
blocked at a frequency, it is retained. This is false and can be
proved to be. It is simply transmitted in other frequencies which is
even the cause of the low emission bands. But actual laboratory data
with thermometers is something that does not exist in grenhouse
theory. Just the brilliant calculations of what the effect on
temperature ought to be if your theories were correct.
Deatherage
Hydrogen FREEDOM
Yes, we got it!
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Eric Swanson
kdt...@yahoo.com says...
>Who really cares.
If you didn't care, why did you post the link? Isn't it amazing how fast a
troll backs away from his claims when put in the position of having to think?
> The hockey stick is fabrication. There was a
>mediaeval warm period. Perhaps this is why Greenland was named
>Greenland. There were periods in the past when they grew grapes in
>England. Temperatures are now below what they were in mediaeval times.
>It is not the purpose of you or AGW to give us a valid representation
>of the facts. It is your purpose to cull and omit the facts to best
>suit your end conclusion.
Sorry to tell you, but all the rant above has been refuted many times over.
Southern coastal Greenland is green in summer, but in winter, it's hard to
survive. The Greenland Vikings were a colony, and could not keep going very
long without supplies from the Motherland. You see, there was this little
problem called The Black Death, which in 1402-04 killed about half the people
in Iceland after killing an even larger fraction of Europe. As these were the
Greenlander's closest neighbors, well, nobody went out for a visit for a few
hundred years. Also, there was this big volcanic eruption in 1453, about the
same date found for the last burials. Your claim about temperatures is of no
validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions such
as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to build.
Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> In article <1171235020.282652.120...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
Well just have to see if the effort to suppress the data of the
medieaval warming trend within the academics has been successful. This
data subverts the hockey stick.
You demonstrate the debate technique of the charlatans of AGW. You
make your presentation which is not based on direct science. And then
you demand the burden of proof from those that discount your
assumptions and your main discourse becomes personal attack on the
credibility of your opposition. Then you refer to consensus and the
agreement of mainstream science as your fundamental evidence of your
scientific basis.
This techinique is fully engaged in the recent ICPP propaganda
reports. They state the debate is over. Fossil fuel industry is paying
aggrandizement to their scientific opposition. Have their closed door
meeting to unify the statements. And then withhold their '90% smoking
gun' scientific reports from criticism.
So how can anyone the scientific reports that are not released?
Everyone should just have to listen to this carefully crafted
propaganda without scientific criticism? Should we just take the word
of this consensus of climatologists without any criticism from
scientists of other fields? That is exactly what the high priests of
the AGW religion expect.
The panzy little schoolboy debate is over.
Now the scientific investigation begins.
Deatherage
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
kdt...@yahoo.com
> In article <1171235020.282652.120...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
is of no
l> validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature
reconstructions such
l> as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know
how to build.
l>
l> Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
Quote from an article printed in the London Telegraph
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts
"""The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm
Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures
significantly higher even than today."""
"""l> Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.""
Deatherage
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Your claim about temperatures is of no
> validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions such
> as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to build.
>
> Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
>
Here is another obstacle in supposed 'smoking gun' of AGW by the IPCC
can swat at with their hockey sticks.
Quote
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
"""""""""""""
For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2
concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the
same as they are today.
""""""""""""""""""""
None of the theoretical estimation of 'radiative forcing' can be
validated in the ice core data. The increased CO2 follows the
temperature rise.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data
Keep beating the drum, AGWBunnie
he keeps going,,,,and going,,,,,and going,,,
Deatherage
Eric Swanson
>
>On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>> >On Feb 11, 4:08 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> >> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> Sorry to tell you, but all the rant above has been refuted many times over.
>> Southern coastal Greenland is green in summer, but in winter, it's hard to
>> survive. The Greenland Vikings were a colony, and could not keep going very
>> long without supplies from the Motherland. You see, there was this little
>> problem called The Black Death, which in 1402-04 killed about half the people
>> in Iceland after killing an even larger fraction of Europe. As these were the
>> Greenlander's closest neighbors, well, nobody went out for a visit for a few
>> hundred years. Also, there was this big volcanic eruption in 1453, about the
>> same date found for the last burials. Your claim about temperatures is of no
>> validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions such
>> as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to build.
>
>> Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
>
>
>Quote from an article printed in the London Telegraph
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts
>
>"""The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm
>Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures
>significantly higher even than today."""
That's a reference to the Soon and Baliunas papers. It's silly, as they
don't actually look at temperatures for the globe, let alone for the NH.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html
The Soon and Baliunas paper is at:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
Eric Swanson
kdt...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>> Your claim about temperatures is of no
>> validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions
such
>> as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to
build.
>>
>> Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
>>
>
>Here is another obstacle in supposed 'smoking gun' of AGW by the IPCC
>can swat at with their hockey sticks.
>
>Quote
>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
>"""""""""""""
>For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2
>concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the
>same as they are today.
>""""""""""""""""""""
Care to add a discussion about the position of the continents back then?
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
> > Your claim about temperatures is of no
> > validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions such
> > as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to build.
>
> > Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
>
> Here is another obstacle in supposed 'smoking gun' of AGW by the IPCC
> can swat at with their hockey sticks.
>
> """""""""""""
> For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2
> concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the
> same as they are today.
> """"""""""""""""""""
>
> None of the theoretical estimation of 'radiative forcing' can be
> validated in the ice core data. The increased CO2 follows the
>
> Keep beating the drum, AGWBunnie
> he keeps going,,,,and going,,,,,and going,,,
>
> Deatherage
Why do you keep forwarding to sci.physics when you are incapable of
discussing any physics?
kdt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> In article <1171300128.787701.92...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
> >> Your claim about temperatures is of no
> >> validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions
> such
> >> as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to
> build.
>
> >> Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
>
> >Here is another obstacle in supposed 'smoking gun' of AGW by the IPCC
> >can swat at with their hockey sticks.
>
> >Quote
> >http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
> >"""""""""""""
> >For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2
> >concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the
> >same as they are today.
> >""""""""""""""""""""
>
> Care to add a discussion about the position of the continents back then?
Care to get out the data and show any correlation at all to estimated
radiative forcing and any data at all?
I'm just pointing out the invalidity of your burden of proof, which is
not possible to an indoctrinated chimpanzee such as yourself who has
managed to develop the mental function capable of repeating such
phrases such as, "CO2 absorbs IR's", and global warming.
Perhaps someday you may evolve an actual rational mind,,,,,ha,,,not
hardly. To much dishonesty and rote repitition. You would have to
erase everything you know and start over. hahahahahahahah Starting
with your mommie teaching you some basic honesty, so that you could
collect and organize that thing you lack so much in your life called
'truth'.
You spend all your time attacking those who point out that you have no
direct science for anything you say. If you had valid science, you
could shut them up more effectively by elementizing the basics of the
'science' which you believe.
Deatherage
Eric Swanson
>
>On Feb 12, 12:34 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>> >On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>
>> >> Your claim about temperatures is of no
>> >> validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions
>> such
>> >> as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to
>> build.
>>
>> >> Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
>>
>> >Here is another obstacle in supposed 'smoking gun' of AGW by the IPCC
>> >can swat at with their hockey sticks.
>>
>> >Quote
>> >http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
>> >"""""""""""""
>> >For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2
>> >concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the
>> >same as they are today.
>> >""""""""""""""""""""
>>
>> Care to add a discussion about the position of the continents back then?
>
>Care to get out the data and show any correlation at all to estimated
>radiative forcing and any data at all?
Since you can't do it, let me provide some further information:
http://www.scotese.com/newpage1.htm
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_tectonics/introduction.html
kdt...@yahoo.com
> In article <1171317781.041713.214...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 12, 12:34 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> >> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> >> Care to add a discussion about the position of the continents back then?
>
> >Care to get out the data and show any correlation at all to estimated
> >radiative forcing and any data at all?
>
> Since you can't do it, let me provide some further information:
So what. The made up theoretical estimation of what the climatologists
call 'radiative forcing', finds no correlation in ice core data. Or
this ancient period. So you twirps try to attack such facts as this
period's temperature and CO2 levels.
It is the intent to ignore the medieaval warm period which was warmer
than it is now without human CO2 or methane.
This fact gives the hockey stick a broken handle. And gives the
forcast of the upturn from human causes no validity.
The fluctuations in temperature are normal. If CO2 were the cause,
higher CO2 levels would much precede the actual warming due to the
time that it takes for any warming to occur with the great quantities
of mass of air, ocean and earth.
But that would be too much like actual science. And not fit for the
fanatic panic that we are burning up the atmosphere due to our 150
years of being heathenistic and making CO2.
The brilliant, honest, and non-self serving priests of the anti carbon
religion to the rescue. Thou must turn from thy evil ways of using
energy to live, in order to enter the promised land of cooler
temperatures and placid atmosphere of the climate offered to us by the
grace of the high priest of the anti-carbon climatology religion.
Deatherage.
Eric Swanson
>
>On Feb 12, 5:01 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> In article <1171317781.041713.214...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>> >On Feb 12, 12:34 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> >> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>> >> >On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> >> Care to add a discussion about the position of the continents back then?
>>
>> >Care to get out the data and show any correlation at all to estimated
>> >radiative forcing and any data at all?
>>
>> Since you can't do it, let me provide some further information:
>
>So what. The made up theoretical estimation of what the climatologists
>call 'radiative forcing', finds no correlation in ice core data. Or
>this ancient period. So you twirps try to attack such facts as this
>period's temperature and CO2 levels.
Looks like Mr Kent can't understand that the continents were in a different
location way back when, thus the planet wasn't warmer then. The fact that
the CO2 levels seem to follow the temperature seen in the ice cores is not
a problem, as CO2 is not thought to be the driving force behind the cycles
of ice ages. What's happening now is much different, as mankind is adding
the CO2 before the other forcings which drove the ice ages can return and
begin another ice age.
>It is the intent to ignore the medieaval warm period which was warmer
>than it is now without human CO2 or methane.
>This fact gives the hockey stick a broken handle. And gives the
>forcast of the upturn from human causes no validity.
Since there is no real proof of a global MWP, yur assertion is false.
Your pointing to Soon and Baliunas non-analytical paper as proof just
shows how ignorant you are about the state of the science. Their
"meta analysis" puts the same weight on a +0.1 as that on a +1.0 or
a +10.0. They are all "pluses". They can't do an area averaged
analysis, since they don't use actual temperature anomalies. The
whole thing is a carefully crafted disinformation piece.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/302/5644/404.pdf
>The fluctuations in temperature are normal. If CO2 were the cause,
>higher CO2 levels would much precede the actual warming due to the
>time that it takes for any warming to occur with the great quantities
>of mass of air, ocean and earth.
>But that would be too much like actual science. And not fit for the
>fanatic panic that we are burning up the atmosphere due to our 150
>years of being heathenistic and making CO2.
Yes, fluctuations in temperature are normal. Up to a point, that is.
The best minds working on the question agree that it's getting warmer
and that the warming is beyond the expected natural variation. And,
there is general agreement that the cause is increasing Greenhouse gases.
Here's some bedtime reading for you:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/References/References.html
John M.
He believes himself to be another Feynman or Dirac, perhaps. :-(
neutr...@gmail.com
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
> > Your claim about temperatures is of no
> > validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions such
> > as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to build.
> >
> > Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
Eric: From my experience, this one is not a troll, but a
_true_believer_. This belief even extends to devising his own physics
theories that will not allow CO2 to absorb IR any differently than any
other gas....even though his theories do NOT match observations.
>
> Here is another obstacle in supposed 'smoking gun' of AGW by the IPCC
> can swat at with their hockey sticks.
>
> Quote
> http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
> """""""""""""
> For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2
> concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the
> same as they are today.
> """"""""""""""""""""
Also from the article you referenced...
""""""""""""
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were
hot- approximately 20ยฐ C (68ยฐ F). However, cooling during the Middle
Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12ยฐ C (54ยฐ
F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average
global temperature on Earth today!
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per
million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350
ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
""""""""""""
Seems to me that the implication is that during the EARLY
Carboniferous Period CO2 was at 1500ppm and global average temp about
20deg, but by the MIDDLE Carboniferous, temperature AND CO2 levels
were similar to today....and it took about 40 million years.
Yes, other factors come into play, but THIS TIME..not the medieval
warming period, not the Carboniferous, not any other planet, but HERE
and NOW, we seem to be the primary (but not sole) cause.
> None of the theoretical estimation of 'radiative forcing' can be
> validated in the ice core data. The increased CO2 follows the
> temperature rise.
> http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data
You do understand that in a nonlinear feedback system you CAN get
phase shifts, right? Or is math fraudulent as well...
It also has unlikely crossed your mind that the connection between CO2
and temperature could be mutually dependent.
> Keep beating the drum, AGWBunnie
> he keeps going,,,,and going,,,,,and going,,,
Says one who believes that gases have equal absorption across all
frequencies....even though if they did the sky would not be blue.
But of course, 25 years in _construction_ makes you an expert in
climatology....I dealt cards for a while...does that make me an expert
in biochemistry?
> Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
>
> Looks like Mr Kent can't understand that the continents were in a different
> location way back when, thus the planet wasn't warmer then. The fact that
> the CO2 levels seem to follow the temperature seen in the ice cores is not
> a problem, as CO2 is not thought to be the driving force behind the cycles
> of ice ages. What's happening now is much different, as mankind is adding
> the CO2 before the other forcings which drove the ice ages can return and
> begin another ice age.
Your logic is flawed. As always, the AGW logic is to the end
conclusion. If CO2 is not thought to cause the ice ages which it does
not, then you need to explain why the correlation exists in
temperature and CO2. There are two possibilities.
A) The CO2 fluctuation is caused by another cause, and it influences
temperature.
B) The higher CO2 is caused by the higher temperatures.
The temperature fluctuation is of causes unrelated. The temperature
fluctuation causes higher CO2 levels. This could be most directly
caused by the higher rate of evaportation which causes a greater
density of the CO2 in the surface layer of ocean. The vapor pressure
which seeks equilibrium diffuses at a greater rate from the ocean. At
lower rate of evaporation, the ocean absorbs CO2 more rapidly than it
exudes it. In chemistry this is called vapor pressure.
The release of CO2 is caused from the temperature increase. The
temperature increase is not caused by the CO2 level increase from some
other cause.
Proof that CO2 does not cause heating of the atmosphere is the records
of the Ordovician Period in which the CO2 was at 4400 ppm. That is
awful cute how AGW invents some explantion to discount this direct
evidence and how the little AGWBunny repeats it. Also a close
analyses of the ice core data, proves natural temperature fluctuations
are not caused by CO2 or influenced by CO2.
Your explanation in no way refers to any physics in explanation. I
guess it serves your piss poor science to use this general terminology
without any valid scientific discusion.
For the modern day, you assholes give ratings that the temperature
should be much lower without 'grenhouse gases that make life
possible'. This is important to AGW, because if you cannot show the
effect in bolstering the temperature of the present concentrations of
CO2, you cannot justify your hysteria of the effect of minute
increases in the already existing levels.
So, in the present formulation that the temperature is bolstered 33C
by certain grenhouse gases it is attributed that water vapor is
36-70%,
CO2 is 9-26%, methane 4-9%, ozone 3-7%. I still can't find the
quantification of the energy (specific frequencies), that supposedly
increases temperature by 63% energy. I guess that's not too important
to the believers. You can just say, "the evil CO2 absorbs IR,
therefore repent from your heatenistic ways of emitting CO2, and
remold your economy in the true light and under the guidance of the
priests of the AGW religion".
According to AGW, the temperature should be at -2F but is bolstered
33C, or can't you even remember your own theory. This is an incredible
increase to 57F and requires restricting radiation to increase the
density of the radiation field 63%. If you cannot attribute a
considerable affect from present CO2 concentrations, you cannot
justify your hysteria at minute increases. There is clear geological
record that your beliefs are wrong. Normally the effect from volcanoes
does not bring the concentration very high due to the absorbancy of
the ocean, which reduces the concentration in the air rapidly. In this
period, there must have been great numbers of volcanoes. It is clear
this did not cause runaway grenhouse effect. In fact you claim the
temperatures were very low, but they were about the same as today.
Your point about it being before the continental breakup is
meaningless.
If there is no effect from existing CO2
The claim that human increased levels of minute quantities is entirely
false and these minute quantities cannot be responsible for the minute
temperature fluctuations or a threat of great temperature affect.
That's funny how you say the "best minds" are working on a way to
fabricate physical dynamics to say that human CO2 is affecting
evergything and the high priests of AGW should be put in charge.
HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahAHHAHAHAH
Why don't you go join the Moonies, and leave us the HELL alone?
Keep beating the drum AGWBunnies
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
l> frequencies....even though if they did the sky would not be blue.
>
Go suck one. The rest of your post is not worth reply. I have stated
repeatedly that the uniform absorption is from 1-2 microns. I am very
well aware of the absorption of visible light. You little pricks make
this same analogy to thermal frequencies. ALL gases under pressure
emit the same continous spectra. This is evident in the solar
spectrum, in which the absorption lines appear amongst the emission
lines. The continous spectra from the compressed gases underneath
forms the absorption spectra in passing through the rarified gases
above. Sometimes the aborption lines and emission lines from the
rarifid gases are super-imposed upon eachother.
Your reference to the blue sky also shows your piss poor inductive
logic of a dishonest idiot.
Your need to pervert the truth is evident. Your dishonest little mind
also perverts any truth in science. Therefore, you can go tell
yourself that you are intelligent and have won the debate. The truth
does not matter to you and this is evident in your piss poor science,
and your acceptance of the lies of your religion.
Deatherage
> But of course, 25 years in _construction_ makes you an expert in
> climatology....I dealt cards for a while...does that make me an expert
> in biochemistry?
>
>
>
> > Deatherage- Hide quoted text -
kdt...@yahoo.com
l Says one who believes that gases have equal absorption across all
l frequencies....even though if they did the sky would not be blue.
>
Another thing since you assholes use the term 'absorption' so much.
Absorption only occurs at the frequencies that match the principle
series of an atomic gas. The principle series begins at the first
excitation level. Only after this high energy level is reached, are
the other series, the sharp and diffuse, emitted although these are of
much lower energy. These lower energy series are not emitted at lower
energies but only after the first excitation level of the principle
series is reached. These series also do not appear in absorption.
The sharp and diffuse series, are still of very high energy, and range
up to energies of about 2 microns. The principle series obeys the
intervals determined by the eigenfunction for the energy levels of the
atomic gas.
The photons emitted in the principle series have energies in each
photon approaching the energy of the ionization potential, or the
energy that is required to remove an electron and 'ionize' the atom.
This is evidenced in the photo electric effect, where alkali metals
with their low ionization potential, have electrons ejected for each
photon they absorb, if the photon is of greater energy than the
ionization potential of the metal. The velocity and kinetic energy of
the ejected electrons is increased with greater frequency of the
photons. The number of electrons is increased with the intensity or
flux density of the light.
The Balmer series of hydrogen, or the lower secondary series after the
Lyman series, does not appear in absorption in normal experiments.
However in astronomy, absorption lines are seen that are matching the
Balmer series. Therefore it is the only subseries to appear in any
form in absorption series.
The emission series are very specific to frequency and appear as very
bright emission lines in spectra. This is also demonstrated by the
refinement of each line, into the refined splitting that occurs, or
the multiplets. These are very specific down to the hypermultiplets
which are at the highest level of resolution. The spitting of the
multiplets is affected if the gas at the time of emission is subjected
to electric or magnetic fiels, which induces the Stark and Zeeman
effect in the splitting.
The thermal frequencies and supposed 'absorption bands' of gases are
much different, Molecules have wide bands of frequencies in emission
in which they radiate more strongly. But they emit in continous
spectra with all frequencies integral multiples of hv, even in low
emission regions, they still radiate energy, unlike atomic gases and
their specific emission and absorption series as rarified gases.
All substances likewise have these bands. This does not in any way
affect the final temperature, or the absorptive and emissive
equilibrium of energy. There is no laboratory data to show CO2 with
the property that it is alluded to have, or the supposed, 'grenhouse
gases'. Water vapor does have unique properties, and is an abnormal
gas. It does not have the actual property of a grenhouse gas that it
is attributed.
Beat that drum, AGWBunny
Deatherage
Eric Swanson
kdt...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Feb 12, 8:23 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>>
>> Looks like Mr Kent can't understand that the continents were in a different
>> location way back when, thus the planet wasn't warmer then. The fact that
>> the CO2 levels seem to follow the temperature seen in the ice cores is not
>> a problem, as CO2 is not thought to be the driving force behind the cycles
>> of ice ages. What's happening now is much different, as mankind is adding
>> the CO2 before the other forcings which drove the ice ages can return and
>> begin another ice age.
>
>Your logic is flawed.
I don't think so.
>Proof that CO2 does not cause heating of the atmosphere is the records
>of the Ordovician Period in which the CO2 was at 4400 ppm. That is
>awful cute how AGW invents some explantion to discount this direct
>evidence and how the little AGWBunny repeats it.
>.... In fact you claim the
>temperatures were very low, but they were about the same as today.
>Your point about it being before the continental breakup is
>meaningless.
You still haven't done your homework. Notice in this report where the
continents were located 440 Ma. The South Pole was likely to have been colder
than the rest of the Earth back then, as it is today.
Crowley, T.J. and S.K. Baum, 1995: "Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma)
Glaciation With Very High (14x) CO2 Levels", Journal of Geophysical Research
100(D1): 1093-1101.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/CrowleyBaum1995.pd
f
neutr...@gmail.com
Correct, you have stated this repeatedly. Repetition =/= accurate.
> I am very
> well aware of the absorption of visible light. You little pricks make
> this same analogy to thermal frequencies.
A photon is a photon is a photon.
> ALL gases under pressure
> emit the same continous spectra. This is evident in the solar
> spectrum, in which the absorption lines appear amongst the emission
> lines. The continous spectra from the compressed gases underneath
> forms the absorption spectra in passing through the rarified gases
> above. Sometimes the aborption lines and emission lines from the
> rarifid gases are super-imposed upon eachother.
Your theory seriously diverts from the observations.
> Your reference to the blue sky also shows your piss poor inductive
> logic of a dishonest idiot.
It's an example of nonlinear frequency response in a gas.
> Your need to pervert the truth is evident. Your dishonest little mind
> also perverts any truth in science. Therefore, you can go tell
> yourself that you are intelligent and have won the debate. The truth
> does not matter to you and this is evident in your piss poor science,
> and your acceptance of the lies of your religion.
Pure projection.
neutr...@gmail.com
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 6:05 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> > kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> l Says one who believes that gases have equal absorption across all
> l frequencies....even though if they did the sky would not be blue.
> >
>
<drivel snipped>
> There is no laboratory data to show CO2 with
> the property that it is alluded to have, or the supposed, 'grenhouse
> gases'. Water vapor does have unique properties, and is an abnormal
> gas. It does not have the actual property of a grenhouse gas that it
> is attributed.
The CO2 and H2O samples I have acquired disagree with your claim. You
could test it yourself, if you like....but you won't.
kdt...@yahoo.com
You are seriously invalid. This is not my theory. Look in any basic
book on spectroscopy and it will say exactly this; That all the atomic
gases emit exactly the same continous spectra under pressure. The
series of emission lines are only produced with rarified gases.
This is called the chromosphere of the sun. It is the layer that emits
the light. It is about 6000degK in this layer. This layer is the
distinction between the pressurized gases and the rarified gases. A
spectrograph of the sun has continous spectra and the bright emission
lines and absorption lines. The spectrograph is filled with these
absorption lines which often have a bright emission line in the middle
of them.
There you go again, making statements that reveal your dishonesty and
your tendency to change the truth in your own mind as you please. You
don't know valid physics of light and you presume others don't either
>
> > Your reference to the blue sky also shows your piss poor inductive
> > logic of a dishonest idiot.
>
> It's an example of nonlinear frequency response in a gas.
YOu don't have a clue what you are talking about. You have no
explanation for blue skies by this. Visible light is much more
energetic than the thermal frequencies. It passes through atmospheric
gases without being absorbed. If these gases absorbed so differently
it could be detected in experiment. In the meantime, the mean kinetic
energy of the gas is kT, the pressure and expansion is RT, the energy
absorbed as heat capacity is a product of R. And Wiens law which
indicates most probable energy state of the oscillator is 4.96kT. If
you could do math, you would see the many fallacies of grenhouse
theory from these basics. But you only enjoy your fraudulent science
you have been taught and you think intelligence is repeating the
bullshit you have heard without a viable analyses you can understand
or present.
Deatherage
> > Your need to pervert the truth is evident. Your dishonest little mind
> > also perverts any truth in science. Therefore, you can go tell
> > yourself that you are intelligent and have won the debate. The truth
> > does not matter to you and this is evident in your piss poor science,
> > and your acceptance of the lies of your religion.
>
> Pure projection.
>
>
>
> > Deatherage
>
> > > But of course, 25 years in _construction_ makes you an expert in
> > > climatology....I dealt cards for a while...does that make me an expert
> > > in biochemistry?
>
> > > > Deatherage- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
kdt...@yahoo.com
Let me guess. YOu put them in glass and expose them to high energy
visible light like from the sun. If you saturate both sides with water
vapor, it negates any effect of the CO2. Neutral materials can be
found in which it is proved that CO2 has no inordinate heat
charactreristics. It is the high rate of heat transfer by the glass
and the retention of lower frequencies by the solid material that
makes the hoax exhibit. Do an actual analyses of all the elements.
Put up or shut up. The earth radiates most strongly around 10 microns.
So anywhere in this range -50F up to even 130F with allowed expansion
like the atmosphere, show me any effect on final temperature. Or even
in closed volume show me any difference in final temperature.
The sun radiates heavily in the near infrared and mid infrared and
thermal frequencies.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
10^3 = 1 micron 10^4 equal 10 microns
Notice the big band of apparent transparency around 10 microns caused
by the temperature of the earth, This is far from the 15 micron band
of CO2 that in proper grenhouse theory is attributed the absorption
that affects temperature.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Here is a study I know you will ignore. To maintain the faith in your
religion, you will say this is artifice created by the corrupt to
dissuade your holy mission to join all the earth in the holy rites of
climate control by controlling our use of energy. (proper discription,
the freaky little puds of the climatologists up everybodies butt)
Water vapor is one of the rare abnormal gases. CO2 is a normal gas and
at not very high pressure behaves absolutely no differently than O2
and N2. It even has almost the same heat capacity. And there is no
laboratory data to show that it causes any effect of retaining heat or
causing higher temperature at any concentrations in these gases.
Another lie. That you have experimental data. If you did, you would be
flaunting it like crazy instead of your anonymous reference.
Put up or shut up AGWBunny beating the drum with your lies for your
superstition .
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
> In article <1171412132.623186.291...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Feb 12, 8:23 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
> >> Looks like Mr Kent can't understand that the continents were in a different
> >> location way back when, thus the planet wasn't warmer then. The fact that
> >> the CO2 levels seem to follow the temperature seen in the ice cores is not
> >> a problem, as CO2 is not thought to be the driving force behind the cycles
> >> of ice ages. What's happening now is much different, as mankind is adding
> >> the CO2 before the other forcings which drove the ice ages can return and
> >> begin another ice age.
>
> >Your logic is flawed.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> >Proof that CO2 does not cause heating of the atmosphere is the records
> >of the Ordovician Period in which the CO2 was at 4400 ppm. That is
> >awful cute how AGW invents some explantion to discount this direct
> >evidence and how the little AGWBunny repeats it.
> >.... In fact you claim the
> >temperatures were very low, but they were about the same as today.
> >Your point about it being before the continental breakup is
> >meaningless.
>
> You still haven't done your homework. Notice in this report where the
> continents were located 440 Ma. The South Pole was likely to have been colder
> than the rest of the Earth back then, as it is today.
So where is the runaway grenhouse effect. I'm looking at this record
of the temperature to CO2. It is very clear that temperature is
causing the CO2 fluctution, It is also very clear, that the CO2 is not
affecting the temperature, There are many points this can be seen.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data
The CO2 follows the temperature at all points. Otherwise it would
cross the blue line. It does at places on the downturns which show the
temperature going down while CO2 is still high. No effect can be
demonstrated from the CO2 on temperature from this graph.
You cannot justify the claim that grenhouse gases boost the
temperature 33C. You cannot justify the claim that these minute
concentrations of CO2 in the air of about 400ppm affect temperature or
any man made fluctruation can affect temperature. This ice core data
if read completely and in depth can be developed into proof of the
invalidity of your assertion.
Deatherage
>
> Crowley, T.J. and S.K. Baum, 1995: "Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma)
> Glaciation With Very High (14x) CO2 Levels", Journal of Geophysical Research
> 100(D1): 1093-1101.
>
> http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/CrowleyB...
Eric Swanson
I don't see any argument with that.
> It is also very clear, that the CO2 is not
>affecting the temperature,
Now, the science does not agree with that contention.
> There are many points this can be seen.
>
>http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data
>
>The CO2 follows the temperature at all points. Otherwise it would
>cross the blue line. It does at places on the downturns which show the
>temperature going down while CO2 is still high. No effect can be
>demonstrated from the CO2 on temperature from this graph.
Such a silly guy. The graph you reference could easily have been plotted
with the peaks of temperature and CO2 at the same level and the troughs
similarly located. Then, your claim might have had some merit, but, the
lack of a crossing of one vs the other as it is plotted proves nothing about
your contention. Besides, it's rather well known by now that the CO2 level
lagged the temperature during the ups and downs of the Ice Ages. That fact
says nothing about the present situation, where we know that the mechanism
causing the change in CO2 is different that that of the Ice Ages, i.e., man.
>> Crowley, T.J. and S.K. Baum, 1995: "Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma)
>> Glaciation With Very High (14x) CO2 Levels", Journal of Geophysical
>> Research 100(D1): 1093-1101.
So, you have no comment about the situation 440 Ma? Wasn't that the entire
basis of your argument? I guess that means you still haven't done your
homework. Either that or you don't want to admit defeat.
neutr...@gmail.com
Pressure causes a "smearing" effect, but the basic concept behind
spectrography is that different chemicals produce DIFFERENT emission/
absorption patterns. Thats how they can tell what kind of matter
makes up a star.
BTW: CO2, H2O, and the like are not atomic gases. They are molecular
gases.
> This is called the chromosphere of the sun. It is the layer that emits
> the light. It is about 6000degK in this layer. This layer is the
> distinction between the pressurized gases and the rarified gases. A
> spectrograph of the sun has continous spectra and the bright emission
> lines and absorption lines. The spectrograph is filled with these
> absorption lines which often have a bright emission line in the middle
> of them.
>
> There you go again, making statements that reveal your dishonesty and
> your tendency to change the truth in your own mind as you please. You
> don't know valid physics of light and you presume others don't either
Says the man who has his personal theory that were invalidated by
experiments done in the 1800s. The double slit experiment has been
repeated, successfully, with protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Explain.
>
> >
> > > Your reference to the blue sky also shows your piss poor inductive
> > > logic of a dishonest idiot.
> >
> > It's an example of nonlinear frequency response in a gas.
>
> YOu don't have a clue what you are talking about. You have no
> explanation for blue skies by this. Visible light is much more
> energetic than the thermal frequencies.
It is...so what? Does it suddenly NOT behave like a photon?
> It passes through atmospheric
> gases without being absorbed. If these gases absorbed so differently
> it could be detected in experiment.
Can, and has. Many times.
> In the meantime, the mean kinetic
> energy of the gas is kT, the pressure and expansion is RT, the energy
> absorbed as heat capacity is a product of R. And Wiens law which
> indicates most probable energy state of the oscillator is 4.96kT.
Did it ever occur to you that the Earth is NOT a perfect black body?
Did you apply Kirchhoff's?
> If
> you could do math, you would see the many fallacies of grenhouse
> theory from these basics.
The usual ad-hom, which a fallacy on its own.
> But you only enjoy your fraudulent science
> you have been taught and you think intelligence is repeating the
> bullshit you have heard without a viable analyses you can understand
> or present.
Seems to me that you thin intelligence is repeating bullshit you made
up. I have also learned that it is pretty much useless to present
information to you. You don't look, you don't listen and you don't
learn. You are so convinced that you are right that you will ignore
any evidence to the contrary. Ever consider getting a job at the
Discovery Institute?
neutr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 14, 2:27 am, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> > kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 13, 6:05 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > l Says one who believes that gases have equal absorption across all
> > > l frequencies....even though if they did the sky would not be blue.
> >
> > <drivel snipped>
> >
> > > There is no laboratory data to show CO2 with
> > > the property that it is alluded to have, or the supposed, 'grenhouse
> > > gases'. Water vapor does have unique properties, and is an abnormal
> > > gas. It does not have the actual property of a grenhouse gas that it
> > > is attributed.
> >
> > The CO2 and H2O samples I have acquired disagree with your claim. You
> > could test it yourself, if you like....but you won't.
>
> Let me guess. YOu put them in glass and expose them to high energy
> visible light like from the sun. If you saturate both sides with water
> vapor, it negates any effect of the CO2. Neutral materials can be
> found in which it is proved that CO2 has no inordinate heat
> charactreristics. It is the high rate of heat transfer by the glass
> and the retention of lower frequencies by the solid material that
> makes the hoax exhibit. Do an actual analyses of all the elements.
I constructed an NDIR CO2 sensor as a project. It measures the local
atmosphere and determines the CO2 concentration by the amount IR
absorption across a static space. It was calibrated (low end) in an
argon tank to read 0ppm and calibrated (high end) to 1000000ppm in a
(near) pure CO2 environment. Since the effects of the filters and
lenses don't change and were included in calibration, they had no
effect on the output. I don't remember the specific frequency, and
you're not worth the time to look it up in my journal, but I chose a
frequency that was not affected by H2O. The only thing that would
change was the properties of the atmospheric sample, which was open to
the atmosphere at large.
Honestly, the accuracy was less than I had hoped for, and I
canabilized it for parts some time ago. Next time, I'll just buy one.
http://www.dcs-inc.net/m400_manual.pdf
> Put up or shut up. The earth radiates most strongly around 10 microns.
> So anywhere in this range -50F up to even 130F with allowed expansion
> like the atmosphere, show me any effect on final temperature. Or even
> in closed volume show me any difference in final temperature.
The atmosphere is partly opaque at that frequency. Increase the
opacity and you decrease the amount of energy that can be radiated at
that frequency. Reduced heat loss + static heat gain = net gain.
> The sun radiates heavily in the near infrared and mid infrared and
> thermal frequencies.
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
> 10^3 = 1 micron 10^4 equal 10 microns
> Notice the big band of apparent transparency around 10 microns caused
> by the temperature of the earth, This is far from the 15 micron band
> of CO2 that in proper grenhouse theory is attributed the absorption
> that affects temperature.
The Earth does not radiate exclusively at 10um, nor is it a
blackbody. The Earth can radiate at 10um because the atmosphere is
more or less transparent at that frequency. Are you going to claim
that we do NOT radiate at 15um as well as 10um?
> http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
> Here is a study I know you will ignore. To maintain the faith in your
> religion, you will say this is artifice created by the corrupt to
> dissuade your holy mission to join all the earth in the holy rites of
> climate control by controlling our use of energy. (proper discription,
> the freaky little puds of the climatologists up everybodies butt)
Read the paper. While the experiment itself was valid, the
conclusions drawn from it may not be. This was noted in the
discussion of the paper. Did you read that as well?
Now, check out
http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.html
It's a page I know you will ignore. To maintain the faith in your
religion.....
> Water vapor is one of the rare abnormal gases. CO2 is a normal gas and
> at not very high pressure behaves absolutely no differently than O2
> and N2.
CO2 tends to disagree with your assessment
> It even has almost the same heat capacity.
Irrelevant when it comes to spectral properties.
> And there is no
> laboratory data
...that you will acknowledge...
> to show that it causes any effect of retaining heat or
> causing higher temperature at any concentrations in these gases.
>
> Another lie. That you have experimental data. If you did, you would be
> flaunting it like crazy instead of your anonymous reference.
The sensor I constructed would not work if you were correct. It
works.
John M.
> In article <1171469687.226267.15...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, kdth...@yahoo.com says...
He hasn't done his homework, preferring to make it up as he goes
along. His ideas of an alternative Physics have already got him flamed
on sci.physics. Best just ignore him.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> In article <1171469687.226267.15...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, kdth...@yahoo.com says...
the entire
l> basis of your argument? I guess that means you still haven't done
your
> homework. Either that or you don't want to admit defeat.
Why must you always stretch the truth? The 440Ma is just a minor
point. YOur link is not there, so I cannot see your data that the land
in question was at the south pole. The averages for the temperature
are taken from ice cores at the south pole anyway. So you say the
scientists that refer this point are in error and your more refined
analyses can show this? Find a link that works then.. Your link is not
there to show your data. So all the other periods in this time the
land was not at the south pole and during this time it was which
offsets the low temperature and high CO2. I think your contention is
fabricated for propaganda in order to dismiss direct evidience.
If the CO2 were affecting temperatures, and if the temperature at any
one time were dependent on CO2 concentrations which help bring
temperatures up 33C, there would be affect on the temperature rise as
the CO2 levels increased. This would cause some form of curve in the
temperature rise. Either increasing temperature rise, or decreasing as
the saturation of frequency absorbtion occurs. Neither appear. A close
analyses shows the CO2 following the temperature. It cannot be
indicated anywhere the temperature being affected by the CO2
concentrations.
You could adjust the graphs as you said, but it would make it more
evident in the downturns that the temperature fluctution is
independent of the CO2 levels. The increasing CO2 is more proportional
to the temperature fluctuation. This is very important because it
shows that the loss of temperature, or increased loss of energy to
energy recieved, is entirely independent of CO2 levels. If the CO2
were bolstering initial temperature, or if the concentrations of
present day were affecting temperatures there would be evidence and no
need of all the mental effort to fabricate the physical dynamics.
The rate of evaporation is directly relevant to air temperature. The
rate of evaportation is directly relevant to the exchange of CO2
between the atmosphere and the ocean. CO2 in the atmosphere is
absorbed by the ocean and plants down to the minute concentrations
below 400 ppm. The ocean has a considerable amount of old carbon.
Increased suface temperatures also cause greater exchange by currents
as the cold water from the poles sinks and the warm currents move
towards the poles bringing up old carbon in the warmer areas. The
delay of the appearance of higher CO2 and the higher temperatures
exactly matches the time for higher CO2 to be distributed through the
atmosphere. The slower rate of uptake means the natural rate of the
ocean removing the normal CO2 from volcanoes and such, is diminished.
The heat capacity of the ocean and the earth is very high. That is why
temperature fluctuations occur in the tens and hundreds of thousand
years. For CO2 to be affecting the temperature of the earth, high
concentrations would very much precede temperature fluctuation.
Deatherage
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
kdt...@yahoo.com
There you go. With your false science. A sensor could be developed for
CO2. This does not validate your repitition of the phrase"CO2 absorbs
IR". If this is such valid laboratory data, why does it only exist in
your journal. Just another case of using an exhibit to develop a false
conclusion instead of a complete scientific analyses.
If in your sensor which is very small there is inordinate absorption
of thermal frequencies, show me the effect on temperature in a normal
sized room. You could really silence some denialist by this. Refer the
experiment. This is much more distance of traveling through the gas
than your sensor. Where in your sensor is the damn thermometer? The
important point is the final temperature. If in a room the CO2 were
absorbing IR any differently, the final temperature would be
different.
That is no big deal, that in a very small closed area, injection of
specific frequencies would have immediate affect on different gases.
The point is that the CO2 molecule radiates all the energy it absorbs,
just as O2 and N2, they absorb the same in the thermal frequencies
beyond 2um. And thus the achieve the same final temperature which is
absolutely proved by the real laboratory data. This is why you have
none to refer except some mention of some sensor without any full
analyses.
So believe what you want about "CO2 absorbs IR". A parrot could repeat
this. When you repeat it, you think your intelligence at being able to
repeat this without understanding or defining your terms is compatible
with all the other chimpanzees repeating the same thing.
I am awfully sick of you dildoes refering to 'absorption of IR' which
causes atmospheric heating when you never refer to laboratory data
with a damn thermometer which shows CO having the property to cause
higher temperatures. If 400ppm can affect temperature, it could be
detected in a large volume area at 100% CO2, which it cannot.
CO2 is a heavier molecule. CO2 radiates better at specific bands
differently than O2 or N2. When encased in glass or similar material
which has a high rate of heat transfer through it, the loss of heat
through the material is affected by the special emission bands of CO2.
Without this solid material and it's interaction with the different
gases, absolutely no property of CO2 to absorb radiation any
differently than O2 an N2 can be demonstrated that causes a change in
the rate of lost energy which causes a higher temperature.
This is Kirchoff's Theorem which valid radiation law is based.
This was found to be true in early physics. Only the piss poor theory
of AGW has returned to the folk lore and myth of grenhouse gases.
"ratio of emissive and absorptive powers of a body depends only on
the
temperature of the body and not on it's nature; otherewise radiative
equilibrium could not exist within a cavity containing substances of
different kinds"
Calculations of radiative forcing by CO2 are purely theoretical. This
theory in no way is substantiated by proper science or proper theory.
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
.
>
> Pressure causes a "smearing" effect, but the basic concept behind
> spectrography is that different chemicals produce DIFFERENT emission/
> absorption patterns. Thats how they can tell what kind of matter
> makes up a star.
Your paragraph shows your incomplete understanding. Of course astonomy
uses this to analyze stars. But only elements exist in stars. It is
very different to use spectroscopy for molecular bands of the
infrared. All thermal frequencies are absorbed and reemitted by normal
gases. The highly energetic visible and near infrard photons, pass
through atmospheric gases without warming the gas, losing their energy
or changing their frequency. This energetic frequencies are absorbed
at the specific frequencies that match the priciple series, by
specific gases. When they are absorbed, their energy is absorbed and
increases the temperature of the gas accordingly.
Chemicals do not exist in stars. The temperature is too high for
molecules other than the elemental gases. YOu really should look
things up like the spectrum of the sun. It is a complete continous
spectra filled with superimposed absorption and emission lines. The
absorption lines are only from the principle series of the elemental
gases. Molecules radiate at much lower temperatures in the thermal
frequencies. All molecules radiate in bands. What you term absorption
bands are only low emission bands in the continous spectra of the
molecules. All molecules have these bands. Yet all substances reach
the same temperature in the same radiation field, with very minute
differences for reflection of radiation.
> BTW: CO2, H2O, and the like are not atomic gases. They are molecular
> gases.
>
> > It passes through atmospheric
> > gases without being absorbed. If these gases absorbed so differently
> > it could be detected in experiment.
>
> Can, and has. Many times.
Why the hell do you say this without substantiation. O2, N2 absorb
thermal frequencies and attain a temperature. No concentraion of CO2
affects this absorption of energy and causes a higher temperature. How
the hell does O2 and N2 achieve the same temperature as CO2 if they
are not absorbing and emitting equivelent energy, regardless of any
specification of frequencies??
>
> > In the meantime, the mean kinetic
> > energy of the gas is kT, the pressure and expansion is RT, the energy
> > absorbed as heat capacity is a product of R. And Wiens law which
> > indicates most probable energy state of the oscillator is 4.96kT.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that the Earth is NOT a perfect black body?
> Did you apply Kirchhoff's?
The term blackbody only refers to the radiation emitted as part of the
heat and not reflected. It is meaningless to defer the arguement with
such semantics with the terms.
Any temperture denotes a mean kinetic energy of the gas molecules
which is kT. This is directly proportional to temperature. If this is
multiplied by Alvagadro's number it give the value of RT, with which
in specific volume, the pressure can be deduced. The pressure of a gas
is caused by the collective momentum of the gas molecules as they
bounce off of the vessel in which they are contained. The temperature
and kT denotes a probability for emission of frequencies which is
highest, or Wiens law. This is 4.96kT, or converted wavelength of .
2898cm/T.
Without these statistics you have no definition of temperature. The
energy of the radiation, either total luminosity or energy passing
through the plane of a sq cm, increases as a forth power to
temperature. So in order to have the energy which denotes a highest
probability of emission, (according to Wiens Law which is more exactly
described in Planck's law in which it is specifically defined by using
his constant in relation to kT), there must be a density of energy
traveling as radiation at c. The actual distribution of the
frequencies around the most probable energy state is not so important,
as long as the total energy is in obeyance with the Bolzman Stefan
equation for temperature and rate of energy transfer for this
temperature.
>
>
> Seems to me that you thin intelligence is repeating bullshit you made
> up. I have also learned that it is pretty much useless to present
> information to you. You don't look, you don't listen and you don't
> learn. You are so convinced that you are right that you will ignore
> any evidence to the contrary. Ever consider getting a job at the
> Discovery Institute?
You present nothing but terms which you cannot define. YOu do not
understand the basics of spectroscpy. You think if you use a word or
term that you have heard, it is an intelligent thing to do although
you cannot define it, or demonstrate by direct science your validity.
You only enjoy the theory which elicite your final conlcusion, "that
CO2 absorbs IR".
We'll see if this system of using illdefined terms keeps you jerks out
of prison when you move out of the pansy college debate platforms into
the US courts.
YOu are indoctrinated into using your undefined terms which you think
sound intelligent, but which you cannot explain.
You are the one who has no direct science at all for the
thermodynamics which you believe, and never analyse the very basics of
your terms or your science.
Like I said, you cannot refer the laboratory data of any affect on
final temperature by CO2, methane or water vapor. You are in the
fantasy land of theoretical science and do not understand the basics
of energy and radiation which were defined very well by Planck and
Einstein.
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I am reposting this. This is none of my theory. This is proper
spectroscopy. Your inablity to recognize it as such, and your
inability ot recognize how stupid your preceding statement is, is
simple proof of your childish little dishonest mind, which does not
have a valid education in physcis and thus is unable to recognize
valid physics.
So this means that all you really are is a whiny little bitch. Part of
the infection of parasites which inhabits the public funding of higher
education and science.
You may not notice, but I am unlike you. I am honest, and EVERY
statement I make I can back up in a court room. You sling words, have
no basic honesty and your intellectual life consists of repetition of
ill defined terms and piss poor science from charlatans.
________________________
equilibrium of energy. There is no laboratory data to show CO2 with
the property that it is alluded to have, or the supposed, 'grenhouse
gases'. Water vapor does have unique properties, and is an abnormal
gas. It does not have the actual property of a grenhouse gas that it
is attributed.
neutr...@gmail.com
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 8:11 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> > kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > The sensor I constructed would not work if you were correct. It
> > works.
>
> There you go. With your false science.
It wasn't science, it was engineering.
> A sensor could be developed for
> CO2. This does not validate your repitition of the phrase"CO2 absorbs
> IR". If this is such valid laboratory data, why does it only exist in
> your journal. Just another case of using an exhibit to develop a false
> conclusion instead of a complete scientific analyses.
It operates by measuring the difference between transmitted energy and
received energy. More CO2 = less energy received. Where do you think
the energy goes?
The specific design I used only exists in my personal engineering
journal. As I said, next time I'll just buy one.
> If in your sensor which is very small there is inordinate absorption
> of thermal frequencies, show me the effect on temperature in a normal
> sized room. You could really silence some denialist by this. Refer the
> experiment.
I referred you to the data sheet for a module that was meant to be
used to MAKE lab equipment. It contains a detailed description of how
it works and how to "wire it up".
> This is much more distance of traveling through the gas
> than your sensor. Where in your sensor is the damn thermometer?
I set it up as an interferometer. Temperature mostly canceled out
across it's "usable" range (literal greenhouse).
> The
> important point is the final temperature. If in a room the CO2 were
> absorbing IR any differently, the final temperature would be
> different.
The point is: energy sent = energy received + energy absorbed. The
temperature change was too low to be measured, but the energy went
_somewhere_. The energy lost in lenses and filters was accounted for
in calibration. I was making a sensor, not heater.
> That is no big deal, that in a very small closed area, injection of
> specific frequencies would have immediate affect on different gases.
> The point is that the CO2 molecule radiates all the energy it absorbs,
Then, all the transmitted energy would be received. It isn't.
> just as O2 and N2, they absorb the same in the thermal frequencies
> beyond 2um. And thus the achieve the same final temperature which is
> absolutely proved by the real laboratory data. This is why you have
> none to refer except some mention of some sensor without any full
> analyses.
It's the cheapest and most accurate method to measure CO2 content.
The modules I referenced you to are used to build labs. If you were
correct, the modules could not work. They work.
> So believe what you want about "CO2 absorbs IR". A parrot could repeat
> this. When you repeat it, you think your intelligence at being able to
> repeat this without understanding or defining your terms is compatible
> with all the other chimpanzees repeating the same thing.
No, the intelligence comes in when I design a tool that functions
based on a property you say isn't there. It worked, more or less.
You can buy one for yourself.
> I am awfully sick of you dildoes refering to 'absorption of IR' which
> causes atmospheric heating when you never refer to laboratory data
> with a damn thermometer which shows CO having the property to cause
> higher temperatures. If 400ppm can affect temperature, it could be
> detected in a large volume area at 100% CO2, which it cannot.
If it could not, then these modules could not work. They work.
Here's a link to the technical specs for an educational version of a
CO2 measurement device.
http://www2.vernier.com/booklets/co2-bta.pdf
"The Vernier CO2 Gas Sensor measures gaseous carbon dioxide levels in
the range of
0 to 5000 ppm by monitoring the amount of infrared radiation absorbed
by carbon
dioxide molecules. The sensor uses a hot metal filament as an infrared
source to
generate infrared radiation (IR). The IR source is located at one end
of the sensor's
shaft. At the other end of the shaft is an infrared sensor that
measures how much
radiation gets through the sample without being absorbed by the carbon
dioxide
molecules. The detector measures infrared radiation absorbed in the
narrow band
centered at 4260 nm. The greater the concentration of the absorbing
gas in the
sampling tube, the less radiation will make it from the source through
the sensor tube
to the IR detector. The temperature increase in the infrared sensor
produces a voltage
that is amplified and read by a Vernier interface or the CBL 2. Carbon
dioxide gas
moves in and out of the sensor tube by diffusion through the eight
vent holes in the
sensor tube. When the sensor is collecting data, you can see the IR
source blinking
on and off. It takes a new reading about once every second.
The CO2 Gas Sensor typically measures gaseous carbon dioxide
concentration in
units of parts per million, or ppm. In gaseous mixtures, 1 part per
million refers to 1
part by volume in 1 million volume units of the whole. A concentration
of 600 ppm
for CO2 would simply mean that there is 600 L of CO2 gas for every
1,000,000 L of
air (or 0.6 mL of CO2 per 1 L of air). As a comparison, the level of
carbon dioxide in
the Earth's troposphere has gradually increased from 317 ppm in 1960
to current
levels of nearly 370 ppm. Exhaled human breath has a carbon dioxide
concentration
of about 50,000 ppm."
> CO2 is a heavier molecule. CO2 radiates better at specific bands
> differently than O2 or N2. When encased in glass or similar material
> which has a high rate of heat transfer through it, the loss of heat
> through the material is affected by the special emission bands of CO2.
> Without this solid material and it's interaction with the different
> gases, absolutely no property of CO2 to absorb radiation any
> differently than O2 an N2 can be demonstrated that causes a change in
> the rate of lost energy which causes a higher temperature.
Ahem...
So believe what you want about "CO2 doesn't absorb IR". A parrot
could repeat this. When you repeat it, you think you demonstrate
intelligence. Being able to repeat this continually without trying to
understand or redefine your theories to be compatible with all the
other observations saying something different is the hallmark of
someone who isn't even using what little intelligence they posess.
>
> This is Kirchoff's Theorem which valid radiation law is based.
> This was found to be true in early physics. Only the piss poor theory
> of AGW has returned to the folk lore and myth of grenhouse gases.
>
> "ratio of emissive and absorptive powers of a body depends only on
> the
> temperature of the body and not on it's nature; otherewise radiative
> equilibrium could not exist within a cavity containing substances of
> different kinds"
No idea where you dug that up. Kirchoff's Thermal Rad. is "At thermal
equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its
absorptivity." The Earth is not, nor can it ever be, at a true
thermal equilibrium.
> Calculations of radiative forcing by CO2 are purely theoretical. This
> theory in no way is substantiated by proper science or proper theory.
Have a cracker, Polly.
neutr...@gmail.com
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 4:03 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> .
> >
> > Pressure causes a "smearing" effect, but the basic concept behind
> > spectrography is that different chemicals produce DIFFERENT emission/
> > absorption patterns. Thats how they can tell what kind of matter
> > makes up a star.
>
> Your paragraph shows your incomplete understanding. Of course astonomy
> uses this to analyze stars. But only elements exist in stars.
"Water found on the sun"
http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=396
> It is
> very different to use spectroscopy for molecular bands of the
> infrared. All thermal frequencies are absorbed and reemitted by normal
> gases. The highly energetic visible and near infrard photons, pass
> through atmospheric gases without warming the gas, losing their energy
> or changing their frequency. This energetic frequencies are absorbed
> at the specific frequencies that match the priciple series, by
> specific gases. When they are absorbed, their energy is absorbed and
> increases the temperature of the gas accordingly.
Thats why CO2 warms things up. It holds the energy for a "very long"
time (maybe as long as a millisecond), and can transfer this energy to
another piece of mass by collision. Even if it does re-emit, it might
just send it back.
> Chemicals do not exist in stars. The temperature is too high for
> molecules other than the elemental gases.
"Water found on the sun"
http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=396
>YOu really should look
> things up like the spectrum of the sun. It is a complete continous
> spectra filled with superimposed absorption and emission lines.
And one day, someone was looking at one of these spectra from a
sunspot and went.."hey..that looks like the spectrum of...water?"
> The
> absorption lines are only from the principle series of the elemental
> gases. Molecules radiate at much lower temperatures in the thermal
> frequencies. All molecules radiate in bands. What you term absorption
> bands are only low emission bands in the continous spectra of the
> molecules. All molecules have these bands. Yet all substances reach
> the same temperature in the same radiation field, with very minute
> differences for reflection of radiation.
They reach the same temperature because radiation is only one method
to transfer energy.
> > BTW: CO2, H2O, and the like are not atomic gases. They are molecular
> > gases.
> >
> > > It passes through atmospheric
> > > gases without being absorbed. If these gases absorbed so differently
> > > it could be detected in experiment.
> >
> > Can, and has. Many times.
>
> Why the hell do you say this without substantiation. O2, N2 absorb
> thermal frequencies and attain a temperature. No concentraion of CO2
> affects this absorption of energy and causes a higher temperature.
Since it can be demonstrated that the CO2 does absorb some IR energy
being put through it, and that fact is used to make CO2 sensors (ie:
the theory has been put to practical use)....where do you think the
energy goes?
> How
> the hell does O2 and N2 achieve the same temperature as CO2 if they
> are not absorbing and emitting equivelent energy, regardless of any
> specification of frequencies??
Collision. Direct kinetic transfer.
> >
> > > In the meantime, the mean kinetic
> > > energy of the gas is kT, the pressure and expansion is RT, the energy
> > > absorbed as heat capacity is a product of R. And Wiens law which
> > > indicates most probable energy state of the oscillator is 4.96kT.
> >
> > Did it ever occur to you that the Earth is NOT a perfect black body?
> > Did you apply Kirchhoff's?
>
> The term blackbody only refers to the radiation emitted as part of the
> heat and not reflected. It is meaningless to defer the arguement with
> such semantics with the terms.
In your little world, perhaps. The rest of the scientific community
uses the definition of "an object that absorbs all electromagnetic
radiation that falls onto it"
Project much?
> You only enjoy the theory which elicite your final conlcusion, "that
> CO2 absorbs IR".
That, and I built a sensor that used that specific property to measure
CO2. You can buy them yourself, from OEM module to complete teaching
kit. What I enjoyed about the theory was that it let me skip decades
of trial and error designing the thing. Using the "theory" that CO2
absorbs IR let me set up a system to exploit that property of CO2. If
it didn't absorb IR, as you claim, then the device wouldn't have
worked at all.
> We'll see if this system of using illdefined terms keeps you jerks out
> of prison when you move out of the pansy college debate platforms into
> the US courts.
If it bothers you so much, hire a lawyer and get the ball rolling.
> YOu are indoctrinated into using your undefined terms which you think
> sound intelligent, but which you cannot explain.
> You are the one who has no direct science at all for the
> thermodynamics which you believe, and never analyse the very basics of
> your terms or your science.
Does building devices that exploit specific properties of CO2 count as
analyzing the basics? If CO2 behaved like you believed, then the
device I built, along with the multiple devices I referenced that work
along the same lines, wouldn't work. They did. Draw your own
conclusion. (I assume your conclusion will be something along the
lines of "a fraud perpetuated by the intelligent and the educated")
> Like I said, you cannot refer the laboratory data of any affect on
> final temperature by CO2, methane or water vapor. You are in the
> fantasy land of theoretical science and do not understand the basics
> of energy and radiation which were defined very well by Planck and
> Einstein.
I have referred you to lab data. You basically said it was a fraud.
I can only assume you believe that the sensors I referenced were
fraudulent as well, because if your theory was right, they couldn't
work. No matter how many times you tell CO2 that it shouldn't be
absorbing IR, it keeps on doing so.
>
>
> Deatherage
Phil.
> On Feb 14, 4:03 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> > Pressure causes a "smearing" effect, but the basic concept behind
> > spectrography is that different chemicals produce DIFFERENT emission/
> > absorption patterns. Thats how they can tell what kind of matter
> > makes up a star.
>
> Your paragraph shows your incomplete understanding. Of course astonomy
> uses this to analyze stars. But only elements exist in stars. It is
> very different to use spectroscopy for molecular bands of the
> infrared. All thermal frequencies are absorbed and reemitted by normal
> gases. The highly energetic visible and near infrard photons, pass
> through atmospheric gases without warming the gas, losing their energy
> or changing their frequency.
Complete nonsense!
> This energetic frequencies are absorbed
> at the specific frequencies that match the priciple series, by
> specific gases. When they are absorbed, their energy is absorbed and
> increases the temperature of the gas accordingly.
>
> Chemicals do not exist in stars. The temperature is too high for
> molecules other than the elemental gases. YOu really should look
> things up like the spectrum of the sun. It is a complete continous
> spectra filled with superimposed absorption and emission lines. The
> absorption lines are only from the principle series of the elemental
> gases. Molecules radiate at much lower temperatures in the thermal
> frequencies. All molecules radiate in bands. What you term absorption
> bands are only low emission bands in the continous spectra of the
> molecules. All molecules have these bands. Yet all substances reach
> the same temperature in the same radiation field, with very minute
> differences for reflection of radiation.
False!
>
> > BTW: CO2, H2O, and the like are not atomic gases. They are molecular
> > gases.
>
> > > It passes through atmospheric
> > > gases without being absorbed. If these gases absorbed so differently
> > > it could be detected in experiment.
>
> > Can, and has. Many times.
>
> Why the hell do you say this without substantiation. O2, N2 absorb
> thermal frequencies and attain a temperature. No concentraion of CO2
> affects this absorption of energy and causes a higher temperature. How
> the hell does O2 and N2 achieve the same temperature as CO2 if they
> are not absorbing and emitting equivelent energy, regardless of any
> specification of frequencies??
Rubbish, try here: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif
>
> > > In the meantime, the mean kinetic
> > > energy of the gas is kT,
No it isn't
You're the one repeating BS you've made up, you really don't have a
clue!
>
> You present nothing but terms which you cannot define. YOu do not
> understand the basics of spectroscpy. You think if you use a word or
> term that you have heard, it is an intelligent thing to do although
> you cannot define it, or demonstrate by direct science your validity.
> You only enjoy the theory which elicite your final conlcusion, "that
> CO2 absorbs IR".
>
> We'll see if this system of using illdefined terms keeps you jerks out
> of prison when you move out of the pansy college debate platforms into
> the US courts.
>
> YOu are indoctrinated into using your undefined terms which you think
> sound intelligent, but which you cannot explain.
> You are the one who has no direct science at all for the
> thermodynamics which you believe, and never analyse the very basics of
> your terms or your science.
>
> Like I said, you cannot refer the laboratory data of any affect on
> final temperature by CO2, methane or water vapor. You are in the
> fantasy land of theoretical science and do not understand the basics
> of energy and radiation which were defined very well by Planck and
> Einstein.
I referred to it many times on here, it's you who doesn't understand
the basics of molecular spectroscopy.
Edward Green
> On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
> > Your claim about temperatures is of no
> > validity, unless you have a time machine. The temperature reconstructions such
> > as that of Mann, are the best "time machine" thermometers we know how to build.
>
> > Of course, you will not admit any of this, so rant on, troll.
>
> can swat at with their hockey sticks.
>
> """""""""""""
> For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2
> same as they are today.
> """"""""""""""""""""
>
> None of the theoretical estimation of 'radiative forcing' can be
> validated in the ice core data. The increased CO2 follows the
> temperature rise.http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data
>
> he keeps going,,,,and going,,,,,and going,,,
>
Quotes of the Day
No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people
on your side that you wish were on the other.
- Jascha Heifetz
Bawana
<HydrogenFREE...@HydrogenFREEDOM.info> wrote:
Liar...fraud...delusional
John M.
Oops, Seems to be a serious bug in the auto response bot's script.
Now if it were open source we could all work throught the night and
locate it. But it's obviously a Microsoft product, which means unless
there are at least 200 k error reports, nothing will happen.
kdt...@yahoo.com
You are really trying to get the award. No water exists on the sun.
There is certainly no grenhouse effect in the sunspots.The surface of
the sun is 6000degK. Only an idiot like you who has absolutely no
fundamental understanding of the chemistry and the temperatures that
molecules disassociate would believe or give this rinky dink
conclusion of water on the sun a second thought.
This just goes to show what kind of crackpot science can get into
print as long as they say something about grenhouse effect.
Deatherage
Quote from the article
""""""""""""
WATERLOO, Ont. -- Water has been discovered on the surface of the sun
in sunspots where it causes a sort of "stellar greenhouse effect" that
affects the sunspot's energy output.
"There's a perception that the sun is too hot to form water on its
surface, but we have proved that it exists in sunspots because they
are cooler," said Peter Bernath, a chemistry professor at the
University of Waterloo"""""
kdt...@yahoo.com
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 8:11 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
How stupid are you?. You write all that. About this one basic fact of
your detector.
""'The detector measures infrared radiation absorbed in the
narrow band centered at 4260 nm""""
If your detector is detecting in a narrow range, what about the rest
of the infrared spectrum. The molecule radiates the energy in another
frequency. No proof of inordinate absorption here.
I guess a complete laboratory investigation of this is beyond you. You
only wish to show your simplistic hoax exhibits to induce the false
conclusion you seek.
All molecules absorb the same frequencies in the thermal frequencies.
They radiate this energy the same also. It does not matter so much
what frequency it is radiated in. They still radiate this quantity of
energy. That is why they achieve the same temperature and absolutely
no difference in final temperature can be detected with the most
refined thermometers devised, with any concentration of CO2 to air in
any reasonable volume.
Like I said to the stonebrain Phobiac,
All molecules have bands in which they radiate with greater and lesser
energy. These bands do not affect the overal emissive or absorptive
powers of the substance. Evidence of this is that all substances reach
the same temperature in a heated enclosure.
CO2 has bands of brighter and darker emission in it's continous
spectra. When radiation of specific frequencies is passed through a
gas, the gas molecules are predominately absorbing this energy and
therefore predominately radiate this energy.
If CO2 or water vapor, which have low transmission in bands of the
infrared, are added to the air, it reduces or stops this continual
transmission of these specific frequencies. It does not change the
OVERALL ENERGY, since the energy is merely converted to other
frequencies. Therefore there is no measurable affect on temperature.
This was fully understood by the German physicists of the late
nineteenth century. This is the proper Kirchoffs theorem. It is in
complete contradiction to the intitial principle of the theory of the
affect on temperature by grenhouse gases.
Therefore this fraudulent field of theory has attempted to rewrite
this theorem.
Hey idiot. It did not take the brilliance of Kirchoff to come up with
the idea of equilibrium, which is how you have his theorem restated,
dildo queen.
This is proper Kirchoff Theorem;
""""""ratio of emissive and absorptive powers of a body depends only
on the temperature of the body and not on it's nature; otherewise
radiative equilibrium could not exist within a cavity containing
substances of different kinds"""""""
>
l> No idea where you dug that up. Kirchoff's Thermal Rad. is "At
thermal
l> equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its
l> absorptivity." The Earth is not, nor can it ever be, at a true
l> thermal equilibrium.
The earth absorbs a considerable amount of suns radiation every day
and emits this same amount. The overal quantity of energy is very
great. Any fluctuation in this is small. The earth has achieved this
equilibrium in the nearly 4 billion years of it's existence. It is
very close mathematically to thermal equilibrium.
You try to distort this fact to bolster the hysteria of your fanatic
'runaway grenhouse' fantasy. Good luck in your pitiful little
dishonest Phobiac fantasy life.
AGW will never achieve legal status in US law
How do you spell, mental masturbation.
Deatherage
neutr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 15, 6:33 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 14, 4:03 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> You are really trying to get the award. No water exists on the sun.
> There is certainly no grenhouse effect in the sunspots.The surface of
> the sun is 6000degK.
Except in the sunspots, where it's cool enough for OH bonds to form.
> Only an idiot like you who has absolutely no
> fundamental understanding of the chemistry and the temperatures that
> molecules disassociate would believe or give this rinky dink
> conclusion of water on the sun a second thought.
Sunspots are only about 3400 deg. Cool enough, it seems.
> This just goes to show what kind of crackpot science can get into
> print as long as they say something about grenhouse effect.
>
> Deatherage
>
> Quote from the article
> """"""""""""
> WATERLOO, Ont. -- Water has been discovered on the surface of the sun
> in sunspots where it causes a sort of "stellar greenhouse effect" that
> affects the sunspot's energy output.
>
> "There's a perception that the sun is too hot to form water on its
> surface, but we have proved that it exists in sunspots because they
> are cooler," said Peter Bernath, a chemistry professor at the
> University of Waterloo"""""
Your reading comprehension needs work...
neutr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 15, 5:35 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 14, 8:11 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> How stupid are you?. You write all that.
"All that"...you seem to have removed "all that" from the post, you
pseudointellectual coward. (and I pasted directly from the source I
cited)
>About this one basic fact of
> your detector.
>
> ""'The detector measures infrared radiation absorbed in the
> narrow band centered at 4260 nm""""
A frequency chosen because CO2 is the only common atmospheric gas that
absorbs at that frequency. When building a radio receiver, you
basically do the same thing: you limit your bandwidth to keep the
noise down. In the case of this detector, though, the "receiver" is
wideband.
> If your detector is detecting in a narrow range, what about the rest
> of the infrared spectrum. The molecule radiates the energy in another
> frequency. No proof of inordinate absorption here.
Your claim was that CO2 absorbs just like any other gas. This device
proves you wrong.
> I guess a complete laboratory investigation of this is beyond you. You
> only wish to show your simplistic hoax exhibits to induce the false
> conclusion you seek.
blah blah blah....It's all a great conspiracy, and even the CO2 is in
on it.
> All molecules absorb the same frequencies in the thermal frequencies.
If they did, then the detector would not be able to specifically
measure the CO2 content. They do.
> They radiate this energy the same also. It does not matter so much
> what frequency it is radiated in. They still radiate this quantity of
> energy. That is why they achieve the same temperature and absolutely
> no difference in final temperature can be detected with the most
> refined thermometers devised, with any concentration of CO2 to air in
> any reasonable volume.
Microwave ovens work on EXACTLY the same principle, though operate at
a different frequency...one which affects H2O.
But *of course* you can cite to a proper lab experiment to support
your position, right?
> Like I said to the stonebrain Phobiac,
> All molecules have bands in which they radiate with greater and lesser
> energy. These bands do not affect the overal emissive or absorptive
> powers of the substance. Evidence of this is that all substances reach
> the same temperature in a heated enclosure.
This is because radiation is not the only method of heating an
object. I swear, your density makes a neutron star look like a
nebula.
> CO2 has bands of brighter and darker emission in it's continous
> spectra. When radiation of specific frequencies is passed through a
> gas, the gas molecules are predominately absorbing this energy and
> therefore predominately radiate this energy.
blah blah blah
> If CO2 or water vapor, which have low transmission in bands of the
> infrared, are added to the air, it reduces or stops this continual
> transmission of these specific frequencies. It does not change the
> OVERALL ENERGY, since the energy is merely converted to other
> frequencies. Therefore there is no measurable affect on temperature.
By your theory, microwave ovens could not work either. The only
difference between microwave and IR is frequency. A photon is a
photon is a photon.
> This was fully understood by the German physicists of the late
> nineteenth century. This is the proper Kirchoffs theorem. It is in
> complete contradiction to the intitial principle of the theory of the
> affect on temperature by grenhouse gases.
So, in addition to having your own theories, you have your own
scientific history.
> Therefore this fraudulent field of theory has attempted to rewrite
> this theorem.
Translation... "waaa..the universe doesn't act like I think it
should! it's all a conspiracy! waaa"
> Hey idiot. It did not take the brilliance of Kirchoff to come up with
> the idea of equilibrium, which is how you have his theorem restated,
> dildo queen.
Umm..Kirchoffs current law basically states that "any current entering
a node has to leave that node". Pretty simple statement, really. I
made that observation even before I'd heard of Kirchoff's current
law.
> This is proper Kirchoff Theorem;
> """"""ratio of emissive and absorptive powers of a body depends only
> on the temperature of the body and not on it's nature; otherewise
> radiative equilibrium could not exist within a cavity containing
> substances of different kinds"""""""
Well, using 5 quotes certainly adds weight to your argument, but had
you used one more set of quotations, I would have been convinced. You
probably think that volume makes your arguments more correct too.
> l> No idea where you dug that up. Kirchoff's Thermal Rad. is "At
> thermal
> l> equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its
> l> absorptivity." The Earth is not, nor can it ever be, at a true
> l> thermal equilibrium.
>
> The earth absorbs a considerable amount of suns radiation every day
> and emits this same amount. The overal quantity of energy is very
> great. Any fluctuation in this is small. The earth has achieved this
> equilibrium in the nearly 4 billion years of it's existence. It is
> very close mathematically to thermal equilibrium.
Observations say otherwise. Also, if the earth were in perfect
equilibrium, we would have no weather. Since points on the earth go
through regular heating/cooling cycles (ie: day and night), the earth
can never be at equilibrium. Mathematically, you cannot get a flat
response from a sine wave. (well, I guess you could if you squared it
and added it to the square of itself + 90 deg...but then you don't
have a sine wave anymore...you've got a constant)
> You try to distort this fact to bolster the hysteria of your fanatic
> 'runaway grenhouse' fantasy. Good luck in your pitiful little
> dishonest Phobiac fantasy life.
Ahem.. "whink whink whink"
> AGW will never achieve legal status in US law
Science requires legal consent? Damn, we're going to have to start
arresting CO2 molecules for absorbing IR. Whats next...arresting the
ocean because it's wet?
Just think of the prison you'd need....
> How do you spell, mental masturbation.
I spell it "Kent Deatherage".
> Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 15, 10:32 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > In the meantime, the mean kinetic
> > > > energy of the gas is kT,
>
> No it isn't
_______________
The product of the pressure and volume is only a product of the mean
kinetic energy of the gas.
PV=nRT, (n is the number of moles),,,, R/N = k ,,(N is Avogadro's
number)
The absolute gas-temperature T, defined in terms of the mean kinetic
energy is kT/2
The total motion for the centre of inertia is 3/2kT
___________________
Oh by the way, all your theoretics of what CO2 does with the IR it
absorbs can be proved
invalid. Also your undefined phrases 'monopole and dipole radiation'.
And especially your stupid
dynamics that the bonds of the molecules are absorbing energy. Now
that's really stupid.
Bond energies may be evident in spectroscopic readings. But these
bonds do not absorb
energie like you assholes have made up. You jerks really ought to get
a real job. Then you
wouldn't have so much time and energy for your mental masturbation
theoretics. And now you're
trying to force this complete bullshit on society with your plan for
our economic reform and use of energy according to your highly
educated direction.
I have just proved, Phil, that you do not understand kT, or 3/2kT.
You are also hostile in your ignorance towards someone that does. Go
ahead and kill valid science in the universities like you little
obnoxious brats that rule theoretical science strive to do.
Heat capacity is a direct measurement of the energy absorbed into the
kinetic energies of the
molecule. Any bond vibrational energies would appear in this. The bond
energies are extremely
great. Heat capacity of water is 75.4Joules per mol per degC. The bond
energy of the liquid state
requires 40,600 joules to break the bonds of one mole of water.
The bond energies of the water molecule are exactly the energy of the
enthalpy of the formation of the water from the Oxygen and hydrogen.
This is about the highest combustion temperature of any combination.
When divided by the number of bonds, it is exactly the energy of the
bonds.
This energy is a conversion of a quantity of mass according to E=mc^2.
Surely they have some acutal chemistry books there where you collect
that charlatans check everyweek.
This bond energy is way too great to absorb the small quantities of
energy that you surmise and which you cannot show by laboratory data.
Since it is beyond your capability to understand valid theoretical
science, you may
find out what the phrase 'scientific proof', is the hard way.
>
> You're the one repeating BS you've made up, you really don't have a
> clue!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>I referred to it many times on here, it's you who doesn't understand
> the basics of molecular spectroscopy.->
We are talking about temperature. You do not measure temperature by
your
understanding of the 'basics of molecular spectroscopy'. You actually
mean,
"the made up theoretical spectroscopy designed to support the
fabricated science
of grenhouse theory". All those billons you AGW's spend and you never
thought to buy a thermometer??
As an Enviro climatological theoretical fantasy freak, real physics
and chemistry may not be important, huh. As long as it supports your
end conclusion and you all get together and agree
to the consensus that it does, who needs valid math, chemistry or
physics????
Deatherage.
kdt...@yahoo.com
Here is another quote from Phil, in which he denies the valid things I
say according to his dogmatic rhetoric.
Here he says exactly that the mean kinetic energy is 3/2 kT, This
proves you absolutely know nothing about the temperature and pressure
of a gas or have any actual understanding of anything relating to
gases, energy, or temperature.
In this quote you state that the heat capacity of O2 and N2 is about
20 Joules per mol per deg. But even your own Phobiac buddy,
Hoo...@co2emissions.org.uk, had given very specific reference that dry
air at sea level has the heat capacity of 29 Joules per mol per deg.
I guess you'll just have to call your own charlatan bud there a kook.
In the meantime BURDEN OF PROOF is upon AGW.
You wienie shits can try to evade this with semantics all you want.
Burden of proof is met here that you have no basic fundamental
understanding of the basics of any science of climatology which deals
with such things as atmospheric gases, energy and temperature.
Deatherage
> Rubbish, try here: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.htmlhttp://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif
> the basics of molecular spectroscopy.- Hide quoted text -
Phil.
> On Feb 15, 11:25 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:32 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Here is another quote from Phil, in which he denies the valid things I
> say according to his dogmatic rhetoric.
'invalid things'
> Here he says exactly that the mean kinetic energy is 3/2 kT, This
> proves you absolutely know nothing about the temperature and pressure
> of a gas or have any actual understanding of anything relating to
> gases, energy, or temperature.
No, 3/2kT is the mean kinetic energy, kT is the most probable energy.
>
> In this quote you state that the heat capacity of O2 and N2 is about
> 20 Joules per mol per deg. But even your own Phobiac buddy,
> Hoo...@co2emissions.org.uk, had given very specific reference that dry
> air at sea level has the heat capacity of 29 Joules per mol per deg.
> I guess you'll just have to call your own charlatan bud there a kook.
No, Cp of air is 29.19 J/mol K Cv of air is 20.85 J/mol K
Cp of CO2 is 37 J/mol K Cv of CO2 is 28 J/mol K
Compare apples with apples!
>
> In the meantime BURDEN OF PROOF is upon AGW.
> You wienie shits can try to evade this with semantics all you want.
>
> Burden of proof is met here that you have no basic fundamental
> understanding of the basics of any science of climatology which deals
> with such things as atmospheric gases, energy and temperature.
>
On the contrary it is youwho have no knowledge of the science
involved.
> > Rubbish, try here: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.htmlhttp://www.wag.caltech.edu/hom...
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 16, 9:48 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:25 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 10:32 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thr...
>
> > Here is another quote from Phil, in which he denies the valid things I
> > say according to his dogmatic rhetoric.
>
> 'invalid things'
>
> > Here he says exactly that the mean kinetic energy is 3/2 kT, This
> > proves you absolutely know nothing about the temperature and pressure
> > of a gas or have any actual understanding of anything relating to
> > gases, energy, or temperature.
>
energy.
There you go again, making a rhetorical statement without any
substantiation. See if you can understand this, dildo breath.
This is a quote from proper reference of proper physics. You are not a
physicists, but some form of Enviro climatologists that barely knows
enough physics to light an oven.
____________________________
The product of the pressure and volume is only a product of the mean
kinetic energy of the gas.
PV=nRT, (n is the number of moles),,,, R/N = k ,,(N is Avogadro's
number)
The absolute gas-temperature T, defined in terms of the mean kinetic
energy is kT/2
The total motion for the centre of inertia is 3/2 kT
____________________________
If the molecules have velocities, then they have an average kinetic
energy associated with the mean root square of their velocities
according to Maxwell. This energy of their velocities has a 'mean'
value. This mean value of the kinetic energy is directly proportional
to temperature therefore it is written, kT.
The important point of this, is that it describes the composite energy
of the momentum delivered by the collisions of the gas molecules on
the side of a container, and therefore gives the pressure the gas
exerts which is directly proportional to temperature. This is called
the 'mean kinetic energy'.
The total motion for the center of inertia, gives the energy of the
heat capacity, or the overal energy absorbed in the kinetic motions of
the molecule which includes any spin. This is clearly evidence in the
heat capacities of the diatomic molecules. Diatoms which are not
symmetrical have unique charactreristics of spin due to their
unbalanced molecule. This does not affect in any way the final
temperature they achieve. The monatomic gases, such as the inert
gases, all have exactly the same heat capacity even though they have
very different mass or weight. The balanced diatoms of like atoms such
as O2 and N2, have the same heat capacities.
All of your fake little dynamics of absorption of IR by CO2 can be
shown to be false by the direct analyses of CO2. Your fake dynamics of
the bonds of the water molecule absorbing energy are ludicrous when
you know that these bond energies are above 100,000 Joules per bond
and you assign the absorption of energy of fractions of an electron
volt. These bonds do not absorb these fractions of energy.
If you are going to state your dogma, please substantiate your
statements. The time will come when your childish inablility to define
your terms and the things you say, will be defined clearly as criminal
intent to commit fraud.
In the meantime, I see you have no reference to laboratory
corroboration of your 'belief' that CO2 retains thermal energy and
causes a higher final temperature. This is only an assumption that
piss poor theoretical idiots like yourself invent and then believe and
then state as rhetoric although you cannot substantiate your
statements.
Who the hell cares about the heat capacity at constant volume, turd
sucker????? In the conditions of the atmosphere, gases expand and are
not kept at constant volume.
I'm still getting a good laugh out of your thermal dynamic
calculations and that stupid little idea you use of equilibrium.
1370/4 = 342 - .32 = 235,,,,= -2F,,,,,+33C = 57F
That's your complete math for thermodynamics. Only a monkey would
think that this is physics or valid math for temperature of the earth.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahaha
hahahahahcrackpothahahahcrackpothahahahcrackpothahaha
This application fails in any event it is attempted to be applied.
You get no valid average temperature, no valid mean temperature. This
gives absolutely nothing valid. You only have developed it to support
your end conclusion of grenhouse gases, and then it is restated by
dickheads like you as fact to uneducated people.
The temperature of the earth is determined by the energy which reaches
the surface, which you do not account for at all, the energy that is
absorbed in the atmosphere and doesn't reach the surface.
You assholes are clinically insane in your attempt to affect peoples
lives according to this bullshit science. Since it is impossible to
explain the valid science which you avoid, you can go suck one in
hell.
Just tell your buds that if it can be shown that temperatures are not
bolstered now by your made up idea of 'grenhouse gases', it can be
directly proved by science that the theory you have of increased
levels of CO2 by 100 ppm is invalid. And they can be proved to be
guilty of fraud and intent to commit fraud and go to the penitentiary.
If you or they ignore the science before hand that proves you wrong
and pursue this fraud, this should be clearly noted in your
prosecution and in the premeditation of your crime. Good luck in hell,
dildo breath Phil.
Deatherage
Ray Lopez Kiddie-Porn@NAMBLA.org
old satanic heresy that Rockefeller's dad was a sociopath that brought
home his mistress to live under the family roof or peddled fake cancer
cures or a bigamist who actually went and married another woman under
a faked name.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/chernow-titan.html
"Before long, Big Bill roughly disabused Eliza of any high-flown
romantic notions she might have had about matrimony. Far from
renouncing his girlfriend, Nancy Brown, he brought her into the
cramped house as a "housekeeper" and began having children,
alternately, by wife and mistress. In 1838, Eliza gave birth to their
first child, Lucy, followed a few months later by Nancy's first
illegitimate daughter, Clorinda. On the night of July 8, 1839, Bill
and Eliza again summoned the midwife, this time to deliver a boy, who
came into the world in a bare front bedroom measuring eight by ten
feet. This child, born during Martin Van Buren's presidency and
destined to become the country's foremost capitalist, would survive
into the second term of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Like many
other future magnates--Andrew Carnegie (born in 1835), Jay Gould
(1836), and J. Pierpont Morgan (1837)--he was born in the late 1830s
and would therefore come to maturity on the eve of the post-Civil War
industrial boom. Several months after John's birth, Nancy Brown gave
birth to a second daughter, Cornelia, which meant that Bill, lord of
his own harem, managed to sire four children under one roof in just
two years. Thus, the fiercely moralistic John Davison Rockefeller
(appropriately named after Eliza's sober father) was sandwiched
tightly between two illegitimate sisters, born into a situation
steeped in sin."
http://www.answers.com/topic/john-d-rockefeller
Rockefeller ... His father was a traveling salesman of dubious
products, such as "cancer cures." He was also a philanderer and a
bigamist.
----------------
The EXXON religion is the purity of the nobel corporation who only
toils to delive beneficial products, not the satanic heresy of the
polluting corporation that made kerosine before cars were invented so
it had to dump the poisonous gasoline unwanted byproduct in streams
and rivers.
----------------
The EXXON religion is the good citizen corporation, not the satanic
heresy about Rockefeller going to war with Tom Scott of Penn RR that
led to 2,000 people killed in uprisings that burned 2,000 railcars and
engines and many rail stations. The Exxon religion is the good
corporation, not that satanic heresy of the illegal trust that took a
president Roosevelt and a supreme court 11 years to "break up".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike
"Pittsburgh, PA became the site of the worst violence. Thomas
Alexander Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad, often considered one of
the first robber barons, suggested that the strikers should be given
"a rifle diet for a few days and see how they like that kind of
bread."[3]
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/wv/roundhouse.pdf
One railroad, the Pennsylvania, suffered the greatest losses of all
the railroads, with its heaviest losses at Pittsburgh. Fortunately for
the company, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court held the company not
liable for freight stolen or destroyed at Pittsburgh. What had
happened to the Pennsylvania Railroad caused its president, Tom Scott,
to sell his empire to John D. Rockefeller in October 1877.
----------------
http://mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html
A People's History of the United States
... The Standard Oil Trust was dissolved under court order in 1911
creating many smaller regional companies, including Standard Oil of
New Jersey (Exxon), Standard Oil of New York (Mobil), Standard Oil of
California (Chevron), Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio), Standard Oil of
Indiana (Amoco), Continental Oil (Conoco), and Atlantic Oil (ARCO). By
1941 Standard Oil of New Jersey was the largest oil company in the
world, controlling 84 percent of the U.S. petroleum market. Its bank
was Chase and its owners were the Rockefellers. ...
... After the Rockefellers, the next largest stockholder in Standard
Oil was I.G. Farben, the giant German chemical company. This
investment was part of a pattern of reciprocal investments between the
U.S. and Germany during the Nazi years. During the Great Depression,
Germany was viewed as a hot area in which to invest.
A brief aside is required here to explain what type of company I.G.
Farben actually was. At the time, it was the world's largest chemical
company and through the talents of its scientists and engineers, it
secured the vital self-sufficiency that was to enable Germany to
maneuver in the world of power politics. From its laboratories and
factories flowed the strategic raw materials that Germany's own
territory could not supply, the synthetics of oil, gasoline, rubber,
nitrates, and fibers. In addition, I.G. produced vaccines and drugs
such as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa
drugs, as well as poison gases and rocket fuels. The depth of I.G.
Farben's connection to Nazi policy was finally realized at Auschwitz,
the extermination center where four million people were destroyed in
accordance with Hitler's "Final Solution of the Jewish Question".
Drawn by the seemingly limitless supply of death camp labor, Farben
built I.G. Auschwitz, a huge industrial complex designed to produce
synthetic rubber and oil. This installation used as much electricity
as the entire city of Berlin, and more than 25,000 camp inmates died
during its construction. I.G. Farben eventually built its own
concentration camp, known as Monowitz, which was closer to the site of
the complex than Auschwitz was, in order to eliminate the need to
march prisoners several miles to and from the plant every day.
This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well
as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors.
I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis
simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In
fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force
would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. The planes
that made up the Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gasoline in order to
fly. At the time, only Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors had
the ability to produce this vital substance. In 1938, Walter C.
Teagle, then president of Standard Oil, helped Hermann Schmitz of I.G.
Farben to acquire 500 tons of tetraethyl lead from Ethyl, a British
Standard subsidiary. A year later, Schmitz returned to London and
obtained an additional 15 million dollars worth of tetraethyl lead
which was to be turned into aviation gasoline back in Germany.
After the war began in Europe, the English became angry about U.S.
shipments of strategic materials to Nazi Germany. Standard Oil
immediately changed the registration of their entire fleet to
Panamanian to avoid British search or seizure. These ships continued
to carry oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where they refueled
and siphoned oil to German tankers for shipment to Hamburg.
This deception was exposed on March 31, 1941 when the U.S. State
Department issued a detailed report on refueling stations in Mexico
and Central and South America that were suspected of furnishing oil to
Italian and German merchant vessels. The report listed Standard Oil of
New Jersey and Standard Oil of California among those fueling enemy
ships, but there is no record of any action being taken as a result of
this discovery. Similar deals between Standard Oil and the Japanese
government for the purchase of tetraethyl lead have also been
uncovered, but no direct action was ever taken against Standard Oil
for its dealings with America's enemies. A brief side note, however,
is that on April 17, l945 the Chase National Bank was placed on trial
in federal court on charges of having violated the Trading With the
Enemy Act by converting German marks into U.S. dollars. Because many
countries refused to accept German currency during the war, the Nazis
used foreign banks like Chase National to change the currency into
money that would be accepted, and thus allowed them to purchase much
need materials to prolong the war. The closer one looks, the more ties
one finds between American business and Nazi Germany, many of which
remained strong well into and beyond the war. ...
http://www.us-highways.com/sohist.htm
kdt...@yahoo.com
> In article <1171322959.322161.114...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, kdth...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 12, 5:01 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> >> In article <1171317781.041713.214...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, kdth...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >On Feb 12, 12:34 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> >> >> kdth...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >> >On Feb 11, 8:38 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
> >> >Care to get out the data and show any correlation at all to estimated
> >> >radiative forcing and any data at all?
>
> >> Since you can't do it, let me provide some further information:
>
> >So what. The made up theoretical estimation of what the climatologists
> >call 'radiative forcing', finds no correlation in ice core data. Or
> >this ancient period. So you twirps try to attack such facts as this
> >period's temperature and CO2 levels.
>
> Looks like Mr Kent can't understand that the continents were in a different
> location way back when, thus the planet wasn't warmer then. The fact that
> the CO2 levels seem to follow the temperature seen in the ice cores is not
> a problem, as CO2 is not thought to be the driving force behind the cycles
> of ice ages. What's happening now is much different, as mankind is adding
> the CO2 before the other forcings which drove the ice ages can return and
> begin another ice age.
>
> >than it is now without human CO2 or methane.
> >This fact gives the hockey stick a broken handle. And gives the
> >forcast of the upturn from human causes no validity.
>
> Since there is no real proof of a global MWP, yur assertion is false.
> Your pointing to Soon and Baliunas non-analytical paper as proof just
> shows how ignorant you are about the state of the science. Their
> "meta analysis" puts the same weight on a +0.1 as that on a +1.0 or
> a +10.0. They are all "pluses". They can't do an area averaged
> analysis, since they don't use actual temperature anomalies. The
> whole thing is a carefully crafted disinformation piece.
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/302/5644/404.pdf
>
> >The fluctuations in temperature are normal. If CO2 were the cause,
> >higher CO2 levels would much precede the actual warming due to the
> >time that it takes for any warming to occur with the great quantities
> >of mass of air, ocean and earth.
> >But that would be too much like actual science. And not fit for the
> >fanatic panic that we are burning up the atmosphere due to our 150
> >years of being heathenistic and making CO2.
>
l> Yes, fluctuations in temperature are normal. Up to a point, that
is.
l> The best minds working on the question agree that it's getting
warmer
l> and that the warming is beyond the expected natural variation.
And,
l> there is general agreement that the cause is increasing Greenhouse
gases.
Bullshit. Here is an actual evaluation by a top climatolgist with a
very clear inside perspective of the science and the IPCC. He clearly
describes the false science of the IPCC.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Deatherage
>
> Here's some bedtime reading for you:http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/References/References.html
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Phil.
> On Feb 16, 10:11 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:48 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 11:25 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 10:32 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thr...
>
> > > Here is another quote from Phil, in which he denies the valid things I
> > > say according to his dogmatic rhetoric.
>
> > 'invalid things'
>
> > > Here he says exactly that the mean kinetic energy is 3/2 kT, This
> > > proves you absolutely know nothing about the temperature and pressure
> > > of a gas or have any actual understanding of anything relating to
> > > gases, energy, or temperature.
>
> l> No, 3/2kT is the mean kinetic energy, kT is the most probable
> energy.
>
> There you go again, making a rhetorical statement without any
> substantiation. See if you can understand this, dildo breath.
It arises from the equipartition of energy you moron, each component
of velocity has a mean kinetic energy of kT/2
since there are three independent velocity components the total
kinetic energy is 3kT/2 as stated above. You'll find the derivation
from Maxwell's distribution in any text on the kinetic theory of
gases, it's difficult to reproduce here because of the inability to
show integrals.
Why you don't substantiate any of your nonsense?
>
> In the meantime, I see you have no reference to laboratory
> corroboration of your 'belief' that CO2 retains thermal energy and
> causes a higher final temperature. This is only an assumption that
> piss poor theoretical idiots like yourself invent and then believe and
> then state as rhetoric although you cannot substantiate your
> statements.
Indeed I have referenced the absorption spectra of H2O and CO2, also
referenced the operation of CO2 lasers and the use of NDIR
spectroscopy and FTIR spectroscopy to measure CO2 concentration.
>
> Who the hell cares about the heat capacity at constant volume, turd
> sucker????? In the conditions of the atmosphere, gases expand and are
> not kept at constant volume.
It was you who tried to equate Cp for N2 & O2 with Cv for CO2 in your
claim that the heat capacities were equal!
>
> I'm still getting a good laugh out of your thermal dynamic
> calculations and that stupid little idea you use of equilibrium.
> 1370/4 = 342 - .32 = 235,,,,= -2F,,,,,+33C = 57F
> That's your complete math for thermodynamics. Only a monkey would
> think that this is physics or valid math for temperature of the earth.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahaha
> hahahahahcrackpothahahahcrackpothahahahcrackpothahaha
>
> This application fails in any event it is attempted to be applied.
> You get no valid average temperature, no valid mean temperature. This
> gives absolutely nothing valid. You only have developed it to support
> your end conclusion of grenhouse gases, and then it is restated by
> dickheads like you as fact to uneducated people.
>
> The temperature of the earth is determined by the energy which reaches
> the surface, which you do not account for at all, the energy that is
> absorbed in the atmosphere and doesn't reach the surface.
The temperature of the atmosphere depends on the energy which it
absorbs.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 18, 12:11 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 10:11 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> > > l> No, 3/2kT is the mean kinetic energy, kT is the most probable
> > energy.
>
> > There you go again, making a rhetorical statement without any
> > substantiation. See if you can understand this, dildo breath.
>
> It arises from the equipartition of energy you moron, each component
> of velocity has a mean kinetic energy of kT/2
> since there are three independent velocity components the total
> kinetic energy is 3kT/2 as stated above. You'll find the derivation
> from Maxwell's distribution in any text on the kinetic theory of
> gases, it's difficult to reproduce here because of the inability to
> show integrals.
Define 'equipartition' dildoe breath. Maxwell is not the final word on
this as he never solved the puzzle of the mathmatics of the energy of
temperature which could only be solved with Planck's constant. You
still only repeat the perversion of basic math and physics of the
bogus 'grenhouse theory'. This bogus theory is a derivative from QM
which is also fraudulent. I guess when you calculate the energy
absorbed into the 3 axis of spin of a non symmetrical diatomic
molecule, you consider that the spin is only quantized and cannot
exist in all values of speed of rotation but must exist is specific
and definite values of rotation which it magically jumps in between
without attaining these intermediate values???? Pure liquid horseshit
from the dishonest schoolboys and freaks that believe in this.
In the real kinetic theory of gases, no such quantized spin exists.
This was not invented until the late 1920's in the charlatan schools
of theory that was rejected by the physicists that brought modern
physics out of the dark ages, Einstein and Planck. Shrodinger also
rejected this bullshit from Bohr and Heisenberg which you lap up and
repeat in your normal rhetoric without explanation.
The pressure of the gas is according to the energy which the gas
posseses in the collective velocities of the molecules. Energy is
'capability to do work'. A mole of gas increases it's presseure in
direct proportion to temperature. This energy of the gas to do work,
has a mean value kT, which determines the energy of a mole, or RT.
But all these considerations of kinetic energy, (especially those
grenhouse theory uses to invent heat capabilities of CO2), can be
shown to not be the means that energy is converted to the radiation of
the radiation field which is displayed in the spectra of the
distribution, the total energy, and energy per sq cm, and the
displacement of highest intensity frequency directly proportional to
temperature and the mean kinetic energy of kT.
Even if you consider the mean kinetic energy to be 1/2 greater as you
say, 3/2, you still can not get the motions out of the molecule,
(dipole, monopole, bond vibration or linear motion) to justify the
distribution and the energy radiated at temperature. Wiens Law for
highest intenstity is 4.96 times greater than kT. This is only the one
frequency of highest intensity and only one photon of this frequency.
Also you attribute lower energies to be totally the motion and the
exchange of this energy by conduction. The math shows that the actual
energy in these motions could never be responsible for the energy of
the radiation and temperature. Impossible for the kinetic energy of
air molecules to warm the walls of a room by their kinetic delivery of
energy in any of the time that the event actually occurs.
This is why Kirchoff's law is valid, which states that it is the
temperature, not the nature of the substance, which determines the
ratio of absorptive to emissive powers. Of course you believe in the
modified Kirchoffs Law in which the theoretical jerks have changed it
to a rendition of the principle of equilibrium.
Maybe someday you assholes will have to learn to do actual math
instead of talking all day in your stupid semantics about events of
energy which you cannot quantify or demonstrate in any fashion in
direct laboratory analyses.
Another thing. In older chemistry, it was thought that the water
molecule looked like mickey mouse and had the two hydrogen atoms
protruding on the oxygen atom. More refined analyses shows this not
to be true. The hydrogern atoms are buried into the oxygen atoms
layers of electron shells. The water molecule is SPHERICAL and has the
radius virtually exactly the same as the neutral oxygen atom. The OH-
molecule, having extra electron and lower bonding energy for each
electron, has a greater radius than the water molecule. The oxygen
molecule can also have this ion with an extra electron. This anion of
oxygen,(negatively charged ion), is the same radius of the OH-
molecule.
This and other means can show the invalidity of your concept of "IRs
absorbed in bond vibration", to which you refered a link for the water
molecule of this pure mental masturbation invention for the fraud of
grenhouse theory.
But you don't care if you are invalid. Or if your degree is invalid
from repitition and inclusion of invalidity. You still want the Anti-
Carbon religion installed, regardless of how many people die or how
many lies you have to tell to condition peoples mind to believe the
false picture you portray of CO2 abatement. You should explain to them
that their normal life will no longer exist. The climatologists demand
"significant reduction" in emissions. This means all of their lives
must be consecrated to the holy task of not emitting CO2 regardless of
the suffering or death of individuals in the importance of the
collective goal.
I think you should burn in hell.
The burden of proof is on you.
One hole in this burden of proof and you go down in flames.
This is not the college debate scene where a bunch of idiots get to
decide on what they believe is the truth.
Deatherage
The_Man
> On Feb 18, 12:48 am, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:11 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 10:11 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> > > > l> No, 3/2kT is the mean kinetic energy, kT is the most probable
> > > energy.
>
> > > There you go again, making a rhetorical statement without any
> > > substantiation. See if you can understand this, dildo breath.
>
> > It arises from the equipartition of energy you moron, each component
> > of velocity has a mean kinetic energy of kT/2
> > since there are three independent velocity components the total
> > kinetic energy is 3kT/2 as stated above. You'll find the derivation
> > from Maxwell's distribution in any text on the kinetic theory of
> > gases, it's difficult to reproduce here because of the inability to
> > show integrals.
>
> Define 'equipartition' dildoe breath. Maxwell is not the final word on
> this as he never solved the puzzle of the mathmatics of the energy of
> temperature which could only be solved with Planck's constant. You
> still only repeat the perversion of basic math and physics of the
> bogus 'grenhouse theory'. This bogus theory is a derivative from QM
> which is also fraudulent.
No, quantum mechanics is not fradulent. QM is the most successful and
most verified theory in the history of science.
> I guess when you calculate the energy
> absorbed into the 3 axis of spin of a non symmetrical diatomic
> molecule, you consider that the spin is only quantized and cannot
> exist in all values of speed of rotation but must exist is specific
> and definite values of rotation which it magically jumps in between
> without attaining these intermediate values???? Pure liquid horseshit
> from the dishonest schoolboys and freaks that believe in this.
Space quantization was proven as long ago as 1925 in the Stern-Gerlach
experiment. the quantization of angular momentum is easily derived
from the postulates of QM, and is easily verified experimentally by
such things as the fine structure of electronic spectra.
>
> In the real kinetic theory of gases, no such quantized spin exists.
> This was not invented until the late 1920's in the charlatan schools
> of theory that was rejected by the physicists that brought modern
> physics out of the dark ages, Einstein and Planck.
Wrong. In fact, Einstein explained the anomolous heat capacity of
metals at low temps by inisting that the crystal had a single
vibrational frequency. This got closer to the true answer, which was
only provided later by Debye, who showed that there was a range of
frequencies of vibration.
> Shrodinger also
> rejected this bullshit from Bohr and Heisenberg which you lap up and
> repeat in your normal rhetoric without explanation.
Hardly. Schroedinger derived the quantization of angular momentum. It
is a 3rd or 4th year undergraduate level derivation. It can easily be
done by a younger student - you only need differential calculus, andf
polar coordinates. Take a stab at it.
Nevertheless, quantization of angular momentum is irrelevant to your
argument, anyway. The question is the quantization of VIBRATION.
Again, this was derived easily by both Schroedinger and any
undergraduate who ever passed P Chem II in college. Think Hermite
polynomials.
You also (in your heated argument) overlook the selection rules for
absorption of EM radiation. For all your concentration on atomic
spectroscopy in stars (where vibrational and rotational effect are
absent), you disregarded the fact that the earth isn't a start, and
that vibrational and rotational energy level differences are well
within the thermal energy of the earth.
CO2 is MUCH different from O2 and N2 in having vibration modes for
which the transition dipole moment integral I Psi* mu Psi dtau <> 0.
In other words, O2 and N2 never absorb in the IR, whereas CO2 has an
asymmetric stretching mode and a bending mode which are IR active. H2O
is likewise IR active.
This is wrong, and obviously so. we have long had the crystal
structure of ice, and know that water is tetrahedrally coordinated
through hydrogen bonds to 4 of its neighbors.
> The hydrogern atoms are buried into the oxygen atoms
> layers of electron shells. The water molecule is SPHERICAL
No, If that were so, it would have no dipole moment, which, of course,
it does.
> and has the
> radius virtually exactly the same as the neutral oxygen atom. The OH-
> molecule, having extra electron and lower bonding energy for each
> electron, has a greater radius than the water molecule. The oxygen
> molecule can also have this ion with an extra electron. This anion of
> oxygen,(negatively charged ion), is the same radius of the OH-
> molecule.
>
> This and other means can show the invalidity of your concept of "IRs
> absorbed in bond vibration", to which you refered a link for the water
> molecule of this pure mental masturbation invention for the fraud of
> grenhouse theory.
>
> But you don't care if you are invalid. Or if your degree is invalid
> from repitition and inclusion of invalidity. You still want the Anti-
> Carbon religion installed, regardless of how many people die or how
> many lies you have to tell to condition peoples mind to believe the
> false picture you portray of CO2 abatement. You should explain to them
> that their normal life will no longer exist. The climatologists demand
> "significant reduction" in emissions. This means all of their lives
> must be consecrated to the holy task of not emitting CO2 regardless of
> the suffering or death of individuals in the importance of the
> collective goal.
Your point about anti-carbon religion is well-taken. There is
considerable enthusiasm for reducing carbon emissions without
sufficient evidence. But where the evidence is insufficient is not
that CO2 absorbs IR (thi is unequivocal). The questions are with
regard to the fate of CO2 (it is absorbed by the oceans, converted
into carbonate, metabolized by plants, etc.), and the effect of CO2 on
WEATHER, and not just TEMPERATURE. The weather is extraordinarily
difficult to predict, and this difficulty is always understated.
Also, if the problem were as serious as stated, the international
community would sign treaties that did not allow China, by 2015 to be
the LARGEST emitter of CO@ off scot-free, while penalizing Europe.
Also, the Kyoto Treat set targets in such a way that Russia would fall
well below its limit, and so be able to make a fortune by selling its
pollution credits ot the US and Western Europe.
>
> I think you should burn in hell.
Don't get yourself in a huff.
> The burden of proof is on you.
> One hole in this burden of proof and you go down in flames.
> This is not the college debate scene where a bunch of idiots get to
> decide on what they believe is the truth.
>
> Deatherage- Hide quoted text -
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 18, 12:11 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
""""'It arises from the equipartition of energy you moron, each
component of velocity has a mean kinetic energy of kT/2 since there
are three independent velocity components the total kinetic energy is
3kT/2 as stated above. You'll find the derivation from Maxwell's
distribution in any text on the kinetic theory of gases, it's
difficult to reproduce here because of the inability to show
integrals.""""""
"""It arises from the equipartition of energy you moron"""
KD
The joke of the week is you calling Max Born a moron. The following is
a quote from Max Born, 'Atomic Physics', pg. 6-7.
Kirchoff's theorem, pg.205
______________________
The product of the pressure and volume is only a product of the mean
kinetic energy of the gas. PV=nRT, (n is the number of moles),,,, R/N
= k ,,(N is Avogadro's number)
The absolute gas-temperature T, defined in terms of the mean kinetic
energy is kT/2
The total motion for the centre of inertia is 3/2 kT
____________________________
Max Born was a contemporary with Einstein and Planck and one of the
highest rated physicists of his day. He was Heisenberg's mentor out of
college and is credited with much of the intitial work in QM. In this
book at least he gives an account of the development of QM. And he
gives the valid defintion of kT as the mean kinetic energy. 3/2 kT is
total motion of the centre of inertia.This value multiplied by
Avagadro's number is exactly the heat capacity of a monatomic gas at
constant volume. 5/2 R is exactly the value of the heat capactiy of a
monatomic gas when it is allowed to expand.
Moron is quite a word for an Enviro climatologists like you who only
knows how to do simple addition when you are adding up your chunks of
Wm-2. This method you guys use is wholly invalid. The average of the
area like this gives you nothing, not even temperature, like your
simplistic addition is twisted to do.
The intensity of the radiation determines the temperature, since this
radiation energy travels at the velocity of light and no material not
even gases, transfer energy by conduction at the velocity of light.
Until the temperature reaches the equivelent rate of radiation, it
will be absorbing energy and increasing temperature at the surface
that is recieving energy. Quantities of energy are in Joules or
calories, dildo breath.
Equipartition, only means that if you have a room and the air in the
room is a uniform temperature, then the average energy and velocities
of the gas molecules in the room, is the same in 1 sq meter. 1 sq
centimeter, or in any specific volume of the room. Or in the total
room, the average will be the same for the molecules. Thus the simple,
kT from Boltzman for the mean kinetic energy at a given temperature.
Your phrases and references to Maxwell are meaningless like usual.
Better get back to the simple addition of climatology which you can
handle.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahaha
hahahahcrackpothahahahcrackpothahahahcrackpothaha
1368/4 = 342, man now that is an application of physics,,,
hahahahahahahahahahah
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
255K to 287K is a 63% increase in energy
hahahahaHAHAHAHhahahahahahahah
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Deatherage
The_Man
> The_Man wrote:
> > Your point about anti-carbon religion is well-taken. There is
> > considerable enthusiasm for reducing carbon emissions without
> > sufficient evidence. But where the evidence is insufficient is not
> > that CO2 absorbs IR (thi is unequivocal). The questions are with
> > regard to the fate of CO2 (it is absorbed by the oceans, converted
> > into carbonate, metabolized by plants, etc.), and the effect of CO2 on
> > WEATHER, and not just TEMPERATURE. The weather is extraordinarily
> > difficult to predict, and this difficulty is always understated.
>
So what?
Even the most ardent advocates of anthropologic global warming realize
the issue is far more complicated than more CO2 -> increase
temperature. Surely you know this?
What is the effect of particulates in the air on temperature?
Apparently, it is far more ijmportant than previously realized, as
noted in the latest reports. (Particulates reflect more sunlight
energy back into space.) A noted scientist had recommended that if
warming advances too rapidly, it could become necessary to release
sulfiruc acid aerosols into the atmosphere. Since sulfuric acid
aerosols don;t affect the CO2 concentrations directly, CO2 level is
the whole of the story.
>
> > Also, if the problem were as serious as stated, the international
> > community would sign treaties that did not allow China, by 2015 to be
> > the LARGEST emitter of CO@ off scot-free, while penalizing Europe.
> > Also, the Kyoto Treat set targets in such a way that Russia would fall
> > well below its limit, and so be able to make a fortune by selling its
> > pollution credits ot the US and Western Europe.
>
> The carbon dioxide problem is extremely serious,
"extremely serious" is a loaded phrase. Is an increase of 1 degree C
"extremely serious"? No. If this increase leads to anomalies in the
climate (aka weather), it would be serious. It is the effect of CO2
levels on weather that is speculative at present.
> any treaties will be
> nothing more than band aids on a hemorrhage.
If this is so, why all the hand-waving and breast thumping over Kyoto?
> The problem requires a
> technological solution based upon scientific principles.
Of which the only feasible, currently available solution is nuclear
power. But can't do that, since Jane Fonda "proved" that nuclear power
was dangerous in the "China Syndrome"(sarcasm)
>
> >> I think you should burn in hell.
>
> > Don't get yourself in a huff.
>
> You are a crackpot.
It is interesting that you, who provided no details of a scientific
analysis, launched immediately into ad hominem attacks.
Please provide the details of any currrent climate model used to
support the more hysterical version of AGW, that can at least predict
that the Sahara ia a desert, and that were not previously advnaced by
anyone who hysterically invoked global cooling in the 70's.
>
> --
> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
The_Man
No, that's NOT what it means. Equipartition menas that the total
energy is the SUM of ALL the energy modes - translational,
vibrational, and rotational. Equipartition also doesn't completely
jive with QM, since it is a classical concept.
The_Man
> The_Man wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 1:13 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >> The_Man wrote:
> >>> Your point about anti-carbon religion is well-taken. There is
> >>> considerable enthusiasm for reducing carbon emissions without
> >>> sufficient evidence. But where the evidence is insufficient is not
> >>> that CO2 absorbs IR (thi is unequivocal). The questions are with
> >>> regard to the fate of CO2 (it is absorbed by the oceans, converted
> >>> into carbonate, metabolized by plants, etc.), and the effect of CO2 on
> >>> WEATHER, and not just TEMPERATURE. The weather is extraordinarily
> >>> difficult to predict, and this difficulty is always understated.
> >> Pseudo scientific hand waving. Carbon dioxide is rising.
>
> > So what?
>
What result follows? That CO2 levels are followed directly by
increased temps? This has not been found in the past. There seems to
be a very long lag between increased CO2 and increased temperatures.
In the past, with no humans, CO2 levels have risen and fallen. The run-
away scenarios envisioned have not occurred in the past.
>
> > Even the most ardent advocates of anthropologic global warming realize
> > the issue is far more complicated than more CO2 -> increase
> > temperature. Surely you know this?
>
> Sure it is, but all other things remaining static,
"all other things remaining static" - but they aren't, and never have
been. there are both CO2 sources and sinks. Increased CO2 make plants
grow faster, so higher levels of CO2 are beneficial in keeping all
those poor Third World people alive that everybdy pretends to care
about.
> rising carbon dioxide
> means rising temperatures, and carbon dioxide is rising.
Please give the SPECIFIC citation in the IPCC report where ANYONE
makes that claim THAT bare, that rising temperatures are a direct and
inevtiable result of CO2 levels.
>
> > What is the effect of particulates in the air on temperature?
>
> Cooling.
>
> > Apparently, it is far more ijmportant than previously realized, as
> > noted in the latest reports. (Particulates reflect more sunlight
> > energy back into space.) A noted scientist had recommended that if
> > warming advances too rapidly, it could become necessary to release
> > sulfiruc acid aerosols into the atmosphere. Since sulfuric acid
> > aerosols don;t affect the CO2 concentrations directly, CO2 level is
> > the whole of the story.
>
> Whatever, the global dimming is slowing down the warming process, with
> dire consequences to your health. Either way it's not good for you.
Whatever? Are you a Valley Girl? Whether global dimming is bad for my
health or not isn't the question.
>
> >>> Also, if the problem were as serious as stated, the international
> >>> community would sign treaties that did not allow China, by 2015 to be
> >>> the LARGEST emitter of CO2 off scot-free, while penalizing Europe.
> >>> Also, the Kyoto Treat set targets in such a way that Russia would fall
> >>> well below its limit, and so be able to make a fortune by selling its
> >>> pollution credits ot the US and Western Europe.
So you acknowledge that my characterization of the defects of the
Kyoto Treaty are arcurate. Thanks.
> >> The carbon dioxide problem is extremely serious,
So you dodged that point, too. If it was know at the time of Kyoto
that the probelm is this serious, why didn;t THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM are
knowledgeable bother to negotiate an even minimally useful treaty? And
it's worse than that, because the data in 1997 proposed even greater
increases in temperature and sea level rise than the current report.
Answer the question: why didn't YOU complain that the Kyoto treaty
sucked, rather than piss and moan that the U.S. wouldn't ratify the
treaty?
By the way, the treaty was rejected (de facto) 95-0 by the Byrd-Hagel
Amendment. Half the signatories. including John Kerry, were
Democrats. They all rejected not only the Kyoto Treaty, but ANY treaty
that restricted the US but not China and India. Everyone should Google
"Byrd-Hagel Amendment"
Why has there been no advocacy of any treay JUST LIKE KYOTO, but that
restricted China? Wouldn't an "extremely serious problem" be worth
bothering the Chinese?
>
> > "extremely serious" is a loaded phrase. Is an increase of 1 degree C
> > "extremely serious"? No.
>
> Cuz you said so. That one degree is just the beginning.
So say you, but not even the IPCC. Notice that your answer is "the one
degree is just the beginning" and not "One degree is catastrophic,
because ......." SO we can safely conclude that 1 degree is not, in
itself, worth getting all a-titter about.
>
> > If this increase leads to anomalies in the
> > climate (aka weather), it would be serious. It is the effect of CO2
> > levels on weather that is speculative at present.
>
> Sure, if your an inattentive idiot, which you appear to be.
Another ad hominem attack, a sign you don't have a very effective
argument.
>
> >> any treaties will be
> >> nothing more than band aids on a hemorrhage.
>
> > If this is so, why all the hand-waving and breast thumping over Kyoto?
>
> Who knows. Kyoto was a test run. Clearly it is not anything close to a
> solution. I've already pointed out the form the solution will have to take.
If it is "not anything close to a solution", why all the emotion
vested in it? Why bother to even negotiate a worthless treaty?
>
> >> The problem requires a
> >> technological solution based upon scientific principles.
and the proper political principles, apparently.
>
> > Of which the only feasible, currently available solution is nuclear
> > power. But can't do that, since Jane Fonda "proved" that nuclear power
> > was dangerous in the "China Syndrome"(sarcasm)
>
> Wow, that's scientific. Clearly nuclear is unacceptable,
nuclear is acceptable to France, where it supplies 77% of the
electrical power.
> as nuclear
> proliferation is already a severe problem.
.. because of political factors, not technological ones. You think
that more nuclear reactors pose near the threat as Russia's unsecured
arsenal?
> The nuclear proliferation
> problem of a complete nuclear solution is outrageous, even if there was
> enough uranium to go around, which there isn't. The only credible
> solution is solar, wind and hydro, and a credible space program :
The toal solar flux at the equator is 1000 W. Typical solar cells are
15% efficient. A solar cell the size of New Jersey would be needed to
supply the current US needs. In the process, New Jesrsey would be
hidden from view (I know, that is an advantage :-)
Solar cells fail eventually - where do you propose to discard a solar
cell the size of New Jersey? What about all the family farms in New
Jersey, housing, industry, etc.?
>
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
>
> Do you know how to integrate? Let me guess, you have no calculus.
No, don't guess - scientists don;t guess.
I know how to integrate. I got a 5 on the AP calc exam at 16. When did
you get college credit for calc? What, did you take Pre-calculus in
freshman year of college, and then maybe calc as a sophomore?
>
> >>>> I think you should burn in hell.
> >>> Don't get yourself in a huff.
> >> You are a crackpot.
>
> > It is interesting that you, who provided no details of a scientific
> > analysis, launched immediately into ad hominem attacks.
>
> I just provided an analysis, provided you know how to integrate.
I am quite sure I know how to integrate better than you do.
>
> > Please provide the details of any currrent climate model used to
> > support the more hysterical version of AGW, that can at least predict
> > that the Sahara ia a desert, and that were not previously advanced by
> > anyone who hysterically invoked global cooling in the 70's.
>
> I assure you the only person hysterical here is you, in addition to that
> other hysterical guy.
In other words, you can't. Why didn't you just say so?
The_Man
> The_Man wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 5:56 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >> The_Man wrote:
> >>> On Feb 18, 1:13 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >>>> The_Man wrote:
> >>>>> Your point about anti-carbon religion is well-taken. There is
> >>>>> considerable enthusiasm for reducing carbon emissions without
> >>>>> sufficient evidence. But where the evidence is insufficient is not
> >>>>> that CO2 absorbs IR (thi is unequivocal). The questions are with
> >>>>> regard to the fate of CO2 (it is absorbed by the oceans, converted
> >>>>> into carbonate, metabolized by plants, etc.), and the effect of CO2 on
> >>>>> WEATHER, and not just TEMPERATURE. The weather is extraordinarily
> >>>>> difficult to predict, and this difficulty is always understated.
> >>>> Pseudo scientific hand waving. Carbon dioxide is rising.
> >>> So what?
> >> It's a greenhouse gas. The result follows.
>
> > What result follows? That CO2 levels are followed directly by
> > increased temps?
>
>
> > This has not been found in the past. There seems to
> > be a very long lag between increased CO2 and increased temperatures.
>
> fairly well understood feedback and source/sink effects, the lag has
> been very short. Now we are forcing the matter in a dramatic way.
>
>
>
> > In the past, with no humans, CO2 levels have risen and fallen. The run-
> > away scenarios envisioned have not occurred in the past.
>
> similar to what is happening now, except we are forcing the carbon
> dioxide and methane rise an order of magnitude faster than even that.
>
>
>
> >>> Even the most ardent advocates of anthropologic global warming realize
> >>> the issue is far more complicated than more CO2 -> increase
> >>> temperature. Surely you know this?
> >> Sure it is, but all other things remaining static,
>
> > "all other things remaining static" - but they aren't, and never have
> > been. there are both CO2 sources and sinks. Increased CO2 make plants
> > grow faster, so higher levels of CO2 are beneficial in keeping all
> > those poor Third World people alive that everybdy pretends to care
> > about.
>
>
> You are talking out your ass.
>
>
>
> >> rising carbon dioxide
> >> means rising temperatures, and carbon dioxide is rising.
>
> > Please give the SPECIFIC citation in the IPCC report where ANYONE
> > makes that claim THAT bare, that rising temperatures are a direct and
> > inevtiable result of CO2 levels.
>
In other words, it isn't in the report. This thread is about the IPCC
report, wchih you (theoretically) agree with. yet the report
contradicts almost everything you say, especially with regard to
degree.
>
> >>> What is the effect of particulates in the air on temperature?
> >> Cooling.
>
> >>> Apparently, it is far more ijmportant than previously realized, as
> >>> noted in the latest reports. (Particulates reflect more sunlight
> >>> energy back into space.) A noted scientist had recommended that if
> >>> warming advances too rapidly, it could become necessary to release
> >>> sulfiruc acid aerosols into the atmosphere. Since sulfuric acid
> >>> aerosols don;t affect the CO2 concentrations directly, CO2 level is
> >>> the whole of the story.
> >> Whatever, the global dimming is slowing down the warming process, with
> >> dire consequences to your health. Either way it's not good for you.
>
> > Whatever? Are you a Valley Girl? Whether global dimming is bad for my
> > health or not isn't the question.
>
> No, emissions are bad for your health regardless of the warming effect.
>
> You are nothing but a thinly disguised crackpot talking out your ass.
Another ad hominem attack. Boy, your posts are really cock full of
citations and analysis.
>
> >>>>> Also, if the problem were as serious as stated, the international
> >>>>> community would sign treaties that did not allow China, by 2015 to be
> >>>>> the LARGEST emitter of CO2 off scot-free, while penalizing Europe.
> >>>>> Also, the Kyoto Treat set targets in such a way that Russia would fall
> >>>>> well below its limit, and so be able to make a fortune by selling its
> >>>>> pollution credits ot the US and Western Europe.
>
> > So you acknowledge that my characterization of the defects of the
> > Kyoto Treaty are arcurate. Thanks.
>
> The Kyoto treaty is irrelevant to the science.
How is it irrelevent? The "science" is the rationale for sweeping
political initiatives, such as Kyoto. The award-winning documentary
"An Inconvenient Truth" doesn;t star any scientist, but Al Gore. Is Al
Gore a scientist? No, he is a politician who flunked out of law
school, and flunked out of divinity school. Does being a DOUBLE
college drop-out qualify him to speak on any science issue?
>
>
>
> >>>> The carbon dioxide problem is extremely serious,
>
> > So you dodged that point, too. If it was know at the time of Kyoto
> > that the probelm is this serious, why didn;t THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM are
> > knowledgeable bother to negotiate an even minimally useful treaty? And
> > it's worse than that, because the data in 1997 proposed even greater
> > increases in temperature and sea level rise than the current report.
> > Answer the question: why didn't YOU complain that the Kyoto treaty
> > sucked, rather than piss and moan that the U.S. wouldn't ratify the
> > treaty?
>
> Kyoto has nothing to do with the science of global warming.
So "evnironmentalists" didn't criticize Bush for not complhying with
Kyoto (though Clinton never even submitted it for ratification)? Al
Gore didn;t criticize Bush for not following Kyoto JUST LAST WEEK at
Davos?
>
> > By the way, the treaty was rejected (de facto) 95-0 by the Byrd-Hagel
> > Amendment. Half the signatories. including John Kerry, were
> > Democrats. They all rejected not only the Kyoto Treaty, but ANY treaty
> > that restricted the US but not China and India. Everyone should Google
> > "Byrd-Hagel Amendment"
>
> Politics is not science.
The changes you propose, a shift from carbon-based energy to solar,
space, and wqind can only be done by politics - these methods are far
too expensive for the market to accept them, so they can only thrive
with massive government subsidies.
>
>
>
> > Why has there been no advocacy of any treaty JUST LIKE KYOTO, but that
> > restricted China? Wouldn't an "extremely serious problem" be worth
> > bothering the Chinese?
>
> You are talking out your ass, these are science newsgroups.
If the Chinese and India continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, and
the USA went completely to wind power, what would be the effect on
temperature? Surely this must be an important question? Or don't you
like the answer, that continued Chinese industrialization with the
current energy system would render all efforts by the West completely
meaningless and ineffective
BTW, I talk out of my mouth (Chalk up another ad hominem attack)
>
>
>
> >>> "extremely serious" is a loaded phrase. Is an increase of 1 degree C
> >>> "extremely serious"? No.
> >> Cuz you said so. That one degree is just the beginning.
>
> > So say you, but not even the IPCC. Notice that your answer is "the one
> > degree is just the beginning" and not "One degree is catastrophic,
> > because ......." SO we can safely conclude that 1 degree is not, in
> > itself, worth getting all a-titter about.
>
> Integrate 2 ppm per year, accellerating to 3-5 ppm per year, over
> several hundred years. We will experience catastrophic warming much
> faster than the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, and all of the ice
> sheets will melt in short (geologic) order, with a sea level rise of 60
> meters or more. If that isn't catastrophic, I don't know what is.
I undestand integration. What you are suggestion is ntegration, but
more usually called exponential growth, over sevral hundred years. I
would agree, that if current models are true (and I have serious
doubts), you have to invoke a VERY long timescale.
Understand, I think that CO2 emission is a problem worthy of serious
analysis, but not hysteria. The predictions of the current IPCC report
are much smaller than in previous reports as far as both temperature
rise and sea level rise.
>
> This is guaranteed, if we do not immediately start reducing our
> emissions, and scrub the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and
> develop an emission free method of energy conversion here on Earth.
Guaranteed in 500 years, which is a rather long time frame. The proven
oil reserves are only about 50 years, so the ability of humans to keep
up these forcings for 500 years is quite uncertain.
>
> >>> If this increase leads to anomalies in the
> >>> climate (aka weather), it would be serious. It is the effect of CO2
> >>> levels on weather that is speculative at present.
> >> Sure, if your an inattentive idiot, which you appear to be.
>
> > Another ad hominem attack, a sign you don't have a very effective
> > argument.
>
> You are ignoring a guaranteed global climate catastrophe, I'm being very
> gentle with you considering the consequences.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, and that you care. Too many people don't
give a damn about anything. But going overboard doesn;t help either.
It undermines confidence. Also, I am quite sure I contribute less to
CO2 emissions than you do, which is something that really pisses me
off.
I get a fucking lecture about the environment from people who drive
their gas-guzzling SUV alone around the corner to get a sandwich,
leave it running for 20 minutes because heaven forbid they actually
have to experience the weather, and drive 80 miles an hour because
they like to, whereas I walk everywhere, don't own a car, take public
transportation, and freeze my ass off because I turn the thermostat
way down.
So I don't appreciate the huge amounts of hypocrisy that drip from the
self-apointed environmental gurus.
>
>
>
> >>>> any treaties will be
> >>>> nothing more than band aids on a hemorrhage.
> >>> If this is so, why all the hand-waving and breast thumping over Kyoto?
> >> Who knows. Kyoto was a test run. Clearly it is not anything close to a
> >> solution. I've already pointed out the form the solution will have to take.
>
> > If it is "not anything close to a solution", why all the emotion
> > vested in it? Why bother to even negotiate a worthless treaty?
>
> I didn't negotiate it. I'm a scientist, not a politician.
>
>
>
> >>>> The problem requires a
> >>>> technological solution based upon scientific principles.
>
> > and the proper political principles, apparently.
>
> No, politics has nothing to do with the laws of physics.
Sure it does. You think the most important thing to avert catqastrophe
is to reduce CO2, but you reject the most effective (and currently
feasible) method because you are afraid of it. The only short-term
solution to AGW is nuclear power, and that is unplatable to you.
Sweden voted to rid itself of nukes in lieu of wind/solar, and
realizes it made a huge mistake.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Of which the only feasible, currently available solution is nuclear
> >>> power. But can't do that, since Jane Fonda "proved" that nuclear power
> >>> was dangerous in the "China Syndrome"(sarcasm)
> >> Wow, that's scientific. Clearly nuclear is unacceptable,
>
> > nuclear is acceptable to France, where it supplies 77% of the
> > electrical power.
>
> >> as nuclear
> >> proliferation is already a severe problem.
>
> > .. because of political factors, not technological ones. You think
> > that more nuclear reactors pose near the threat as Russia's unsecured
> > arsenal?
Dodged this one.
>
> >> The nuclear proliferation
> >> problem of a complete nuclear solution is outrageous, even if there was
> >> enough uranium to go around, which there isn't. The only credible
> >> solution is solar, wind and hydro, and a credible space program :
>
> > The total solar flux at the equator is 1000 W. Typical solar cells are
> > 15% efficient. A solar cell the size of New Jersey would be needed to
> > supply the current US needs. In the process, New Jesrsey would be
> > hidden from view (I know, that is an advantage :-)
>
> So you can begin to see the immense task ahead of us, but clearly the
> problem is not intractable.
I didn't say it was intractable, just that it is unlikely to be solved
by solar cells.
>
> Actually, your numbers are not even accurate,
How are they inaccurate? Quibble whether it is 1000W or 1200 W. big
deal! Efficiency of solar cells? That is the best for generally
available cells, but make it 25% if you like. It still shows that
solar cells are not the whole answer.
> and that assumes no
> technological progress will occur, which is demonstrably contrary to
> observable reality.
Please cite the words I used that "assume[s] nop technological
progress will occur". Can't, 'cause I never said that.
Technological advances don't occur MERELY where and when we want them.
We want to end cancer and AIDS, and know a lot more than we did
before, but the death rates from cancer have barely fallen 35 years
after the "War on Cancer", and we stil have no AIDS vaccine, though it
was believed one would be ready by now.
> If you demand that no technological progress occur,
> or if you refuse to participate in scientific and technological
I "refuse" to participate in scientific and technological
progress"???? You can mind-read? You don't know the first thing about
me, other than that I offend you by suggesting that AGW is not so
immediately catastrophic that we should forego careful analysis of
costs and benefits.
> progress, than the global climate catastrophe will proceed as dictated
> by the laws of physics, with your assistance.
Thank you for (not so subtly) blaming global warming on me. So I am
more responsible than the Chinese government? Detroit? even the all-
powerful-and evil oil companies????
>
> > Solar cells fail eventually - where do you propose to discard a solar
> > cell the size of New Jersey? What about all the family farms in New
> > Jersey, housing, industry, etc.?
>
> Again, you are talking out your ass. I have solar panels, they have
> served me very well even as primitive as they may be. Every single
> crystal solar panel I have ever purchased, way back to the very
> beginnings of the modern solar panel technology in the late seventies,
> still functions just fine with only a moderate degradation of performance.
Curious then - if there has been such astounding increaes in
technology in solar cells (which I know there has been, so I am
teasing you a bit) , why do you still even HAVE 1970's era cells? Why
didn't you thown them away?
>
> >>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
>
> >> Do you know how to integrate? Let me guess, you have no calculus.
>
> > No, don't guess - scientists don;t guess.
>
> Then integrate it. Clearly was have plenty of energy, and guess what,
> energy is conserved. Whew. For a minute there I thought we were screwed.
>
>
>
> > I know how to integrate. I got a 5 on the AP calc exam at 16. When did
> > you get college credit for calc? What, did you take Pre-calculus in
> > freshman year of college, and
>
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Phil Hays
> "extremely serious" is a loaded phrase. Is an increase of 1 degree C
> "extremely serious"? No.
I agree. That would be important if anyone reasonable suspected that we
are likely to stop at 1 C.
2C. We might have an outside chance of limiting temperature rise to this.
Still probably not "extremely serious", for a list of reasons.
The interesting question is how much warming triggers a methane hydrate
runaway.
Methane hydrate runaways in geologic history are also seem to be mass
extinction events. PETM, for one. Large land animals like humans do not
seem to live through mass extinction events. A methane hydrate runaway is
worse than "extremely serious". Might be best to call it "fatally
serious".
> Of which the only feasible, currently available solution is nuclear
> power.
Solution is probably more complex than just nuclear power. If the most
prosperous country used energy as efficiently as the second most
prosperous, that would be a good start. Yet nuclear power has to be part
of the solution. Optimal solution probably includes a hefty amount of wind
power as well.
--
Phil Hays
Hydrogen TRUTH
> prosperous, that would be a good start. Yet nuclear power has to be part
> of the solution. Optimal solution probably includes a hefty amount of wind
> power as well.
>
> --
> Phil Hays
The only nukular power requires is solar fusion energy.
Today we know that all the electrical power for the USA could fit on
the rooftops of the dwelling units of the country (properly aligned
towards the south) with a 10% surplus. That is ALL the electrical
power, not just residential power, but also includes all electric
railroads, schools, military bases, streetlights, malls and factories.
http://hydrogentruth.info/spreadsheets/HomeRoofPower.html
http://hydrogentruth.info/spreadsheets/HomeRoofPower.sxc
http://hydrogentruth.info/page_04a.html
The Clean Alternatives : SOLAR PV
Today we know the COST of NOTHING, the cost of doing NOTHING, the COST
of changing NOTHING.
http://hydrogentruth.info/page_4a3.html
The Cost of Nothing
Today we know the costs of a full H2-PV economy, and exactly how to
bring it to pass in 41 years by the slowest track and as fast as ten
years by the fastest track.
http://hydrogentruth.info/page_4a2.html
Freedom Day
At no point does nuclear solve it's waste problems, nor at any point
is it faster or cheaper.
If nukular was installed, giving Halliburton the no-bid contracts to
build the plants, per your wishes, you would still be paying your
power bill every month for 41 years and your national electric bill at
an optimistic figure of only 7 cents a kilowatt would accumulate in 41
years to $10,667,790,000,000.
Buying and installing PV instead comes to $10,031,886,000,000 and the
savings difference between paying bills or buying production comes to
$635,904,000,000.
On your plan you get electricity and monthly bills. On the H2-PV plan
you get power plants you own, all your electricity PLUS all the motor
fuel used by 200,000,000 light cars and trucks PLUS $635,904,000,000
savings in your national pocket.
Now put up your figures for your nukular proposals. or shut the fuck
up.
Lloyd
LOL! John Daly is not a climatologist. He has no scientific
training. And as he died in 2004, he has no perspective on anything
any more.
Lloyd
> On Feb 18, 5:56 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The_Man wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 1:13 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> > >> The_Man wrote:
> > >>> Your point about anti-carbon religion is well-taken. There is
> > >>> considerable enthusiasm for reducing carbon emissions without
> > >>> sufficient evidence. But where the evidence is insufficient is not
> > >>> that CO2 absorbs IR (thi is unequivocal). The questions are with
> > >>> regard to the fate of CO2 (it is absorbed by the oceans, converted
> > >>> into carbonate, metabolized by plants, etc.), and the effect of CO2 on
> > >>> WEATHER, and not just TEMPERATURE. The weather is extraordinarily
> > >>> difficult to predict, and this difficulty is always understated.
> > >> Pseudo scientific hand waving. Carbon dioxide is rising.
>
> > > So what?
>
> > It's a greenhouse gas. The result follows.
>
> What result follows? That CO2 levels are followed directly by
> increased temps? This has not been found in the past. There seems to
> be a very long lag between increased CO2 and increased temperatures.
>
Not now. The two track each other very well, with CO2 leading.
> In the past, with no humans, CO2 levels have risen and fallen. The run-
> away scenarios envisioned have not occurred in the past.
In the past people didn't kill with guns either. So?
>
>
>
> > > Even the most ardent advocates of anthropologic global warming realize
> > > the issue is far more complicated than more CO2 -> increase
> > > temperature. Surely you know this?
>
> > Sure it is, but all other things remaining static,
>
> "all other things remaining static" - but they aren't, and never have
> been. there are both CO2 sources and sinks. Increased CO2 make plants
> grow faster, so higher levels of CO2 are beneficial in keeping all
> those poor Third World people alive that everybdy pretends to care
> about.
>
> > rising carbon dioxide
> > means rising temperatures, and carbon dioxide is rising.
>
> Please give the SPECIFIC citation in the IPCC report where ANYONE
> makes that claim THAT bare, that rising temperatures are a direct and
> inevtiable result of CO2 levels.
>
It's basic science, you doofus! CO2 traps heat!
Geez, do you want a citation for gases expanding when they're heated
now too?
Wrong. It was never presented to the Senate.
>Half the signatories. including John Kerry, were
> Democrats. They all rejected not only the Kyoto Treaty, but ANY treaty
> that restricted the US but not China and India. Everyone should Google
> "Byrd-Hagel Amendment"
>
> Why has there been no advocacy of any treay JUST LIKE KYOTO, but that
> restricted China? Wouldn't an "extremely serious problem" be worth
> bothering the Chinese?
China emits far less CO2 per capita than the US. Why go after a
finger scratch before a head wound?
>
>
>
> > > "extremely serious" is a loaded phrase. Is an increase of 1 degree C
> > > "extremely serious"? No.
>
> > Cuz you said so. That one degree is just the beginning.
>
> So say you, but not even the IPCC. Notice that your answer is "the one
> degree is just the beginning" and not "One degree is catastrophic,
> because ......." SO we can safely conclude that 1 degree is not, in
> itself, worth getting all a-titter about.
>
>
>
> > > If this increase leads to anomalies in the
> > > climate (aka weather), it would be serious. It is the effect of CO2
> > > levels on weather that is speculative at present.
>
> > Sure, if your an inattentive idiot, which you appear to be.
>
> Another ad hominem attack, a sign you don't have a very effective
> argument.
>
No, a logical response to an idiot and a liar.
>
Lloyd
> On Feb 18, 8:52 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> In other words, it isn't in the report. This thread is about the IPCC
> report, wchih you (theoretically) agree with. yet the report
> contradicts almost everything you say, especially with regard to
> degree.
>
It does not. You're lying.
> Gore a scientist? \
The film has been endorsed by numerous scientists.
>No, he is a politician who flunked out of law
> school, and flunked out of divinity school.
You're lying about both.
>Does being a DOUBLE
> college drop-out qualify him to speak on any science issue?
Does lying qualify you?
>
The_Man
> On Feb 18, 9:32 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:52 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > In other words, it isn't in the report. This thread is about the IPCC
> > report, wchih you (theoretically) agree with. yet the report
> > contradicts almost everything you say, especially with regard to
> > degree.
>
> It does not. You're lying.
No, I'm not, but I am glad to see the first words out of your mouth
were an adhominem attack. Syas a lot about how much evidence YOU have.
Please cite the report (or at least the summary, whivh is all that has
been released so far), if I am mistaken.
To clarify the context for lurkers, I insisted that the report does
not make the explicit and unequivocal statement that higher CO2 leads
to higher temperature. Lloyd pipes in right away to denounce me as an
"enemy of the people" (a reference that surely will sail right over
his head.)
Let's look at page 9 of the report summary. It lists phenomena, the
likelihood that the phenomena began in the late 20th century, and the
likelihood that it will increase in the future.
Phenomena: "warm spells and heat waves Frequency increases over most
land areas"
Likelihood that trend started in 20th centruy:"Likely"
Likelihood of human contribution:"More likely than not"
Likelihood of future trends:"Very likely."
Take a look at "more likely than not". This is an EXTRAORDINARILY weak
statement for something that is supposedly "Certain". If you think
that meets the defintion of explicit and unequivocal, YOU donlt read
very well.
Then tell me which divinity school from which he graduated, and where
he got his law degree.
"He attended Vanderbilt University Divinity School and Vanderbilt Law
School and operated a small homebuilding business." according to
http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/OVP/html/Bio.html, which is
the OFFICIAL White Houses bio for Al.
I am having a little trouble, coulod you please point out for me the
year he got a degree from fivinity school, the year he received his
law degree, and the year he passed the bar?
>
> >Does being a DOUBLE
> > college drop-out qualify him to speak on any science issue?
>
> Does lying qualify you?
Lying tends to disqualify people, particularly you, as you have
provided not a single piece of evidence. All you have done is try to
"shout me down." What is even worse, is that anyone with even a
minimal education already knows that Al Gore flunked out of divinity
school and law school, so it is ludicrous of you to insist otherwise.