Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Scientific Americans solution to AGW
74 views
Skip to first unread message
AM
Jul 7, 2012, 4:05:45 PM7/7/12
to
Well well.
Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
a tidbit;
"Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
enforcement powers."
Or how about this one where they admit at the kind of govt they envision;
"How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond
the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent
dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?"
And this one;
"Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the
social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have
never taken on a challenge of this scale"
A challenge of THIS scale ? Which one AGW, or taking over the world ?
Yeah read it and decide for yourself the agenda behind true AGW believers.
Whole article here;
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
a tidbit;
"Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
enforcement powers."
Or how about this one where they admit at the kind of govt they envision;
"How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond
the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent
dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?"
And this one;
"Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the
social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have
never taken on a challenge of this scale"
A challenge of THIS scale ? Which one AGW, or taking over the world ?
Yeah read it and decide for yourself the agenda behind true AGW believers.
Whole article here;
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
Bret Cahill
Jul 7, 2012, 4:20:45 PM7/7/12
to
> Well well.
>
> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>
> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
> a tidbit;
>
> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
> enforcement powers."
How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
>
> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>
> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
> a tidbit;
>
> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
> enforcement powers."
despotisms?
> Or how about this one where they admit at the kind of govt they envision;
>
> "How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond
> the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent
> dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?"
despotism will never last for long.
If it isn't Jeffersonian democracy it ain't gonna happen.
> And this one;
>
> "Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the
> social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have
> never taken on a challenge of this scale"
>
> A challenge of THIS scale ? Which one AGW,
> or taking over the world ?
>
> Yeah read it and decide for yourself the agenda behind true AGW believers.
>
> Whole article here;
>
They need political scientists at _Scientific American_.
The first thing that needs to be done is Heartland economists need to
be asked The Question:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
After Heartland demonstrates to the world that they are entirely
disreputable the rest of the job at carbon abatement will be much much
easier.
Bret Cahill
AM
Jul 7, 2012, 4:33:49 PM7/7/12
to
On 7/7/2012 4:20 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> Well well.
>>
>> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>>
>> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
>> a tidbit;
>>
>> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
>> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
>> enforcement powers."
>
> How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
> despotisms?
>
Because we would have a one world totalitarian govt.
>> Well well.
>>
>> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>>
>> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
>> a tidbit;
>>
>> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
>> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
>> enforcement powers."
>
> How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
> despotisms?
>
Obviously you are all for it.
>> Or how about this one where they admit at the kind of govt they envision;
>>
>> "How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond
>> the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent
>> dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?"
>
> The answer to that is "no." The New York Times fantasy of a "nice"
> despotism will never last for long.
>
> If it isn't Jeffersonian democracy it ain't gonna happen.
>
>> And this one;
>>
>> "Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the
>> social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have
>> never taken on a challenge of this scale"
>>
>> A challenge of THIS scale ? Which one AGW,
>
> AGW.
>
>> or taking over the world ?
>>
>> Yeah read it and decide for yourself the agenda behind true AGW believers.
>>
>> Whole article here;
>>
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective...
>
> They need political scientists at _Scientific American_.
>
> The first thing that needs to be done is Heartland economists need to
> be asked The Question:
>
> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>
like a broken record.
> After Heartland demonstrates to the world that they are entirely
> disreputable the rest of the job at carbon abatement will be much much
> easier.
>
>
scale, but that's it for the foreseeable future.
Didn't you notice what happened at Rio ? NOTHING !
I cracked a nice bottle of bourbon on hearing the news from Rio !
Why do you want a totalitarian govt ruling everyone like Scientific
American does ?
Wally W.
Jul 7, 2012, 6:55:51 PM7/7/12
to
Ringer
Jul 7, 2012, 7:53:50 PM7/7/12
to
constitution. Our founding fathers tried to set up a national government to
make things work better but to do so without allowing a dictatorship to
form, knda like this article was talking about.
Bret Cahill
Jul 7, 2012, 8:57:58 PM7/7/12
to
> >> Well well.
>
> >> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>
> >> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
> >> a tidbit;
>
> >> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
> >> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
> >> enforcement powers."
>
> > How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
> > despotisms?
>
> Because we would have a one world totalitarian govt.
Why not just be like BushCo and bomb anyone who disagrees with us? It
>
> >> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>
> >> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
> >> a tidbit;
>
> >> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
> >> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
> >> enforcement powers."
>
> > How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
> > despotisms?
>
> Because we would have a one world totalitarian govt.
would be easy to take out oil and coal fired plants and spread tacks
on their roads to stop them from driving motor vehicles.
. . . .
> >> Or how about this one where they admit at the kind of govt they envision;
>
> >> "How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond
> >> the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent
> >> dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?"
>
> > The answer to that is "no." The New York Times fantasy of a "nice"
> > despotism will never last for long.
>
> But that's what they want......
Fed and the media it looks like they've had it for quite some time.
Bret Cahill
AM
Jul 8, 2012, 11:59:28 AM7/8/12
to
On 7/7/2012 8:57 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> Well well.
>>
>>>> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>>
>>>> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
>>>> a tidbit;
>>
>>>> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
>>>> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
>>>> enforcement powers."
>>
>>> How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
>>> despotisms?
>>
Glad you approve of a un totalitarian govt, you show your true colors.
>>>> Well well.
>>
>>>> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>>
>>>> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
>>>> a tidbit;
>>
>>>> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
>>>> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
>>>> enforcement powers."
>>
>>> How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
>>> despotisms?
>>
>> Because we would have a one world totalitarian govt.
>
> Why not just be like BushCo and bomb anyone who disagrees with us? It
> would be easy to take out oil and coal fired plants and spread tacks
> on their roads to stop them from driving motor vehicles.
>
> . . . .
>
>
>>>> Or how about this one where they admit at the kind of govt they envision;
>>
>>>> "How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond
>>>> the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent
>>>> dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?"
>>
>>> The answer to that is "no." The New York Times fantasy of a "nice"
>>> despotism will never last for long
>>
>> But that's what they want......
>
> Judging by the stranglehold the 0.01% have on Congress, judiciary, the
> Fed and the media it looks like they've had it for quite some time.
You mean the .01 percent that obama hangs out with ?
>
> Judging by the stranglehold the 0.01% have on Congress, judiciary, the
> Fed and the media it looks like they've had it for quite some time.
Thought so.....
AM
Jul 8, 2012, 12:00:25 PM7/8/12
to
Mittler Romney
Jul 8, 2012, 2:27:05 PM7/8/12
to
AM <sct...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well well.
It's always a conspiracy with these fucking insane Christian loons. Always.
---
Email address: k.chel...@yahoo.com http://www.skeptictank.org/
And a varmint will not quit, ever.
>Well well.
It's always a conspiracy with these fucking insane Christian loons. Always.
---
Email address: k.chel...@yahoo.com http://www.skeptictank.org/
And a varmint will not quit, ever.
Desertphile
Jul 8, 2012, 10:46:12 PM7/8/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:05:45 -0400, AM <sct...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Well well.
>
> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
--
"I致e become less conservative since the Republican Party
started becoming goofy." -- Judge Richard Posner
wrote:
> Well well.
>
> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
--
"I致e become less conservative since the Republican Party
started becoming goofy." -- Judge Richard Posner
Paul Aubrin
Jul 9, 2012, 3:07:32 AM7/9/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:46:12 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:05:45 -0400, AM <sct...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Well well.
>>
>> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>
> What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
A stands for anthropic (see the Webster entry below).
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:05:45 -0400, AM <sct...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Well well.
>>
>> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>
> What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
GW stands for global-warming (I suppose that you noted the heading of
this group.
So called is added because its name changes over the time, but as the
subject of this group is global-warming, the people here use AGW when the
discussion is about the extent of the influence of humans on GW.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Anthropic
Anthropic \An*throp"ic\, Anthropical \An*throp"ic*al\, a. [Gr.
?, fr. ? man.] (Zo["o]l.)
Like or related to man; human. [R.] --Owen.
Desertphile
Jul 9, 2012, 2:46:52 PM7/9/12
to
On 09 Jul 2012 07:07:32 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:46:12 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:05:45 -0400, AM <sct...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Well well.
> >>
> >> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
> >
> > What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
> A stands for anthropic (see the Webster entry below).
I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:46:12 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:05:45 -0400, AM <sct...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Well well.
> >>
> >> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
> >
> > What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
> A stands for anthropic (see the Webster entry below).
happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
"so-called" I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened
and is happening?
"So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
taxes."
Paul Aubrin
Jul 10, 2012, 9:15:16 AM7/10/12
to
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:46:52 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>> > What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
>
>> A stands for anthropic (see the Webster entry below).
>
> I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
>
> "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>> > What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
>
>> A stands for anthropic (see the Webster entry below).
>
> I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
>
> "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science", so climate
science is not yet an experimental science along your own definition.
Maybe it is a reason why he used "so called", it will become a science
when, 30 years after the climate scientists define their first
falsifiable experiment. Meanwhile, "so-called" is adequate.
Bret Cahill
Jul 10, 2012, 10:42:57 AM7/10/12
to
> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> > assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
>
> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
>
> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in
> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> > assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
>
> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
>
> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
hours. The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be
demonstrated in hours.
The theoretical work on this goes back almost 200 years, not for CO2
in a bottle but for the temperature of the atmosphere.
Barring some inflection that even wing nut deniers have yet to
propose, more CO2 => higher temperatures.
Or do you believe Fourier is part of the global AGW "conspiracy" that
includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?
In the case of ocean acidification, low frequency noise isn't a
problem. Sea water pH drop is documented on a yearly basis with such
a low margin of error no one can bet against it on Intrade.
(In case you deniers are wondering, Intrade doesn't have any place
where you can bet against the sun rising each morning either.)
Bret Cahill
Paul Aubrin
Jul 10, 2012, 12:51:41 PM7/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:42:57 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>> > "so-called"
>> > I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>> > happening?
>>
>> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>> > taxes."
>>
>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
>> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>
> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
> in hours.
In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat: CO2 selectively absorbs some
>> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>> > "so-called"
>> > I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>> > happening?
>>
>> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>> > taxes."
>>
>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
>> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>
> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
> in hours.
frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
The atmosphere is already completely opaque to the IR rays in the IR
frequency bands absorbed by CO2. Thus no more IR energy is absorbed at
the ground level when CO2 concentrations are increased. The effect is not
as simplistic as "CO2 traps heat", and the consequences are not as
straightforward as what you claim.
Overall, the possible direct temperature increase induced by CO2 at the
altitude in the atmosphere were it can absorb some IR could not exceed
some 1.2°C (from the residual amount of energy that can be absorbed in
the CO2 absorption bands). So the 2°C increase required in the
environmental conferences will never be reached. No action is required.
Bret Cahill
Jul 10, 2012, 1:04:06 PM7/10/12
to
> >> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> >> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
> >> > "so-called"
> >> > I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
> >> > happening?
>
> >> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
> >> > taxes."
>
> >> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> >> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> >> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
> >> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>
> > The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
> > The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
> > in hours.
>
> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
> >> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
> >> > "so-called"
> >> > I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
> >> > happening?
>
> >> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
> >> > taxes."
>
> >> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> >> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> >> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
> >> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>
> > The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
> > The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
> > in hours.
>
> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
Anyway you dodged the rest of the thread:
Paul Aubrin
Jul 10, 2012, 1:05:52 PM7/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:42:57 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Or do you believe Fourier is part of the global AGW "conspiracy" that
> includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?
Do you know that Fourier ignored that CO2 absorbed only selective IR
> includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?
bands? It was discovered later. And it had a major importance. As a
matter of fact, this discovery finally revolutionised all the theories in
physics.
Fourier was not wrong, nor part of a conspiracy. Fourier ignored what IR
were, he called them "obscure heat". Physics was just in its infancy and
Fourier understanding of the relation between thermal agitation (heat)
and radiations was still very rudimentary.
Bret Cahill
Jul 10, 2012, 1:22:21 PM7/10/12
to
> > Or do you believe Fourier is part of the global AGW "conspiracy" that
> > includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?
. . .
> > includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?
> Fourier was not wrong, nor part of a conspiracy.
even before humans added significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Bret Cahill
Paul Aubrin
Jul 10, 2012, 2:08:00 PM7/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:04:06 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
>>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
>> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
Read some thermodynamics and stop spouting nonsense.
>> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
>>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
>> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 10, 2012, 2:12:58 PM7/10/12
to
defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
remotely correct theory of AGW.
Bret Cahill
Jul 10, 2012, 4:43:17 PM7/10/12
to
> >> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> > It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
No answer?
>
> > It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
> >>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
> >> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> > Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>
> Read some thermodynamics
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Jul 10, 2012, 4:46:08 PM7/10/12
to
even wing nuts have yet to propose, means more greenhouse gases like
CO2 => more global warming.
Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
CO2.
Bret Cahill
Will Janoschka
Jul 10, 2012, 8:54:44 PM7/10/12
to
Joe Fourier, was one of the first to use Glasshouse (Greenhouse)
effect
when the "caloric" theory of heat was popular. Fourier, was the
first to
agree with Bill Thompson, when he proved that radiative heat transfer
conforms to the laws of thermodynamics, thus ending the era of
"caloric" and "aether".
The AGW folk conveniently ignore that part of science.
Heat spontaneously always transfer from more Kelvin
to less Kelvin. Heatpumps only increase entropy.-will-
Bret Cahill
Jul 10, 2012, 9:02:37 PM7/10/12
to
Bret Cahill
bjacoby
Jul 10, 2012, 11:49:58 PM7/10/12
to
On 7/10/2012 1:04 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>>>>> happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>>>>> "so-called"
>>>>> I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>>>>> happening?
>>
>>>>> "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>>>>> taxes."
>>
>>>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>>>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>>>> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
>>>> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>>
>>> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
>>> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
>>> in hours.
>>
>> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
>> : CO2 selectively absorbs some
>> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
See I told you Bret would say it's simple!
>>>>> I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>>>>> happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>>>>> "so-called"
>>>>> I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>>>>> happening?
>>
>>>>> "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>>>>> taxes."
>>
>>>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>>>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>>>> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
>>>> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>>
>>> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
>>> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
>>> in hours.
>>
>> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
>> : CO2 selectively absorbs some
>> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
> Anyway you dodged the rest of the thread:
>
> The theoretical work on this goes back almost 200 years, not for CO2
> in a bottle but for the temperature of the atmosphere.
>
> Barring some inflection that even wing nut deniers have yet to
> propose, more CO2 => higher temperatures.
What more "science" do you need? If Bret says it's true, then it IS
true! What nobody understands (and Bret does, of course) is that IR
radiation isn't heat...it turns INTO heat! Get the picture!
bjacoby
Jul 10, 2012, 11:51:47 PM7/10/12
to
On 7/10/2012 4:43 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>
>> Read some thermodynamics
>
> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>
>> Read some thermodynamics
>
> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
Thermodynamics"! That means he knows something about science and you
don't! You are the "looser".
Paul Aubrin
Jul 11, 2012, 3:45:15 PM7/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:46:08 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> > It looks like everyone agrees they knew about the greenhouse effect
>> > even before humans added significant amounts of CO2 to the
>> > atmosphere.
>
>> Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
>> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
>> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>
> Just the greenhouse effect which, barring some inflection theory that
> even wing nuts have yet to propose, means more greenhouse gases like CO2
> => more global warming.
Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
>> > It looks like everyone agrees they knew about the greenhouse effect
>> > even before humans added significant amounts of CO2 to the
>> > atmosphere.
>
>> Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
>> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
>> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>
> Just the greenhouse effect which, barring some inflection theory that
> even wing nuts have yet to propose, means more greenhouse gases like CO2
> => more global warming.
especially in spectroscopy.
>
> Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
> CO2.
IR radiations IS heat.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 11, 2012, 4:14:41 PM7/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:54:44 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Paul,
> Joe Fourier, was one of the first to use Glasshouse (Greenhouse) effect
> when the "caloric" theory of heat was popular. Fourier, was the first
> to agree with Bill Thompson, when he proved that radiative heat transfer
> conforms to the laws of thermodynamics, thus ending the era of "caloric"
> and "aether".
>
> The AGW folk conveniently ignore that part of science.
> Heat spontaneously always transfer from more Kelvin to less Kelvin.
> Heatpumps only increase entropy.-will-
Here is a link on Joseph Fourier's memoire sur les températures du globe
> Paul,
> Joe Fourier, was one of the first to use Glasshouse (Greenhouse) effect
> when the "caloric" theory of heat was popular. Fourier, was the first
> to agree with Bill Thompson, when he proved that radiative heat transfer
> conforms to the laws of thermodynamics, thus ending the era of "caloric"
> and "aether".
>
> The AGW folk conveniently ignore that part of science.
> Heat spontaneously always transfer from more Kelvin to less Kelvin.
> Heatpumps only increase entropy.-will-
terrestre et des espaces planétaires where he states clearly that the
greenhouse effect is the result of the absence of movement of the air.
http://tinyurl.com/6wt3fhr (points on
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k32227/f825.image.r=memoires+de
+l'academie+des+sciences)
"En effet, si toutes les couches d'air dont l'atmosphère est formée
conservaient leur densité avec leur transparencde, et perdaient seulement
la mobilité qui leur est proprre, cette masse d'air ainsi devenue solide,
étant exposée aux rayons du soleil produirait un effet du même genre que
celui que l'on vient de décrire".
Will Janoschka
Jul 11, 2012, 10:10:10 PM7/11/12
to
atmosphere is heated
by convection and phase change from the surface "to" the
atmosphere.
The atmosphere does not heat the earth.
Another scientist the AGW folk ignore when convenientl.
Will Janoschka
Jul 11, 2012, 11:25:54 PM7/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:43:17, Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bret, I would just love to read "your version" of
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Please state "your version" here on these newsgroups!
The actual, 2nd law refutes "all" of the claims
of the CO2-ClimateClowns.
No Greenhouse Effect!
No Greenhouse Gasses!
No Radiative Forcings!
No Positive Feedbacks!
No Climate Science!
No Science at all!
No Theory!
No Proof!
All madeup claims generated by "The Handbook
of Creative Statistics, Vol2".
wrote:
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Please state "your version" here on these newsgroups!
The actual, 2nd law refutes "all" of the claims
of the CO2-ClimateClowns.
No Greenhouse Effect!
No Greenhouse Gasses!
No Radiative Forcings!
No Positive Feedbacks!
No Climate Science!
No Science at all!
No Theory!
No Proof!
All madeup claims generated by "The Handbook
of Creative Statistics, Vol2".
Paul Aubrin
Jul 12, 2012, 1:02:12 AM7/12/12
to
some kind of Pavlovian reflex. He observed the positive effect of
mentioning the second law of thermodynamics on the discussion, and though
he just could play this card. But he does not know when to play this card
to win the point and he ignores its devastating effects on the warmists'
arguments.
Bret Cahill
Jul 12, 2012, 1:09:34 AM7/12/12
to
> >> > It looks like everyone agrees they knew about the greenhouse effect
> >> > even before humans added significant amounts of CO2 to the
> >> > atmosphere.
>
> >> Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
> >> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
> >> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>
> > Just the greenhouse effect which, barring some inflection theory that
> > even wing nuts have yet to propose, means more greenhouse gases like CO2
> > => more global warming.
>
> Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
> especially in spectroscopy.
Still waiting for that inflection theory.
> >> > even before humans added significant amounts of CO2 to the
> >> > atmosphere.
>
> >> Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
> >> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
> >> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>
> > Just the greenhouse effect which, barring some inflection theory that
> > even wing nuts have yet to propose, means more greenhouse gases like CO2
> > => more global warming.
>
> Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
> especially in spectroscopy.
If you don't have one then everyone agrees more CO2 => more warming.
> > Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
> > CO2.
>
> Nice straw man.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 12, 2012, 1:12:01 AM7/12/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:46:08 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
>> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
>> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>
[...]
>> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
>> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>
> Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
> CO2.
You, Bret Cathill and your compadre Dawlish appear to have a very
> CO2.
approximate command of the basic concepts of physics, despite your
mouthfuls of "the scientists say...". Being what you are, and knowing
what you know of physics and chemistry, you should refrain from using
that kind of stupid ad hominem.
PS: please note that I said that *your argument* was stupid.
Bret Cahill
Jul 12, 2012, 1:12:27 AM7/12/12
to
> The atmosphere does not heat the earth.
And the blanket does not warm the body.
The body warms the body . . . with a blanket.
Think you can get a Nobel with stuff like this?
Bret Cahill
Jul 12, 2012, 1:39:30 AM7/12/12
to
> The atmosphere does not heat the earth.
And guns do not kill people.
People kill people.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 12, 2012, 4:44:58 AM7/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:09:34 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
>> especially in spectroscopy.
>
> Still waiting for that inflection theory.
It is very simple, Bret, the absorption of selective IR rays by CO2
>> Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
>> especially in spectroscopy.
>
> Still waiting for that inflection theory.
molecule is explained by quantum mechanics. It could not be explained by
the physics known when Joseph Fourier was living.
The fact that CO2 can absorb only selective fractions of the IR spectrum
is really a big change over the pre-quantum mechanics ideas.
But, if you read the Joseph Fourier memoire, you know now that Joseph
Fourier thought the heating produced by the Sun radiations was caused by
the absence of convection.
You will find Joseph Fourier memoir at France National Library Gallica
web site here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k32227/f827.image.r=memoires+de+l%
27academie+des+sciences.langFR
A quite accurate 19th century translation by E. Burgess is available.
>
> If you don't have one then everyone agrees more CO2 => more warming.
>
>> > Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
>> > CO2.
>>
>> Nice straw man.
>
> Few would say it was nice but if a straw man is all you have . . .
they are put in evidence, the effect is devastating on your credibility.
There are only two reasons why you might use a fallacy: The first is that
you believe them, which is the proof that of your irrationality (cult
oriented belief), the second is that you are trying to make a point even
when you know you are wrong.
Dawlish
Jul 12, 2012, 6:12:34 AM7/12/12
to
stuck on new phrases, don't they pauly?) when, in fact, it is a
"fallacy" used by almost everyone involved in climate science,
including every single scientific institution in the *world*. Why do
you think that is the case (you *always* avoid that one, don't you, as
if it doesn't matter. I can assure you that it does).
Of course, the more likely possibility is that you are completely
deluded.............
bjacoby
Jul 12, 2012, 10:13:26 AM7/12/12
to
fallacies, then that makes them true! (It's a corollary of science facts
are proved by a democratic vote rule). We got it now.
> Of course, the more likely possibility is that you are completely
> deluded.............
on the internet, must certainly be insane. And that goes double for
anyone who does not blindly accept your every word, right?
Dawlish
Jul 12, 2012, 10:37:15 AM7/12/12
to
you refuse to? What do you know that every single scientific
institution on the planet doesn't?
I'll bet you don't answer that........
Bret Cahill
Jul 12, 2012, 5:33:09 PM7/12/12
to
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Jul 12, 2012, 5:32:31 PM7/12/12
to
> >>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>
> >> Read some thermodynamics
>
> > Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>
> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
> Thermodynamics"!
And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
>
> >> Read some thermodynamics
>
> > Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>
> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
> Thermodynamics"!
Care to try again?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Jul 12, 2012, 5:37:05 PM7/12/12
to
> >> > >> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> >> > > It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
> >> No answer?
Notice he never could give an answer?
>
> >> > > It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
> >> No answer?
> >> > >>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
> >> > >> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> >> > > Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
> The invocation of the "second law of thermodynamics" by Bret
"Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
back to the discussion.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Jul 12, 2012, 5:38:39 PM7/12/12
to
> >>>> Well well.
>
> >>>> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>
> >>>> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
> >>>> a tidbit;
>
> >>>> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
> >>>> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
> >>>> enforcement powers."
>
> >>> How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
> >>> despotisms?
>
> Glad you approve of a un totalitarian govt, you show your true colors.
>
> >> Because we would have a one world totalitarian govt.
>
> > Why not just be like BushCo and bomb anyone who disagrees with us? It
> > would be easy to take out oil and coal fired plants and spread tacks
> > on their roads to stop them from driving motor vehicles.
>
> No comparison at all,
What's the difference except that the troops would never need to be in
harm's way?
Bret Cahill
>
> >>>> Here is Scientific Americans solution to so called AGW.
>
> >>>> Notice the NOT even thinly veiled references to totalitarianism, here's
> >>>> a tidbit;
>
> >>>> "Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of
> >>>> institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
> >>>> enforcement powers."
>
> >>> How would that be any worse than BushCo unilaterally bombing Mideast
> >>> despotisms?
>
> Glad you approve of a un totalitarian govt, you show your true colors.
>
> >> Because we would have a one world totalitarian govt.
>
> > Why not just be like BushCo and bomb anyone who disagrees with us? It
> > would be easy to take out oil and coal fired plants and spread tacks
> > on their roads to stop them from driving motor vehicles.
>
> No comparison at all,
What's the difference except that the troops would never need to be in
harm's way?
Bret Cahill
Heyduke Lives
Jul 12, 2012, 7:14:21 PM7/12/12
to
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>>> Read some thermodynamics
>>> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics"!
>And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
ROFL!@!!!11
>>>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>>> Read some thermodynamics
>>> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics"!
>And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
---
Email address: k.chel...@yahoo.com http://www.skeptictank.org/
And a varmint will not quit, ever.
Wally W.
Jul 12, 2012, 7:35:27 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:13:26 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>On 7/12/2012 6:12 AM, Dawlish wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 9:44 am, Paul Aubrin<chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>> Your frequently resort to all kind of fallacies to make your points. Once
>>> they are put in evidence, the effect is devastating on your credibility.
>>> There are only two reasons why you might use a fallacy: The first is that
>>> you believe them, which is the proof that of your irrationality (cult
>>> oriented belief), the second is that you are trying to make a point even
>>> when you know you are wrong.
>>
>> The second time someone has "used a fallacy" in one day (deniers get
>> stuck on new phrases, don't they pauly?) when, in fact, it is a
>> "fallacy" used by almost everyone involved in climate science,
>> including every single scientific institution in the *world*. Why do
>> you think that is the case (you *always* avoid that one, don't you, as
>> if it doesn't matter. I can assure you that it does).
>
>Oh, we get it now. If you can get enough people using the same
>fallacies, then that makes them true! (It's a corollary of science facts
>are proved by a democratic vote rule). We got it now.
Not only that, they become the "consensus."
>On 7/12/2012 6:12 AM, Dawlish wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 9:44 am, Paul Aubrin<chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>> Your frequently resort to all kind of fallacies to make your points. Once
>>> they are put in evidence, the effect is devastating on your credibility.
>>> There are only two reasons why you might use a fallacy: The first is that
>>> you believe them, which is the proof that of your irrationality (cult
>>> oriented belief), the second is that you are trying to make a point even
>>> when you know you are wrong.
>>
>> The second time someone has "used a fallacy" in one day (deniers get
>> stuck on new phrases, don't they pauly?) when, in fact, it is a
>> "fallacy" used by almost everyone involved in climate science,
>> including every single scientific institution in the *world*. Why do
>> you think that is the case (you *always* avoid that one, don't you, as
>> if it doesn't matter. I can assure you that it does).
>
>Oh, we get it now. If you can get enough people using the same
>fallacies, then that makes them true! (It's a corollary of science facts
>are proved by a democratic vote rule). We got it now.
If enough people on a bandwagon spew the same fallacies, the news
media will be sure to parrot them.
And momentum builds for the folly.
Or so it did, until the public woke up to the exorbitant cost of the
emperor's new clothes.
Will Janoschka
Jul 12, 2012, 9:44:04 PM7/12/12
to
> he just could play this card. But he does not know when to play this card
> to win the point and he ignores its devastating effects on the warmists'
> arguments.
I doubt that Bret will bring up the 2nd Law again.
> to win the point and he ignores its devastating effects on the warmists'
> arguments.
Canot we have some science here? -will-
Paul Aubrin
Jul 13, 2012, 2:42:26 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:32:31 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> >>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>
>> >> Read some thermodynamics
>>
>> > Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>>
>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics"!
>
> And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
Now we see that you can become (partly) rational. When you stop with your
>> >>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>
>> >> Read some thermodynamics
>>
>> > Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>>
>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics"!
>
> And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
recurrent denial.
IR are radiations and interact with matter like radiations.
And don't tell us that you were wrong but it doesn't matter, heat and
radiations behave in a radically different way.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 13, 2012, 2:55:21 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:14:21 +0000, Heyduke Lives wrote:
> Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>>>> Read some thermodynamics
>>>> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>>> Thermodynamics"!
>>And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
>
> ROFL!@!!!11
All the physicists agree with me IR are radiations, radiations are not
> Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>>>> Read some thermodynamics
>>>> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>>> Thermodynamics"!
>>And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
>
> ROFL!@!!!11
heat. Because they didn't understand that distinction, the 19th century
physicists were confronted with what was called "the ultraviolet
catastrophe": unresolvable contradictions in the theories of their time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
Telling that IR is heat is a something like telling that astronomy can be
done as well with the pre-heliocentric theories. After all, the ancient
Babylonians could make nice astronomical predictions.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 13, 2012, 2:56:33 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:37:05 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> The invocation of the "second law of thermodynamics" by Bret
>
> Is nothing more that the law behind the statement above:
>
> "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
No. Absolutely not.
>> The invocation of the "second law of thermodynamics" by Bret
>
> Is nothing more that the law behind the statement above:
>
> "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
Paul Aubrin
Jul 13, 2012, 3:02:57 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:44:04 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 05:02:12, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> [...]
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 05:02:12, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>
> I doubt that Bret will bring up the 2nd Law again.
> Canot we have some science here? -will-
He dared. This guy spends his time with mouthfuls of "the scientists
> I doubt that Bret will bring up the 2nd Law again.
> Canot we have some science here? -will-
say", but he ignores the most basic rudiments of physics.
That confirms the saying: "what characterize assholes is that they will
be deterred by nothing, they will dare anything. It is even the best way
to recognise an asshole".
Paul Aubrin
Jul 13, 2012, 3:13:28 AM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:37:15 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>> Obviously, any person who did not blindly believe some anonymous voice
>> on the internet, must certainly be insane. And that goes double for
>> anyone who does not blindly accept your every word, right?
>
> After actually examinning the science, why do they all believe what you
> refuse to? What do you know that every single scientific institution on
> the planet doesn't?
We were talking of YOUR fallacies, those you post daily here.
>> Obviously, any person who did not blindly believe some anonymous voice
>> on the internet, must certainly be insane. And that goes double for
>> anyone who does not blindly accept your every word, right?
>
> After actually examinning the science, why do they all believe what you
> refuse to? What do you know that every single scientific institution on
> the planet doesn't?
Can you tell us why you need to resort to fallacies if what you pretend
has some sound scientific ground.
For example, all your "if that's not xxx (or yyy), tell me what it is..."
are obvious fallacies. They are worthless arguments. State the real
arguments if you want to make your points.
Dawlish
Jul 13, 2012, 3:16:04 AM7/13/12
to
fear the answer would make you look even more stupid. You are now on a
pin pauly and you are struggling:
What do you know that all these scientific institutions don't? Why do
they all believe that the the main driver of the current warming is
CO2 and you simply deny that?
Paul Aubrin
Jul 13, 2012, 3:23:18 AM7/13/12
to
2/ If you have 5 blankets and add one more, you will hardly feel warmer.
If we use your analogy back to the global-warming ground, at the current
concentrations, at the ground level, CO2 already absorbs 100% of the IR
in its absorption bands. Adding more CO2 will not absorb more.
So if more CO2 has some influence it is not the way you believe. And the
conclusions your draw from your false beliefs probably don't hold.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Dawlish
Jul 13, 2012, 5:58:47 AM7/13/12
to
his toys because he's been asked it again? Do you think the question
will just disappear pauly?
> What do you know that all these scientific institutions don't? Why do
> they all believe that the the main driver of the current warming is
> CO2 and you simply deny that?
Androcles
Jul 13, 2012, 6:38:28 AM7/13/12
to
"Paul Aubrin" wrote in message
news:4fffc659$0$1721$426a...@news.free.fr...
Classic case of not knowing the difference between heat and temperature.
A glowing cigar has a higher temperature than a boiling kettle, but
nowhere near as much heat.
A laser can burn a CD, it has a higher temperature than the cigar but the
spot it makes is miniscule, it has no significant quantity of heat.
Colour is temperature, heat is energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature
Dawlish
Jul 13, 2012, 8:02:39 AM7/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well?
Paul Aubrin
Jul 13, 2012, 8:38:37 AM7/13/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:16:04 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>> We were talking of YOUR fallacies, those you post daily here.
>> Can you tell us why you need to resort to fallacies if what you pretend
>> has some sound scientific ground.
>> For example, all your "if that's not xxx (or yyy), tell me what it
>> is..."
>> are obvious fallacies. They are worthless arguments. State the real
>> arguments if you want to make your points.
>
> Again you dodge.
Again YOU dodge. If you have a better argument than your fallacies, please
>> We were talking of YOUR fallacies, those you post daily here.
>> Can you tell us why you need to resort to fallacies if what you pretend
>> has some sound scientific ground.
>> For example, all your "if that's not xxx (or yyy), tell me what it
>> is..."
>> are obvious fallacies. They are worthless arguments. State the real
>> arguments if you want to make your points.
>
> Again you dodge.
state it. Don't wait anymore. Remember:
- it must not be an argument of authority,
- it must not be an argument of ignorance,
- it must not be an ad hominem
I give you a last try. Don't dodge.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 13, 2012, 8:44:09 AM7/13/12
to
On Jul 13, 12:23 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets
mostly warm by preventing convection"
are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
Will Janoschka
Jul 13, 2012, 1:35:04 PM7/13/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets
heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets
> mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
>
>
> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
>
>
>
> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 13, 2012, 1:57:27 PM7/13/12
to
On Jul 13, 10:35 am, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets
> > mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> > are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
> > On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets
> > mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> > are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than
standard single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas
molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with
improving a home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are
replace with argon filled double glazed windows?
Bret Cahill
Jul 13, 2012, 2:37:32 PM7/13/12
to
> > Blankets
> > mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> > are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACEW_enUS332US333&q=mylar+blanket+insulation
> > mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> > are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
130,000 hits
Dawlish
Jul 13, 2012, 3:08:36 PM7/13/12
to
denial than most others. The devices he tries to employ to avoid
answering a simple question are really quite amazing to behold.
Your squirming is becoming painful to watch pauly. you can stop it now
by answering this simple question. I can assure you it is not a
fallacy and neither are the views of the institutions contained
within, whatever you'd like to believe. Here it is, *again*.
> > What do you know that all these scientific institutions don't? Why do
> > they all believe that the the main driver of the current warming is
> > CO2 and you simply deny that?
Bill Ward
Jul 13, 2012, 3:26:40 PM7/13/12
to
better.
In three clear and concise sentences, Will has exposed cai's abject
ignorance of heat transfer for all to see. Congratulations, Will.
Dawlish
Jul 13, 2012, 3:54:01 PM7/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
ditto
> - Show quoted text -
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 13, 2012, 4:14:25 PM7/13/12
to
argon, say co2, which will yield the desired results in winter, but
not summertime. The reason being the co2 gas molecules in the chamber,
as opposed to say no molecules at all, the chamber with the co2 will
hold absorb and the heat. And yes the gas will eve radiate energy
back to the room, denials wont work here. The gas is relevant, bills
point is absurd, for if its argon with a large molar mass (stops
conduction), or one that is a good thermal absorber like co2, the gas
in the chamber makes a difference to the energy bouncing around inside.
AM
Jul 13, 2012, 5:52:58 PM7/13/12
to
And an added bonus is some soundproofing.
Work great in our house :)
Desertphile
Jul 13, 2012, 9:37:41 PM7/13/12
to
On 10 Jul 2012 13:15:16 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:46:52 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> >> > What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
> >> A stands for anthropic (see the Webster entry below).
> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> > assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
> >
> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> scientific theory or candidate theory).
Human-caused climate change is also not a theory: physics is.
> From you, AGWers, it needs at
What the fuck is "AGWers?"
> least 30 years to do an experiment in climate science, so climate
> science is not yet an experimental science along your own definition.
Human-caused climate change has been going on for tens of
thousands of years. The laws of physics involved have been known
since year 1926.
> Maybe it is a reason why he used "so called", it will become a science
> when, 30 years after the climate scientists define their first
> falsifiable experiment. Meanwhile, "so-called" is adequate.
Joseph Fourier did that in 1824 and 1827
John Tyndall did that in 1859
Svante Arrhenius did that in 1896
C.J. Fox did that in 1909
A. Angstron did that in 1918
Chamberlain and Fowle did that in 1916
E.O. Hulburt did that in 1931
S.G. Callendar did that in 1937
Professor Gilbert Plass did that in 1956
Carl Sagan did that in 1972
Stephen Hawking did that in 1960
Isaac Asimov did that in 1968
Wally Broecker did that in 1975
Science and scientists won; you hysterical alarmists lost. Stings,
does it?
--
Melenkurion abatha! Duroc minas mil khabaal!
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:46:52 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> >> > What the bloody fuck is "so called AGW?"
> >> A stands for anthropic (see the Webster entry below).
> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> > assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
> >
> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> scientific theory or candidate theory).
Human-caused climate change is also not a theory: physics is.
> From you, AGWers, it needs at
What the fuck is "AGWers?"
> least 30 years to do an experiment in climate science, so climate
> science is not yet an experimental science along your own definition.
Human-caused climate change has been going on for tens of
thousands of years. The laws of physics involved have been known
since year 1926.
> Maybe it is a reason why he used "so called", it will become a science
> when, 30 years after the climate scientists define their first
> falsifiable experiment. Meanwhile, "so-called" is adequate.
Joseph Fourier did that in 1824 and 1827
John Tyndall did that in 1859
Svante Arrhenius did that in 1896
C.J. Fox did that in 1909
A. Angstron did that in 1918
Chamberlain and Fowle did that in 1916
E.O. Hulburt did that in 1931
S.G. Callendar did that in 1937
Professor Gilbert Plass did that in 1956
Carl Sagan did that in 1972
Stephen Hawking did that in 1960
Isaac Asimov did that in 1968
Wally Broecker did that in 1975
Science and scientists won; you hysterical alarmists lost. Stings,
does it?
--
Melenkurion abatha! Duroc minas mil khabaal!
Desertphile
Jul 13, 2012, 9:40:05 PM7/13/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:42:57 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> > > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> > > assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
> >
> > > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
> >
> > The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> > experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> > scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> > > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> > > assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
> >
> > > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
> >
> > The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> > experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> > least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in
> hours. The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be
> demonstrated in hours.
Yes indeed; hundreds of thousands of observations in the pasrt 180
years could have disproved the pysics involved---- and yet every
single observation supported the physics.
WE WON!
> The theoretical work on this goes back almost 200 years, not for CO2
> in a bottle but for the temperature of the atmosphere.
>
> Barring some inflection that even wing nut deniers have yet to
> propose, more CO2 => higher temperatures.
>
> Or do you believe Fourier is part of the global AGW "conspiracy" that
> includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?
>
> In the case of ocean acidification, low frequency noise isn't a
> problem. Sea water pH drop is documented on a yearly basis with such
> a low margin of error no one can bet against it on Intrade.
>
> (In case you deniers are wondering, Intrade doesn't have any place
> where you can bet against the sun rising each morning either.)
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Will Janoschka
Jul 14, 2012, 12:56:45 AM7/14/12
to
a better
heat conductor. Vacuum would be better, but then stress and leaks.
Low pressure Argon is a good engineering compromise!
What does this have to do with radiative heat transfer? Radiative
heat
transfer is the only thing on the agenda of your CO2-ClimateClowns.
Nonsense only.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 14, 2012, 1:24:21 AM7/14/12
to
On Jul 13, 9:56 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/6381a4393cf651c7?hl=en-gb
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:57:27, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
about fill the area between the 2 layers of glass with co2, now are
you claiming the co2 will not impede the transfer of thermal energy in
a different manner than argon or a vacuum? The key being the co2 is
opaque to infrared energy, and inside such as vessel it would slow the
flow of thermal energy due to absorption, in other words we have a non-
reflective insulator. The co2 molecules trapped between 2 pieces of
glass, will have a higher average kinetic energy when compared to the
argon molecules in a comparable vessel due to the increased energy
from absorption.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/6381a4393cf651c7?hl=en-gb
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:57:27, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 10:35 am, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets
> > > > mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> > > > are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> > > An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> > > heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> > > can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
>
> > Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
> > efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than
> > standard single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas
> > molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with
> > improving a home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are
> > replace with argon filled double glazed windows?
>
> Argon gas, a reasonable insulator, prevents the infusiuon of nitrogen,
> a better
> heat conductor. Vacuum would be better, but then stress and leaks.
> Low pressure Argon is a good engineering compromise!
>
> What does this have to do with radiative heat transfer? Radiative
> heat
> transfer is the only thing on the agenda of your CO2-ClimateClowns.
> Nonsense only.
That would be a dodge on your part, and a rather pathetic one. How
> > On Jul 13, 10:35 am, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets
> > > > mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> > > > are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> > > An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> > > heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> > > can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
>
> > Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
> > efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than
> > standard single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas
> > molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with
> > improving a home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are
> > replace with argon filled double glazed windows?
>
> Argon gas, a reasonable insulator, prevents the infusiuon of nitrogen,
> a better
> heat conductor. Vacuum would be better, but then stress and leaks.
> Low pressure Argon is a good engineering compromise!
>
> What does this have to do with radiative heat transfer? Radiative
> heat
> transfer is the only thing on the agenda of your CO2-ClimateClowns.
> Nonsense only.
about fill the area between the 2 layers of glass with co2, now are
you claiming the co2 will not impede the transfer of thermal energy in
a different manner than argon or a vacuum? The key being the co2 is
opaque to infrared energy, and inside such as vessel it would slow the
flow of thermal energy due to absorption, in other words we have a non-
reflective insulator. The co2 molecules trapped between 2 pieces of
glass, will have a higher average kinetic energy when compared to the
argon molecules in a comparable vessel due to the increased energy
from absorption.
Will Janoschka
Jul 14, 2012, 1:25:56 AM7/14/12
to
scientist, but only an ex-engineer, My analysis must be not only
correct, but also result in profit, else I are a goner!
BTW I am wrong most of the time. Aw shits abound! -will-
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 14, 2012, 1:33:21 AM7/14/12
to
that your opinions validate the idiotic assertion. Once again how
about filling the area between the 2 layers of glass with co2, now are
Bill Ward
Jul 14, 2012, 1:52:18 AM7/14/12
to
done, and off to being wrong about the next project.
Engineers need a practical knowledge of science, but the opposite is not
always true. In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in
practice, they're not.
Keep up your good work.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 14, 2012, 1:53:42 AM7/14/12
to
the bs test
Bill Ward
Jul 14, 2012, 2:15:10 AM7/14/12
to
difference between heat and EM radiation, and seem proud of the fact.
I'd try to explain it to you, but from your posting record I can see it's
likely a total waste of time.
Suffice it to say heat is molecular motion, EM radiation is light.
Will's explanation is entirely and precisely correct. CO2 would let MORE
thermal energy through to the outside air than nothing (a vacuum) would.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 14, 2012, 2:25:04 AM7/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:02:39 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>> > What do you know that all these scientific institutions don't? Why do
>> > they all believe that the the main driver of the current warming is
>> > CO2 and you simply deny that?
>>
>> Well?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well?
Well. You tell us each day that current global temperatures should be
>> > What do you know that all these scientific institutions don't? Why do
>> > they all believe that the the main driver of the current warming is
>> > CO2 and you simply deny that?
>>
>> Well?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well?
considered high since we had a recent la nina event. La nina trumps CO2
as a major global temperature influencing factor. Thus you, yourself,
know that la nina has more influence on global temperatures that CO2.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 14, 2012, 3:02:56 AM7/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:26:40 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:
>> Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
>> efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than standard
>> single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas molecules are
>> irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with improving a
>> home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are replace with
>> argon filled double glazed windows?
>
> Argon has nothing to do with it. In fact, nothing (vacuum) would be
> better.
I confirm. Argon is not used for its radiative properties (like all mono-
>> Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
>> efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than standard
>> single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas molecules are
>> irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with improving a
>> home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are replace with
>> argon filled double glazed windows?
>
> Argon has nothing to do with it. In fact, nothing (vacuum) would be
> better.
atomic gases is transparent to radiations). Argon is used because its
thermal conductivity coefficient is only 0.016 W/m.K when air is 0.024 W/
m.K.
In this example, once again, the greenhouse effect is the result of
isolation, not of some radiative properties.
Are there CO2 filled double or triple glazed windows?
Paul Aubrin
Jul 14, 2012, 3:13:53 AM7/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:40:05 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
>> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
>> in hours.
>
> Yes indeed; hundreds of thousands of observations in the pasrt 180 years
> could have disproved the pysics involved---- and yet every single
> observation supported the physics.
Can you cite those experiments of the last 180 years proving that CO2
>> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
>> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
>> in hours.
>
> Yes indeed; hundreds of thousands of observations in the pasrt 180 years
> could have disproved the pysics involved---- and yet every single
> observation supported the physics.
traps heat? You mentioned Joseph Fourier, his memoir clearly states that
the greenhouse effect he observed resulted from the prevention of
convection.
When you state that not a single experiment disproved "the physics
involved" (vague), why don't you comment R.Woods 1909 experiment (R. W.
Wood, “Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse”, Philosophical magazine 17
319-320 (1909)) ?
Paul Aubrin
Jul 14, 2012, 3:14:41 AM7/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:37:41 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>> scientific theory or candidate theory).
>
> Human-caused climate change is also not a theory: physics is.
It is mostly politics.
>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>> scientific theory or candidate theory).
>
> Human-caused climate change is also not a theory: physics is.
Dawlish
Jul 14, 2012, 3:15:04 AM7/14/12
to
Every scientist on earth knows that the short-term ENSO fluctuations
can be far greater than the strength of the underlying warming signal.
*Every one*.
You somehow think this negates the signal. How stupid can you get?
bjacoby
Jul 14, 2012, 3:18:44 AM7/14/12
to
On 7/13/2012 1:35 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
Sure it is Will. Wormley's "skeptical science" site explained it all to
> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
me. It's like this: radiation comes down into the atmosphere in the CO2
bands. CO2 absorbs it. But that energy MUST go somewhere so it
RERADIATES it in all directions. Since most of those directions are AWAY
from the earth, it's clear that CO2 is a radiation mirror even when the
absorption band is saturated! Is there anything Sam Wormley doesn't know?
Paul Aubrin
Jul 14, 2012, 3:19:39 AM7/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:37:41 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>> From you, AGWers, it needs at
>
> What the fuck is "AGWers?"
You, and the people who want worldwide political action to be taken to
>
> What the fuck is "AGWers?"
prevent AGW, even if it is not proven, because you want us to believe
that tomorrow it will be too late (a typical salesman argument, not a
scientific one).
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 14, 2012, 3:23:05 AM7/14/12
to
On Jul 13, 11:15 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/09a1452ae8f89670?hl=en-gb
that would be a bs reply, based on an appeal to your own authority
which is par from you. Infrared energy is emitted from all objects
above 0 deg kelvin, and since the objects in the room are above 0 deg
k the co2 between the glass would absorb the energy as its passing
through the window. Think of it this way bill, the co2 gas would act
as a filter, impeding the flow of energy in a specific part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. The co2 would absorb more IR energy passing
through the glass/gas/glass barrier, compared to no gas, or argon
between the two layers of glass. Absorption then increases the
average kinetic energy of the co2 molecules, which increases molecular
collisions with the container wall, resulting in a higher temperature
of the glass window.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/09a1452ae8f89670?hl=en-gb
which is par from you. Infrared energy is emitted from all objects
above 0 deg kelvin, and since the objects in the room are above 0 deg
k the co2 between the glass would absorb the energy as its passing
through the window. Think of it this way bill, the co2 gas would act
as a filter, impeding the flow of energy in a specific part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. The co2 would absorb more IR energy passing
through the glass/gas/glass barrier, compared to no gas, or argon
between the two layers of glass. Absorption then increases the
average kinetic energy of the co2 molecules, which increases molecular
collisions with the container wall, resulting in a higher temperature
of the glass window.
bjacoby
Jul 14, 2012, 3:25:27 AM7/14/12
to
(mylar space) BLANKET! Well that sure proves that insulation stops
radiative transfer, doesn't it? And anyway, it's already been proved
that CO2 is a mirror! So there you have it. Metalized mylar is an
insulator and CO2 is a radiation mirror. You guys just can't keep up
with the word games, can you? Perhaps some "science" education is in
order...
Paul Aubrin
Jul 14, 2012, 3:40:15 AM7/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:37:41 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>> least 30 years to do an experiment in climate science, so climate
>> science is not yet an experimental science along your own definition.
>
> Human-caused climate change has been going on for tens of thousands of
> years. The laws of physics involved have been known since year 1926.
Yes, we know for more than a century now that some specially shaped gas
>> science is not yet an experimental science along your own definition.
>
> Human-caused climate change has been going on for tens of thousands of
> years. The laws of physics involved have been known since year 1926.
molecules absorb selective bands or radiations in the IR range. That was
not my point.
We hear in this group that human influence explain each and every
exceptional weather event, the snow in winter, the absence of snow in
winter, the drought in Moscow last year, the excessive wetness in UK this
year... nothing is unrelated with AGW. Only religions and cults explain
everything and its opposite. Science, on the opposite, is based on the
possibility to make falsifiable statements and observe from experimental -
observational- data, if the reality confirms or contradicts the candidate
theory.
We are told here that we must wait 30 years to see the very first
observational confirmations of the AGW theory. If no experimental
confirmation of the AGW theory is possible before 30 years, what argument
makes you think it is proved beyond any doubt?
Actually, the few predictions made using climate models some fifteen
years ago are contradicted by the current observational data.
Paul Aubrin
Jul 14, 2012, 3:45:52 AM7/14/12
to
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:15:04 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>> Well. You tell us each day that current global temperatures should be
>> considered high since we had a recent la nina event. La nina trumps CO2
>> as a major global temperature influencing factor. Thus you, yourself,
>> know that la nina has more influence on global temperatures that CO2.
>
> Are you entirely stupid? ENSO is net neutral to global temperatures.
> Every scientist on earth knows that the short-term ENSO fluctuations can
> be far greater than the strength of the underlying warming signal.
> *Every one*.
Every Dawlish says that.
>> Well. You tell us each day that current global temperatures should be
>> considered high since we had a recent la nina event. La nina trumps CO2
>> as a major global temperature influencing factor. Thus you, yourself,
>> know that la nina has more influence on global temperatures that CO2.
>
> Are you entirely stupid? ENSO is net neutral to global temperatures.
> Every scientist on earth knows that the short-term ENSO fluctuations can
> be far greater than the strength of the underlying warming signal.
> *Every one*.
Dawlish
Jul 14, 2012, 3:50:10 AM7/14/12
to
different to the understanding of ENSO of evry single scientist
working in the field?
Paul Aubrin
Jul 14, 2012, 4:01:27 AM7/14/12
to
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:15:04 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>> Well. You tell us each day that current global temperatures should be
>> considered high since we had a recent la nina event. La nina trumps CO2
>> as a major global temperature influencing factor. Thus you, yourself,
>> know that la nina has more influence on global temperatures that CO2.
>
> Are you entirely stupid? ENSO is net neutral to global temperatures.
> Every scientist on earth knows that the short-term ENSO fluctuations can
> be far greater than the strength of the underlying warming signal.
> *Every one*.
Now you see, when you start thinking you can get the answers by yourself:
>> considered high since we had a recent la nina event. La nina trumps CO2
>> as a major global temperature influencing factor. Thus you, yourself,
>> know that la nina has more influence on global temperatures that CO2.
>
> Are you entirely stupid? ENSO is net neutral to global temperatures.
> Every scientist on earth knows that the short-term ENSO fluctuations can
> be far greater than the strength of the underlying warming signal.
> *Every one*.
you state that the humanity induced temperature signal is weak compared
to many natural phenomenons, among them the ENSO. The IPCC scientists
said, it is a predominant one. How can a predominant factor be overridden
by minor perturbations on a 15 years term?
bw
Jul 14, 2012, 6:15:45 AM7/14/12
to
"Paul Aubrin" <chu8...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:5001225f$0$1716$426a...@news.free.fr...
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_1990_and_1992_Assessments/English/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_1992_ipcc_suppl.pdf
In 1992 the IPCC claimed the tropics would warm 2C and poles 4C by 2020
-----------
OUR MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Findings of scientific research since 1990 do not affect our fundamental
understanding of the science of the greenhouse
effect and either confirm or do not justify alteration of the major
conclusions of the first IPCC Scientific Assessment, in particular the
following:
emissions resulting from human activities are s u b s t a n t i a l l y
increasing the atmospheric
concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,
chlorofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide;
the evidence from the modelling studies, from observations and the
sensitivity analyses indicate
that the s e n s i t i v i t y of global mean surface temperature to
doubling CO2, is unlikely to lie
outside the range 1.5° to 4.5°C;
there are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to
the timing, magnitude
and regional patterns of climate change due to our incomplete understanding;
. global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3° to 0.6°C over
the last 100 years;
Dawlish
Jul 14, 2012, 6:20:03 AM7/14/12
to
Best to go and do some research on what the connection is between ENSO
and GW is, pauly.
ENSO is neutral with respect to GW. i.e. over time, it has no effect
on global temperatures.............but GW continues.
Bill Ward
Jul 14, 2012, 11:21:53 AM7/14/12
to
are used in incandescent bulbs precisely because they have low thermal
conductivity, minimizing conductive loss from the filament.
The low TC of CO2 compared to air is the principle behind many of the two-
bottle parlor tricks used to convince kids that CO2 "traps heat" in the
atmosphere.
This may be interesting to some:
<http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/thermal-conductivity-gases.htm>
Bret Cahill
Jul 14, 2012, 11:46:56 AM7/14/12
to
> >>> Blankets
> >>> mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> >>> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> >> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> >> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> >> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
>
> >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACEW_...
> >>> mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> >>> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> >> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> >> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> >> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
>
>
> > 130,000 hits
>
> Hey guys! Science by democratic vote again!
Google hits are "votes?"
> > 130,000 hits
>
> Hey guys! Science by democratic vote again!
Above a denier was denying that blankets reflect heat.
All the denier had to do was google to find out that mylar blankets
reflect heat.
Bret Cahill
Tom P
Jul 14, 2012, 11:58:39 AM7/14/12
to
On 07/10/2012 06:51 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
>> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
>> in hours.
>
> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat: CO2 selectively absorbs some
> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> The atmosphere is already completely opaque to the IR rays in the IR
> frequency bands absorbed by CO2. Thus no more IR energy is absorbed at
> the ground level when CO2 concentrations are increased.
What happens at ground level is not really relevant. What is relevant is
that CO2 absorbs LWR in the higher atmosphere above the cloud level.
The effect is not
> as simplistic as "CO2 traps heat", and the consequences are not as
> straightforward as what you claim.
>
> Overall, the possible direct temperature increase induced by CO2 at the
> altitude in the atmosphere were it can absorb some IR could not exceed
> some 1.2°C (from the residual amount of energy that can be absorbed in
> the CO2 absorption bands). So the 2°C increase required in the
> environmental conferences will never be reached. No action is required.
>
>
Apart from ignoring the feedbacks, you conveniently ignore the fact that
the CO2 absorption bands overlap the WV bands. The saturation vapor
pressure of water drops rapidly with temperature, which means that above
around 8km, CO2 becomes the dominant GHG, and this CO2 absorbs the LWR
from the WV at a lower altitude. This effect can be seen quite clearly
in IR spectral measurements made from satellites.
Are you saying you did not know this?
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:42:57 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>>>> I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>>>> happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>>>> "so-called"
>>>> I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>>>> happening?
>>>
>>>> "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>>>> taxes."
>>>
>
>>>> I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>>>> happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>>>> "so-called"
>>>> I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>>>> happening?
>>>
>>>> "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>>>> taxes."
>>>
>>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>>> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
>>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>>> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>>
Or we can observe Venus.
>>
>> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
>> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
>> in hours.
>
> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> The atmosphere is already completely opaque to the IR rays in the IR
> frequency bands absorbed by CO2. Thus no more IR energy is absorbed at
> the ground level when CO2 concentrations are increased.
What happens at ground level is not really relevant. What is relevant is
that CO2 absorbs LWR in the higher atmosphere above the cloud level.
The effect is not
> as simplistic as "CO2 traps heat", and the consequences are not as
> straightforward as what you claim.
>
> Overall, the possible direct temperature increase induced by CO2 at the
> altitude in the atmosphere were it can absorb some IR could not exceed
> some 1.2°C (from the residual amount of energy that can be absorbed in
> the CO2 absorption bands). So the 2°C increase required in the
> environmental conferences will never be reached. No action is required.
>
>
Apart from ignoring the feedbacks, you conveniently ignore the fact that
the CO2 absorption bands overlap the WV bands. The saturation vapor
pressure of water drops rapidly with temperature, which means that above
around 8km, CO2 becomes the dominant GHG, and this CO2 absorbs the LWR
from the WV at a lower altitude. This effect can be seen quite clearly
in IR spectral measurements made from satellites.
Are you saying you did not know this?
Peter Webb
Jul 14, 2012, 12:04:27 PM7/14/12
to
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:o9mdnXFOeY8ME5zN...@giganews.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:02:56 +0000, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:26:40 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:
>>
>>>> Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
>>>> efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than
>>>> standard single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas
>>>> molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with
>>>> improving a home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are
>>>> replace with argon filled double glazed windows?
>>>
>>> Argon has nothing to do with it. In fact, nothing (vacuum) would be
>>> better.
>>
>> I confirm. Argon is not used for its radiative properties (like all
>> mono- atomic gases is transparent to radiations). Argon is used because
>> its thermal conductivity coefficient is only 0.016 W/m.K when air is
>> 0.024 W/ m.K.
>>
>> In this example, once again, the greenhouse effect is the result of
>> isolation, not of some radiative properties.
>>
>> Are there CO2 filled double or triple glazed windows?
>
> CO2 may be too reactive with adhesives, spacers, etc. Xenon and Krypton
> are used in incandescent bulbs precisely because they have low thermal
> conductivity, minimizing conductive loss from the filament.
Nope. The precise reason they are used is because they are almost completely
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:26:40 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:
>>
>>>> Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
>>>> efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than
>>>> standard single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas
>>>> molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with
>>>> improving a home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are
>>>> replace with argon filled double glazed windows?
>>>
>>> Argon has nothing to do with it. In fact, nothing (vacuum) would be
>>> better.
>>
>> I confirm. Argon is not used for its radiative properties (like all
>> mono- atomic gases is transparent to radiations). Argon is used because
>> its thermal conductivity coefficient is only 0.016 W/m.K when air is
>> 0.024 W/ m.K.
>>
>> In this example, once again, the greenhouse effect is the result of
>> isolation, not of some radiative properties.
>>
>> Are there CO2 filled double or triple glazed windows?
>
> CO2 may be too reactive with adhesives, spacers, etc. Xenon and Krypton
> are used in incandescent bulbs precisely because they have low thermal
> conductivity, minimizing conductive loss from the filament.
inert, their low thermal conductivity is just a bonus.
Bret Cahill
Jul 14, 2012, 12:08:55 PM7/14/12
to
> >> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> >> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> >> scientific theory or candidate theory).
>
> > Human-caused climate change is also not a theory: physics is.
>
> It is mostly politics.
It's hard to imagine anything less effective politically than issues
> >> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> >> scientific theory or candidate theory).
>
> > Human-caused climate change is also not a theory: physics is.
>
> It is mostly politics.
that will impact everyone decades into the future.
If anyone wants to expose/discredit the Chamber of Commerce,
Heartland, Hoover, Heritage, Manhattan, Cato, the Club for Growth, the
Chicago School it's much much easier to just ask their economists The
Question:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
And forget about graphs and 'puter models.
Bret Cahill
Tom P
Jul 14, 2012, 12:26:24 PM7/14/12
to
places. As far as the double glazing thing is concerned, I don't believe
that LW radiation, or absorption thereof, is the primary issue. Windows
lose heat mainly by simple conduction. The relevant thermal
conductivities are -
Air 0.026 (W/mK)
Ar 0.018
CO2 0.017
H2 0.182
N2 0.026
Glass 0.96
In other words, a 1 cm layer of CO2 or Argon will insulate as well as
1.5 cm of air or 55 cm of glass. Since we don't really want windows
nearly 2 feet thick, it makes sense to use double glazing.
Why Argon rather than CO2? A good question. According to Wikipedia
the reason is that the higher viscosity of Argon reduces convection
within the structure. Of course a vacuum would be even better but the
diminishing returns of maintaining the structure against the surrounding
air pressure make it economically less attractive. In the final analysis
there is no point in making the windows better insulators than the walls.
Bill Ward
Jul 14, 2012, 12:32:57 PM7/14/12
to
cheaper, and just as inert:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb>
"While inert gas reduces filament evaporation, it also conducts heat from
the filament, thereby cooling the filament and reducing efficiency. At
constant pressure and temperature, the thermal conductivity of a gas
depends upon the molecular weight of the gas and the cross sectional area
of the gas molecules. Higher molecular weight gasses have lower thermal
conductivity, because both the molecular weight is higher and also the
cross sectional area is higher. Xenon gas improves efficiency because of
its high molecular weight, but is also more expensive, so its use is
limited to smaller lamps.[61]"
Thanks for your comment.
bjacoby
Jul 14, 2012, 12:57:07 PM7/14/12
to
On 7/14/2012 11:46 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Google hits are "votes?"
>
> Above a denier was denying that blankets reflect heat.
>
> All the denier had to do was google to find out that mylar blankets
> reflect heat.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Bret, I know this is hard for you to do, but try to work your brain JUST
> Google hits are "votes?"
>
> Above a denier was denying that blankets reflect heat.
>
> All the denier had to do was google to find out that mylar blankets
> reflect heat.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
a bit?
Mylar "blankets" are NOT "blankets" in spite of the popular name! A
million "hits" on Google does not make them insulators. They are
metalized thin plastic sheet. They do NOT act as "insulators" (How warm
is a metal blanket?) They act by reflecting radiation.
Sure word games is all you warmistas know how to do, but this was
already clearly explained to you above. Insulation does not stop
radiation. It takes REFLECTION. MIRRORS. METAL! duh.
Come on, Bret, you are making yourself look bad again.
Here let me explain it so even you can understand. When a stoner says,
"hey, I scored some good shit!", he doesn't mean he just bought some
feces, it means he got some good drugs for his stash. Sometimes the same
word can imply totally different things.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 14, 2012, 1:33:02 PM7/14/12
to
On Jul 14, 12:25 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/2d683c9332d85392
> On 7/13/2012 2:37 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> >>> Blankets
> >>> mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> >>> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> >> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> >> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> >> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
>
> >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACEW_...
with argon gas, and 1 opening with a double pane glass window filled
with co2. Spectrum analysis confirms the energy loss from the emitted
black body spectrum, as the co2 gas filled window would filter out the
15 um energy passing through the cavity opening, and an argon filled
window would not. Co2 impedes the flow of the emitted energy by
absorption, resulting in the average kinetic energy of the co2
molecules increasing, its a non-reflective insulator. The resulting
increase in co2 molecular average kinetic energy produces more
collisions with other co2 molecules, and the glass walls. Perhaps,
you could address reality, instead of running away.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/2d683c9332d85392
> On 7/13/2012 2:37 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> >>> Blankets
> >>> mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> >>> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> >> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> >> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> >> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
>
>
> > 130,000 hits
>
> Hey guys! Science by democratic vote again! Huh. huh. huh. He said
> (mylar space) BLANKET! Well that sure proves that insulation stops
> radiative transfer, doesn't it? And anyway, it's already been proved
> that CO2 is a mirror! So there you have it. Metalized mylar is an
> insulator and CO2 is a radiation mirror. You guys just can't keep up
> with the word games, can you? Perhaps some "science" education is in
> order...
Think of a blackbody with a cavity kept at room temperature, filled
> > 130,000 hits
>
> Hey guys! Science by democratic vote again! Huh. huh. huh. He said
> (mylar space) BLANKET! Well that sure proves that insulation stops
> radiative transfer, doesn't it? And anyway, it's already been proved
> that CO2 is a mirror! So there you have it. Metalized mylar is an
> insulator and CO2 is a radiation mirror. You guys just can't keep up
> with the word games, can you? Perhaps some "science" education is in
> order...
with argon gas, and 1 opening with a double pane glass window filled
with co2. Spectrum analysis confirms the energy loss from the emitted
black body spectrum, as the co2 gas filled window would filter out the
15 um energy passing through the cavity opening, and an argon filled
window would not. Co2 impedes the flow of the emitted energy by
absorption, resulting in the average kinetic energy of the co2
molecules increasing, its a non-reflective insulator. The resulting
increase in co2 molecular average kinetic energy produces more
collisions with other co2 molecules, and the glass walls. Perhaps,
you could address reality, instead of running away.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Jul 14, 2012, 2:49:52 PM7/14/12
to
On Jul 14, 9:26 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/9a3b019fabf47cc6
> On 07/14/2012 09:23 AM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 11:15 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/09a1452ae8f8967...
I understand thanks, but the point is that co2 may not make a
practical efficient insulator, but neither is the atmosphere, thats
why the comparison is reasonable. I am not arguing that argon doesn’t
make the best gas to fill the double paned window, it molecular mass,
the facts it a noble gas, and its cheap make it practical, but
practical is not the point. Bjacoby declared an insulator must be
reflective, and i have shown how co2 a non-reflective gas will absorb
a portion of the emitted energy from a blackbody source; it will
impede the flow of energy.
The room (cavity of the blackbody source) has a double walled window
transparent to IR say 2-20um (no coatings) which allows thermal
emitted energy to pass through. If the gas between the glass panes is
co2, the 15um band will be subtracted out of from the observed
spectrum, while a pane filled with argon will not. This absorption is
an impedance to the flow of energy, the co2 in this case acts as an
insulator partially due to the fact it absorbs part of the energy
passing through.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/9a3b019fabf47cc6
> On 07/14/2012 09:23 AM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 11:15 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
practical efficient insulator, but neither is the atmosphere, thats
why the comparison is reasonable. I am not arguing that argon doesn’t
make the best gas to fill the double paned window, it molecular mass,
the facts it a noble gas, and its cheap make it practical, but
practical is not the point. Bjacoby declared an insulator must be
reflective, and i have shown how co2 a non-reflective gas will absorb
a portion of the emitted energy from a blackbody source; it will
impede the flow of energy.
The room (cavity of the blackbody source) has a double walled window
transparent to IR say 2-20um (no coatings) which allows thermal
emitted energy to pass through. If the gas between the glass panes is
co2, the 15um band will be subtracted out of from the observed
spectrum, while a pane filled with argon will not. This absorption is
an impedance to the flow of energy, the co2 in this case acts as an
insulator partially due to the fact it absorbs part of the energy
passing through.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages