What is the physical reason for the greenhouse effect? Two attempts.
Dutchermans friend
Dear all,
"A ounce of knowledge is better than a ton of opinions".
Can somebody give me a pointer about the following question:
What is the physics / chemistry behind the so-called greenhouse effect,
that is attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere (by many people)?
Common sense suggests that if CO2 acts as a "blanket" then it should be
blocking the sun's heat / light in both directions (towards the earth and away from the earth).
But is that true?
I was educated in electrical engineering (long ago)
and have had some physics classes and some chemistry as well
in highschool. I hope my knowledge still holds true (see below).
My strong belief is that it should not take more than a few simple physics laws to
explain the observed climate change.
FIRST ATTEMPT
A photon from the sun may strike any gas molecule and give off an energy quantum E=h*nu.
In which h is Planck's constant.
The energy brings an electron in an elevated state and when the electron
falls back, the energy is emitted, optionally in a different direction and color of light (longer
or equal wavelength). I presume conservation of energy applies and some light may be scattered or reflected..
The net effect is a scattering and reflection of energy (which is good because it blocks
the heat towards the earth).
The radiation from the earth to the sky may do the same, but most likely it is of longer wavelengths of light (Infrared), that are incapable of exciting an electron to a higher
state of energy.
Apparently those ideas would predict global COOLING which is not what we observe.
SECOND ATTEMPT
Carbon dioxide (as above) converts short wavelength Electromagnetic energies (blue and ultraviolet, xrays etc.) into longer wavelengths (towards infrared side of the spectrum).
The longer wavelengths are less scattered and reflected by the Nitrogen / Oxygen gases.
More infrared energy reaches the surface of the earth.
This reasoning would predict a global WARMING.
The fact that there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere, only 0.05 percent or so does not bother me: there is very little gas inside a fluorescent light and yet it causes a comparable
physical energy conversion.
Feedback and questions are welcome.
bye,
Wim Hubers
--------------= Posted using GrabIt =----------------
------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =---------
-= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =-
Roger Coppock
> Dear all,
>
> "A ounce of knowledge is better than a ton of opinions".
>
> Can somebody give me a pointer about the following question:
>
> What is the physics / chemistry behind the so-called greenhouse effect,
> that is attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere (by many people)?
Given your background, good place to start is:
Archer, Dr. David. Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast - Text
for
PhySci 134. Spring 2006. The University of Chicago. Chap. 1 to 7.
<http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/phy_sci.txt.pdf>.
[ . . . ]
>
> FIRST ATTEMPT
>
> A photon from the sun may strike any gas molecule and give off an energy quantum E=h*nu.
Nope!
The process begins with solar energy striking
the Earth's surface.
[ . . . ]
> Apparently those ideas would predict global COOLING which is not what we observe.
>
> SECOND ATTEMPT
> Carbon dioxide (as above) converts short wavelength Electromagnetic energies (blue and ultraviolet, xrays etc.) into longer wavelengths (towards infrared side of the spectrum).
Nope, this is done by the Earth's surface.
> The longer wavelengths are less scattered and reflected by the Nitrogen / Oxygen gases.
> More infrared energy reaches the surface of the earth.
> This reasoning would predict a global WARMING.
>
> The fact that there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere, only 0.05
Wrong! The current CO2 concentration is here.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg
Bill Habr
"Dutchermans friend" <i....@the.beach> wrote in message
news:45d3802a$0$58675$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> "A ounce of knowledge is better than a ton of opinions".
>
> Can somebody give me a pointer about the following question:
>
> What is the physics / chemistry behind the so-called greenhouse effect,
> that is attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere (by many people)?
>
> Common sense suggests that if CO2 acts as a "blanket" then it should be
> blocking the sun's heat / light in both directions (towards the earth and
away from the earth).
> But is that true?
>
See R. W. Wood "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse", 1909; however be
warned that some conclusions are wrong (IIRC in the second to last
paragraph).
See also:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
Let's get one thing straight.
The greenhouse effect and global warming
ARE NOT the same thing.
There is a greenhouse effect, but, if there were not, we would all be dead!
It is becoming increasingly clear that we are also experencing global
warming, but, that is a different matter.
The greenhouse effect is the name applied to the process which causes the
surface of the Earth to be warmer than it would have been in the absence of
an atmosphere. (Unfortunately, the name, greenhouse effect is a misnomer ---
more on that later.)
Global warming is the name given to an expected increase in the magnitude of
the greenhouse effect, whereby the surface of the Earth will amost
inevitably become hotter than it is now.
This page only treats the greenhouse effect --- not global warming.
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
And:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadFAQ/BadGreenhouseFAQ.html
jimm...@yahoo.com
>
> "A ounce of knowledge is better than a ton of opinions".
>
> Can somebody give me a pointer about the following question:
>
> What is the physics / chemistry behind the so-called greenhouse effect,
> that is attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere (by many people)?
There is nothing about the physical properties of CO2 that is
dramatically or even moderately different than many of the other
molecules in the atmosphere. It's thermal properties are not much
different than water, for example, which exists at concentrations
anywhere from 70 to 120 times higher concentrations than CO2.
Global warming is not a physical phemomena, its a propaganda phenomena.
bw
> Dear all,
>
> "A ounce of knowledge is better than a ton of opinions".
>
> Can somebody give me a pointer about the following question:
>
> What is the physics / chemistry behind the so-called greenhouse effect,
> that is attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere (by many people)?
Basic physics for the layman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
> Common sense suggests that if CO2 acts as a "blanket" then it should be
> blocking the sun's heat / light in both directions (towards the earth and away from the earth).
> But is that true?
Only if the atmosphere were 100 percent CO2. But it can't get there
from here.
> The fact that there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere, only 0.05 percent or so does not bother me: there is very little gas inside a fluorescent light and yet it causes a comparable
It's reaching 390 parts per million by volume.
You need to consider the entire planetary atmosphere as a system of
recycling components over time. The atmosphere is entirely (except
Argon) a product of biological activity. Check the paleo-climatology.
Water is also the key component to understanding the atmosphere. Earth
is a water planet. Cloud formation is the over-riding negative
feedback that maintains the current global temperature.
http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info
This same denialist crap was posted a week ago by a different fake-
name Exxon-Stooge.
The Cost of Nothing
If you DO NOTHING you pay a much higher cost
than if you DO THE RIGHT THING.
Spreadsheets:
* in html http://HydrogenTRUTH.info/spreadsheets/scenario_2b.html
* in OpenOffice.org, StarOffice calc http://HydrogenTRUTH.info/
spreadsheets/scenario_2b.sxc
* in M$ Office/Excel http://HydrogenTRUTH.info/spreadsheets/
scenario_2b.xls
If everybody in America pays their electric bills for the next 41
years, we can figure out how much money they will spend. It would come
out to be $10,667,790,000,000 spent. This is the bill for doing
nothing, changing nothing.
If ALL of the power came from H2-PV, both electricity and fuel
electrolysed from water, the bill over 41 years would be
$10,031,886,000,000.
DO THE MATH
$10,667,790,000,000 Utility Bills
-$10,031,886,000,000 H2-PV
$635,904,000,000 H2-PV Savings
That's $635,904,000,000
(BILLION with a B)
Do it YOUR WAY, Nothing, and spend $10.668 TRILLION, just get
electricity and more bills every month forever.
Do it the H2-PV RIGHT WAY and get all your electricity and all your
car fill-ups, plus save $635 BILLION for other things. Only pay $200
per person once every 20 years thereafter for replacement PV.
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_4a2.html Freedom Day
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_03.html Hydrogen Production
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_04.html The Clean Alternatives
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_04a.html The Clean Alternatives :
SOLAR PV
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_08.html Hydrogen Infrastructure
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_09.html Hydrogen Infrastructure:
Adapt Gasoline Engines
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_10.html Hydrogen Infrastructure:
New Tanks, New Methods
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_11.html Move Electrons, Not
Molecules
* http://hydrogentruth.info/page_12.html Move Silicon, Not
Electrons
* http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html Sample 1,100 PDF files you
can download.
charles bash
I have my degree in mechanical engineering, and had 2 physics courses
and 3 courses in thermodynamics in college.
The only thing in my "thermo" courses was "mixtures of gases". that
would come close to the weird theory that 380 parts per million of CO2
could somehow raise the temperature significantly in the other 999,620
parts of air which may be "dry air'. However "regular air" includes a
certain percentage of water vapor Known to be the Most important
Greenhouse gas.
The heating of the CO2 is stated as follows:: Sunlight hits the earth's
surface ( and oceans) turns to heat. Some of the infra red rays that are
reflected back towards space hit the CO2 in the air --- and the rest is
history.
I don't believe it either.
C. Bash
charles bash
the middle of February, in which most of the continent of America is
experiencing EXTREMES of winter weather. Record snows in Colorado,, 10
feet of snow in New York. Deep snows over midwest..
In Virginia, my area, the last week of January and 2 weeks of February
are the most ferocious in the last 25 years. Very cold weather by night
& day. Worst ice storm last 24 hours since 1999.
C. Bash
kT
> It is strange that we continue to have discussions on Global Warming in
> the middle of February, in which most of the continent of America is
> experiencing EXTREMES of winter weather. Record snows in Colorado,, 10
> feet of snow in New York. Deep snows over midwest..
I know that is so weird how it can be summer in the southern hemisphere
and winter in the northern hemisphere ... AT THE SAME TIME! Weird.
--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
richard schumacher
wavelengths. The Sun's emission peak is in the middle of the visible.
Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface; the warm
surface emits infrared, some of which is absorbed by the air and
re-emitted (or reflected by clouds) back to the ground. The surface
warms until the total energy flux into space up equals the total energy
flux down from the Sun.
For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming see
http://realclimate.org
Cleopatra_Enterprise_Institute-Queen_of-DeNile
Right, Mr. Schumacher.
I'm neither a climate scientist nor an electrical engineer, but as an
environmental journalist I've long understood the AGW researchers to
be focusing on the different wavelengths of EM energy to which
"greenhouse" gases -- CO2 and some others, also -- are opaque or
transparent.
It isn't a matter of CO2 in the atmosphere blocking incoming solar
energy, which is mostly in the visible or ultraviolet spectrum. No,
the CO2 -- and the other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor,
methane, and nitrous oxide -- are largely transparent to the incoming
radiation.
However, when the incoming solar radiation strikes the earth's
surface, or strikes objects and/or vegetation and/or water on the
earth's surface, the darker matter that is absorbing the solar
radiation heats up. When heated, the earth, objects, trees, water
etc. emit "black body radiation" -- sorry, I really don't know the
physics of this.
And this black body radiation is in the infrared part of the spectrum,
and as it happens the greenhouse gases block that IR radiation,
limiting how much escapes from the troposphere into the stratosphere,
and from thence into space.
QED: CO2 and the other greenhouse gases allow more solar energy to
penetrate the lower atmosphere, and in some cases to heat the earth's
surface, than they allow energy in the form of infrared to escape.
Result is that the earth's surface and the troposphere heat up.
Bill Habr
"charles bash" <C6...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5475-45D...@storefull-3315.bay.webtv.net...
> Wm Hubers is on the right track.
>
> I have my degree in mechanical engineering, and had 2 physics courses
> and 3 courses in thermodynamics in college.
>
> The only thing in my "thermo" courses was "mixtures of gases". that
> would come close to the weird theory that 380 parts per million of CO2
> could somehow raise the temperature significantly in the other 999,620
> parts of air which may be "dry air'. However "regular air" includes a
> certain percentage of water vapor Known to be the Most important
> Greenhouse gas.
Perhaps the amount of CO2 is increasing more rapidly than the other
'greenhouse' gasses, this would account for the "weird theory".
>
> The heating of the CO2 is stated as follows:: Sunlight hits the earth's
> surface ( and oceans) turns to heat.
Wrong, heat is the transfer of energy by radiation, conduction or
convection.
> Some of the infra red rays that are
> reflected back towards space hit the CO2 in the air --- and the rest is
> history.
Wrong, radiation is absorbed and emitted, it is not reflected or reradiated.
richard schumacher
"Cleopatra_Enterprise_Institute-Queen_of-DeNile"
<fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are
> > transparent at visible wavelengths and opaque at several infrared
> > wavelengths. The Sun's emission peak is in the middle of the visible.
> > Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface; the warm
> > surface emits infrared, some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gasses
> > in the air and
> > re-emitted (or reflected by clouds) back to the ground. The surface
> > warms until the total energy flux into space up equals the total energy
> > flux down from the Sun.
> >
> > For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming
> > see http://realclimate.org
>
>
> I'm neither a climate scientist nor an electrical engineer, but as an
> environmental journalist I've long understood the AGW researchers to
> be focusing on the different wavelengths of EM energy to which
> "greenhouse" gases -- CO2 and some others, also -- are opaque or
> transparent.
>
> It isn't a matter of CO2 in the atmosphere blocking incoming solar
> energy, which is mostly in the visible or ultraviolet spectrum. No,
> the CO2 -- and the other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor,
> methane, and nitrous oxide -- are largely transparent to the incoming
> radiation.
>
> However, when the incoming solar radiation strikes the earth's
> surface, or strikes objects and/or vegetation and/or water on the
> earth's surface, the darker matter that is absorbing the solar
> radiation heats up. When heated, the earth, objects, trees, water
> etc. emit "black body radiation" -- sorry, I really don't know the
> physics of this.
>
> And this black body radiation is in the infrared part of the spectrum,
> and as it happens the greenhouse gases block that IR radiation,
> limiting how much escapes from the troposphere into the stratosphere,
> and from thence into space.
>
> QED: CO2 and the other greenhouse gases allow more solar energy to
> penetrate the lower atmosphere, and in some cases to heat the earth's
> surface, than they allow energy in the form of infrared to escape.
> Result is that the earth's surface and the troposphere heat up.
Yep, that's it. It's a simple physical effect, understood for many
decades now.
kdt...@yahoo.com
For a bunch of bullshit in undefined terms of idiots that call
themselves scientists but will talk all year without any science or
direct demonstration of method of determination of cause and effect
and without ever defining the terminology they use into actual
mechanics.
These scientists only learn physics and chemistry that is included in
chapter 1 of the climatology 101 textbook.
CO2 has bands of low emission of it's continous spectra at 2.7, 4,2
and 15um. All this constant repitition of 'IR' is meaningless. The
first two bands are way too high energy to be of importance. The sun
however radiates much energy at these energies. This is a valid graph
of the sun's energy and the transparency and transference of energy
through the atmosphere.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
10^3 = 1um, 10^4 = 10um
Grenhouse theory makes Planck's curves from wavelength. Planck's law
is, 8pihv^3/c^3 x 1/loghv/kt - 1
in the initial term there is the hv^3/c^3. It is not proper to simplfy
this formula. v/c gives wavelength. wavelength is actually meaningless
here. The energy is h x v. v/T is an integral of the total energy and
this is improper to simplify this.
When the graph is drawn with v/c converted to wavelength it gives a
very wrong graph. It appears that the sun does not radiate at all
below 3 um, and does not give an accurate scale of the energy which is
the intensity of the frequency and the energy of hv. QM supports this
false modification of Planck's law because of their obsession with
wavelengths and specific energy levels from Neils Bohr theories.
Real grenhouse theory is of the 15um band. It is developed from a
specific theory and laboratory results which are fraudulent.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
This study investigates the intial theory and reveals the fraudulent
conclusions. Notice how even in this experiment only theoretical
calculations are done on temperature and no thermometers are used.
There is no laboratory data that shows any concentration of CO2 can
cause a higher final temperature in atmospheric gases, therefore it
does not absorb thermal frequencies inordianatly like is claimed.
AGWers talk in illdefined terms and expect you to accept what they
actually cannot explain. This initial poster is correct. The
opaqueness of the atmosphere reduces incoming radiation and keeps the
surface much cooler than the moon in sunlight, which averages 107C and
is 123C with the sun at zenith.
A solar collector at the equator at solar noon collects 1000Wm-2
which is 370Wm-2 short of the solar constant.
This equates to 90C or 180F.
5.67E-8 x T^4 (degK) = Wm-2
This is the energy in Joules per second that travels through the plane
of one sq meter from a body at this temperature. This energy
diminishes as an inverse square to the distance and indicates total
luminosity or simple luminosity (pir^2 and 4pir^2)
A body recieving energy at this rate will absorb energy until it
achieves the equivelent temperature to reradiate the absorbed energy
equivelent to the rate it is being recieved.
So,,,Wm-2 divided by 5.67E-8, fourth root = temperature K, that a
surface will reach in this rate of absorption of energy.
The solar constant is 50% visible light, 9% ultraviolet, and 41%
infrared. Almost all of the missing frequencies are in the infrared
region. Much of this does not make it to the lower atmosphere which
causes the thermal inversion of the stratosphere. Only 1% of the solar
constant is absorbed as UV light in the stratosphere. The top of the
stratosphere is about -3degC, while the top of the troposphere or
bottom of the stratosphere is -65degC.
The atmosphere is actually only transparent to the visible and a
narrow band of the UV and IR next to this visible band. O2 and N2
absorb infrared frequencies the same as CO2 in the infrared beyond
2um. This is proved and can be proved by direct experiment. Thermal
frequencies travel from molecule to molecule which is much different
than visible frequencies which can mostly travel through air without
losing their energy, changing frequency at all, or heating the air.
The term in spectroscopy of 'absorption', actually only applies to the
principle series of the elemental gases. The thermal frequencies are
absorbed uniformly by the atmospheric gases from about 2um. All this
is proved by simple experiments in which actual readings of the
temperature are made.
Grenhouse theory and AGW is fraudulent scientific theory from
beginning to end. It is difficult to argue with since it is put
forward by religous fanatics and evades all direct science.
But a careful analyses at any point reveals the fraud.
Deatherage
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> Grenhouse theory and AGW is fraudulent scientific theory from
> beginning to end. It is difficult to argue with since it is put
> forward by religous fanatics and evades all direct science.
> But a careful analyses at any point reveals the fraud.
Just like how your careful analysis reveals the 'fraud' in all of
modern and classical physics?
>
> Deatherage
Edward Green
Does it? I was just thinking, it's entirely possible that the alleged
causal link between human activity and global warming -- on which many
would like the world to stake a huge economic gamble -- may be open to
reasonable doubt; but that ranting about "fraudulent scientific
theory" and "religous fanatics" places the writer in the same category
as the straw stuffing his dogs.
I'd like the time to study the issue; about a year. I found a 700+
page report linked from an EPA website. I'm still prepared to be
skeptical, particularly of the entire "link/no-link" mindset (better
to think "control"), but this report is not the work of relgious
fanatics.
Hydrogen TRUTH Info
Justify why you are doing this in 2007 instead of years ago?
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 15, 5:16 pm, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:11 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Grenhouse theory and AGW is fraudulent scientific theory from
> > > beginning to end. It is difficult to argue with since it is put
> > > forward by religous fanatics and evades all direct science.
> > > But a careful analyses at any point reveals the fraud.
>
> > Just like how your careful analysis reveals the 'fraud' in all of
> > modern and classical physics?
>
> Does it? I was just thinking, it's entirely possible that the alleged
> causal link between human activity and global warming -- on which many
> would like the world to stake a huge economic gamble -- may be open to
> reasonable doubt; but that ranting about "fraudulent scientific
> theory" and "religous fanatics" places the writer in the same category
> as the straw stuffing his dogs.
The cause of global warming is widely thought [by actual scientists]
to be human-caused. That doesn't mean there isn't any possibility it
is something else, but that is what it is believed to be.
This moron doesn't even think global warming is happening. The
existence of global warming is not in doubt - except by contrarians
and those with vested interests to say otherwise. His rants about
quantum mechanics are similarally hilarious.
I will never understand why someone who does roofs for a living thinks
he is better informed than actual scientists.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 14, 1:33 pm, "Dutchermans friend" <i...@the.beach> wrote:
this theory that you wish the world to live by? How come a simple
analyses is not available on the energy that is retained by supposed
grenhouse gases of the original 33C. This is a 63% increase in energy
from 255K.
Your graph for CO2 increase shows a pretty steady rise. Although a
considerably greater quantity of human CO2 is produced in later years.
This graph should show the normal rise of CO2 that was occuring before
the human period. The curve does go higher, but the natural curve
upward would account for a least a third of the increase.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
At least give these counter arguements an objective chance. And here
is a valid analyses of the suns energy instead of the fraudulent one
that AGW puts out.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
It is always better to stick to the discusion instead of insultive
personal characterzations. But there must be a valid definition of
what is science and what is religion. The attempt to impose controls
over our lives and send us into the greatest poverty due to the
fraudulent science of AGW cannot be defined in a courtroom to be any
different than a religion.
Science is supposed to separate myths, suppositions, superstitions and
beliefs from what can be determined to be fact by direct experiment.
Although we cannot see or count the atoms, by using Alvagadros number
and weight of chemical components which are chemically joined and
separated, a valid atomic theory has been developed. This theory does
not depend upon a consensus of scientists in the field, or to what
'mainstream science suggests'.
You obviously have no experience with the world of academic
theoretical science or you would be far more skeptical than you are of
the unsupported conclusions they put forth. Don't be so naive. Doctors
are highly educated and scientific. But still often in critical care
units, many of the patients are from doctor error. The corruption of
the theoretical sciences in academia is unmatched since they never
have to face reality and people assume that they are honest and not
the charlatans that they are.
I apologize for the insultive characterization of the AGW nuts as
religious fanatics. This would even give them an excuse for the crimes
they wish to commit. There are points that they ignore direct
scientific facts that makes me think they know their theory is invalid
and they still pursue it for aggrandizement. What level of crime would
that be? That is exactly where this is going to end up. In federal
court in order to find out the real facts. And then in criminal court
for the conspiracy to commit this fraud upon the public and the fraud
they have committed around the world.
If you are to study their theory, you must be honest and not pretend
you understand when they use their vague terms and dynamics that seem
to make sense, but are not really explained or defined. Otherwise you
will simply be another victim to their propaganda and make your
decisions according to your beliefs and the fake dynamics and cultured
data they refer to.
Deatherage
Wim Hubers
It is simple and explains to me the not so pleasant reality, far beyond 90%.
Now that I read it it sounds familiar (eighty something).
Opaque is the keyword that may be further elaborated in physical terms (but
then again quantum physics doesn't make it any more
intuitively appealing). That makes sense to me, because the IR from the
earth bounces back.
For my own peace of mind I checked Google for CO2 spectroscopy and found
that CO2 has some absorption lines in the far infrared
at 4,26 um and 15.0 um which is the kind of wavelengths I would expect a
relatively cold earth surface to radiate.
bye,
Wim Hubers
"richard schumacher" <no-...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:no-spam-44171E...@news.isp.giganews.com...
jmfb...@aol.com
My observation was that the belief, that this flavor of global warming
exists, swept the world around September. People no longer talk
about it as a possibility, but as a fact which everybody has known
for a long time, where 'long time' implies always.
That bothered me. There is a name for the phenomena when a
substance automagically turns into a crystal. The same thing
seem to happen with humans and their view of the world.
/BAH
Wim Hubers
what is your name again....
Keep up the good work (really),
Wim Hubers
Wim Hubers
Hello Jim,
I saw an interesting page about CO2 spectroscopy,
that explains why CO2 has a funny low frequency infrared spectral line.
The CO2 molecule can bend (like water vapor) and that vibration mode is
unlike
N2 and O2, the main atmosphere gases.
The CO2 is used for making really powerful lasers, for surgery and
industrial applications.
Your final remark reminds me of an old Elvis album slogan:
"50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong".
We'll see.
bye,
Wim Hubers.
<jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171506941.7...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Edward Green
> My observation was that the belief, that this flavor of global warming
> exists, swept the world around September. People no longer talk
> about it as a possibility, but as a fact which everybody has known
> for a long time, where 'long time' implies always.
>
> That bothered me. There is a name for the phenomena when a
> substance automagically turns into a crystal. The same thing
> seem to happen with humans and their view of the world.
There ought to be a name for that sociological phenomenon, that's for
sure.
I hadn't noticed the tipping point.
Edward Green
> The cause of global warming is widely thought [by actual scientists]
> to be human-caused. That doesn't mean there isn't any possibility it
> is something else, but that is what it is believed to be.
I have a problem around the word "caused". The climate was drifting
long before man appeared, and is susceptible to many inputs in its
chaotic walk. Man may now have a significant input, but "cause" may
be in inappropriate applied to any input of a plane doing acrobatics
in turbulent flow: all we can say definitely is that things would be
different if the inputs were different.
Despite Mary Shelly's literary caution, I think the only solution is
to attempt to control the system, not to resort to "Oh my God we have
interfered with nature, and our being punished, and we must stop!".
> This moron doesn't even think global warming is happening. The
> existence of global warming is not in doubt - except by contrarians
> and those with vested interests to say otherwise.
Oh boy. I hope you will allow me the right to remain skeptical.
Though I am a self-confessed contrarian, so I guess you already have
my number.
> I will never understand why someone who does roofs for a living thinks
> he is better informed than actual scientists.
He spends a lot of time in direct contact with sunlight?
jmfb...@aol.com
It would reside in the same category as that 100th monkey business.
There is a similar tipping point with technology when everybody
suddenly "decides" to get one.
>
>I hadn't noticed the tipping point.
I wish I could have paid attention a little bit more closely or
be able to remember the first time this seemed to be true. Then
perhaps I could see if it tied to an event or something.
It is not clear that anything actually happened to trigger it.
/BAH
Exxon Creams on Death-Rag
> > > > Grenhouse theory and AGW is fraudulent scientific theory from
> > > > forward by religous fanatics and evades all direct science.
> > > > But a careful analyses at any point reveals the fraud.
> At least give these counter arguements an objective chance. And here
> is a valid analyses of the suns energy instead of the fraudulent one
> It is always better to stick to the discusion instead of insultive
> personal characterzations. But there must be a valid definition of
> Although we cannot see or count the atoms, by using Alvagadros number
> I apologize for the insultive characterization of the AGW nuts as
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory religous fanatics analyses arguements
analyses discusion instead of insultive characterzations Alvagadros
number insultive.