If CO2 traps heat, then we would have cooler days,

Leonard Abbott

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 9:10:46 AM1/20/07

to

If CO2 traps heat, then we would have cooler days, because not as much
heat would strike the earth .

We would have warmer nights, because heat would not be allowed to
radiate back into outer space.

On a hot day the temprature still reaches
100 degrees and then cools down to 70 degrees at night.

That is a difference of 30 degrees solely from heat radiating, with no
other factors involved.

Temprature variations from radiation should be the only factor in
judging if there is any global warming..........

Tempratures vary too much hour to hour for global warming to be an
factor.

If the world was 3 decreed warmer, than it was a 100 yrs ago . then so
what! there is not one plant or animal, that is threatened by 3
degrees............

Now if we had global freezing, that would be a horse of a different
color!

Melanie

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 9:49:47 AM1/20/07

to

Leonard Abbott leonard...@webtv.net said:
> If CO2 traps heat, then we would have cooler days, because not as much
> heat would strike the earth .
>

You're obviously a leading climate scientist.
Where did you earn your qualifications?

Bullshit U?

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 1:08:08 PM1/20/07

to

Reference to all those really smart guys that profess a degree in
climatology is your only scientific basis?

Climate scientists study statistics of temperature. Their education in
physics and chemistry is minimal. What little education they have in
this field, is cultured to maintain their belief in the
non-scientifically supported belief in AGW.

Every point in actual pyhysics has had to be perverted to make this
fraudulent theory. It is a very easy thing to find the fallacies. But
the maniacs who wish to remold everybodies life, cannot let go of their
dreams and fantasies and that feeling of self importance they get from
being the foretellers of doom and the prominence in society they seek
as they lead us from the sins of our evil carbon dioxide producing
ways.

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.

JimmyD®

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 1:20:42 PM1/20/07

to

I looking forward to the palm trees on Lake Michigan.

hanson

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 1:40:53 PM1/20/07

to

Kent Deathridge <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169316488.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> Reference to all those really smart guys that profess a degree in
> climatology is your only scientific basis?
>
> Climate scientists study statistics of temperature. Their education in
> physics and chemistry is minimal. What little education they have in
> this field, is cultured to maintain their belief in the
> non-scientifically supported belief in AGW.
>
> Every point in actual pyhysics has had to be perverted to make this
> fraudulent theory. It is a very easy thing to find the fallacies. But
> the maniacs who wish to remold everybodies life, cannot let go of their
> dreams and fantasies and that feeling of self importance they get from
> being the foretellers of doom and the prominence in society they seek
> as they lead us from the sins of our evil carbon dioxide producing
> ways.
>
> Deatherage
> CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
>

[Kent]
.. Kent, the many little green idiots may be dreamers with fantasies
but you forgot to mention in your portrayal that the real intensions of
the big time AGW operators is MONEY!. There are $$$multimillions
of graft in the wind for the taking by these green bastards from the
extortions that CO2 treading will bring, ... ... while the climate will
change regardless of CO2- taxing, the extorted money will have
flown into the pockets of sharp green operators and politicians...
... all of whom will be laughing their asses off... over the stupidity of
the little green idiots who helped them in their heist of the century.

Keep up the good work & include the money aspects in your exposés.
Take care, Kent
hanson

-------- The 40 year old scheme of the Green Scam ----------

Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones, in "environmental
groups" who think they do something for the "environment",
when in fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for
(2) who are harvesting the green $$$ that (1) has extorted.

A lot of class 1 & 2 enviros are calling themselves no
longer "environmentalists" but *"conservationists"* now,.
such as foundations, corporats, lawyers, celebs & RICH fat
cats who are conserving those lands for future generations:
Their OWN descendants only, of course, while all the little
green idiots do the hard and dirty work for them & pay!

----- The green Bible & its enviro Theology that says: -------

= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)

Alan Browne

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 2:42:01 PM1/20/07

to

Leonard Abbott wrote:
> If CO2 traps heat, then we would have cooler days, because not as much
> heat would strike the earth .

BXZZZZZZZZZTTTT. Next player please.

davee

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 3:21:12 PM1/20/07

to

Hang on I have missed something vitally important, Something someone
did or said .Thats it boys we have a girl in the trailer park. Hi
Melanie!

Leonard Abbott

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 4:46:40 PM1/20/07

to

(Melanie)

You're obviously a leading climate scientist. Where did you earn your
qualifications?

--------------------------------------------
On an oil rig on the Texas plains freezing my butt off , when the sun
went down and the tempature droped 30 degrees in 8 hours. wise up
stupid,

IF a political agenda develops over science, then all pertaining
scientific datta has no value, because the agenda dictated what
scientists will find.

Bullshit U?

Exxon's Dick Pumping Hanson's Mouth

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 5:30:53 PM1/20/07

to

http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create
Confusion

> Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences
> (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164

> Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and
> associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,
> Ottawa

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html

> Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada.
> Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1115
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=93

> Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University
> of Guelph, Ont.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/McKitrick_Fraud.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1008
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=107
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=142

> Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg;
> environmental consultant

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1165

> Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and
> Sioux Lookout, Ont.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1174
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=88
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

> Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept.
> of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute
> of Technology

> Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University;
> Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of
> State Climatologists

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=912
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9

> Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences,
> University of Virginia

> Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science
> Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

> Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of
> Connecticut

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=241
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25

> Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,
> University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

> Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston,
> Mass.

> Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=82

> Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
> Cave Junction, Ore.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=6

hanson

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 8:17:04 PM1/20/07

to

What is it that you do not understand in here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/d41322bbd8c5f898
Leon, are you missing and yearning for your call code "A.S." ?
hanson

TimK

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 8:28:30 PM1/20/07

to

"Leonard Abbott" <leonard...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2243-45B...@storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net...

You might want to do some reading on how CO2 affects light of different
wavelengths and then re-evaluate calling anyone else stupid, because you
don't know what you're talking about.

Leonard Abbott

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 9:09:00 PM1/20/07

to

Leonard Abbott

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 9:07:30 PM1/20/07

to

Calling Melaniy stupid was uncalled for,but it is clear liberals depend
on the Experts, while others think for themselves.

The left has a global warming agenda, for prophet and for political
power, the right has no agenda,

Experts are paid to come up with positive evidence, if they don't they
are out of a job. Too much money and power depends on global
warming...Experts know that, and keep their jobs

Leonard Abbott

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 9:15:24 PM1/20/07

to

Tim all you have to do to be an expert yourself is, spend $198 for a
themometer, at K-mart, set it out side and watch the tempature fall, It
will fall 30 degreese in 10 hours. I sware...

There is no other reialable test, to witness global cooling...

Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 8:53:45 AM1/21/07

to

hanson wrote:

_________________________ I'D MAKE A MORE CONVINCING FEMALE
(, ______________________ ) IMPERSONATOR IF MY WANG WASN'T OUT
| | ||
| | @@@@ || @@@@ O
| | @@@@@@@ || @@@@@@@ o
| | @@ - - || - @@@@ .
| | @ c/ || '_ @@@
| | _@| |_ || __\@ \@
| | ( \ )/_\ /_ || _\\ (/ ) @\_/)
| | \ \|) / \) || |(__/ / /|
| | |\_/ ( -/ || \___/ ----/_|
| | / \ || ,: '(
| | : _/| || |: \
| | : u | || |: )
| | : | || |: |
| |_______'____,_|_______|| |_____,_|
.---('________________________)--. | / (
|____ __________ _| | /\ )
|___| -o- | |__| -o- | ( \| /
|___| -o- | |__| -o- | | /'=.
b'ger|________| |__|______| '=>/ \
/ \ /|/
,___/|

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 8:18:24 AM1/22/07

to

CO2 doesn't trap heat.

CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.

Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise
steadily, day and night, and would vary according to the CO2 concentration
at various locations.

"Leonard Abbott" <leonard...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:11294-45B...@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 9:43:49 AM1/22/07

to

CO2 doesn't trap heat.

CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.

Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise
steadily, day and night, and would vary according to the CO2 concentration
at various locations.

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169316488.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Lloyd Parker

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 6:55:47 AM1/22/07

to

In article <F44th.22211$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>CO2 doesn't trap heat.
>
>CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.
>

Which has the net effect of trapping heat.

>Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise
>steadily, day and night, and would vary according to the CO2 concentration
>at various locations.
>

Yes, if the earth were, say, the size of a tennis ball and could change T
rapidly.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 12:54:17 PM1/22/07

to

"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ep2qb0$95p$8...@leto.cc.emory.edu...

> In article <F44th.22211$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >CO2 doesn't trap heat.
> >
> >CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.
> >
>
> Which has the net effect of trapping heat.

Nope and the radiation isn't trapped either. Precise language is needed to
understand science and to convey science to others else any debate about
whether or not there is global warming is nonsense.

>
> >Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise
> >steadily, day and night, and would vary according to the CO2
concentration
> >at various locations.
> >
>
> Yes, if the earth were, say, the size of a tennis ball and could change T
> rapidly.

You under estimate the heat.

z

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 3:00:05 PM1/22/07

to

Bill Habr wrote:
> CO2 doesn't trap heat.
>
> CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.
>
> Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise
> steadily, day and night,

Yes; and if a blanket could really trap heat, the temperature of your
body at night under the blanket would rise steadily until you burst
into flame at 5 AM. And yet, somehow, people persist in the belief that
if they put on a blanket, they will be warmer. A clear perversion of
all scientific laws and principles.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 4:38:35 PM1/22/07

to

"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1169496005.6...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

Since the atmosphere isn't a blanket your point is what that argument by
analogy trumps science?

z

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 5:10:10 PM1/22/07

to

That your concept of "trapping heat_>temperature rising steadily" has
some mothholes in it.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 11:23:59 AM1/23/07

to

"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message

news:1169503810.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 11:24:36 AM1/23/07

to

"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message

news:1169503810.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps you are thinking of your blanket?

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 11:34:43 AM1/23/07

to

"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message

news:1169503810.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

Care to explain?

Roedy Green

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 11:51:30 AM1/23/07

to

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:23:59 GMT, "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>> > > > Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise
>> > > > steadily, day and night,
>> > >
>> > > Yes; and if a blanket could really trap heat, the temperature of your
>> > > body at night under the blanket would rise steadily until you burst
>> > > into flame at 5 AM. And yet, somehow, people persist in the belief

Greenhouses trap heat. They are clearly warmer than outside the
greenhouse, even without a heater. Yet the temperature does not rise
steadily day and night. Heat radiates out. They are not perfect heat
traps.

Garden greenhouses work on the same principle as GREENHOUSE gasses.
High frequency light can get in, but inside it is converted to low
frequency light (heat) that can't get back out.

Did you not learn about how greenhouses work in high school? Do you
not remember orbitals and quantum leaps that explain how CO2 traps
heat? If you were not interested back then, but have developed a
belated interest, go to your library to fill in your basic science
knowledge gaps rather than shooting your mouth off with ignorant
speculations.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
Priorities: Prevent global climate destabilisation. End both wars. Prepare for oil shortages.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 1:05:29 PM1/23/07

to

"Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:tuecr2hs90qfl64il...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:23:59 GMT, "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
> >> > > > Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would
rise
> >> > > > steadily, day and night,
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes; and if a blanket could really trap heat, the temperature of
your
> >> > > body at night under the blanket would rise steadily until you burst
> >> > > into flame at 5 AM. And yet, somehow, people persist in the belief
>
> Greenhouses trap heat. They are clearly warmer than outside the
> greenhouse, even without a heater. Yet the temperature does not rise
> steadily day and night. Heat radiates out. They are not perfect heat
> traps.
>
> Garden greenhouses work on the same principle as GREENHOUSE gasses.
> High frequency light can get in, but inside it is converted to low
> frequency light (heat) that can't get back out.
>
> Did you not learn about how greenhouses work in high school?

A greenhouse is enclosed and therefore does not have convection loss this is
the main reason greenhouses work.

Do you
> not remember orbitals and quantum leaps that explain how CO2 traps
> heat?

CO2 absorbs and emits radiation but it does not trap heat. To say that CO2
traps heat is to use a discription that is over 100 years out of date.

If you were not interested back then, but have developed a
> belated interest, go to your library to fill in your basic science
> knowledge gaps rather than shooting your mouth off with ignorant
> speculations.

Perhaps I went to a better high school.

If you don't believe me you could ask this guy:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/cv/

Alistair B. Fraser
Emeritus Professor of Meteorology
Pennsylvania State University

Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, 2001
Professor of Meteorology, 1978
Ph.D., Imperial College, University of London, 1968
B.Sc., Math & Phys, U. of British Columbia, 1962

Randy Poe

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 1:09:08 PM1/23/07

to

Bill Habr wrote:
> "Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:tuecr2hs90qfl64il...@4ax.com...

> > Garden greenhouses work on the same principle as GREENHOUSE gasses.
> > High frequency light can get in, but inside it is converted to low
> > frequency light (heat) that can't get back out.
> >
> > Did you not learn about how greenhouses work in high school?
>
> A greenhouse is enclosed and therefore does not have convection loss this is
> the main reason greenhouses work.

How much energy do you think is transported out of the atmosphere
into space by convection?

The only mechanism for significant amounts of heat to leave the
atmosphere is radiation. If you decrease the radiant energy, more
energy is left in the atmosphere. Simple bookkeeping.

- Randy

z

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 1:31:36 PM1/23/07

to

Bill Habr wrote:

> Care to explain?

Why the statement "CO2 traps heat" does not imply that the temperature
would rise steadily day and night? I would think it was incumbent upon
you, as the author of the statement "Were CO2 to trap heat, the
temperature of the atmosphere would rise steadily, day and night," to
provide some justification for said statement, since it can be observed
to be false, both theoretically and in practice.

z

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 1:35:35 PM1/23/07

to

Bill Habr wrote:

> CO2 absorbs and emits radiation but it does not trap heat. To say that CO2
> traps heat is to use a discription that is over 100 years out of date.

And yet, you used the concept when you said "Were CO2 to trap heat, the

temperature of the atmosphere would rise steadily, day and night,"

Well, letting bygones be bygones, is it your contention, then, that
since "CO2 absorbs and emits radiation but it does not trap heat", that
1) "the temperature of the atmosphere would rise steadily day and
night", 2) the temperature of the atmosphere would stabilize at a
higher temperature than if there were no CO2 absorbing and emitting
radiation, 3) the temperature of the atmosphere would stabilize at a
lower temperature than if there were no CO2 absorbing and emitting
radiation, 4) there would be no effect on temperature?

Randy Poe

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 2:44:19 PM1/23/07

to

Please specify precisely how the atmosphere differs from a
blanket in how it affects the transport of heat energy.

- Randy

God

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 3:50:19 PM1/23/07

to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Every point in actual pyhysics has had to be perverted to make this
> fraudulent theory. It is a very easy thing to find the fallacies. But
> the maniacs who wish to remold everybodies life, cannot let go of their
> dreams and fantasies and that feeling of self importance they get from
> being the foretellers of doom and the prominence in society they seek
> as they lead us from the sins of our evil carbon dioxide producing
> ways.

Mon Jan 22, 8:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Chief executives of 10 major corporations urged Congress on
Monday
to require limits on greenhouse gases this year, contending voluntary
efforts to
combat climate change are inadequate.

The call for immediate action came on the eve of President Bush's State
of the Union address in which he is expected to reiterate that the industry
on
its own is making progress in curtailing the growth of heat-trapping
emissions
without the need of government intervention.

But the executives and leaders of four major environmental organizations
said in
a letter to Bush that mandatory emissions caps are needed to reduce the flow
of
carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

"We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide
market-driven approach to climate protection," the executives, part of a
coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, said in a letter to
the
president.

The executives, representing major utilities, aluminum and chemical
companies
and financial institutions, said the cornerstone of climate policy should be
an
economy-wide emissions cap-and-trade system.

Members of the group include chief executives of Alcoa Inc., BP America
Inc.,
DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp.
...

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 3:46:36 PM1/23/07

to

"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169575748....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

I answered your question:

Did you not learn about how greenhouses work in high school?

If you wanted a different answer you should have asked a different question.

God

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 3:58:19 PM1/23/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> CO2 doesn't trap heat.
>
> CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.

Unless it emits radiation exclusively in the direction from which it was
absorbed, then it's gonna emit some back in the same direction and that is
the same as a reflection back toward the ground in this instance, and that
means that it's gonna trap heat at the surface.

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise
> steadily, day and night, and would vary according to the CO2 concentration
> at various locations.

Nope. Wrong again. The radiation would be continually frequency
downshifted and eventually escape as radio waves even if all IR was trapped.
But since resistance to escape are just provided in various frequency
windows, the energy can still be trapped at the surface while a new thermal
equilibrium is established.

.

God

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 4:00:17 PM1/23/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Since the atmosphere isn't a blanket your point is what that argument by
> analogy trumps science?

Both operate on the same principle, resisting the flow of heat to the
outside world.

The analogy is fine.

God

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 4:03:43 PM1/23/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> A greenhouse is enclosed and therefore does not have convection loss this
is
> the main reason greenhouses work.

The upper atmosphere is closed to convection as well in any practical
sense. And of course a greenhouse has lots of convection on it's interior
and exterior.

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Perhaps I went to a better high school.

Clarity of formulation is good, but not required and even counter
productive when explaining to a monkey why putting a loaded gun in their
mouth is a bad idea.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 4:01:00 PM1/23/07

to

"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message

news:1169577335.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

>
> Bill Habr wrote:
>
> > CO2 absorbs and emits radiation but it does not trap heat. To say that
CO2
> > traps heat is to use a discription that is over 100 years out of date.
>
> And yet, you used the concept when you said "Were CO2 to trap heat, the
> temperature of the atmosphere would rise steadily, day and night,"

The "were" in the statement express the fact that "CO2 to trap heat" is
contrary to fact.

>
> Well, letting bygones be bygones, is it your contention, then, that
> since "CO2 absorbs and emits radiation but it does not trap heat", that
> 1) "the temperature of the atmosphere would rise steadily day and
> night", 2) the temperature of the atmosphere would stabilize at a
> higher temperature than if there were no CO2 absorbing and emitting
> radiation, 3) the temperature of the atmosphere would stabilize at a
> lower temperature than if there were no CO2 absorbing and emitting
> radiation, 4) there would be no effect on temperature?
>

It means just what it says that CO2 absorbs and emits radiation but it does
not trap heat.

To answer the rest of the question:
There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to say that the radiation is emitted
in all directions thus there is enough radiated toward earth so one can say
that the earth and lower atmosphere are warmer than they would be in the
absence of CO2.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 4:02:03 PM1/23/07

to

"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1169581459.4...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

A blanket supresses convection the atmosphere doesn't.

God

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 4:07:53 PM1/23/07

to

"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote

Bill is suffering from a childish sense of absolutism in which if something
is trapped, it can not escape. Hence if heat is trapped, it can not escape,
and temperature rise must continue to infinity.

But since no traps are foolproof, it should be clear to any fool that by
using Bill's logic, nothing can be trapped and hence the word "trapped" has
no meaning.

So what Bill should be complaining about is the inclusion of the word
"trapped" in the dictionary, since nothing can be trapped to his
satisfaction.

rpa...@eas.slu.edu

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 4:17:42 PM1/23/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Melanie wrote:
> > Leonard Abbott leonard...@webtv.net said:
> > > If CO2 traps heat, then we would have cooler days, because not as much
> > > heat would strike the earth .
> > >
> > You're obviously a leading climate scientist.
> > Where did you earn your qualifications?
> >
> >
> > Bullshit U?
>
> Reference to all those really smart guys that profess a degree in
> climatology is your only scientific basis?
>
> Climate scientists study statistics of temperature. Their education in
> physics and chemistry is minimal. What little education they have in
> this field, is cultured to maintain their belief in the
> non-scientifically supported belief in AGW.
>

> Every point in actual pyhysics has had to be perverted to make this
> fraudulent theory. It is a very easy thing to find the fallacies. But
> the maniacs who wish to remold everybodies life, cannot let go of their
> dreams and fantasies and that feeling of self importance they get from
> being the foretellers of doom and the prominence in society they seek
> as they lead us from the sins of our evil carbon dioxide producing
> ways.
>

> Deatherage
> CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.

Why do you persist is posting this kind of foolishness? Climate
scientists are meteorologists, physicists, chemists and mathematicans.
Take a look at Hansen, Mann or any other climate scientist. They are
all hard science degrees. The global warming detractors are all public
relations, talk show hosts and politicians. You persist in your
diatribes simply because you are unwilling to take the time to learn.

Randy Poe

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 4:24:27 PM1/23/07

to

Bill Habr wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1169575748....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bill Habr wrote:
> > > "Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:tuecr2hs90qfl64il...@4ax.com...
> > > > Garden greenhouses work on the same principle as GREENHOUSE gasses.
> > > > High frequency light can get in, but inside it is converted to low
> > > > frequency light (heat) that can't get back out.
> > > >
> > > > Did you not learn about how greenhouses work in high school?
> > >
> > > A greenhouse is enclosed and therefore does not have convection loss
> this is
> > > the main reason greenhouses work.
> >
> > How much energy do you think is transported out of the atmosphere
> > into space by convection?
> >
> > The only mechanism for significant amounts of heat to leave the
> > atmosphere is radiation. If you decrease the radiant energy, more
> > energy is left in the atmosphere. Simple bookkeeping.
> >

> I answered your question:
> Did you not learn about how greenhouses work in high school?

You said: "Greenhouses work because they don't have convection".

The atmosphere doesn't have convection (into space). So how
does the energy transport differ from a greenhouse again?

> If you wanted a different answer you should have asked a different question.

OK: If you reduce the energy radiated from the atmosphere
to space, will that cause the temperature to go up, go down,
or stay the same?

- Randy

Randy Poe

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 4:26:59 PM1/23/07

to

> A blanket supresses convection the atmosphere doesn't.

Energy is transported by convection, conduction, or radiation.
A blanket reduces all three. By reducing heat loss, you raise
temperature.

The atmosphere does not lose energy to space by convection
or conduction. All that's left is radiation. If you reduce radiation,
you reduce heat loss. By reducing heat loss, you raise temperature.

- Randy

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 5:29:38 PM1/23/07

to

"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1169587467.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

>
> Bill Habr wrote:
> > "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1169575748....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Bill Habr wrote:
> > > > "Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > > > news:tuecr2hs90qfl64il...@4ax.com...
> > > > > Garden greenhouses work on the same principle as GREENHOUSE
gasses.
> > > > > High frequency light can get in, but inside it is converted to low
> > > > > frequency light (heat) that can't get back out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you not learn about how greenhouses work in high school?
> > > >
> > > > A greenhouse is enclosed and therefore does not have convection loss
> > this is
> > > > the main reason greenhouses work.
> > >
> > > How much energy do you think is transported out of the atmosphere
> > > into space by convection?
> > >
> > > The only mechanism for significant amounts of heat to leave the
> > > atmosphere is radiation. If you decrease the radiant energy, more
> > > energy is left in the atmosphere. Simple bookkeeping.
> > >
> > I answered your question:
> > Did you not learn about how greenhouses work in high school?
>
> You said: "Greenhouses work because they don't have convection".
>
> The atmosphere doesn't have convection (into space). So how
> does the energy transport differ from a greenhouse again?

A greenhouse suppress convection the atmosphere doesn't.

>
> > If you wanted a different answer you should have asked a different
question.
>
> OK: If you reduce the energy radiated from the atmosphere
> to space, will that cause the temperature to go up, go down,
> or stay the same?
>
> - Randy
>

You will have to be more precise with your question

God

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 5:53:18 PM1/23/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> A blanket supresses convection the atmosphere doesn't.

Actually it does, since there is no convection at high altitudes. Just
not enough pressure difference to do it.

D Smith

unread,

Jan 24, 2007, 12:09:33 AM1/24/07

to

"God" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> writes:

Convective transfer is basically limited to the troposphere (averages
about 11km in height). There is some circulation above that (in the
stratosphere), but it is significantly less.

BUT, any evaluation of energy transport must look at ALL forms with
significant transfer rates. In the atmosphere, we've got radiation and
convection. We also need to remember that convection transfers energy two
ways: in the form of thermal energy (the heat content of the air), and in
latent form (associated with the transport of water and the energy
associated with phase change - gas, liquid, or solid).

If the lower atmosphere did not allow convection, and radiation was the
only way to move energy away from the surface, then the earth's surface
would be a LOT hotter than it is.

I think this thread started with comments about greenhouses. The
radiation transfer characteristics of greenhouses are NOT a factor - the
interior heating is the result of trapping air at the surface (blocking
of convection). Simplest forms of evidence: plastic greenhouses that are
transparent to IR work just as well as glass ones, and glass ones without
walls (where the roof still has its radiative effect, if it exists, but
air can move freely) don't heat up much (if at all).

We're stuck with the "greenhouse effect" analogy, even though radiation
plays different roles in the atmosphere and in greenhouses, but the
analogy in which restrictions in energy transfer lead to increasing
temperatures in still useful.

Lloyd Parker

unread,

Jan 24, 2007, 4:50:28 AM1/24/07

to

In article <gIuth.51791$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,

Semantics. An electron or proton doesn't really "spin" either but we still
use that terminology.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 24, 2007, 11:33:40 AM1/24/07

to

"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ep7rnm$of2$3...@leto.cc.emory.edu...

First, saying "CO2 traps heat" is bad science.
.
Second, it is about understanding. For example, we say the sun rises and
sets even though most people understand that the earth is rotating on its
axis but it is evident that for many people saying CO2 traps heat does not
equal CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.

VistaKing

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 1:15:30 AM1/25/07

to

"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote

> Semantics. An electron or proton doesn't really "spin" either but we
still
> use that terminology.

The odd thing is, that if they orbit then the spin of the orbit is the same
stuff as their native spin.

The composing field must fold back on itself in some circular pattern so
that the final result is stable under perturbation.

VistaKing

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 1:17:10 AM1/25/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ETLth.22561

> First, saying "CO2 traps heat" is bad science.

Wrong, it's absolutely accurate.

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ETLth.22561

> Second, it is about understanding. For example, we say the sun rises and
> sets even though most people understand that the earth is rotating on its
> axis but it is evident that for many people saying CO2 traps heat does not
> equal CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.

The average AmeriKKKan thinks the earth rotates around the sun once a day.

Astounding ignorance.

z

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 11:23:56 AM1/25/07

to

Well, if you think they don't understand that CO2 absorbs and emits
radiation, then what, in your opinion, is it that they think? For
instance, what do you think i believe if I say that "CO2 traps heat
radiating out from the earth's surface"?

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 1:28:48 PM1/25/07

to

"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message

news:1169742236.7...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

I have no idea what they or you think.

I am guessing that you think that somehow heat is actually trapped or
perhaps radiation emitted by CO2 is unidirectional.
Since the analogy to a greenhouse or a closed car is easily demonstrated to
be wrong (leave the greenhouse door open or open a couple of windows on the
car) what is gained by using them?

Balanced View

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 3:57:51 PM1/25/07

to

Bill Habr wrote:

>
> I am guessing that you think that somehow heat is actually trapped or
> perhaps radiation emitted by CO2 is unidirectional.
> Since the analogy to a greenhouse or a closed car is easily demonstrated to
> be wrong (leave the greenhouse door open or open a couple of windows on the
> car) what is gained by using them?
>
>
>

The earth is like the same car or green house with the window open a
tad, some heat escapes but not all of it ;~) The car still warms up.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 4:08:25 PM1/25/07

to

"Balanced View" <Ni...@nill.net> wrote in message
news:epb5fh$i6q$1...@aioe.org...

A bad analogy and still worse science.

My room warms up if I have the heater on therefore the earth is like my room
when I have the heater on?

Lloyd Parker

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 11:01:23 AM1/25/07

to

In article <AF6uh.13066$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,

Since electrons don't really spin, why do we still call it spin?

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 6:14:33 PM1/25/07

to

"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message

news:epb5r8$all$4...@leto.cc.emory.edu...

Would you actually teach someone that electrons really spin on its axis like
the earth?

If someone asked in this newsgroup "If electrons spin then they must act
differently than we think?" what would be you answer "Yes they actually spin
but no they would not act differently than we think"?

If the spin of electrons were a political topic and "spin" were an
emotionally loaded word what would you do?

Balanced View

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 6:54:15 PM1/25/07

to

Why you guys have to take something incredibly simple and beyond dispute
as the atmosphere retaining heat into a "how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin" argument is beyond a sensible persons understanding.

It's quite simple the sun shines, the earth warms. The atmosphere
is the "fiberglass pink" of our world, it doesn't stop all the heat,
but keeps it a reasonably bearable temperature. You add more insulation
the heat goes up.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 7:25:42 PM1/25/07

to

"Balanced View" <Ni...@nill.net> wrote in message

news:epbfpj$ae8$1...@aioe.org...

> Bill Habr wrote:
> > "Balanced View" <Ni...@nill.net> wrote in message
> > news:epb5fh$i6q$1...@aioe.org...
> >> Bill Habr wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am guessing that you think that somehow heat is actually trapped or
> >>> perhaps radiation emitted by CO2 is unidirectional.
> >>> Since the analogy to a greenhouse or a closed car is easily
demonstrated
> > to
> >>> be wrong (leave the greenhouse door open or open a couple of windows
on
> > the
> >>> car) what is gained by using them?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The earth is like the same car or green house with the window open a
> >> tad, some heat escapes but not all of it ;~) The car still warms up.
> >
> > A bad analogy and still worse science.
> >
> > My room warms up if I have the heater on therefore the earth is like my
room
> > when I have the heater on?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Why you guys have to take something incredibly simple and beyond dispute
> as the atmosphere retaining heat into a "how many angels can dance on
> the head of a pin" argument is beyond a sensible persons understanding.

Why do you want to perpetuate myths?

What is wrong with the truth?
Is it to difficult for simple minds like yours to understand?

Are you afraid if people actually know science they will disagree with your
politics?

Balanced View

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 8:24:55 PM1/25/07

to

Bill Habr wrote:
> "Balanced View" <Ni...@nill.net> wrote in message

>>>> The earth is like the same car or green house with the window open a

>>>> tad, some heat escapes but not all of it ;~) The car still warms up.
>>> A bad analogy and still worse science.
>>>
>>> My room warms up if I have the heater on therefore the earth is like my
> room
>>> when I have the heater on?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Why you guys have to take something incredibly simple and beyond dispute
>> as the atmosphere retaining heat into a "how many angels can dance on
>> the head of a pin" argument is beyond a sensible persons understanding.
>
>
> Why do you want to perpetuate myths?

What myth? When the sun shines the earth warms up? That the atmosphere
retains heat? I learned that when the first of the suns rays hit my
infant brow over 50 years ago.

>
> What is wrong with the truth?
> Is it to difficult for simple minds like yours to understand?
>
> Are you afraid if people actually know science they will disagree with your
> politics?
>
>

What truth and what politics? What I'm talking about has nothing to do
with politics, or advanced science, it's common sense. Read the below
again and then phone your former kindergarten teacher for a refresher
course.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 26, 2007, 1:44:33 PM1/26/07

to

"Balanced View" <Ni...@nill.net> wrote in message

news:epbl59$l0f$1...@aioe.org...

> Bill Habr wrote:
> > "Balanced View" <Ni...@nill.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>> The earth is like the same car or green house with the window open a
> >>>> tad, some heat escapes but not all of it ;~) The car still warms up.

> >>> A bad analogy and still worse science.
> >>>
> >>> My room warms up if I have the heater on therefore the earth is like
my
> > room
> >>> when I have the heater on?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Why you guys have to take something incredibly simple and beyond
dispute
> >> as the atmosphere retaining heat into a "how many angels can dance on
> >> the head of a pin" argument is beyond a sensible persons understanding.
> >
> >
> > Why do you want to perpetuate myths?
>
> What myth?

That:

The earth is like the same car or green house with the window open a tad,
some heat escapes but not all of it ;~) The car still warms up.

The earth isn't like that

and

It's quite simple the sun shines, the earth warms. The atmosphere is the
"fiberglass pink" of our world, it doesn't stop all the heat, but keeps it a
reasonably bearable temperature. You add more insulation the heat goes up.

Were the atmosphere to act like insulation it would also insulate us from
the heat of the sun.

When the sun shines the earth warms up? That the atmosphere
> retains heat? I learned that when the first of the suns rays hit my
> infant brow over 50 years ago.

And you stayed at the infant level.

> >
> > What is wrong with the truth?
> > Is it to difficult for simple minds like yours to understand?
> >
> > Are you afraid if people actually know science they will disagree with
your
> > politics?
> >
> >
>
>

> What truth and what politics?

Truth:
That CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do
> with politics, or advanced science, it's common sense.

It may be common sense to an infant or kindergartener but it is not science.

>Read the below
> again and then phone your former kindergarten teacher for a refresher
> course.

> >
> >> It's quite simple the sun shines, the earth warms. The atmosphere
> >> is the "fiberglass pink" of our world, it doesn't stop all the heat,
> >> but keeps it a reasonably bearable temperature. You add more insulation
> >> the heat goes up.
>

The earth doesn't act that way, what is wrong with telling people how it
actually works?

VistaKing

unread,

Jan 27, 2007, 1:52:10 AM1/27/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Would you actually teach someone that electrons really spin on its axis
like
> the earth?

Oh yes. As a first approximation model, of course.

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> If the spin of electrons were a political topic and "spin" were an
> emotionally loaded word what would you do?

If denialist filth of your kind were to make electron spin an political
topic, I would laugh at your ignorance, just as I do now with your GW
denialism, and ignorance of science.

Nothing else would change since the science of electron spin - just as the
science of climate change - would not change.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 27, 2007, 9:53:23 AM1/27/07

to

"VistaKing" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%zCuh.3242$WL2...@read1.cgocable.net...

>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > Would you actually teach someone that electrons really spin on its axis
> like
> > the earth?
>
> Oh yes. As a first approximation model, of course.
>
>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > If the spin of electrons were a political topic and "spin" were an
> > emotionally loaded word what would you do?
>
> If denialist filth of your kind were to make electron spin an political
> topic, I would laugh at your ignorance, just as I do now with your GW
> denialism, and ignorance of science.

What denialism?
This thread is about the misconceptions in the first post.

Do you agree that " If CO2 traps heat, then we would have cooler days"?

I don't and I explained why. A host of confused ideas were presented as to
why I was wrong and I answer them.

Apparently you believe that an explanation that at best is a poor analogy
and at worst bad science is the best way to understand things, I don't.

Balanced View

unread,

Jan 27, 2007, 10:26:53 AM1/27/07

to

Bill Habr wrote:
> "Balanced View" <Ni...@nill.net> wrote in message

snipped

>
>
>
>>>> It's quite simple the sun shines, the earth warms. The atmosphere
>>>> is the "fiberglass pink" of our world, it doesn't stop all the heat,
>>>> but keeps it a reasonably bearable temperature. You add more insulation
>>>> the heat goes up.
>
>
> The earth doesn't act that way, what is wrong with telling people how it
> actually works?
>
>
>
>

It works the way I claimed, without an atmosphere earth would be like
the moon. The atmosphere acts like insulation in a house, it slows down
the entering and exiting of heat creating an equilibrium, but doesn't
stop it.

Anything you do to the atmosphere will have some effect on temperature,
and if you don't think burning up a couple hundreds millions years of
hydrocarbon deposits in two hundred years has not had an effect you are
not worth discussing climate change with.

VistaKing

unread,

Jan 27, 2007, 12:06:00 PM1/27/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> What denialism?

Yours.

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> This thread is about the misconceptions in the first post.

Yours.

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Do you agree that " If CO2 traps heat, then we would have cooler days"?

Of course not. Heat is generated through the absorption of sunlight by
the surface of the earth through a wide range of frequencies CO2 blocks IR.
A narrow range. Hence there is more IR from below than from above.

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Apparently you believe that an explanation that at best is a poor analogy
> and at worst bad science is the best way to understand things, I don't.

Of course you do. You just aren't smart enough to realize it.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 27, 2007, 3:25:34 PM1/27/07

to

"VistaKing" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:pzLuh.3343$WL2....@read1.cgocable.net...

>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > What denialism?
>
> Yours.

Can you explain what you think I am denying and why you think that?
Cite an example from this thread, please.

>
>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > This thread is about the misconceptions in the first post.
>
> Yours.

Mine wasn't the first post.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 27, 2007, 3:40:20 PM1/27/07

to

"VistaKing" aka wrote in message
news:pzLuh.3343$WL2....@read1.cgocable.net...
>
<snip>

In the first post in this thread, note the author:
Leonard Abbott" <leonard...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11294-45B...@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...

> If CO2 traps heat, then we would have cooler days, because not as much
> heat would strike the earth .
>

> We would have warmer nights, because heat would not be allowed to
> radiate back into outer space.
>
> On a hot day the temprature still reaches
> 100 degrees and then cools down to 70 degrees at night.
>
> That is a difference of 30 degrees solely from heat radiating, with no
> other factors involved.
>
> Temprature variations from radiation should be the only factor in
> judging if there is any global warming..........
>
> Tempratures vary too much hour to hour for global warming to be an
> factor.
>
> If the world was 3 decreed warmer, than it was a 100 yrs ago . then so
> what! there is not one plant or animal, that is threatened by 3
> degrees............
>
> Now if we had global freezing, that would be a horse of a different
> color!
>
>

To which I replied:

CO2 doesn't trap heat.

CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.

Were CO2 to trap heat, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise
steadily, day and night, and would vary according to the CO2 concentration
at various locations.

Now an ignorant jackass might believe that saying what I said is denying
global warming or global cooling or what ever it is that you think I am
denying but an intelligent person wouldn't .

VistaKing

unread,

Jan 28, 2007, 6:37:36 PM1/28/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:UMOuh.23184

> To which I replied:
> CO2 doesn't trap heat.

And you were laughed at and shown to be childishly wrong.

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:UMOuh.23184

> CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.

Correct. Emits it in a random direction, sometimes down. Resulting in
the trapping of heat near the surface and surface warming.

Please do try and pay attention next time.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 28, 2007, 6:59:36 PM1/28/07

to

"VistaKing" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:roavh.18301$Ah....@read2.cgocable.net...

>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:UMOuh.23184
> > To which I replied:
> > CO2 doesn't trap heat.
>
> And you were laughed at and shown to be childishly wrong.

No one showed me to be wrong.

And I sill have no idea what you think I was denying.

>
>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:UMOuh.23184
> > CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.
>
> Correct. Emits it in a random direction, sometimes down. Resulting in
> the trapping of heat near the surface and surface warming.

Emits it in a random direction, sometimes down. Resulting in more heat near

the surface and surface warming.

The heat is not trapped except as a bad analogy.

>
> Please do try and pay attention next time.

Why don't you pay attention.

VistaKing

unread,

Jan 28, 2007, 7:10:45 PM1/28/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> And I sill have no idea what you think I was denying.

You still have no clue... Yup. You got that right.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 28, 2007, 7:59:42 PM1/28/07

to

"VistaKing" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:vTavh.18309$Ah.1...@read2.cgocable.net...

>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > And I sill have no idea what you think I was denying.
>
> You still have no clue... Yup. You got that right.
>
>

I know that you know I have denied global warming, global cooling or climate
change with anything I have said, so what do you think I denied?
And please cite.

Failure to do so on your next post in this thread will be an admission that
I haven't denied global warming, global cooling or climate change. And if
you try to it will show your ignorance.

You are so to speak trapped.

VistaKing

unread,

Jan 28, 2007, 8:07:35 PM1/28/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:2Gbvh.75

> I know that you know I have denied global warming, global cooling or
climate
> change with anything I have said, so what do you think I denied?

That's nice Billieboy You just take a nice nappies now. Lays your little
fonkused headzies down and clozies your eyezies, and stop breathing.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 28, 2007, 8:55:06 PM1/28/07

to

On Jan 27, 9:26 am, Balanced View <N...@nill.net> wrote:
> Bill Habr wrote:

> > "Balanced View" <N...@nill.net> wrote in message snipped

>
>
>
> >>>> It's quite simple the sun shines, the earth warms. The atmosphere
> >>>> is the "fiberglass pink" of our world, it doesn't stop all the heat,
> >>>> but keeps it a reasonably bearable temperature. You add more insulation
> >>>> the heat goes up.
>
> > The earth doesn't act that way, what is wrong with telling people how it

> > actually works?It works the way I claimed, without an atmosphere earth would be like

> the moon. The atmosphere acts like insulation in a house, it slows down
> the entering and exiting of heat creating an equilibrium, but doesn't
> stop it.

HAHAHAHA
You sound like some 12 year old just making it up as he goes along. So
how does the atmosphere keep the surface cooler (the moon is 107C),
and then turn around and cause it to heat up also. Just kinda mumble
on through. No one will notice that you don't have any valid
theoretical science at all. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

A black rock at the equator will reach 90C. So explain to me how the
earth would all be frozen over without grenhouse gases. hahahahahahah
If you measure the radiation that passes through the atmosphere to
reach the surface, this is exactly the temperature it should create.
No radiation from the atmosphere. No IRs from CO2. An object in the
solar constant in space, will reach a definite temperature of 121C,
at which it radiates equivelent to what it recieves. It will not hang
in some 'equilibrium balance', waiting to be perturbed into runaway
effect, retard and company.
hahahahaha

An object like the lunar lander of the Apollo missions, goes to 250C
in the sunlight on the moon. This is the radiation from the moon and
sun combined.
Obviously the lower energy infrared photons beyond 2um do not pass
through air. On earth, the radiation from the earth is absorbed by the
air around you and channeled away from the surface by convection. Thus
you do not feel the degree of suface radiation like you would on the
moon. Since this fact can be confirmed in the laboratory, please
explain what the hell you are talking about. Exactly what infrared
frequencies and how much energy flux is being retained in the system
due to your 100ppm CO2????
hahahahcrackpothahahahahcrackpothahahahcrackpothahah

Go ahead then. Back to your juvenile theoretical fabrication of your
12 year old mentality CO2Phobiac club.
OOOooohhhh, lets talk about absorbing IRs,,hahahahahaha

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies

Phil.

unread,

Jan 28, 2007, 11:09:00 PM1/28/07

to

On Jan 28, 8:55 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:26 am, Balanced View <N...@nill.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Habr wrote:
> > > "Balanced View" <N...@nill.net> wrote in message snipped
>
> > >>>> It's quite simple the sun shines, the earth warms. The atmosphere
> > >>>> is the "fiberglass pink" of our world, it doesn't stop all the heat,
> > >>>> but keeps it a reasonably bearable temperature. You add more insulation
> > >>>> the heat goes up.
>
> > > The earth doesn't act that way, what is wrong with telling people how it
> > > actually works?It works the way I claimed, without an atmosphere earth would be like
> > the moon. The atmosphere acts like insulation in a house, it slows down
> > the entering and exiting of heat creating an equilibrium, but doesn't
> > stop it.HAHAHAHA
> You sound like some 12 year old just making it up as he goes along. So
> how does the atmosphere keep the surface cooler (the moon is 107C),
> and then turn around and cause it to heat up also. Just kinda mumble
> on through. No one will notice that you don't have any valid
> theoretical science at all. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

I'm glad to see that you've finally started using the correct lunar
temperature as I've being telling you or several weeks.

>
> A black rock at the equator will reach 90C. So explain to me how the
> earth would all be frozen over without grenhouse gases. hahahahahahah
> If you measure the radiation that passes through the atmosphere to
> reach the surface, this is exactly the temperature it should create.
> No radiation from the atmosphere. No IRs from CO2. An object in the
> solar constant in space, will reach a definite temperature of 121C,
> at which it radiates equivelent to what it recieves. It will not hang
> in some 'equilibrium balance', waiting to be perturbed into runaway
> effect, retard and company.

Actually that's not true, it will hang in equilibrium balance between
the energy being received and that being radiated.
A perfect black body will reach the temperature you say but a steel
ball say will reach a far lower temperature because it has a high
albedo. A non conducting black sphere will reach that temperature
only at the point where the angle of incidence is 0º, elsewhere it
will vary as (cos(inc))^1/4, that's on the illuminated side, on the
other side of course it will be close to 0 K.

>
> An object like the lunar lander of the Apollo missions, goes to 250C
> in the sunlight on the moon.

No it doesn't, it doesn't even reach the 107ºC of the surface, that's
why they covered it with that reflective gold foil.

> This is the radiation from the moon and
> sun combined.
> Obviously the lower energy infrared photons beyond 2um do not pass
> through air. On earth, the radiation from the earth is absorbed by the
> air around you and channeled away from the surface by convection. Thus
> you do not feel the degree of suface radiation like you would on the
> moon.

Actually you can, especially at night, go stand next to a concrete
wall that has been sunlit all day in summer and you quite definitely
feel the heat radiating from it.

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 2:32:28 PM1/29/07

to

"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:2Gbvh.75$gj4...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...

>
> "VistaKing" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vTavh.18309$Ah.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
> >
> > "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > > And I sill have no idea what you think I was denying.
> >
> > You still have no clue... Yup. You got that right.
> >
> >
>
> I know that you know I have denied global warming, global cooling or
climate
> change with anything I have said, so what do you think I denied?
> And please cite.

should have read
I know that you know I have NOT denied global warming, global cooling or

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 2:45:54 PM1/29/07

to

"VistaKing" <@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OIbvh.18328$Ah.1...@read2.cgocable.net...

>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:2Gbvh.75
> > I know that you know I have denied global warming, global cooling or
> climate
> > change with anything I have said, so what do you think I denied?

It should have read NOT denied

>
> That's nice Billieboy You just take a nice nappies now. Lays your little
> fonkused headzies down and clozies your eyezies, and stop breathing.
>
>

Now What is it that you think I have denied? and pleas cite.

Since you KNOW I haven't denied global warming or global cooling or climate
change what HAVE I DENIED?

In that confused thing you call a brain you must have some thought about
what I am supposed to have denied are you too stupid to put it into words?

If you really think that I have denied global warming why won't you say so??

Does your belief go like this if and only if CO2 or the atmosphere trap heat
then there will be global warming?????????

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 3:26:37 PM1/29/07

to

On Jan 28, 10:09 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 8:55 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 9:26 am, Balanced View <N...@nill.net> wrote:
>
> > > Bill Habr wrote:
> > > > "Balanced View" <N...@nill.net> wrote in message snipped
>
> > > >>>> It's quite simple the sun shines, the earth warms. The atmosphere
> > > >>>> is the "fiberglass pink" of our world, it doesn't stop all the heat,
> > > >>>> but keeps it a reasonably bearable temperature. You add more insulation
> > > >>>> the heat goes up.
>
> > > > The earth doesn't act that way, what is wrong with telling people how it
> > > > actually works?It works the way I claimed, without an atmosphere earth would be like
> > > the moon. The atmosphere acts like insulation in a house, it slows down
> > > the entering and exiting of heat creating an equilibrium, but doesn't
> > > stop it.HAHAHAHA
> > You sound like some 12 year old just making it up as he goes along. So
> > how does the atmosphere keep the surface cooler (the moon is 107C),
> > and then turn around and cause it to heat up also. Just kinda mumble
> > on through. No one will notice that you don't have any valid

> > theoretical science at all. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAI'm glad to see that you've finally started using the correct lunar

> temperature as I've being telling you or several weeks.
>
>
>
> > A black rock at the equator will reach 90C. So explain to me how the
> > earth would all be frozen over without grenhouse gases. hahahahahahah
> > If you measure the radiation that passes through the atmosphere to
> > reach the surface, this is exactly the temperature it should create.
> > No radiation from the atmosphere. No IRs from CO2. An object in the
> > solar constant in space, will reach a definite temperature of 121C,
> > at which it radiates equivelent to what it recieves. It will not hang
> > in some 'equilibrium balance', waiting to be perturbed into runaway

> > effect, retard and company.Actually that's not true, it will hang in equilibrium balance between

> the energy being received and that being radiated.
> A perfect black body will reach the temperature you say but a steel
> ball say will reach a far lower temperature because it has a high
> albedo. A non conducting black sphere will reach that temperature
> only at the point where the angle of incidence is 0º, elsewhere it
> will vary as (cos(inc))^1/4, that's on the illuminated side, on the
> other side of course it will be close to 0 K.
>
>
>
> > An object like the lunar lander of the Apollo missions, goes to 250C

> > in the sunlight on the moon.No it doesn't, it doesn't even reach the 107ºC of the surface, that's

> why they covered it with that reflective gold foil.
>
> > This is the radiation from the moon and
> > sun combined.
> > Obviously the lower energy infrared photons beyond 2um do not pass
> > through air. On earth, the radiation from the earth is absorbed by the
> > air around you and channeled away from the surface by convection. Thus
> > you do not feel the degree of suface radiation like you would on the

l> > moon.Actually you can, especially at night, go stand next to a
concrete
l> wall that has been sunlit all day in summer and you quite
definitely
l> feel the heat radiating from it.

So what. The radiation is being transfered from air molecule to
molecule. It certainly does not travel near as good as it would with
no air. Thermal frequencies beyond 2um do not travel freely through
air like visible light and the near infrared. There should really be
careful laboratory studies done on this subject. Grenhouse theory is
wrong. That thermal radiation travels freely and would travel freely
out of the atmosphere through O2 and N2 but is trapped by grenhouse
gases.

You guys are so hard to discuss anything because you always
concentrate on minor points and ditch the discusion. The point of
bringing up the moon is that it is in the same solar constant. Since
AGW is bringing this case before US law, they must display a valid
analyses of thermodynamics. Your only response as to why the moon
surface is so much hotter is that the albedo of earth is .30. This
does not suffice. In fact looking on the web now, it is stated that
the highest temperature of the surface is 123C. This proves my point.
That radiation of 1370W, induces temperature of 121C.
1000Wm-2 induces 90C.

If you say the number of 1000Wm-2 is wrong, what is the actual value
in the actual sq meter of a solar collector of solar radiation
recieved at the equator?? At 30,000 ft. At the top of the
stratosphere?? Why are these very important details so hard to come
by, but the inapplicable averages of grenhouse theory are everywhere??

Your method gives an artificially low value for mean radiative
temperature and average temperature, which are different.

Show me how the method of dividing the solar constant by 4 gives any
valid analyses to the moon. A metal object in the solar constant that
is in any position at all perpendicular to the sun, will have an
internal temperature of 121C. The surface temperatures will be lower
as the sum total of radiated energy must equal input energy. The point
here is that it is totally invalid to divide the solar constant like
this. The energy is refered to as passing through a plane. The
intensity of 1370W dictates much different temperatures than 342W,
even though supposedly your figuring gives the same quantity of
energy.

107C or 123C or 90C is very different than the surface area of the
earth being irradiated uniformly by 342W. Unless this 342W is coming
from different directions in which case it would be cumulative and
would incur a higher internal temperature in a recieving body than the
equivelent temperature that radiates at 342W.

Deatherage

Science Fraud Buster

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 3:38:06 PM1/29/07

to

.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!

http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-
tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

Bill Habr

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 4:25:17 PM1/29/07

to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170102397.6...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

>So what. The radiation is being transfered from air molecule to
>molecule. It certainly does not travel near as good as it would with
>no air. Thermal frequencies beyond 2um do not travel freely through
>air like visible light and the near infrared. There should really be
>careful laboratory studies done on this subject. Grenhouse theory is
>wrong.

The theory is right the problems are the name of the theory, the analogies
used in discussing the theory and the simple minded folks who take it no
further than the analogies.

<snip>

Phil.

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 11:32:18 PM1/29/07

to

> > > you do not feel the degree of suface radiation like you would on thel> > moon.Actually you can, especially at night, go stand next to a

> concrete
> l> wall that has been sunlit all day in summer and you quite
> definitely
> l> feel the heat radiating from it.
>
> So what. The radiation is being transfered from air molecule to
> molecule.

No it isn't it will travel a short distance before it is absorbed by a
gas molecule, in the regions between 8 & 9.5 microns air is almost
completely transparent for example.

> It certainly does not travel near as good as it would with
> no air. Thermal frequencies beyond 2um do not travel freely through
> air like visible light and the near infrared. There should really be
> careful laboratory studies done on this subject.

No need it's been done!

> Grenhouse theory is
> wrong. That thermal radiation travels freely and would travel freely
> out of the atmosphere through O2 and N2 but is trapped by grenhouse
> gases.
>
> You guys are so hard to discuss anything because you always
> concentrate on minor points and ditch the discusion. The point of
> bringing up the moon is that it is in the same solar constant.

I understand that.

> Since
> AGW is bringing this case before US law, they must display a valid
> analyses of thermodynamics. Your only response as to why the moon
> surface is so much hotter is that the albedo of earth is .30.

Not my only response, but it's the major effect.

> This
> does not suffice. In fact looking on the web now, it is stated that
> the highest temperature of the surface is 123C. This proves my point.
> That radiation of 1370W, induces temperature of 121C.

When normally incident on a black surface, on average the moon has a
fairly low albedo which is why the average is ~107ºC, the whole point
about an average is that some points are higher and some lower. Any
black rocks on the surface at lunar 'noon' will get that hot while any
in the shade will be much cooler.

> 1000Wm-2 induces 90C.
>
> If you say the number of 1000Wm-2 is wrong, what is the actual value
> in the actual sq meter of a solar collector of solar radiation
> recieved at the equator?? At 30,000 ft. At the top of the
> stratosphere?? Why are these very important details so hard to come
> by, but the inapplicable averages of grenhouse theory are everywhere??

Because averages are the only sensible quantities to deal with, the
values at a point on the equator depends on the time of day, weather
etc. At noon on the equator at the top of the stratosphere will be
close to 1368 W/m^2. I've given you data for the monthly averages of
the earth's radiation balance before: http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/
wxwise/homerbe.html

>
> Your method gives an artificially low value for mean radiative
> temperature and average temperature, which are different.

Not my method, the proper method!

>
> Show me how the method of dividing the solar constant by 4 gives any
> valid analyses to the moon.

It would give an average surface temperature of ~279K compared with
the max of 380K, sounds reasonable. If this weren't true the moon
would either be heating up or cooling down.

> A metal object in the solar constant that
> is in any position at all perpendicular to the sun, will have an
> internal temperature of 121C. The surface temperatures will be lower
> as the sum total of radiated energy must equal input energy.

Impossible, the internal temperature must be lower than the surface!

> The point
> here is that it is totally invalid to divide the solar constant like
> this. The energy is refered to as passing through a plane. The
> intensity of 1370W dictates much different temperatures than 342W,
> even though supposedly your figuring gives the same quantity of
> energy.

Not supposedly, it does! That temperature dictated by 1370 W/m^2 only
applies to a small area of the planet's surface on the equator at
local noon.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 2, 2007, 4:50:10 PM2/2/07

to

This is false. The air temperature allows rapid transfer at these
frequencies through the air. CO2 and water vapor also transfer photons
energy very well in this region which is probably why you think it is
transparent. CO2 and water vapoer only have the darker emission bands
because they radiate at other bands better, such as this one. You are
wrong about this like you are about albedo. Any radiation that is
dependent upon the temperature is absorbed and reradiated radiation.
Like glass that is temperature sensitive. Because this is the
temperature, the common energy state of the oscillator is near the
frequencies that are also being absorbed. Transparency is a whole
different thing and careful laboratory anlyses will prove this.

The energy that reaches the surface of the earth and is absorbed is
the important energy. That which is absorbed or in the atmosphere has
some, but not much affect on the thermal equilibrium of the earth.
Heat is transfering from the earth to space by convection, radiation
from molecule to molecule of the thermal frequencies. The temperature
of the air next to the earth is dependent on this heat transfering
through it. If the earth's heat were suddenly removed, it would not be
very long at all until the heat in the atmosphere entirely dissapated.

>
>
>
> > Your method gives an artificially low value for mean radiative
> > temperature and average temperature, which are different.
>
> Not my method, the proper method!
>
>
>
> > Show me how the method of dividing the solar constant by 4 gives any
> > valid analyses to the moon.
>
> It would give an average surface temperature of ~279K compared with
> the max of 380K, sounds reasonable. If this weren't true the moon
> would either be heating up or cooling down.

It does not in any way give the intensity or temperature in which the
greatest quantity of energy is being radiated, since this is not in
any way a simple product of surface area or how much surface area is
radiating. You are dealing with a quantity of energy in and quantity
of energy out at equilibrium, Most all of this energy is radiated at a
temperature that is higher than the average temperature of the surface
according to area.

The 342Wm-2 could only cause a temperature of 279K. You guys take this
as only a quantity for an average. It specifies an intensity or rate
per second. Until the surface can get rid of this energy at the same
rate it will increase it's temperature.
1370W and 342W mean a very different thing and cannot be equivocated
like this to surface area as identical. Surface area that is in the
dark and not even concerned with the particular surface that is
absorbing energy at this rate. Ridiculous.

>
> > A metal object in the solar constant that
> > is in any position at all perpendicular to the sun, will have an
> > internal temperature of 121C. The surface temperatures will be lower
> > as the sum total of radiated energy must equal input energy.
>
> Impossible, the internal temperature must be lower than the surface!

We should subject this then to real test, because you are wrong. Until
the surface temperature that is recieving radiation reaches the
temperature in which it can radiate equivelent density, it gains
temperature. The interior will also reach the high temperature because
of it's inabliltty to exude the energy that is transfering into it. As
long as it is transfering energy into the interior it will be
absorbing. The interior of the piece of steel goes to maximum
temperature. The temperatures at the surface are due to the rapid rate
of loss of energy by radiation and the rate that energy is brought to
this cold surface by conduction. The rate of conduction is also
dependent on temperature.

>
> > The point
> > here is that it is totally invalid to divide the solar constant like
> > this. The energy is refered to as passing through a plane. The
> > intensity of 1370W dictates much different temperatures than 342W,
> > even though supposedly your figuring gives the same quantity of
> > energy.
>
> Not supposedly, it does! That temperature dictated by 1370 W/m^2 only
> applies to a small area of the planet's surface on the equator at
> local noon.

That may be true, but the intensity of the energy gives the
temperatures to be considered, not the averages like you say. To
average daily input by night surface area is ridiculous and does not
give the temperatures of the surface. The daytime surface goes to a
high temperature and absorbs heat. At night the ground loses this heat
but only to a couple meters. The higher molar density of the ground
however makes this al ot of heat for the air. Nighttime temperatures
are a product of this heat which is continully transfering through the
air from the ground. Daytime and nightime temperatures are easy to
analyze according to recieved radiation. This is a very simple proof
that grenhouse gases are not affecting temperatures at all, and that
this very simple average of yours is invalid. Your little calculation
is so simplistic. Nothing in physics is this simple and these
thermodynamics are certainly not valid.

If you actually do the math on the quantity of energy required to
bring the actual temperatures up the 33C that is claimed, you again
find the invalidity of your mathematics. The average is only valid for
the actual quantities. Otherwise you only have a meaningless number.

In the meantime show me how the earth would be frozen over at the
equator in the 1000Wm-2 which is the maximum of the solar constant
that makes it through the atmosphere for any particular 1 meter of
solar collector. The atmosphere is opaque to 370 Watts in optimal
conditions. This energy is of very little concern with the temperature
of the earth since it does not reach the surface and become absorbed
by the solid or liquid material of the surface.

Deatherage

>
>
> > 107C or 123C or 90C is very different than the surface area of the
> > earth being irradiated uniformly by 342W. Unless this 342W is coming
> > from different directions in which case it would be cumulative and
> > would incur a higher internal temperature in a recieving body than the
> > equivelent temperature that radiates at 342W.
>

> > Deatherage- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hanson wallows in Exxon's Brown Turds

unread,

Feb 2, 2007, 5:42:10 PM2/2/07

to

> Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,
> University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

> Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston,
> Mass.

hanson

unread,

Feb 2, 2007, 6:07:03 PM2/2/07

to

Geriatric mental patient Loin Kunts aka "Awe Shit" said:
"I cherish my anonymity... living in that basement in a secure,
undisclosed Location... as Lion Kuntz , Retired,
Santa Rosa, Sonoma Co., California, USA ",.... and so, here now
Grandpa Leon is railing without rhyme nor reason in deep cover as
"Hanson wallows in Exxon's Brown Turds" <Hanson.C...@ecovilliage.us>
and wrote in news:1170456130.4...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
["Awe Shit" is broke and jealous]

> .... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
> Yes, we got it!
>

[hanson]
They got it!... You want it!.. and you can't get any because....
grandpa "Awe Shit", you are drunk, loaded and irate again in your
secure location, aren't you?... ahahahaha... ahahahaha... ahaha...
Sell something, "Awe Shit', you stupid old bastard!... ahahaha...
Or is all you are still capable of making long, obscene subject lines?
However, make an ass out of yourself if that turns you old geezer on.
Thanks for the laughs, loser. --- ahaha... ahahahanson

Corporate Shill Catcher

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 2:27:26 AM2/26/07

to

On Feb 2, 1:50 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

> transparent. CO2 and water vapoer only have the darker emission bands

> different thing and careful laboratory anlyses will prove this.

> Heat is transfering from the earth to space by convection, radiation

> of the air next to the earth is dependent on this heat transfering

> very long at all until the heat in the atmosphere entirely dissapated.

> the surface temperature that is recieving radiation reaches the

> temperature in which it can radiate equivelent density, it gains

> of it's inabliltty to exude the energy that is transfering into it. As

> long as it is transfering energy into the interior it will be

> are a product of this heat which is continully transfering through the

> analyze according to recieved radiation. This is a very simple proof

> that grenhouse gases are not affecting temperatures at all, and that

> Deatherage

Death-Rag said: vapoer anlyses transfering dissapated recieving
equivelent inabliltty continully transfering recieved grenhouse

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 10, 2007, 1:34:56 AM3/10/07

to

"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote Nothing but ignorance...

Tundra Disappearing At Rapid RateDate - March 7, 2007
-------------------------------------
University of Alberta

The boundary, or treeline, between forest and tundra ecosystems is a
prominent landscape feature in both Arctic and mountain environments.
As
global temperatures continue to increase, the treeline is expected to
advance but the new research shows that this shift will not always
occur
gradually but can surge ahead.

"The conventional thinking on treeline dynamics has been that advances
are
very slow because conditions are so harsh at these high latitudes and
altitudes," said Dr. Ryan Danby, from the Department of Biological
Sciences. "But what our data indicates is that there was an upslope
surge
of trees in response to warmer temperatures. It's like it waited until
conditions were just right and then it decided to get up and run, not
just
walk."

Danby and Dr. David Hik, also from the Faculty of Science,
reconstructed
changes in the density and altitude of treeline forests in
southwestern
Yukon over the past 300 years. Using tree rings, they were able to
date
the year of establishment and death of spruce trees and reconstruct
changes in treeline vegetation. The study is published in the "Journal
of
Ecology."

They found that a rapid change in response to climate warming during
the
early mid 20th century was observed at all locations. Treeline
advanced
considerably--as much as 85 metres elevation--on warm, south-facing
slopes
and tree density increased significantly--as much as 65 per cent--on
cooler, north-facing slopes.

"The mechanism of change appears to be associated with occasional
years of
extraordinarily high seed production--triggered by hot, dry
summers--followed by successive years of warm temperatures favourable
for
seedling growth and survival," said Danby.

Widespread changes to treelines could have significant impacts, says
Danby. As tundra habitats are lost and fragmented, species and
habitats
are forced to move upwards as well. "The problem is that in
mountainous
areas you can only go so high so they get forced into smaller and
smaller
areas," said Danby.

These changes are of particular importance in these northern regions
where
First Nation people still rely heavily on the land, says Danby. Tundra
species like caribou and sheep populations, which are important parts
of
that lifestyle, have declined across southwestern Yukon. As treeline
advance, the reflectance of the land surface declines because
coniferous
trees absorb more sunlight than the tundra. This light energy is then
re-emitted to the atmosphere as heat. This sets up a "positive
feedback,"
the same process that is associated with the rapidly decaying Arctic
ice
cap.

"These results are very relevant to the current debate surrounding
climate
change because they provide real evidence that vegetation change will
be
quite considerable in response to future warming, potentially
transforming
tundra landscapes into open spruce woodlands," said Danby, who will
also
be participating in an International Polar Year project that will be
examining treeline dynamics across the circumpolar north.
Dr. Hik is also executive director of the Canadian International Polar
Year secretariat at the University of Alberta.