You have the right to speak with an attorney before answering any questions. In the meantime put your hands on your head where we can see them

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 12:29:21 AM1/17/07

to

1370 - 370 = 1000 (equals fatal theoretical impasse for Grenhouse
theory)

1000 Watts per square meter are recieved in a solar collector at the
equator at solar noon.
A watt is a rate of energy transfer. One Watt equals one joule per
second. According to the Bolzman-Stefan equation, a specific
temperature will have a specific rate of energy transfer in the
radiation field of this temperature, rated according to the energy
which passes through the plane of 1 sq cemtimeter. This specific energy
was determined by the German physicist, Boltzman, through very careful
experiment and brilliant mathematics, to be 5.67E-5ergs, cm-2, sec-1,
degK-4. This application of thermodynamics is used in very many daily
applications.

As an object becomes increasingly distance, the energy of this
radiation decreases by an inverse square to distance.
So energy of Boltzman-Stefan for suns temperature,,,multiplied by the
inverse square of the distance from the sun,,,gives the temperature of
the radiation field at this particular distance.

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease

Eric Gisse

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 12:48:29 AM1/17/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 1370 - 370 = 1000 (equals fatal theoretical impasse for Grenhouse
> theory)
>
> 1000 Watts per square meter are recieved in a solar collector at the
> equator at solar noon.
> A watt is a rate of energy transfer. One Watt equals one joule per
> second. According to the Bolzman-Stefan equation, a specific
> temperature will have a specific rate of energy transfer in the
> radiation field of this temperature, rated according to the energy
> which passes through the plane of 1 sq cemtimeter. This specific energy
> was determined by the German physicist, Boltzman, through very careful
> experiment and brilliant mathematics, to be 5.67E-5ergs, cm-2, sec-1,
> degK-4. This application of thermodynamics is used in very many daily
> applications.

So is quantum mechanics. That doesn't stop you from pretending it is
wrong, along with classical mechanics and relativity.

Why post to science newsgroups when you universally reject the findings
of science?

Jim E

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 12:52:21 AM1/17/07

to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169011761.6...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...

> 1370 - 370 = 1000 (equals fatal theoretical impasse for Grenhouse
> theory)
>
> 1000 Watts per square meter are recieved in a solar collector at the
> equator at solar noon.

who cares about the equator?
There is limited civilization there, nothing but bands of tribal loons,
What the hell does that have to do with the civilized world?

Jim E

Corporate Shill Catcher

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:02:48 AM1/17/07

to

You have the right to remain silent. Use it. If you got any more
stupid, you'd have to be watered twice a week.

Jim E

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:09:25 AM1/17/07

to

"Corporate Shill Catcher" <fo...@h2-pv.us> wrote in message
news:1169013768.6...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Or be a libloon .

Jim E

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:19:55 AM1/17/07

to

It means that the temperatures attributed by climatologists to the
recieved radiation, the effect of grenhouse gases and the effect of
added carbon dioxide are all completely invalid. And the fact that this
can be proved by the valid thermodynamics and theoretical physics
developed by the German physicists of the 19th century and Maxwell
Planck. The luminosity of the sun at distance predicts a certain
temperature. Grenhouse theories fundamentals are completely false.
Though I know you little shits will get out the pencils and do your
normal work of making stuff up and then all agreeing with your made up
bullshit. You guys are actually so childish, which you can't see. That
is only your own self demented freaky little minds, It will not keep
you from being held accountable.

An important empirical fact is that the surface of the moon goes to
250C in the sunlight of 1370 Wm-2. Grenhouse theory states that the
temperature at the surface of the earth should be an average of 255K,
natural grenhouse gases are claimed to cause the increase of this
temperature by 33C. It is in this balance, it is claimed, that very
slight increases in CO2 can cause the temperature to increase. This is
wholly fraud and can be proved to be so.

The calculations for the energy that is presently being retained by
various grenhouse gases completely fall apart with valid analyses,

Well asshole don't go to the equator then, and validate the fact of the
energy recieved from the sun. Just sit there as the parasite you are,
with no marketable skills for society, even your teaching skill is
invalid because you teach invalid science, and consider yourself better
than people that live honestly but are poor, Just keep in mind,,,that
steady public check that you don't deserve will ALWAYS be there,, you
probably got tenure and can't be fired, huh. Society should pay for a
bunch of self loving ellitists like you to sit around and steal public
money and plot the demise of our society and your own personal fortune
with the fraud of AGW, and you should never fear being held accountable
for your fraud, embezzlement and lies.

Deatherage
CO2Phoibia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies

Saddam's Rope, Exxon's Neck

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:21:30 AM1/17/07

to

Your family tree is nothing but a rest stop for dogs.
Jim E wrote:
> Jim E

Here's what you get when you buy coal electricity:

* you get electricity.
* you get Global Warming and other pollution.
* you get heat and hot water at the coal plant too far away to use.

=========================
Total cost per kilowatt for the coal-power bundle = $0.12/kWh.
You pay extra for heat, hot water and purified drinking water.
Price is derived from northern California retail home utility bill.

The Coal-plan you need:
* roof.
* electric home wiring,
* home heating furnace,
* hot water heater,
* water purifier.

=========================
Here's what you get from H2-PV:

* you get electricity.
* you get stored hydrogen for later electricity.
** you get electricity when you burn the hydrogen in a fuel cell.
** you get heat while you make the electricity.
** you get hot water while you make the electricity.
** you get pure distilled deionized water.
** you get NO Global Warming or pollution.

Total cost per kilowatt from the H2-PV bundle = $0.12/kWh.
Price is derived from computations based of 50% population adoption of
H2-PV choice.

The H2_PV-plan you need:
* PV roof (same cost as coal plan),
* electric home wiring (same cost as coal plan),
* Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (lower cost than coal plan combined furnace,
hot water heater, water purifier).
=========================

Jim E

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:42:32 AM1/17/07

to

"Saddam's Rope, Exxon's Neck" <fo...@h2-pv.us> wrote in message
news:1169014890.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

You insist on eliminating my end of the argument. snip, snip
You must be a liberal who can't face facts.
If it would make money, someone would do it and get rich.
You are an IDIOT.

Jim E

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:47:02 AM1/17/07

to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169014795.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

It aint science to the environazis, it's just politics.
Another grab for power.

Jim E

H2-PV, PV-H2

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:50:45 AM1/17/07

to

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!

People ARE doing it, and they ARE REALLY RICH, idiot.

Congratulations! You have just proved the theory that there is no limit
to human stupidity. Clearly, you spend way too much time in darkened
rooms in front of your seven-year-old computer turning a whiter shade
of pale. Go outside once in a while and breathe, before your brain
starts to rot from all that festering stagnation and cognitive
dysfunction.

You amaze me! I didn't think it was possible for one person to possess
such a vast reservoir of undiluted gibberish! I see you've set aside
this special time to humiliate yourself on the Internet. Anyway, who
was talking to you or even taking you under consideration? As Abba Eban
so aptly said: "His ignorance is encyclopedic."

I'm busy trying to imagine you with a personality. Maybe you'd be less
boring once I got to know you, but I don't want to take that chance.
There's nothing wrong with you that couldn't be cured with a little
Prozac and a polo mallet, or, better yet, suicide. Maybe you wouldn't
be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if you weren't intellectually outclassed by
dead sheep; if your weren't so fat that your local 'All-You-Can-Eat'
buffet had to install speed bumps, or if you didn't have a face so ugly
that your Psychiatrist makes you lie face down. Nah, of course you
would.

Now, why don't you climb onto that Special Needs tricycle of yours
with the fourth wheel attached for extra-ensured retard stability and
pedal your fat ass down to the sports field and do some "outdoors"
stuff for a change. Hell, if you don't like it, you can always offer
to lick-clean the jockstraps.

H2-PV, PV-H2

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:52:07 AM1/17/07

to

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!

People ARE doing it, and they ARE REALLY RICH, idiot.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 2:30:24 AM1/17/07

to

Eric Gisse wrote:
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 1370 - 370 = 1000 (equals fatal theoretical impasse for Grenhouse
> > theory)
> >
> > 1000 Watts per square meter are recieved in a solar collector at the
> > equator at solar noon.
> > A watt is a rate of energy transfer. One Watt equals one joule per
> > second. According to the Bolzman-Stefan equation, a specific
> > temperature will have a specific rate of energy transfer in the
> > radiation field of this temperature, rated according to the energy
> > which passes through the plane of 1 sq cemtimeter. This specific energy
> > was determined by the German physicist, Boltzman, through very careful
> > experiment and brilliant mathematics, to be 5.67E-5ergs, cm-2, sec-1,
> > degK-4. This application of thermodynamics is used in very many daily
> > applications.
>
> So is quantum mechanics. That doesn't stop you from pretending it is
> wrong, along with classical mechanics and relativity.
>
> Why post to science newsgroups when you universally reject the findings
> of science?

I don't reject the findings of science. Often, what is accepted in
academia as science, is not. Especially in the theoretical sciences.You
are proof of that Eric. Just remember what you believe '''a photon is
massless, retard"" This is an invalid statement from QM. That's funny
when little feeble minded twits like you presume that your own lies are
not derived from theoretical twits and liars like
yourself,,HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahHhahahahh Your repeating good science
there, twit. hahahahahahahahah

I just posted some science eric, Why sit there and whine and stroke on
your little Al Gore doll all by yourself, dreaming of how much you
enjoy being with the twits like yourself that agree that they are all
vastly superiorly intelligent theoretical scientists and embezzelers as
they chant the little physics phrases they use.. Whip out the physics
on me. little embezzeling twit. You have a good act pretending to be
just a twit, because you are a twit. But you always seem to get upset
when I mention the fraud and embezzlement of the theoretical sciences.
Why should this upset you? I mean everything I say twit, (pretending to
be a twit that doesn't realize how much a twit he really is, Eric). You
are funny. Obviously, physics or something like that, is important in
your life. But you don't have enough personally honesty to ever
actually withstand the mental stress of learning any. Hope ole Lucifer
is stoking up the coals awaiting your arrival, twit.

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies

> As an object becomes increasingly distance, the energy of this

> > radiation decreases by an inverse square to distance. ''luminosity""

Saddam's Rope, Exxon's Neck

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 3:10:19 AM1/17/07

to

World's First Womb Transplant: Death-Rag signs up, hoping to have
Exxon's baby.

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > 1370 - 370 = 1000 (equals fatal theoretical impasse for Grenhouse
> > > theory)
> > >
> > > 1000 Watts per square meter are recieved in a solar collector at the
> > > equator at solar noon.
> > > A watt is a rate of energy transfer. One Watt equals one joule per
> > > second. According to the Bolzman-Stefan equation, a specific
> > > temperature will have a specific rate of energy transfer in the
> > > radiation field of this temperature, rated according to the energy
> > > which passes through the plane of 1 sq cemtimeter. This specific energy
> > > was determined by the German physicist, Boltzman, through very careful
> > > experiment and brilliant mathematics, to be 5.67E-5ergs, cm-2, sec-1,
> > > degK-4. This application of thermodynamics is used in very many daily
> > > applications.
> >
> > So is quantum mechanics. That doesn't stop you from pretending it is
> > wrong, along with classical mechanics and relativity.
> >
> > Why post to science newsgroups when you universally reject the findings
> > of science?
>

> I don't reject the findings of science. Otefn waht is accpteed in
> acaedmia as sieccne is not Espceillay in the teohertical sieccens You
> are porof of that Eirc Jsut rmemeebr what you bleevie '''a photon is
> masslses rtare"d" Tihs is an ivnliad statmenet form QM Tath's fnnuy
> wehn little febele mndeid twits lkie you preumse that your own leis are
> not dreievd from thereotical twtis and laris like

> yourself,,HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahHhahahahh Your repeating good science
> there, twit. hahahahahahahahah
>

> I just posted some science eric, Why sit terhe and wihne and srotke o
n> yuor litlte Al Groe dlol all by yuroeslf dearinmg of how mcuh yo
u> ejnoy benig wtih the titws lkie yuosrelf taht arege taht tehy are al
l> vaslty spuriorley intelliegnt teohrtecail sientcsits and ebmzeezelrs
a
s> tehy cahnt the ltitle pyshcis phasers tehy use Wihp out the pyhicss
> on me litlte ebemzzeilng tiwt You hvae a good act perendintg to b
e> jsut a tiwt bceause you are a tiwt But you awalys seem to get uspt
e> wehn I metionn the farud and ebemzlezment of the theoertcial
sicenecs
> Why souhld tihs uspet you I maen eevrytihng I say tiwt (rependitng t
o> be a tiwt taht deosn't ralizee how mcuh a tiwt he raelly is Eirc) Yu
o> are fnnuy Oviobusly pyshcis or smeotihng lkie taht is ipomtarnt i
n> yuor lfie But you do'nt hvae enoguh persnollay hoesnty to eer
v> atcaully withsatnd the mnteal strses of larnineg any Hpoe ole
Lcuferi
> is sokintg up the calos aawitnig yuor arriavl tiwt
>
> Deatherage
> C2PhoObia is a dangeours and ftaal dseasie lkie rabeis

Sorry. I don't speak retardese. Can you get someone to translate into
meaningful English before you post, please? Try learning elementary
grammar before attempting to inflict your next literary abomination on
this message board.

Why don't you shrink your head and use it as a paperweight? It's not
much use for writing intelligent posts with, that's for sure. Are you
always this ignorant, or are you making a special effort today? A long
period of non-posting would be most welcome on your part. To quote
Thomas Brackett Reed: "They never open their mouths without subtracting
from the sum of human knowledge."

Most repair manuals are far more interesting than you, and far less
turgid to read. Do yourself and everyone else a favor: take a fatal
overdose of your medication. Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a
jellyfish-sucking mental midget if your brain cells weren't on the
Endangered Species list; if your weren't so fat that buildings bounce
when you haul your Sumo Wrestler mass down the street, or if you didn't
have a face designed exclusively for radio. Who am I kidding? You
would.

Now, if you care to apologize for wasting my shamefully wasted time,
I'll consider accepting it.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 8:29:01 AM1/17/07

to

T Wake

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 8:35:58 AM1/17/07

to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169040541....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Seriously, are you that clueless?

Scratch that, I read the rest of your post. Yes you are.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 9:05:28 AM1/17/07

to

Well at least I'm not talking shit like you with absolutely no ability
to quantify in physics. Why can't you stick to the topic, cluefull
twit, The surface of the earth at the equator recieves 1000Wm-2. This
is the energy in an actual sq meter. Of course an overall average would
include the albedo, which is a rating of how much radiation is
reflected and not absorbed or entered into the energy of the heat,
clouds etc. But what do you know,,,the moon also has a highly
reflective surface,,, and it's daytime temperature is 250C,,,,

Now calibrate the effect of grenhouse gases,,,what would the
temperature be with no grenhouse gases...
HAHAHAHAHAAHhahahahaahaha
hahahahahahaahahahahaah

Return to twitdom, and shut the fuck up,,,,,been practicing that perp
walk,,,hahahahahahahaha
hahahhahahahahahahahaha

If you have any position to call anyone clueless, then you should be
able to throw down the correct analyses of recieved radiation for the
surface of the earth and moon and calibrate the temperature. Get your
mouse ready to copy and paste,,,,whoops your theory that you believe in
is invalid, so you'll probably just go moping away with your tail
between your legs, and not present what you think are,, cluefull,, and
valid quantification. And with the normal psychological disease that
you have, you will ignore valid math and empirical data that is not
conducive to the dogma and rhetoric you memorize and repeat.

If it wern't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all,,
DOOM, despair, and agony on me

T Wake

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 9:33:34 AM1/17/07

to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169042728.5...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>T Wake wrote:
>> <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169040541....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >

><snip>

>> > I don't reject the findings of science. Often, what is accepted in
>> > academia as science, is not. Especially in the theoretical
>> > sciences.You
>> > are proof of that Eric. Just remember what you believe '''a photon is
>> > massless, retard"" This is an invalid statement from QM.
>>
>> Seriously, are you that clueless?
>>
>> Scratch that, I read the rest of your post. Yes you are.
>
> Well at least I'm not talking shit like you with absolutely no ability
> to quantify in physics.

Really? I submit this post alone as evidence that you are simply talking
shit.

I rest my case. You are a crackpot idiot.

Lloyd Parker

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 4:55:33 AM1/17/07

to

In article <515ruiF...@mid.individual.net>,

"Jim E" <YD65...@SEA.edu> wrote:
>
><kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1169011761.6...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>> 1370 - 370 = 1000 (equals fatal theoretical impasse for Grenhouse
>> theory)
>>
>> 1000 Watts per square meter are recieved in a solar collector at the
>> equator at solar noon.
>
>
>who cares about the equator?
>There is limited civilization there, nothing but bands of tribal loons,

Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria...

Some of the most populous nations are near the equator.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 10:20:11 AM1/17/07

to

T Wake wrote:
> <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:1169042728.5...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >T Wake wrote:

L Sratch that, I read the rest of your post. Yes you are.
;> >
l> > Well at least I'm not talking shit like you with absolutely no
ability
l> > to quantify in physics.
l>
l> Really? I submit this post alone as evidence that you are simply
talking
l> shit.

ll> Really? I submit this post alone as evidence that you are simply
talking
ll> shit
l> I rest my case. You are a crackpot idiot.

You are awful funny. Submit your case on me. Case closed. Not in line
with normally repeated bullshit. Case closed,, must be all
invalid.Don't have to meet the burden of proof of AGW.
Just the normal inductive logic you use to preserve that collection of
stupid rhetoric that crawls though your brain like worms that somehow
manages to pay your parasitic rent.

The burden of proof is on AGW to present a valid theoretical
thermodynamic model. They have presented one. This is invalid. It can

be proved to be so.

I have only pointed out the empirical facts. 1370 Watts in solar
costant, 1000 recieved at equator,,temperature of the moon 250C,
temperature of mercury 350C,,,33C increase at 255K is 63% increase in
density of energy on radiation field,,,piece of steel in solar constant
reaches mean temperature of 121C,

The burden of proof is on you,,
Like I said,,, display the valid thermodynamics,,,or stuff your tail
between your legs and run off, runt..How about the factor of four for
determining incident energy of radiation at the surface.
hahahahahahaahahhcrackpothahahahahahacrackpothahahahahacrackpothahahaha

If it wern't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all,,
DOOM, despair, and agony on me

Deatherage

T Wake

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 12:23:11 PM1/17/07

to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169047209.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>T Wake wrote:
>> <kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169042728.5...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >T Wake wrote:
>
> L Sratch that, I read the rest of your post. Yes you are.
> ;> >
> l> > Well at least I'm not talking shit like you with absolutely no
> ability
> l> > to quantify in physics.
> l>
> l> Really? I submit this post alone as evidence that you are simply
> talking
> l> shit.
>
> ll> Really? I submit this post alone as evidence that you are simply
> talking
> ll> shit
> l> I rest my case. You are a crackpot idiot.
>
> You are awful funny.

Thanks. You are just awful.

> Submit your case on me. Case closed. Not in line
> with normally repeated bullshit. Case closed,, must be all
> invalid.Don't have to meet the burden of proof of AGW.
> Just the normal inductive logic you use to preserve that collection of
> stupid rhetoric that crawls though your brain like worms that somehow
> manages to pay your parasitic rent.

You are in need of psychiatric care.

> The burden of proof is on AGW to present a valid theoretical
> thermodynamic model. They have presented one. This is invalid. It can
> be proved to be so.

Your understanding is flawed.

> I have only pointed out the empirical facts. 1370 Watts in solar
> costant, 1000 recieved at equator,,temperature of the moon 250C,
> temperature of mercury 350C,,,33C increase at 255K is 63% increase in
> density of energy on radiation field,,,piece of steel in solar constant
> reaches mean temperature of 121C,

What you think are facts are as flawed as the rest of your thinking.

> The burden of proof is on you,,
> Like I said,,, display the valid thermodynamics,,,or stuff your tail
> between your legs and run off, runt..How about the factor of four for
> determining incident energy of radiation at the surface.
> hahahahahahaahahhcrackpothahahahahahacrackpothahahahahacrackpothahahaha
>
> If it wern't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all,,
> DOOM, despair, and agony on me

Blah, blah, blah. It is a shame you are insane. If you weren't you might be
entertaining.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 1:56:38 PM1/17/07

to

AWFUL damn funny..See all this blank area,,,,,,
That's your theoretical thermodynamics,,,,
see this other blank area,,,,
That's your theoretical physics.....

Saddam's Rope, Exxon's Neck

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 3:28:36 PM1/17/07

to

Saddam's Rope, Death-Rag's Neck --- You are so stupid you got hit by a
parked car.

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:

> AWFUL damn funny..See all this blank area,,,,,,
> That's your theoretical thermodynamics,,,,
> see this other blank area,,,,
> That's your theoretical physics.....
>
> Deatherage

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

ExxonMobil Report
Read the Report
ExxonMobil Report (PDF)
Appendix C (PDF high resolution)
Appendix C (part 1)
Appendix C (part 2)
Appendix C (part 3)

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3-A new report from the Union of Concerned
Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how
ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics,
as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the
scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the
issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16
million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations
that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists'
Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay
government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to
"Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil
company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific
evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance
of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change
contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest
for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal
policies and shape government communications on global warming

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of
individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors
that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate
change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance,
which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book
edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who
is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil.
Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate
change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is
affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not
changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13
scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper.
This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing
to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has
been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by
reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear
and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit,"
said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS
report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests,
ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent
groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about
global warming."

ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific
understanding of global warming-under the guise of "sound
science"-for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce
heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted
unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from
successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush
administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do
eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate
change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure
the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the
steps we take now and in the coming years."

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last
century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though
solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions
while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our
national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate
change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful
action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation
campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and
Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior
on this issue is unacceptable and must change."

Igor

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 3:32:31 PM1/17/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> I don't reject the findings of science. Often, what is accepted in
> academia as science, is not. Especially in the theoretical sciences.You
> are proof of that Eric. Just remember what you believe '''a photon is
> massless, retard"" This is an invalid statement from QM. That's funny
> when little feeble minded twits like you presume that your own lies are
> not derived from theoretical twits and liars like
> yourself,,HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahHhahahahh Your repeating good science
> there, twit. hahahahahahahahah

So you predict that the electrostatic field falls off exponentially?
Empirical results say inverse square in agreement with vanishing photon
mass. You need to stop making a total fool out of yourself in front of
the educated physics community. Statements have consequences. Or
haven't you figured that out yet. Doesn't matter anyway. Your
position is dead in the water.

> I just posted some science eric, Why sit there and whine and stroke on
> your little Al Gore doll all by yourself, dreaming of how much you
> enjoy being with the twits like yourself that agree that they are all
> vastly superiorly intelligent theoretical scientists and embezzelers as
> they chant the little physics phrases they use.. Whip out the physics
> on me. little embezzeling twit. You have a good act pretending to be
> just a twit, because you are a twit. But you always seem to get upset
> when I mention the fraud and embezzlement of the theoretical sciences.
> Why should this upset you? I mean everything I say twit, (pretending to
> be a twit that doesn't realize how much a twit he really is, Eric). You
> are funny. Obviously, physics or something like that, is important in
> your life. But you don't have enough personally honesty to ever
> actually withstand the mental stress of learning any. Hope ole Lucifer
> is stoking up the coals awaiting your arrival, twit.
>

And everybody wonders why Boltzman committed suicide. If he had had
students like you, that would have surely pushed him over the edge.

CHUCK MARTIN

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 5:19:40 PM1/17/07

to

the republi con puke below has been sniffing too many vibrator o "li" lly
farts on fox non news

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169040541....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Deaf Power

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 8:15:26 PM1/17/07

to

"Liberal"? No such thing. But there are fascists.

>
> Jim E
>

--
Impeach Bush!
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2791/Rep_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 8:22:46 PM1/17/07

to

Igor wrote:
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't reject the findings of science. Often, what is accepted in
> > academia as science, is not. Especially in the theoretical sciences.You
> > are proof of that Eric. Just remember what you believe '''a photon is
> > massless, retard"" This is an invalid statement from QM. That's funny
> > when little feeble minded twits like you presume that your own lies are
> > not derived from theoretical twits and liars like
> > yourself,,HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahHhahahahh Your repeating good science
> > there, twit. hahahahahahahahah
>
> So you predict that the electrostatic field falls off exponentially?
> Empirical results say inverse square in agreement with vanishing photon
> mass. You need to stop making a total fool out of yourself in front of
> the educated physics community. Statements have consequences. Or
> haven't you figured that out yet. Doesn't matter anyway. Your
> position is dead in the water.

An electrostatic field is not a photon. You guys are so hung up on your
waves even when you cannot place them in real dynamics. Electromagnetic
fields produce photons according to their circumference and 2piv.
Photons travel at c. So a photon will not be around long for an
electrostatic field.

There is great deal of laboratory data on the mass of light energy.
Even this data preceeded Einstein and his 'theorem of the inertia of
energy,1905'. Have you ever heard of this term. It states that 'all
energy has mass in accordance with the equation E = mc^2. By this
equation, you take the quantity of energy, E, divide this by the
velocity of light squared, and it gives you the quantity of mass in the
photon.

You got some rinky dink theoretical point? So you think that you
retards have expanded your brilliance into the arena that just left
poor old Einstein behind. Einstein forgot more physics by the time he
was 20 years old than you and all the students of Quantum Mechanics of
Heisenberg and Bohr ever learned. In fact, due to that constipation of
the mind called 'quantum mechanics', you guys don't have enough physics
to tie your shoe.

Einstein meant that ALL energy has mass by this equation. The bonding
energy in nuclei of the atoms is in accordance to this equation. The
missing mass of the nucleus is equal to the energy of binding or
release of energy in fusion in accordance to this formula. The Germans
in 1922 with (Gerlach I think) very carefully analysed this equation
and the mass imparted from photons. If the photon has no mass, why do
nuclei recoil from emission of gamma photons? This effect has been
carefully documented in experiment. Why can their momentum be measured
when they are absorbed? These two events prove the photon has mass. But
since you have never been interested in scientific determination
before, you can go ahead and ignore these direct empirical facts which
prove you do not have a freaking clue what a photon is, how much it
weighs, or any other basics of physics. Your quantum mechanics is
invalid. You know yourself that the basic precepts of QM cannot
tolerate the idea that the photon has mass and this is the reason your
theory denies this, regardless of the direct laboratory proof. Living
in a world of make believe. And now you twits want control over the
economy when your basic theory such as this is wholly invalid and can
be directly proved to be so,

Another thing buddy, I am all about accountability for ones actions. I
am all about this being decided in a courtroom instead of trying to
convince the dishonest little monkeys of AGW of their invalidity.

THE PHOTON HAS MASS RETARD, AND THIS CAN BE AND HAS BEEN DIRECTLY
PROVED BY SCIENCE
MAYBE SOMEDAY THESE MODERN FACTS WILL MAKE IT TO THE BACKWOODS LITTLE
1-6 GRADE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT TOLERATES YOUR IGNORANT ASS

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

Exxon's Dick Pumping Bawana's Mouth

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 9:23:59 PM1/17/07

to

Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Another thing buddy, I am all about accountability for ones actions. I
> am all about this being decided in a courtroom instead of trying to
> convince the dishonest little monkeys of AGW of their invalidity.

> Deatherage

Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 9:55:34 PM1/17/07

to

H2-PV, PV-H2 wrote:
> I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!
>

> > You insist on eliminating my end of the argument. snip, snip

Here is Wienie trying to talk someone down. Despite the demented little
childish mind he displays in these discusion groups, you can see he is
very articulate and has very good prose when he writes. This guy here
has made some extremely logical and valid remarks. Wienie, in his
demented rage of his continous lies, cannot stand this. He thinks that
by concentrating on this guy like this with these childish insults of
someone that he knows nothing about, he can intimidate. Perhaps he's
right.

The AGW movement portends to be interested in social welfare and the
betterment of society according to the myth that using energy to
operate our normal lifes will cause the atmosphere to overheat. But who
are they fooling. They are elitist and genocidists. I'm not really sure
who they think should survive, but they don't give a damn for all of
the stupid people that know nothing about their science, and especially
they don't care for the people that do understand their science and try
to point out to them fatal flaws that entirely cripple the postulate
that CO2 can affect the temperature of the atmosphere. They seriously
contemplate how many people might have to die by direct or indirect
genocide with the cutbacks in emissions that they have theoretically
determined to be neccasary.

What makes this demented and anti-social creep tick and justify his
continued harassment of anyone that reads or participates in this
global warming debate? What does he have to gain or lose? Does he ever
even discuss anything? At some points, he has demonstrated a
fascination in courtrooms and lawsuits, threathening to sue anyone that
speaks out against his false science. He intimates to those of us that
contend with him, what our fate will be when he and his comrades get
into power and gain their desired power of persecution wherby they can
commit their murders in their schemes to gain control by violence and
intimidation (this is the definition of fascism). In the meantime, he
just enjoys the 'fart in the face power' he has in our world of
guaranteed free speech and that extreme enjoyment he feels in his own
infatuation

Hanson Sucked Death-Rag's Brown Turds

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 10:03:17 PM1/17/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:

> What makes this demented and anti-social creep tick and justify his
> continued harassment of anyone that reads or participates in this
> global warming debate?
>

> Deatherage

There is NO DEBATE cocksucker.

Who has more money for science research, EXXON or YOU? Who has more
than 12,000 patents filed by staff scientists, EXXON or YOU. When they
say CO2 causes Global Warming Climate Change, you shut your dicksucking
mouth and accept it.

Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 10:10:08 PM1/17/07

to

Here is Wienie trying to talk someone down. Despite the demented little

childish mind he displays in these discusion groups, you can see he is
very articulate and has very good prose when he writes. This guy here
has made some extremely logical and valid remarks. Wienie, in his
demented rage of his continous lies, cannot stand this. He thinks that
by concentrating on this guy like this with these childish insults of
someone that he knows nothing about, he can intimidate. Perhaps he's
right.

The AGW movement portends to be interested in social welfare and the
betterment of society according to the myth that using energy to
operate our normal lifes will cause the atmosphere to overheat. But who

are they fooling. They are elitist and genocidists. I'm not really sure

who they think should survive, but they don't give a damn for all of
the stupid people that know nothing about their science, and especially

they don't care for the people that do understand their science and try

to point out to them fatal flaws that entirely cripple the postulate
that CO2 can affect the temperature of the atmosphere. They seriously
contemplate how many people might have to die by direct or indirect
genocide with the cutbacks in emissions that they have theoretically
determined to be neccasary.

What makes this demented and anti-social creep tick and justify his
continued harassment of anyone that reads or participates in this

Death-Rag Sucked Hanson's Brown Turds

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 10:17:17 PM1/17/07

to

zzbu...@netscape.net

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 10:29:35 PM1/17/07

to

Death-Rag Sucked Hanson's Brown Turds wrote:
> There is NO DEBATE cocksucker.
>
> Who has more money for science research, EXXON or YOU? Who has more
> than 12,000 patents filed by staff scientists, EXXON or YOU. When they
> say CO2 causes Global Warming Climate Change, you shut your dicksucking
> mouth and accept it.

You right there is no debate.
Since Exxon doesn't give a shit about you or retard scientists.
The equation is:
Who's got more US Steel Stock, you.
The idiot US Army, or Exxon moron?

Jim E

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 3:09:01 AM1/18/07

to

"Deaf Power" <de...@power.com> wrote in message
news:qUzrh.30589$sE7....@newsfe21.lga...

Feeling guilty LIBERAL?
The word does not appear in the above quoted text..
You loons are funny.

Jim E

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 3:14:28 AM1/18/07

to

"Hanson Sucked Death-Rag's Brown Turds" <Exxon.RI...@ecovilliage.us>
wrote in message
news:1169089397.8...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> What makes this demented and anti-social creep tick and justify his
>> continued harassment of anyone that reads or participates in this
>> global warming debate?
>>
>> Deatherage
>
> There is NO DEBATE cocksucker.
>

Hell no.

You socialist control freaks want agw by decree.
Well it ain't gonna happen.

Jim E

Deaf Power

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 6:06:33 AM1/18/07

to

There is no such thing. But you are a fascist loon!

jow...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 7:12:34 AM1/18/07

to

It amuses me greatly to see someone rip on quantum mechanics while
using a computer. The irony is subtle but powerful.

Exxon Creams on Death-Rag

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 7:34:04 AM1/18/07

to

Who has more money for science research, EXXON or YOU? Who has more
than 12,000 patents filed by staff scientists, EXXON or YOU. When they
say CO2 causes Global Warming Climate Change, you shut your dicksucking
mouth and accept it.

Exxon Surrenders but JIM E keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon said

"Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to
climate change...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tob...

Bawana

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 8:22:29 AM1/18/07

to

WHAT DID YOU SAY???

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 8:54:11 AM1/18/07

to

Exxon Creams on Death-Rag

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 4:11:53 PM1/18/07

to

Who has more money for science research, EXXON or YOU? Who has more
than 12,000 patents filed by staff scientists, EXXON or YOU. When they
say CO2 causes Global Warming Climate Change, you shut your dicksucking
mouth and accept it.

Exxon Surrenders but Roger Dewhurst keeps sucking their dead dick:

rpa...@eas.slu.edu

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 10:12:21 PM1/18/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:

> > > Deatherage
> > > CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo provided a good laboratory for
model testing. Not only was the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5
°C accurately forecast soon after the eruption, but the radiative,
water-vapor, and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were
quantitatively verified.

unlike this

The protons and neutrons which comprise a stable nucleus exist in
purely static or unchanging structural organization and the nuclei
exist in perpetual spin inside the electron shell.

This can be absolutely proven by physics based on normal known physical
laws and a very basic study in structural stability and three
dimensional Euclidean geometry.

Jim E

unread,

Jan 19, 2007, 8:22:36 PM1/19/07

to

You say nothing.
You call people names.
You are a mindless liberal.

Jim E

Deaf Power

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 12:04:55 AM1/20/07

to

Go fuck yourself.

Bawana

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 5:32:08 AM1/20/07

to

WHAT? WHAT DID YOU SAY??

rpa...@eas.slu.edu

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 9:16:00 AM1/20/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:

> > kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > 1370 - 370 = 1000 (equals fatal theoretical impasse for Grenhouse
> > > theory)
> > >

> > > Deatherage

> > > CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease

Start with the wrong numbers and assumptions twist them around and lo
and behold you have garbage. Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO) What happen
to the Albedo, absorption by the atmosphere etc. Before you make up
numbers at least try to get them close to right. Since you are highly
educated in astrophysics why not get a intro to meteorology book and
look up THE MEASURED VALUES

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 12:56:06 PM1/20/07

to

I get the value of 1000 from those that make solar collectors. You are
a duffus also. 370 is absorbed by the atmosphere. In exactly the
frequencies you claim that the outgoing energy can be changed by
concentration changes of 100 ppm of CO2. Albedo refers to reflected
energy that is not absorbed. This is not relevant to a specific square
meter of solar collector, duffus. Why don't you post the real value if
you have one? Why post this inductive logic? I'm sure the the grenhouse
theory is printed in a lot of books. That doesn't mean it is correct.
You demonstrate well the inablilty of the narcissitic idiots of
academia inablilty to deal with the most basic issues due to that
constipation of the brain you have from your invalid theory. And you
freaks continue in wishing to affect everybodies lives according to
your invalid science.

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies

rpa...@eas.slu.edu

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 1:25:22 PM1/20/07

to

You truly are clueless. The 1370 watts per square meter assume a flat
disk perpendicular to the beam of sunlight in space at a mean distance
of 150,000,000 km from the sun. It has nothing to do with the surface
of the earth which has an atmosphere. is a sphere rather than a flat
plane and rotates on it's axis. The MEASURED VALUE of insolation at the
surface is only about 400 watts per square meter. The exact value
depends on the latitude and season. See "Global Physicsl Meterology" By
Hartmann page 31 figure 2.6a, General Climatology by Critchfield page
27, figure 2.14

You can simulate with a flashlight. an old fashion camera light meter
and globe the exact effects. The problem is you are fixated with your
own ideas of physics regardless of what you can see and measure for
yourself.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 2:23:08 PM1/20/07

to

Is this an average? Of course the collector is perpendicular. The value
of 1000Wm-2 is at the equator at solar noon under optimal conditions.
At any angle to the sun,(time of day etc) it is more important that
greater energy is absorbed in the lower atmosphere and does not reach
the surface, than the slight angle to the ground. The angle of the
ground does not even become appreciable until 40 degrees lattitude from
zenith or so. Of course the 1370 is outside the atmosphere. This solar
constant induces a temperature of 250C on the moon, and it has a very
reflective surface. There may be some value to figuring an average or
mean value of energy recieved at the surface. This doesn't mean
anything to any particular 1 meter that is recieving 1000 Watts. The
temperature of this particular meter will only be determined by this
quantity of energy. Even in Alaska in the summer time, they get 900
Wm-2. The efficiency of the solar cells determine how much of this
solar energy is converted to electricity.
SO what does the term '400 Wm-2 measured value of insolation mean.
This changes considerably at different lattitudes. Is this an average?
The earth actually radiates for it's mean temperature at 459Wm-2. So
how could this be true?

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies

>

rpa...@eas.slu.edu

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 4:53:40 PM1/20/07

to

You still don't get it! The 1375 w/m^-2 is in space only. The surface
of the earth receives at most 400 wm^-2 and averages less than that.
The earth only emits about 265 wm^2 corresponding to a 288 K average
temperature

Exxon's Dick Pumping Hanson's Mouth

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 5:36:00 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

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 8:23:59 PM1/20/07

to

Hey Wienie, when you get to the wienie roast you'll be hot shit. Until
then you're just a demented and chilidish idiot.

rpa...@eas.slu.edu

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 9:36:54 PM1/20/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:

> What makes this demented and anti-social creep tick and justify his
> continued harassment of anyone that reads or participates in this
> global warming debate? What does he have to gain or lose? Does he ever
> even discuss anything? At some points, he has demonstrated a
> fascination in courtrooms and lawsuits, threathening to sue anyone that
> > speaks out against his false science. He intimates to those of us that
> contend with him, what our fate will be when he and his comrades get
> into power and gain their desired power of persecution wherby they can
> commit their murders in their schemes to gain control by violence and
> intimidation (this is the definition of fascism). In the meantime, he
> just enjoys the 'fart in the face power' he has in our world of
> guaranteed free speech and that extreme enjoyment he feels in his own
> infatuation
>
> > Deatherage
> CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease

I love it! You start a thread threatening people that point out the
flaws in your statements. You repeatedly call people "demented and
anti-social creep" You make statements like "Hey Wienie, when you get

to the wienie roast you'll be hot shit. Until then you're just a

demented and chilidish idiot. " Even though posters keep trying to
point out the simple mistakes you are making your try make your self
the martyr with statements like "They are elitist and genocidists. I'm

not really sure who they think should survive, but they don't give a
damn for all of the stupid people that know nothing about their
science, and especially they don't care for the people that do
understand their science and try to point out to them fatal flaws that
entirely cripple the postulate that CO2 can affect the temperature of
the atmosphere. They seriously
contemplate how many people might have to die by direct or indirect
genocide with the cutbacks in emissions that they have theoretically

determined to be neccasary." You cann't even do simple math, people
keep pointing out where you are making your mistakes, but you prefer to
call them "demented and anti-social creep".

You cann't understand quantum mechanics, but when people try to teach
you you make statements like "THE PHOTON HAS MASS RETARD, AND THIS CAN
BE AND HAS BEEN DIRECTLY PROVED BY SCIENCE MAYBE SOMEDAY THESE MODERN
FACTS WILL MAKE IT TO THE BACKWOODS LITTLE 1-6 GRADE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
THAT TOLERATES YOUR IGNORANT ASS"

By the way the average emission temperature of the earth WITH CO2 is
about 288K not any where near what you are quoting

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 10:03:37 PM1/20/07

to

xx

> By the way the average emission temperature of the earth WITH CO2 is
> about 288K not any where near what you are quoting

That is the average temperature near the surface of the earth and CO2
has no effect on this. You are a completely inept fucking idiot. YOu
cannot calculate temperature from recieved radiation in the least. The
moon is 250C in sunlight. Why would the earth be cooler and needing CO2
to warm it up. This is made up bullshit for narcissistic idiots like
you to repeat.

. It gives you nothing for the mean radiative energy since these are
not directly proportional. Photons do have mass. This was demonstrated
in 1901 for the first time and then 1903. Einstein surely viewed these
experiments before he developed his theorem, E = mc^2. This was later
confirmed very well by Gerlach 1922. The Hubble telescope must consider
the effect of the mass and momentum of the suns light. Nuclei recoil
from emission of gamma photons.

YET IT REMAINS AN INTEGRAL PART OF QM THAT PHOTONS HAVE NO MASS. AND
YOU BELIEVE IN THIS HEISENBERG, EINSTEIN HATING BULLSHIT AND MAKE IT
YOUR LIFE
I REPEAT,, PHOTONS HAVE MASS,,,YOUR QUANTUM MECHANICS THAT DENIES THIS
IS INVALID,,YOUR INABLILITY TO EVALUATE DATA INSTEAD OF JUST REPEATING
YOUR FANTASY REALM OF QM WITHIN THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IN WHICH
NORMAL PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES DO NOT APPLY, IS NOT PHYSICS AND HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH PHYSICS

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies

rpa...@eas.slu.edu

unread,

Jan 20, 2007, 10:29:35 PM1/20/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> That is the average temperature near the surface of the earth and CO2
> has no effect on this. You are a completely inept fucking idiot. YOu
> cannot calculate temperature from recieved radiation in the least. The
> moon is 250C in sunlight. Why would the earth be cooler and needing CO2
> to warm it up. This is made up bullshit for narcissistic idiots like
> you to repeat.
>

288K is about 15C so I guess it is Ok that the moon has a temperature
250C and the earth is 15C

The globally averaged, total amount of solar energy incident at the top
of the atmosphere is 342 W/m2 (see above figure). This is an energy
gain for the planet. Units of W/m2 (Watts per square meter) represent a
heat flux density, the amount of energy crossing an area over a certain
time interval. The annual average albedo of the planet is 30%. Thus, of
the incident solar energy at the top of the atmosphere, approximately
30% or 103 W/m2 are sent back out to space and 70% (239 W/m2) are
absorbed by the atmosphere and surface. The solar energy reflected back
to space is considered a loss of energy. Of the 239 W/m2 gained by
absorption, the atmosphere absorbs approximately 82 W/m2 (24% of the
incoming solar energy) and the surface 157 W/m2 (46% of the incoming
solar energy at the top of atmosphere). This absorption, and thus
energy gain, by the atmosphere is primarily accomplished by water
vapor, clouds, aerosols and ozone. Solar radiation is an energy supply
for the atmosphere and the surface.

Earth's surface gains energy due to atmospheric emission of longwave
energy but also loses radiant energy by emission. The losses exceed the
gains and the surface loses 51 W/m2 as longwave radiation. Some of the
surface-emitted energy escapes to space and the rest is absorbed by the
atmosphere. The atmosphere emits radiant energy out to space and
towards the surface, these losses being larger than gains from the
surface (188 W/m2). The net terrestrial radiation to space is 239 W/m2,
and so the radiation energy gains and losses are balanced at the top of
the atmosphere. When we add the net solar energy gains to the net
longwave energy losses we see that the surface has a net gain of
radiant energy (157 W/m2 - 51 W/m2 = 106 W/m2) and the atmosphere
experiences a net loss of radiant energy (82 W/m2-188 W/m2 = -106
W/m2).

A loss of 106 W/m2 by the atmosphere is equivalent to the atmosphere
cooling more than 200°C over the course of a year! We do not observe
this large cooling because energy is transferred from the surface to
the atmosphere. The transfer of 106 W/m2 is accomplished by sensible
and latent heat transfers. Sensible heat transfer represents the
combined processes of conduction and convection, and amounts to a total
of 21 W/m2. Latent heating transfers 85 W/m2 from the surface to the
atmosphere. Evaporation from oceans and lakes and sublimation from
glaciers also results in a cooling of the surface. Some of the water
that is evaporated into the atmosphere condenses to form clouds and
precipitation, releasing latent heat.

When globally averaged over a year, net energy gains are balanced by
energy losses, or nearly so. This is not the case when the radiation
gains and losses are averaged as a function of latitude

Phil.

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 12:54:06 AM1/21/07

to

Not true the max. temperature of the moon's surface is ~107ºC

> Why would the earth be cooler and needing CO2
> to warm it up.

The moon's albedo is 0.12 (avg) whereas the Earth's is ~0.30.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 1:45:40 AM1/21/07

to

Phil. wrote:
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:

>
> Not true the max. temperature of the moon's surface is ~107ºC
>
>
> > Why would the earth be cooler and needing CO2
> > to warm it up.
>
> The moon's albedo is 0.12 (avg) whereas the Earth's is ~0.30.

To say that the albedo is .30 and therfore you can subtract 30 percent
of the energy is invalid. This only applies to visible light.
If you say otherwise and try to plant this false theory into the US
economy, I will gain the point to do the laboratory experiments to
prove you wrong and guilty of hienous crimes. 370 Wm-2 are absorbed by
the atmosphere under ideal conditions. This energy is almost all in the
infrared.

Everything I have ever seen has said the moon in light is 250C Perhaps
this is the temperature being in the sunlight and the moons radiation
at this temperature. If it is 107C it is much easier to understand,
since 1370Wm-2 equates to 121C. Subtract the energy of the visible
light that is reflected and it gives this value. Albedo only applies to
visible light. The conservation of energy is always maintained.

Still this in no way justifies the theory that the radiative surface
divided by recieving surface gives an average that is valid. The
surface reaches the temperatures that it will in the day. And then at
night loses this heat according to it's rate of heat loss. The
radiation does not enter the earth system get divided by four as it
leaves instantly and this math is really nonsense. Any surface area
reaches the temperature according to the radiation it recieves. The
surface temperature is much different in different areas. These areas
of different temperature radiate energy at different rates.

If this is correct about the moons high temperature. Then it still puts
the surface temperature of the earth like I said. Starting at 90C for
1000W with perhaps lower temperatures on surfaces that reflect visible
light. The average temperature at the surface is not indicative of mean
radiative energy because the energy is 4th power to the temperature.
Averaging the temperatures and then deriving a mean radiaton energy
from this is invalid. You must average the radiation energies.

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 1:55:42 AM1/21/07

to

l> Not true the max. temperature of the moon's surface is ~107ºC
l>
l>

> > Why would the earth be cooler and needing CO2

l> > to warm it up.
l>
l> The moon's albedo is 0.12 (avg) whereas the Earth's is ~0.30.
l>

The .30 albedo applies to the earth in general. Including the clouds
and ice coverage. It means very little to any particular surface.
Deatherage

Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 5:56:04 AM1/21/07

to

Whatever Happened to that kOOk-kOO Kent Death-Rag, who claims Quantum
Mechanics is a fraud and has a website full of molecule model pictures
that can only be explained by QM?

rpa...@eas.slu.edu

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 11:22:36 AM1/21/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Phil. wrote:
> > kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > Not true the max. temperature of the moon's surface is ~107ºC
> >
> >
> > > Why would the earth be cooler and needing CO2
> > > to warm it up.
> >
> > The moon's albedo is 0.12 (avg) whereas the Earth's is ~0.30.
>
> To say that the albedo is .30 and therfore you can subtract 30 percent
> of the energy is invalid. This only applies to visible light.
> If you say otherwise and try to plant this false theory into the US
> economy, I will gain the point to do the laboratory experiments to
> prove you wrong and guilty of hienous crimes. 370 Wm-2 are absorbed by
> the atmosphere under ideal conditions. This energy is almost all in the
> infrared.
>

The concept of albedo applies to all wavelengths. The exact value for
the albedo depends on the wavelength and the angle of incidence. At
high angle of incidence the albedo is as high as 90%. The average over
ALL WAVELENGTHS AND ALL ANGLES OF INCIDENCE is 30%. I have said
otherwise and so has anybody who has ever measured it. The atmosphere
absorbs on average 68 watts m^-2 of ALL INCOMING radiation. Since the
atmosphere is opaque at ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths longer
than 2microns (A diffraction grating that costs about $1, a black (UV)
light and a heat lamp can prove this) the ovewhelming majority of the
absorption occurs at visible wavelengths. The energy that makes it to
the surface. The surface is heated and emits energy at wavelengths
proportional to its temperature

Phil.

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 5:23:34 PM1/21/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Phil. wrote:
> > kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > Not true the max. temperature of the moon's surface is ~107ºC
> >
> >
> > > Why would the earth be cooler and needing CO2
> > > to warm it up.
> >
> > The moon's albedo is 0.12 (avg) whereas the Earth's is ~0.30.
>
> To say that the albedo is .30 and therfore you can subtract 30 percent
> of the energy is invalid. This only applies to visible light.

Not true, the value I quoted is the measured value measured for the
solar insolation by the NASA ERBE project which measures over all
wavelengths, not just visible.

> If you say otherwise and try to plant this false theory into the US
> economy, I will gain the point to do the laboratory experiments to
> prove you wrong and guilty of hienous crimes. 370 Wm-2 are absorbed by
> the atmosphere under ideal conditions. This energy is almost all in the
> infrared.

370 W/m^2 is not the amount absorbed by the atmosphere, the measured
average is 268 W/m^2, it is not all IR but includes most of the UV.

>
> Everything I have ever seen has said the moon in light is 250C Perhaps
> this is the temperature being in the sunlight and the moons radiation
> at this temperature. If it is 107C it is much easier to understand,
> since 1370Wm-2 equates to 121C. Subtract the energy of the visible
> light that is reflected and it gives this value. Albedo only applies to
> visible light. The conservation of energy is always maintained.

Again the albedo is not confined to the visible! You must have read
only an unreliable source for the moon's surface temp. since all the
values I have seen refer to the ~107ºC or similar, I can only conclude
that your source misread ºF as ºC?

>
> Still this in no way justifies the theory that the radiative surface
> divided by recieving surface gives an average that is valid. The
> surface reaches the temperatures that it will in the day. And then at
> night loses this heat according to it's rate of heat loss. The
> radiation does not enter the earth system get divided by four as it
> leaves instantly

On earth it does not leave instantly, the most obvious example being
water heating up during the day then giving up its heat to the
atmosphere by conduction at night, which is mostly transferred upwards
via convection until it reaches a sufficiently high altitude that it
can lose heat to space by radiation. On the moon the situation is
different since there is no atmosphere or water to average things out,
the only energy storage mechanism would be heating the rock (the moon
has a 27 day rotation period too).

and this math is really nonsense. Any surface area
> reaches the temperature according to the radiation it recieves. The
> surface temperature is much different in different areas. These areas
> of different temperature radiate energy at different rates.

Indeed they do but what I'm talking about is the average temperature,
unlike you who arbitrary selects the condition of low humidity and now
cloud at noon on the equator and say that that could reach 90ºC (quite
correct) and then argue that because this is higher than the global
average temperature and the atmospheric temperature the GH effect is
invalid! Try going to the Sahara desert under those conditions you'll
find a 'shade' temperature of ~50ºC while a black rock on the surface
will reach ~90ºC. Even simple, low tech solar ovens will easily reach
150ºC+, not even necessary to be near the equator.

The point you miss about the radiative balance is that incoming solar
must be balanced by the outgoing radiation (which is leaving the whole
surface all the time)! Thus S(1-albedo)=4*alpha*T^4 from which you
can calculate the surface averaged temperature (T).

> If this is correct about the moons high temperature. Then it still puts
> the surface temperature of the earth like I said. Starting at 90C for
> 1000W with perhaps lower temperatures on surfaces that reflect visible
> light. The average temperature at the surface is not indicative of mean
> radiative energy because the energy is 4th power to the temperature.
> Averaging the temperatures and then deriving a mean radiaton energy
> from this is invalid. You must average the radiation energies.

Which is exactly where the average value of 255ºC comes from as I show
above, comparing it with a black body at noon on the equator is
meaningless!

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 6:34:37 PM1/21/07

to

You guys are so invalid it is not funny. To take an overall average
for incident radiation and heat is invalid. An object brought into the
radiation of the sun will quickly attain a temperature and then
stabilize. In the solar constant this temperature will never exceed
121C regardless of the time it is in this radiation. To average the
energy recieved like you guys do, and then decide upon your average
temperature is wrong because temperature is not dependent on amount of
radiation recieved. Only the temperature or density of this radiation.
So at the equator considering no effect from clouds. You must consider
your highest temperature, and then your lowest temperture reached to
find your average temperature. The low temperature is determined by the
rate that heat is lost after the radiation is removed.To take the
average of the energies is false. That other guy just put in his post
that the top of the atmosphere recieves average 348 Watt /sq meter.
This is absolutely stupid. This means nothing. The solar constant is
1370Wm-2. So What the hell does this statement mean. You average in the
nighttime? Do you guys take yourself as seriously as you expect us too?
It recieves 1370 Wm-2. In traveling to the surface, 370 Wm-2 are
absorbed by the atmosphere and do not make it to the surface under
optimal conditins. At angle to the sun, the lower atmosphere absorbs
most frequencies other than the visible. The average of the energy
reaching the surface and being absorbed, determines the mean
temperature. The ocean absorbs much more energy than land and does not
reflect infrared radiation. Any instruments you have reading infrared
are reading reemitted infrared. Only visible light truly reflects
without being absorbd and entering into the heat considerations

The temperature of the earth is determined by radiation energy that is
absorbed at the surface. There is some effect of the heat absorbed by
the atmosphere but not much.

The scientific fact is that 1000 Wm-2 is the optimal energy from the
sun at the equator. This is not 1100Wm-2 like you say that only
270Watts are absorbed. Your statement is invalid. As far as I am
concerned, this is very serious matter. For you to be unable to
recount the valid data. Is it to be just your word against mine for
these very serious scientific facts? 370Wm-2 do not come through the
atmosphere under these optimal conditions. Only 1 percent of the solar
constant is absorbed as UV in the stratosphere. Very little of the
infrared actually pass through the atmosphere. That which is detected
is mostly from absorbed higher frequencies whose energy is reemitted in
these lower frequencies.

The way grenhouse theory uses averages to put false dynamics into their
analyses is criminal fraud. You guys are a total pain in the ass the
way you just sit around and make up all this junk and then agree that
it refers to anything valid at all.

Phil.

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 8:02:19 PM1/21/07

to

The temperature reached is the temperature at which the radiated long
wave radiation is exactly balanced by the incoming shortwave radiation
(the equation I posted above). Thus the temperature reached is
precisely defined by the amount of incoming radiation received and the
properties of the surface (i.e. albedo, emissivity)

> Only the temperature or density of this radiation.
> So at the equator considering no effect from clouds. You must consider
> your highest temperature, and then your lowest temperture reached to
> find your average temperature. The low temperature is determined by the
> rate that heat is lost after the radiation is removed.To take the
> average of the energies is false. That other guy just put in his post
> that the top of the atmosphere recieves average 348 Watt /sq meter.
> This is absolutely stupid. This means nothing. The solar constant is
> 1370Wm-2. So What the hell does this statement mean. You average in the
> nighttime?

You'd better continue to average during the night since the radiation
loss continues through the night even though the insolation does not.
The statement means the average flux at the top of the atmosphere,
which is where the radiation exchange is balanced.

> Do you guys take yourself as seriously as you expect us too?
> It recieves 1370 Wm-2. In traveling to the surface, 370 Wm-2 are
> absorbed by the atmosphere and do not make it to the surface under
> optimal conditins. At angle to the sun, the lower atmosphere absorbs
> most frequencies other than the visible. The average of the energy
> reaching the surface and being absorbed, determines the mean
> temperature. The ocean absorbs much more energy than land and does not
> reflect infrared radiation. Any instruments you have reading infrared
> are reading reemitted infrared. Only visible light truly reflects
> without being absorbd and entering into the heat considerations
>
> The temperature of the earth is determined by radiation energy that is
> absorbed at the surface. There is some effect of the heat absorbed by
> the atmosphere but not much.

On average 672 W/m^2 is adsorbed at the surface compared with 268 W/m^2
(based on the solar constant) all of this energy is involved in the
Earth's energy balance.

>
> The scientific fact is that 1000 Wm-2 is the optimal energy from the
> sun at the equator. This is not 1100Wm-2 like you say that only
> 270Watts are absorbed. Your statement is invalid. As far as I am
> concerned, this is very serious matter. For you to be unable to
> recount the valid data. Is it to be just your word against mine for
> these very serious scientific facts?

No my data come from actual scientifically measurements made both at
the surface and by satellite and published in the scientific literature
yours are apparently fabricated by you. A reference is given below plus
the fig 7 from the paper showing the earth's radiation budget:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig7.gif

I also gave a reference before that refutes your false statements
concerning albedo.

> 370Wm-2 do not come through the
> atmosphere under these optimal conditions. Only 1 percent of the solar
> constant is absorbed as UV in the stratosphere. Very little of the
> infrared actually pass through the atmosphere. That which is detected
> is mostly from absorbed higher frequencies whose energy is reemitted in
> these lower frequencies.
>
> The way grenhouse theory uses averages to put false dynamics into their
> analyses is criminal fraud. You guys are a total pain in the ass the
> way you just sit around and make up all this junk and then agree that
> it refers to anything valid at all.

Actually you are the one making things up, hopefully you will now stop
posting your false lunar temperatures though.

Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 1:02:17 AM1/22/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 2:34:32 PM1/23/07

to

Phil. wrote:
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Phil. wrote:
> > > kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > Phil. wrote:

> > these very serious scientific facts?
>
> No my data come from actual scientifically measurements made both at
> the surface and by satellite and published in the scientific literature
> yours are apparently fabricated by you. A reference is given below plus
> the fig 7 from the paper showing the earth's radiation budget:
>

These two sites posted by a noted Phobiac ,,,"Phil."
<fel...@princeton.edu,,diagram grenhouse theory. They should not be
allowed to change this as they pursue their goals in federal hearings
this year. His explanations are included in the previous post.

> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig7.gif

Hohoho Hanson Loves Exxon's Brown Turds, not Green Ones

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 2:39:09 PM1/23/07

to

> > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
> > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig7.gif

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

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 3:08:57 PM1/23/07

to

l>
l> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
l> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig7.gif
l>
So Phil, there is something missing here. That is correlation to
average temperatures at the surface of the earth. The only thing you
could be deriving with these averages is the mean temperature. Average
temperature, according to average of the temperatures, will be a
smaller value, due to the fact that the energy is a 4th power to
temperature, and averages of each are not the same. I think that it is
considered that the average temperature near the surface of the earth
is about 287K. Could you clarify how your mean temperature correlates
to calculated average from actual temperature.

Another thing. You are abolutely wrong to say that it is correct to
average emissivity area to absorption area. The ocean absorbs a
considerable amount of the 1000Wm-2 that reaches the surface. Much of
the light penetrates before it is absorbed and the surface of the ocean
in no way reaches a radiative temperature which is equivelent to the
enegy it is abosrbing. And in colder regions the temperature of
radiation is much less. Result. Your averages for surface area,
recieved radiation and energy lost by radiation are completely invalid.

But objectivity and rational analyses are not part of your accepted
routine. You must stipulate your dogma. Well see if this rinky dink
analyses holds up in court which is exactly where this criminal
bullshit is headed.

Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 5:09:46 PM1/23/07

to

Phil.

unread,

Jan 28, 2007, 10:26:09 PM1/28/07

to

It's called the Temperature Lapse Rate, heat rises via convection from
the surface cooling as it does so until near the tropopause the
atmosphere is suffieciently optically thin for radiation to escape to
space (the gases doing the radiating being predominately CO2 and H2O,
although H2O is much reduced compared to the surface)

> The only thing you
> could be deriving with these averages is the mean temperature.

Yes the mean radiative temperature which is what's important because
that is the process by which heat is lost from the planet and must
balance insolation.

> Average
> temperature, according to average of the temperatures, will be a
> smaller value, due to the fact that the energy is a 4th power to
> temperature, and averages of each are not the same. I think that it is
> considered that the average temperature near the surface of the earth
> is about 287K. Could you clarify how your mean temperature correlates
> to calculated average from actual temperature.

See above

>
> Another thing. You are abolutely wrong to say that it is correct to
> average emissivity area to absorption area. The ocean absorbs a
> considerable amount of the 1000Wm-2 that reaches the surface.

Always provided the light actually reaches the surface! The measured
albedo of the tropical ocean is as low as ~15% in ideal conditions
(few clouds), the convergence zone however has a higher albedo
(30-40%) because the clouds. Your value of 1000 Wm^2 only applies at
noon, on the equator, under a cloudless sky by a black body.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html

> Much of
> the light penetrates before it is absorbed and the surface of the ocean
> in no way reaches a radiative temperature which is equivelent to the
> enegy it is abosrbing.

I think you're the only one that says it does! However the SST of the
tropical ocean certainly reaches 300 K, but the tropical ocean
exhibits net radiative heating whereas the Sahara desert mainly
exhibits net radiative cooling because of its high albedo and
cloudless skies.

> And in colder regions the temperature of
> radiation is much less. Result. Your averages for surface area,
> recieved radiation and energy lost by radiation are completely invalid.

Actually they're not, because what we're interested in is radiation
from the planet which depends on T^4, therefore it is appropriate to
average T^4, thus the average temperature is (avg(T^4))^1/4.

> But objectivity and rational analyses are not part of your accepted
> routine. You must stipulate your dogma. Well see if this rinky dink
> analyses holds up in court which is exactly where this criminal
> bullshit is headed.

Oh it will hold up because it's based on valid demonstrated science,
unlike your lies about heat capacity, albedo, temperature of the moon
etc.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 9:52:53 AM1/29/07

to

On Jan 28, 9:26 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:

l>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
> > l>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig7.gif
> > l>
> > So Phil, there is something missing here. That is correlation to

> > average temperatures at the surface of the earth.It's called the Temperature Lapse Rate, heat rises via convection from

> the surface cooling as it does so until near the tropopause the
> atmosphere is suffieciently optically thin for radiation to escape to
> space (the gases doing the radiating being predominately CO2 and H2O,
> although H2O is much reduced compared to the surface)

This is false Phil. If this were true, how come you cannot detect
temperature differences in the laboratory with the different gases. Of
course water vapor is an abnormal gas. It has higher pressure as
temperature increases than the normal gases like O2, N2 and CO2.
Although there may be bands of frequencies that are darker in the
continous spectra of CO2, this does not affect the overal radition of
energy and laboratory analyses of temperature prove this.

> > The only thing you
> > could be deriving with these averages is the mean temperature.Yes the mean radiative temperature which is what's important because

> that is the process by which heat is lost from the planet and must
> balance insolation.

But this math is in error. Take the problem of a steel ball that is
not rotating in the sunlight. Your average would also put this at the
mean radiative average of 342. This is surface area of radiation
divided by surface area of influx.
But the heat input is at the velocity of light. Until the incoming
rate is matched by surface temperature, the energy will continue to
accumulate.
So the steel ball will have half of it's surface illuminated. As you
go around from the zenith of the radiation, the angle of the surface
will diminish the density of the recieved radiation. The total energy
recieved in this hemisphere must be radiated in order to maintain
equilibrium.

At equilibrium, the point closest to the sun will be very nearly 121C.
As you go around the sphere, temperature will decrease. The critical
point is about 40deg from zenith. At this point the angle of the
surface to the incident radiation becomes appreciable, temperatures
from this point begin to fall off quickly. All in all, the side facing
the sun will radiate most of the recieved radiation. It will be
deficient in the energy it radiates to the energy it receives
according to the energy that is transfered through the sphere by
conduction and radiated from the dark side.

So mean radiative temperature, the temperature which radiates the
greatest quantity of radiated energy form the sphere is achieved near
the 40deg point. This is about half of the intitial intensity. The
average temperature for each square meter of the surface does not
match this. The energy radiation is not proportional to the surface
area. There is much more surface area far below mean radiative
intentsity.
But the fact is, the mean radiatve temperature, and the average
temperatures are higher than with your calculation.

Stefan Boltzman must refer to the energy passing through the plane of
one sq cm. To find this average for the surface of a sphere is
invalid. With a body recieving radiation from two sources your
calculations are more valid. Surface area of input, surface area of
radiation. But still, here each source radiates from a given direction
which is perpendicular to a single plane.

1370W induces a temperture of 121C
With 342 Watts from a single direction upon a simple system, the
maximum surface temperature that could be reached would be the
temperature that radiates at 342W. This is a very different result.

Your calculation show an average surface temperature of OF that is
bolstered by 'grenhouse' gases 33C.
This is prepoterous. The equatorial temperatures are exactly what they
should be for incident radiation. Nighttime temperatures are exactly
what they should be for energy absorbed by the ground from daytime
radiation, and the much slower rate of energy loss at lower
temperature. Temperate zone temperatures are exactly what they should
be. For incident radiation, and the energy of the sun that is absorbed
in the lower 6-7 kilometers of the atmosphere. Artic temperatures are
what they should be, for air temperatures and temperature inside the
earth.

Nowhere can you justify the supposed effect of grenhouse gases. Your
intitial calculation of mean radiative temperature is invalid and too
low.
You cannot justify an effect of the grenhouse gases that are already
in the atmosphere. This is the basis of your theory. You cannot
justify the claim that minute increases in concentration can affect
the temperature.

I'm willing to discuss this without personal attacks. so please don't
throw any at me. Or they'll be right back at you with even the
possibilty of legal action. Expecially if this bogus shit ever goes
through and any people at all die because of this fraud.

Deatherage

>
>
>
> > Average
> > temperature, according to average of the temperatures, will be a
> > smaller value, due to the fact that the energy is a 4th power to
> > temperature, and averages of each are not the same. I think that it is

> > considered that the average temperature...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 11:14:24 AM1/29/07

to

On Jan 29, 8:52 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 28, 9:26 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> l>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
>
> > > l>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig7.gi

Another thing. In calculating nighttime temperatures, the energy
stored in the earth by daytime radiation is in the molar density of
either the land or ocean. This is much greater than the molar density
of the air. Thus for a given volume of ground to lose an amount of
temperature, will induce a greater temperature in the air. Same
quantity of heat. Liquid water also has the extremely high heat
capacity, 2.7 times greater than air.

Water vapor is an abnormal gas with higher pressure increase to
temperature increase than the normal gases of which CO2 is a normal
gas. This property of water vapor, and the fact that it can only exist
at max.4% in air, is what actually causes the effect of slower heat
loss at night in humid air. The water molecules cannot rise far from
the surface because they begin to condense and fall back. This causes
a layer of moist air at the surface. As it loses heat, it has a
diminished pressure which tends to cause somewhat of thermal inversion
and lack of microconvection from the surface to the cooler and dryer
air up above.

Clouds mean layers of air of different moisture content. This reduces
convection with the upper atmosphere. This is what causes slower
nighttime heat loss with cloud cover, which is often falsely
interpreted as the clouds reflecting radiation. The fact is, the
infrared frequencies already have to transfer molecule to molecule in
the air, so they transfer about the same through clouds. Infrared
images can be made through cloud cover.

The fact is in daytime temperatures, water content in the air keeps
temperatures down. Deserts with low humidity have extremely high
temperatures. I know from experience that only if dew point is low,
will temperatures go to 106-107. High dew points, and the temperatures
top off in the high 90's. Where is the grenhouse property of water
vapor??? At very much altitude there is very little water vapor. If it
doesn't act at the surface, it does not act.

The lower temperature with higher water content is also caused by the
abnormal pressure increase of water vapor. It has higher bouyancy and
this convection transfers heat more readily from near the surface. The
convection with the surface to areas only several hundred feet up is
often demonstrated in the whirlwinds or dust devils. The granulated
surface of the sun demonstrates the nature of convection from the
surface of the earth in high intensity sunlight, with the 'bubbling
up' effect of the hotter gases.

There is also the convection of the weater patterns, in which great
masses of air of different temperature exchange their location due to
differences in their bouyancy. That this heat is retained in these
large masses of air demonstrates also the opacity of air to thermal
frequencies. There is no actual effect of increased opacity from so
called 'grenhouse gases'. The earth radiates in a band around 10um.
CO2 radiates very well at these frequencies. This is the primary
reason it does not radiate well at 2.7, 4.2 or 15um. The energy of the
photons at 15um and their intensity is so low, that even if there were
andy credence to the claim that CO2 blocks these frequencies from
leaving the atmosphere, they would have no effect on overal
temperature.

Deatherage

> > > So Phil, there is something missing here. That is correlation to
> > > average temperatures at the surface of the earth.It's called the Temperature Lapse Rate, heat rises via convection from
> > the surface cooling as it does so until near the tropopause the
> > atmosphere is suffieciently optically thin for radiation to escape to
>
>

Science Fraud Buster

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 3:31:41 PM1/29/07

to

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

Science Fraud Buster

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 3:32:27 PM1/29/07

to

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 15, 2007, 11:36:30 AM2/15/07

to

On Jan 21, 12:55 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Phil. wrote:
> > kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > rpas...@eas.slu.edu wrote:

You claim that your method gives you an average for the moons
temperature. This can be directly shown to be invalid. If the surface
temperature on the lit side is 107C, and the average on the unlit side
is around 30K, this gives an average temperature around -70C. This is
not what your calculation gives. Which is -3C.

Your system of averages is blatantly invalid. And you do not have
enough phyics or math to even see this. I guess that is why you went
into the associate degree program of climatology. Actuall applicaton
of science or physics is secondary to the conclusion you seek to
justify by any means of fabricated theoretical science that CO2 causes
warming and thus the climatologists should be made the high priest of
the state mandated religion of AGW.

This is wholly invalid, to divide the solar constant by four according
to recieving area and radiating area.
If the moon were rotating a little more rapidly, none of the recieved
radition on the lit side
is being radiated from the unlit side. The unlit side radiates energy
from it's surface which cools very quickly
and the rate of energy loss goes way down. All of the energy radiated
on the unlit side
comes from energy stored in the material of the moon underneath. None
is transfered from
the other side that is recieving radiation. The side in the light,
reaches the temperature where it radiates
equivelent to what it recieves. With the sun at zenith at 123C.
Average temperature on the lit side at 107C.
This is what is predicted by the Bolzman Stefan equation.

You must be a climatologist. There are so many inaccurate statements
from you I can not keep track of them all.

You inablility to do math or check your conclusions is very apparent.
You cannot even see that
your metthod for determining average temperature of the moon or earth
is very evidently invalid.
If the average temperature on the lit side is 107C, the average
radiative energy of these temperatures is higher that this.
There is no validity at all to your calculations.
Particulary your application to earth's recieved raditation. The
important factor
of the earth's temperature is the energy that reaches the surface.
You guys use Bolztman Stefan incorrectly and use Wm-2 as a basic
quantity. Wm-2 is a rate
of energy transfer in Joules per second. This strict appilication to
surface area for a quantity is
invalid and gives absolutely false results to bolster your fraudulent
theory and end conclusion.

Deatherage

Eric Swanson

unread,

Feb 15, 2007, 1:26:51 PM2/15/07

to

In article <1171557390.9...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, kdt...@yahoo.com says...

>
>On Jan 21, 12:55 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Phil. wrote:

>> > > > By the way the average emission temperature of the earth WITH CO2 is
>> > > > about 288K not any where near what you are quoting
>>
>> > > That is the average temperature near the surface of the earth and CO2
>> > > has no effect on this. You are a completely inept fucking idiot. YOu
>> > > cannot calculate temperature from recieved radiation in the least. The
>> > > moon is 250C in sunlight.
>>

>> l> Not true the max. temperature of the moon's surface is ~107=BAC

So, when the Sun goes down on the Earth, the temperature of the surface
immediately drops how fast? Why does the temperature drop faster in dry
deserts and at high altitude than it does in the moist tropics? You are
ignoring the energy storage in the solid surface of the Moon as well as
the energy storage/release by the Earth's major fraction covered by water.
The storage/release requires some period of time and were the Moon to be
rotating rapidly, that process would result in more of the solar energy
stored in the Moon's rocks while it was facing the Sun later being radiated
away as the warm side rotates away from the Sun.

The point is that the Earth rotates much faster than the Moon. And, if
were there no Greenhouse Effect, how come the Earth's surface is warmer
than it appears from TOA or even lower at the tropopause?

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 15, 2007, 3:04:21 PM2/15/07

to

On Feb 15, 12:26 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
wrote:

>
> So, when the Sun goes down on the Earth, the temperature of the surface
> immediately drops how fast? Why does the temperature drop faster in dry
> deserts and at high altitude than it does in the moist tropics?

Because water vapor is an abnormal gas and because it condenses and
cannot exceed 4% in air. Air that is lifted by convection cannot
retain water vapor in the lower pressure and lower temperatures. As
temperature increases, it has an abnormal increase in pressure. It
also has a minute negative enthalpy associated with it's pressure
increase, since the pressure abnormality is due to clumping of
molecules. Reduction of this occuring bonding absorbs energy.

Air that contains water vapor is heavier and the moist air stays at
the surface. It retains the heat at the surface because it negates the
normal convection such as occurs otherwise. When this moist air at the
surface becomes warm enough that it convects with the cooler dryer air
up above, it causes the thunderstorms of convection that are seen in
the tropics.

The negation of convection is also why cloudy skys lose nighttime
temperature more slowly. It is a common myth that the clouds reflect
infrared radiation. Most infrareds travel readily through clouds. The
clouds are indication of layers of different moisture air which
negates convection with the upper layers. The sun has a granular
appearance. This is the convection at the surface of the sun. This
shows how convection works continually in adjacent areas besides the
convection of large masses of air that cause weather.

Why don't you bring up the fact that in desert in daytime, the lack of
water vapor allows the temperature to go much higher?? There are much
more IRs radiating back out in the extreme heat above 100F. Why
doesn't the water vapor trap these and make it hoter?

If you go to the equator at solar noon, 370 Wm-2 of the solar constant
does not reach the ground. In the initial solar constant, 50% is
visible light, 9% is ultraviolet, and 51% is in the infrared.
Virtually all of the missing energy is in the infrared. Particulary
the lower frequencies.

The air is opaque from 2um. Even simple experiments prove this as even
one of your AGW buddies has pointed out here recently. Due to the
great intensity of the sun's energy, much energy of the infrareds is
transfered to the surface molecule to molecule. So you better bone up
on this fact instead of repeating your normal AGW statements.

This affect of the atmosphere keeps the surface temperatures from
reaching the 123C that they do on the moon. 1000Wm-2 equates to 90C or
180F. Dark rocks at the equator can get this hot. The action of the
air next to surfaces absorbs and removes heat quickly. This keeps
equatorial temperatures where they are. Nowhere in this is there any
affect of 'grenhouse gases', on equatorial temperatures.

The lower frequencies cannot pass through the air but are absorbed and
reemitted at the velocity of light by the gas molecules and are part
of the temperature of the air. The air next to the surface reaches the
temperature near what the surface is. Air will only reach a
temperature equal to surfaces it is around. Once the air reaches this
temperature, the rate that heat is lost from the system depends on the
rate that heat is lost from the periphery of the gas.

Water has 2.7 times the heat capacity of air. It has a molar density
of 22,000/18 that of air. Therefore the heat in a tiny volume area of
water can heat a vey large volume of air to the same temperature.
3300/1. 1 liter of water losing one deg, will lose the equivelent heat
to heat 3300 liters of air one deg.
This and the fact that warmer air increases rate of evaporation which
absorbs 46,000 Joules per mole, PROVES that slight warming of the air
cannot cause ANY effect on temperature of the oceans. If there is
detected warming of the oceans, it PROVES another cause of global
warming other than CO2.

You are
> ignoring the energy storage in the solid surface of the Moon as well as
> the energy storage/release by the Earth's major fraction covered by water.
> The storage/release requires some period of time and were the Moon to be
> rotating rapidly, that process would result in more of the solar energy
> stored in the Moon's rocks while it was facing the Sun later being radiated
> away as the warm side rotates away from the Sun.

The dark side of the moon goes to about 20K. At this temperature, very
little energy is radiated. If you were to dig done no more than a few
meters, the temperature is still nearly the temperature that the moon
is in sunlight. The rate of conduction through the basalt of the moon
does not keep up with the rate that heat is lost at the surface from
radiation. The heat lost in the dark, is the minute amount that can
transfer to the surface by conduction which was stored when it was in
light. NONE of the energy being recieved on the other side is
treansfering though the moon. Therfore it is absolutly meaningless to
divide the solar constant by 4 for radiative area to recieving area.
All these calcualtions of AGW are designed for 'grenhouse gas theory',
and are therfore invalid in any actual application.

>
> The point is that the Earth rotates much faster than the Moon. And, if
> were there no Greenhouse Effect, how come the Earth's surface is warmer
> than it appears from TOA or even lower at the tropopause?
>

I don't know what you mean here. All temperatures of the earth can be
shown to be a product of energy recieved at the surface and rate that
this energy is transfered through the atmosphere. This is a direct
proof of the invalidity of grenhouse theory.

The maximum surface temperature of the ocean is 86F. The minimum
temperature of the ocean surface is 28F. Exactly halfway in between is
57F which is the average temperature near the surface of the earth.
The ocean recieves nearly 1000W-2 without clouds when the sun is
anywhere to about 35-40 degrees from zenith.

This gives it a predominate radiative energy of 459Wm-2 which would be
a temperature of 81F. Nowhere does the ocean need grenhouse gases for
this temperature. A pure O2 and N2 atmosphere would have exactly the
same effect of both keeping daytime temperatures down and slowing the
loss of heat from the surface and reducing nightime temperature drop.

Deatherage

Get Hydrogen TRUTH Info

unread,

Feb 15, 2007, 4:24:21 PM2/15/07

to

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,

Feb 15, 2007, 5:35:03 PM2/15/07

to

In sci.physics Get Hydrogen TRUTH Info <G...@hydrogentruth.info> wrote:
> .... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
> Yes, we got it!

Isn't that the goal of Taco Bell, WalMart, Microsoft, 7-11, Sony,
Home Depot, Starbucks, etc.?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Eric Swanson

unread,

Feb 15, 2007, 5:45:59 PM2/15/07

to

In article <1171569861.2...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, kdt...@yahoo.com says...

>
>On Feb 15, 12:26 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson)
>wrote:
>
>>
>> So, when the Sun goes down on the Earth, the temperature of the surface
>> immediately drops how fast? Why does the temperature drop faster in dry
>> deserts and at high altitude than it does in the moist tropics?
>
>Because water vapor is an abnormal gas and because it condenses and
>cannot exceed 4% in air. Air that is lifted by convection cannot
>retain water vapor in the lower pressure and lower temperatures. As
>temperature increases, it has an abnormal increase in pressure. It
>also has a minute negative enthalpy associated with it's pressure
>increase, since the pressure abnormality is due to clumping of
>molecules. Reduction of this occuring bonding absorbs energy.

How can there be vertical convection if there is no lapse rate?
Where does the lapse rate come from? Why is the tropopause colder
than the surface, even at night without solar heating?

>Air that contains water vapor is heavier and the moist air stays at
>the surface. It retains the heat at the surface because it negates the
>normal convection such as occurs otherwise. When this moist air at the
>surface becomes warm enough that it convects with the cooler dryer air
>up above, it causes the thunderstorms of convection that are seen in
>the tropics.

I have in my hand an introductory text book on atmospheric science.
Lutgens & Tarbuck, ninth edition, 2004, which states on page 168

"Contrary to popular perception, water vapor REDUCES the density of
air...The molecular weights of nitrogen and ozygen are greater than
that of water vapor. In a mass of air the molecules are intermixed
and each takes up roughly the same amount of space. As the water
content of an air mass increases, lighter water vapor molecules
displace heavier nitrogen and oxygen molecules..."

The reason the air near the surface tends to be more moist is that's
where the water evaporated from the surface first enters the air.

The rest of your rant is deleted for lack of content.

Hydrogen TRUTH

unread,

Feb 15, 2007, 5:50:55 PM2/15/07

to

They WISH. You seen any shills rushing for Golden Showers from Walmart
lately? They're thicker than flies on Death-Rag here for Exxon's pee
in their faces.

Bill Habr

unread,

Feb 15, 2007, 6:05:27 PM2/15/07

to

"Hydrogen TRUTH" <Hydrog...@HydrogenTRUTH.info> wrote in message
news:1171579855.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Exxon Creams on Death-Rag

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 1:04:26 AM2/26/07

to

> enough phyics or math to even see this. I guess that is why you went
> into the associate degree program of climatology. Actuall applicaton

> to recieving area and radiating area.

> radition on the lit side

> the other side that is recieving radiation. The side in the light,

> equivelent to what it recieves. With the sun at zenith at 123C.

> You inablility to do math or check your conclusions is very apparent.

> your metthod for determining average temperature of the moon or earth

> Particulary your application to earth's recieved raditation. The

> Deatherage

Death-Rag said: enough phyics Actuall applicaton recieving radition
recieving equivelent recieves You inablility metthod Particulary
recieved raditation.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 7, 2007, 8:22:12 PM3/7/07

to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> 1370 - 370 = 1000 (equals fatal theoretical impasse for Grenhouse
> theory)

Wow, you've finally proven your theorem mathematically.

I'm impressed.

Ahahahahahahahahahah... You fucking ignorant Loser.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 7, 2007, 10:34:33 PM3/7/07

to

"Jim E" <YD65...@SEA.edu> wrote in message
> It aint science to the environazis, it's just politics.
> Another grab for power.

That's real odd, since it comprises thousands upon thousands of articles
in the science journals.

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.