CO2'

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 20, 9:55 am, RedAcer <rreda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/04/13 14:21, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:43:31 +0100, RedAcer wrote:
>
> >> No wonder we're talking at cross-purposes to Falcon. He doesn't actually
> >> know what the Green-house effect is.
>
> >    To determine if you really know what the greenhouse effect actually
> > is, can you define it here?
>
> The greenhouse effect is caused by a greenhouse gas.
> A greenhouse gas is one which is largely transparent to radiation-energy
> from the sun, so it doesn't prevent it from reaching the earth's
> surface, but absorbs most of the thermal radiation emitted from the
> earth and retransmits it in all directions. This has the effect that the
> equilibrium temperature of the earth is *higher* than the equilibrium
> temperature would have been if no greenhouse gas were present.
>
> Do you agree?

What you are describing is an insulator. It's the same concept as a
blanket. All gasses are insulators. Some gasses are slightly better
insulators than others. Laboratory tests demonstrate that CO2 is
moderately more insulative than N2 or O2. H2O is slighty less
insulative than CO2 on a one to one basis. However, there is (on
average) about ninety times more H2O in the atmosphere than there is
CO2. And there are thousands of times more N2 and O2 in the
atmosphere than there is CO2. Consequently CO2's net contribution to
the insulative effect of the atmosphere is MINISCULE.

The reason global warming whackjobs, like Red Acer, refuse to consider
the math is because when the math is done the drama disappears.

[emoneyjoe]

Since when are the gases that cool the
atmosphere by IR radiation to space called
insulators?

With the fact that more CO2 in the
stratosphere causes more cooling,
the warmies twist that around and
say the stratosphere is cooler because
not as much energy from below reaches it.


CO2 clearly cools the atmosphere,
and the atmosphere would be warmer
without GHGs and water.

The whole Earth would be warmer
without water, climate science needs
to be rethought.

[Chom Noamsky]

That's why CO2-rooted GHG theory depends heavily on amplification by
water vapour feedback. The problem is, there is insufficient evidence
to establish what the feedback relationship is (if any). Try to find an
answer to the question 'what is the net feedback of atmospheric water
vapour and cloud cover' and you won't find anything resembling a
definitive answer. Skeptical Science says "it's complicated"...
bahahaha. All of the models used by the IPCC *assume* feedback is
strongly positive, i.e., a little CO2 causes a lot of warming, but the
assumption doesn't appear to have any real substantiation. Considering
that water vapour is the key and critical dependency, if this basic
assumption turns out to be false then the theory pretty much falls apart.

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 20, 1:35 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk

These are Red Acer's words: " . . . absorbs most of the thermal

radiation emitted from the earth and retransmits it in all

directions." That is an insulator.

>      With the fact that more CO2 in the
> stratosphere causes more cooling,
> the warmies twist that around and
> say the stratosphere is cooler because
> not as much energy from below reaches it.

That's an absurd claim.

>       CO2 clearly cools the atmosphere,
> and the atmosphere would be warmer
> without GHGs and water.
>
>       The whole Earth would be warmer
> without water, climate science needs
> to be rethought.

Global warming hysteria pivots off pretending what is unknown is
known. Don't add to it.

[Claudius Denk]

This is just a diversionary tactic. There is no real GHG theory.

 The problem is, there is insufficient evidence
> to establish what the feedback relationship is (if any). Try to find an
> answer to the question 'what is the net feedback of atmospheric water
> vapour and cloud cover' and you won't find anything resembling a
> definitive answer.  Skeptical Science says "it's complicated"...
> bahahaha.  All of the models used by the IPCC *assume* feedback is
> strongly positive, i.e., a little CO2 causes a lot of warming, but the
> assumption doesn't appear to have any real substantiation.  Considering
> that water vapour is the key and critical dependency, if this basic
> assumption turns out to be false then the theory pretty much falls apart.

Obviously water provides a net cooling effect by the fact that clouds
reflect sunlight back into space.

Global warming alarmists only wish to obscure the facts enough to take
advantage of the fact that for most people in the public everything
green is golden.

[emoneyjoe]

And do you agree that is how the GHGs work?

>>      With the fact that more CO2 in the
>> stratosphere causes more cooling,
>> the warmies twist that around and
>> say the stratosphere is cooler because
>> not as much energy from below reaches it.
>
>That's an absurd claim.

It is what the warming agenda claims;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric-Cooling-and-Tropospheric-Warming.html

It would be alright to mention that if
they also mentioned the more obvious
possibility of more CO2 simply radiating
more heat away.

>>       CO2 clearly cools the atmosphere,
>> and the atmosphere would be warmer
>> without GHGs and water.
>>
>>       The whole Earth would be warmer
>> without water, climate science needs
>> to be rethought.
>
>Global warming hysteria pivots off pretending what is unknown is
>known. Don't add to it.

It is obvious, that means it should be
known, that the GHGs radiate more heat
from the atmosphere than the atmosphere
absorbs by radiation from below.

If something provides the means, is
there ever a case where more of that
something provides less?

I'm not sure what you are saying,
I can only approach this from the
perspective that without GHGs and
without water and water clouds, the
atmosphere would be warmer than
now.

I see no other valid way to think
of what GHGs do, they obviously
cool the atmosphere that would
be warmer without them.

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 20, 3:47 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk

> >Global warming hysteria pivots off pretending what is unknown is
> >known.  Don't add to it.
>
>       It is obvious, that means it should be
> known, that the GHGs radiate more heat
> from the atmosphere than the atmosphere
> absorbs by radiation from below.

Uh, . . . I'm not following.

>
>      If something provides the means, is
> there ever a case where more of that
> something provides less?

I suppose.

>
>      I'm not sure what you are saying,
> I can only approach this from the
> perspective that without GHGs and
> without water and water clouds, the
> atmosphere would be warmer than
> now.
>
>      I see no other valid way to think
> of what GHGs do, they obviously
> cool the atmosphere that would
> be warmer without them.

There is a very good reason you are having trouble explaining/
comprehending GHG's. If it was anything but an ethereal notion
(masquerading as technical terminology) it would have long ago been
tested experimentally. It's not testable. It's progressive science.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:14:55 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Apr 20, 3:47 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
>
>> >Global warming hysteria pivots off pretending what is unknown is
>> >known.  Don't add to it.
>>
>>       It is obvious, that means it should be
>> known, that the GHGs radiate more heat
>> from the atmosphere than the atmosphere
>> absorbs by radiation from below.
>
>Uh, . . . I'm not following.

Sorry I didn't word it better.
You know that if GHGs absorb and radiate,
any IR that is absorbed by the GHGs will
be radiated, and that the annual mean
temperature of the atmosphere a few
feet above the ground has been within
a degree for the entire data set.

The atmosphere absorbs thermal
energy by other means than IR absorption.


Isn't that enough information to
be able to say that the atmosphere
(the GHGs) radiates more than it
absorbs by IR radiation?

>>      If something provides the means, is
>> there ever a case where more of that
>> something provides less?
>
>I suppose.
>
>>
>>      I'm not sure what you are saying,
>> I can only approach this from the
>> perspective that without GHGs and
>> without water and water clouds, the
>> atmosphere would be warmer than
>> now.
>>
>>      I see no other valid way to think
>> of what GHGs do, they obviously
>> cool the atmosphere that would
>> be warmer without them.
>
>There is a very good reason you are having trouble explaining/
>comprehending GHG's. If it was anything but an ethereal notion
>(masquerading as technical terminology) it would have long ago been
>tested experimentally. It's not testable. It's progressive science.

I don't think I am having any trouble,
I accept that net IR radiation exists,
and that the atmosphere has been
within one degree of the same
temperature for since 1880.


What I don't buy is the claim that
the atmosphere is warmer with GHGs
that it would be without them, because
without GHGs the atmosphere would
not absorb or radiate IR, but would
still get hot by conduction by contact
with the surface.

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 20, 6:37 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:14:55 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
>

I think the model you suggest here is way too simplistic. It seems to
you are trying to build a sandcastle notion of GHG's in your head
based on rumors and conjecture.

[emoneyjoe]

On the contrary, do you see anybody
trying to claim that a pure N2 and O2
atmosphere could cool in any way after
being heated by the hot surface during
the day?

That is the starting point of any
climate science thinking, and somehow
it started wrong.

There is no technical features of
GHGs other than IR absorption and
radiation.

The claim that it is the GHGs that
heat the atmosphere is the sand castle,
one that is having water poured on it
by the 15 year average temperature
plateau.


It sounds like you don't want to
see truth in the science, that is all
I seek, if somebody can say something
else cools the atmosphere, what are
they waiting for.

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 20, 9:47 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk

Basing conclusions upon what people supposedly do or do not claim is
not a scientific approach.

> that a pure N2 and O2
> atmosphere could cool in any way after
> being heated by the hot surface during
> the day?

You're saying this has a simple answer? What is your simple answer?

>        That is the starting point of any
> climate science thinking,

Uh, . . . how so?

> and somehow
> it started wrong.

?

>       There is no technical features of
> GHGs other than IR absorption and
> radiation.

Uh, the technical features of all gasses can be found in the standard
scientific literature. No drama here.

>       The claim that it is the GHGs that
> heat the atmosphere is the sand castle,
> one that is having water poured on it
> by the 15 year average temperature
> plateau.
>
>       It sounds like you don't want to
> see truth in the science, that is all
> I seek, if somebody can say something
> else cools the atmosphere, what are
> they waiting for.

All gasses are GHGs more or less. It's a meaningless distinction.

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 06:01:18, Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Apr 20, 9:47ÿpm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
>
> > >> >> >Global warming hysteria pivots off pretending what is unknown is

> > >> >> >known. ÿDon't add to it.

> >
> > >> >> It is obvious, that means it should be
> > >> >> known, that the GHGs radiate more heat
> > >> >> from the atmosphere than the atmosphere
> > >> >> absorbs by radiation from below.
> >
> > >> >Uh, . . . I'm not following.
> >

> > >> ÿSorry I didn't word it better.

> > >> You know that if GHGs absorb and radiate,
> > >> any IR that is absorbed by the GHGs will
> > >> be radiated, and that the annual mean
> > >> temperature of the atmosphere a few
> > >> feet above the ground has been within
> > >> a degree for the entire data set.
> >
> > >> The atmosphere absorbs thermal
> > >> energy by other means than IR absorption.
> >

> > >> ÿIsn't that enough information to

> > >> be able to say that the atmosphere
> > >> (the GHGs) radiates more than it
> > >> absorbs by IR radiation?
> >
> > >> >> If something provides the means, is
> > >> >> there ever a case where more of that
> > >> >> something provides less?
> >
> > >> >I suppose.
> >
> > >> >> I'm not sure what you are saying,
> > >> >> I can only approach this from the
> > >> >> perspective that without GHGs and
> > >> >> without water and water clouds, the
> > >> >> atmosphere would be warmer than
> > >> >> now.
> >

> > >> >> ÿI see no other valid way to think

> > >> >> of what GHGs do, they obviously
> > >> >> cool the atmosphere that would
> > >> >> be warmer without them.
> >
> > >> >There is a very good reason you are having trouble explaining/

> > >> >comprehending GHG's. ÿIf it was anything but an ethereal notion

> > >> >(masquerading as technical terminology) it would have long ago been

> > >> >tested experimentally. ÿIt's not testable. ÿIt's progressive science.

It is no Science at all, Just fraud

> > >> I don't think I am having any trouble,
> > >> I accept that net IR radiation exists,
> > >> and that the atmosphere has been
> > >> within one degree of the same
> > >> temperature for since 1880.
> >
> > >> What I don't buy is the claim that
> > >> the atmosphere is warmer with GHGs
> > >> that it would be without them, because
> > >> without GHGs the atmosphere would
> > >> not absorb or radiate IR, but would
> > >> still get hot by conduction by contact
> > >> with the surface.
> >

> > >I think the model you suggest here is way too simplistic. ÿIt seems to

> > >you are trying to build a sandcastle notion of GHG's in your head
> > >based on rumors and conjecture.

That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your

head based on rumors and conjecture.

> >
> > On the contrary, do you see anybody

> > trying to claim that a pure N2 and O2

> > atmosphere could cool in any way after
> > being heated by the hot surface during
> > the day?
>
> Basing conclusions upon what people supposedly do or do
> not claim isnot a scientific approach.

It was not scientific nor a conclusion It was a fair and reasonable
question. If you would bother reading, rather than spouting.

>
> You're saying this has a simple answer? What is your simple answer?
>
> > That is the starting point of any
> > climate science thinking,
>
> Uh, . . . how so?

Oh I see you always start science thinking by starting with
what some politician told you.

>
> > and somehow
> > it started wrong.
>
> ?
>
> > There is no technical features of
> > GHGs other than IR absorption and
> > radiation.
>
> Uh, the technical features of all gasses can be found in the standard
> scientific literature. No drama here.
>
> > The claim that it is the GHGs that
> > heat the atmosphere is the sand castle,
> > one that is having water poured on it
> > by the 15 year average temperature
> > plateau.
> >

> > ÿt sounds like you don't want to

> > see truth in the science, that is all
> > I seek, if somebody can say something
> > else cools the atmosphere, what are
> > they waiting for.
>
> All gasses are GHGs more or less. It's a meaningless distinction.

Ok tell us by your standard scientific literature. with no drama
here.
What percentage of the atmosphere's sensible and latent heat
is radiated away to space by:
N2 =>
O2 =>
Ar =>
H2O =>
CO2 =>
O3 =>
CH4 =>
SO2 =>
And several others. When you get to 100%
ratio that into H2O+CO2 to be able to tell Joe
"What cools the atmosphere?" Do not forget the H2O
in the thermosphere. This H2O cannot form water so can
only radiate.

There is NO Science in the concept of Greenhouse
Effect! The entire concept is a scam

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 21, 9:19 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:


> That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
> head based on rumors and conjecture.

Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is ethereal. Do you agree or not?

>
>
>
> > > On the contrary, do you see anybody
> > > trying to claim that a pure N2 and O2
> > > atmosphere could cool in any way after
> > > being heated by the hot surface during
> > > the day?
>
> > Basing conclusions upon what people supposedly do or do
> > not claim isnot a scientific approach.
>
> It was not scientific nor a conclusion  It was a fair and reasonable
> question.

It was a propaganda style question.

> If you would bother reading, rather than spouting.

What, exactly?

> > You're saying this has a simple answer?  What is your simple answer?
>
> > > That is the starting point of any
> > > climate science thinking,
>
> > Uh, . . . how so?
>
> Oh I see you always start science thinking by starting with
> what some politician told you.

You must have me confused with an alarmist.

> > All gasses are GHGs more or less.  It's a meaningless distinction.
>
> Ok tell us by your standard scientific literature.  with no drama
> here.
> What percentage of the atmosphere's sensible and latent heat
> is radiated away to space by:
> N2     =>
> O2     =>
> Ar      =>
> H2O  =>
> CO2  =>
> O3    =>
> CH4   =>
> SO2  =>
> And several others.  When you get to 100%
> ratio that into H2O+CO2   to be able to tell Joe
> "What cools the atmosphere?"  Do not forget the H2O
> in the thermosphere. This H2O cannot form water so can
> only radiate.

what's the point here? I think you are preaching to the choir and you
don't realize it.

>
> There is NO Science in the concept of Greenhouse
> Effect!  The entire concept is a scam

My point exactly. And this is what I was trying to explain to Joe

[emoneyjoe]

And I am wondering what cools the atmosphere,
the past few days I have been waiting till after
1 PM hoping to see some shadow so my car
would be warm enough to drive up the road,
the humidity has been high, and we have
that 400 ppmV of wonderful CO2, and it
still doesn't get warm enough to suit me.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:10:25 -0400

>
> And I am wondering what cools the atmosphere,

What exactly do you mean by cooling the atmosphere ?

Short term changes have no much to do
with overall average energy balance.

As this is in large extent overruled
by temporary and local changes due weather development.




--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:40:20 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

What cools the atmosphere at night?

What cools the atmosphere all the time?

The heat that came from the sun is
going some place.

A lot more energy is used heating
homes and buildings than cooling them,
there is a lot of cooling going on, the
air is cooling, how, what cools the air?

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:49:19 -0400

>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:40:20 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >emoneyjoe posted Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:10:25 -0400
> >
> >>
> >> And I am wondering what cools the atmosphere,
> >
> >What exactly do you mean by cooling the atmosphere ?
> >
> >Short term changes have no much to do
> >with overall average energy balance.
> >
> >As this is in large extent overruled
> >by temporary and local changes due weather development.
>
> What cools the atmosphere at night?

Lack of Sun irradiation is causing deficiency of absorbed radiation.
Warm surface and surface air layers radiates more than absorb
and get cooler by radiation loses.

It is like if you stop heating the kettle.

OTOH upper layer of air are less affected with growing height.

>
> What cools the atmosphere all the time?

Atmosphere does not get colder all the time.

>
> The heat that came from the sun is
> going some place.

Back to space, by radiation.

>
> A lot more energy is used heating
> homes and buildings than cooling them,
> there is a lot of cooling going on, the
> air is cooling, how, what cools the air?

As above, radiative disbalance.
Plus weather influence.

--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Apr 21, 9:19ĸpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
> > head based on rumors and conjecture.

> Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is Do you agree or not?
>
No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be
I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!

> >
> > > > On the contrary, do you see anybody
> > > > trying to claim that a pure N2 and O2
> > > > atmosphere could cool in any way after
> > > > being heated by the hot surface during
> > > > the day?
> >
> > > Basing conclusions upon what people supposedly do or do
> > > not claim isnot a scientific approach.
> >

> > It was not scientific nor a conclusion ĸIt was a fair and reasonable

> > question.
>
> It was a propaganda style question.
>
> > If you would bother reading, rather than spouting.
>
> What, exactly?
>

Joe's question, "What cools the atmosphere?
>
> > > You're saying this has a simple answer? ĸWhat is your simple answer?

> >
> > > > That is the starting point of any
> > > > climate science thinking,
> >
> > > Uh, . . . how so?
> >
> > Oh I see you always start science thinking by starting with
> > what some politician told you.
>
> You must have me confused with an alarmist.
>

> > > All gasses are GHGs more or less. ĸIt's a meaningless distinction.
> >
> > Ok tell us by your standard scientific literature. ĸwith no drama

> > here.
> > What percentage of the atmosphere's sensible and latent heat
> > is radiated away to space by:

> > N2 ĸ ĸ >
> > O2 ĸ ĸ >
> > Ar ĸ ĸ ĸ>
> > H2O ĸ>
> > CO2 ĸ>
> > O3 ĸ ĸ>
> > CH4 ĸ >
> > SO2 ĸ>
> > And several others. ĸWhen you get to 100%
> > ratio that into H2O+CO2 ĸ to be able to tell Joe
> > "What cools the atmosphere?" ĸDo not forget the H2O

> > in the thermosphere. This H2O cannot form water so can
> > only radiate.
>
> what's the point here? I think you are preaching to the choir and you
> don't realize it.
>
> > There is NO Science in the concept of Greenhouse

> > Effect! ĸThe entire concept is a scam

>
> My point exactly. And this is what I was trying to explain to Joe

Joe already knows, Put in the numbers and prove it to yourself.

Please answer Joe's question, "What cools the atmosphere"?

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 06:40:20, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>
> emoneyjoe posted Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:10:25 -0400
>
> >
> > And I am wondering what cools the atmosphere,
>
> What exactly do you mean by cooling the atmosphere ?

What mechanism by any means, is used to rid the
atmosphere of its excess sensible and latent heat?

-snip- bull shit!

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:01:24, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>
> emoneyjoe posted Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:49:19 -0400
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:40:20 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >emoneyjoe posted Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:10:25 -0400
> > >
> > >>
> > >> And I am wondering what cools the atmosphere,
> > >
> > >What exactly do you mean by cooling the atmosphere ?
> > >
> > >Short term changes have no much to do
> > >with overall average energy balance.
> > >
> > >As this is in large extent overruled
> > >by temporary and local changes due weather development.
> >
> > What cools the atmosphere at night?
>

What a stupid fuck you are. The only things that can transfer
heat, (cooling) are only the atmospheric molecules that can
radiate energy to space at their own "temperature".

Most molecules in the the atmosphere cannot radiate
as they have little or no emissivity, but much sensible heat.

Their heat can be transfered to the molecules that do
radiate energy by non-radiative conduction and convection.

This always happens. Learn some thermodynamics!

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 22, 3:32 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 9:19ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
> > > head based on rumors and conjecture.
> > Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is   Do you agree or not?
>
> No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be

If you did it wouldn't be ethereal.

> I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!

Uh, what?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > On the contrary, do you see anybody
> > > > > trying to claim that a pure N2 and O2
> > > > > atmosphere could cool in any way after
> > > > > being heated by the hot surface during
> > > > > the day?
>
> > > > Basing conclusions upon what people supposedly do or do
> > > > not claim isnot a scientific approach.
>

> > > It was not scientific nor a conclusion ÿIt was a fair and reasonable

> > > question.
>
> > It was a propaganda style question.
>
> > > If you would bother reading, rather than spouting.
>
> > What, exactly?
>
> Joe's question, "What cools the atmosphere?

All things have a tendency to cool. It's called entropy. The sun,
for example, is cooling. The result is sunlight.

Joe's question is just poorly formulated. I think what he means to
say is what mechanism(s) is the catalyst of the entropic result. (We
could ask the same of the sun.)

> > > > You're saying this has a simple answer? ÿWhat is your simple answer?

No response.

> > > > > That is the starting point of any
> > > > > climate science thinking,
>
> > > > Uh, . . . how so?

No response.

> > > Oh I see you always start science thinking by starting with
> > > what some politician told you.
>
> > You must have me confused with an alarmist.

No apology.

> > > > All gasses are GHGs more or less. ÿIt's a meaningless distinction.
>
> > > Ok tell us by your standard scientific literature. ÿwith no drama

> > > here.
> > > What percentage of the atmosphere's sensible and latent heat
> > > is radiated away to space by:

> > > N2 ÿ ÿ >
> > > O2 ÿ ÿ >
> > > Ar ÿ ÿ ÿ>
> > > H2O ÿ>
> > > CO2 ÿ>
> > > O3 ÿ ÿ>
> > > CH4 ÿ >
> > > SO2 ÿ>
> > > And several others. ÿWhen you get to 100%
> > > ratio that into H2O+CO2 ÿ to be able to tell Joe
> > > "What cools the atmosphere?" ÿDo not forget the H2O

> > > in the thermosphere. This H2O cannot form water so can
> > > only radiate.
>
> > what's the point here?  I think you are preaching to the choir and you
> > don't realize it.
>
> > > There is NO Science in the concept of Greenhouse

> > > Effect! ÿThe entire concept is a scam

>
> > My point exactly.  And this is what I was trying to explain to Joe
>
> Joe already knows,  Put in the numbers and prove it to yourself.

What exactly? (Science never suffers from be too precise with
terminology or too explicit.)

> Please answer Joe's question, "What cools the atmosphere"?

Entropy.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

the glass house effect is the faulty metaphor, circa 1896,
from which arises "global" warming;
no climatologist has bothered to model (or establish) a series
of glass houses at one longitude & various lattitudes....
certainly, it does not "work" for a huge glass house,
sottounding Eaaarth.... although,
even a computerized simulacram of such would be instructive
-- and desttuctive of "global" warming.

anyway, water vapor is by far the freater glass house gas,
with a much larger absorptive spectrum.

[emoneyjoe]

I understand now, warmies don't know what
cooling is, they thing warming is the only thing
that exists.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:32:45 -0400

> I understand now, warmies don't know what
> cooling is, they thing warming is the only thing
> that exists.
>

Than you know nothing...

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:32:45 -0400

> I understand now, warmies don't know what
> cooling is, they thing warming is the only thing
> that exists.
>

"Warmies" in opposite to *some* "coldies" know
that even cold things try to cool themselves by radiation
but warmer things around boycott their effort and warm them.

Many people here are focused on arguments only
and do not care
what science knows well for ages about matter behaviour.


--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:53:43, Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Apr 22, 3:32 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 9:19śpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
> > > > head based on rumors and conjecture.

> > > Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is   Do you agree or not?
> >
> > No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be
>
> If you did it wouldn't be ethereal.
>
> > I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!
>
> Uh, what?

No such thing as Greenhouse effect!
Please demonstrate some "is"

> > > > > > On the contrary, do you see anybody
> > > > > > trying to claim that a pure N2 and O2
> > > > > > atmosphere could cool in any way after
> > > > > > being heated by the hot surface during
> > > > > > the day?
> >
> > > > > Basing conclusions upon what people supposedly do or do
> > > > > not claim isnot a scientific approach.
> >

> > > > It was not scientific nor a conclusion śIt was a fair and reasonable

> > > > question.
> >
> > > It was a propaganda style question.
> >
> > > > If you would bother reading, rather than spouting.
> >
> > > What, exactly?
> >
> > Joe's question, "What cools the atmosphere?
>
> All things have a tendency to cool. It's called entropy. The sun,
> for example, is cooling. The result is sunlight.
>

The Sun gets hotter as it loses mass.

> Joe's question is just poorly formulated. I think what he means to
> say is what mechanism(s) is the catalyst of the entropic result. (We
> could ask the same of the sun.)

No it is not, n Why is the temperature of the atmosphere what it is?
Why is the atmosphere not at a higher or lower temperature.
What cools the Atmosphere?
>
> > > > > You're saying this has a simple answer? śWhat is your simple answer?
>
> No response.

The answer is in "What cools the Atmosphere?

>
> > > > > > That is the starting point of any
> > > > > > climate science thinking,
> >
> > > > > Uh, . . . how so?
>
> No response.

The start of any Thinking is starting to think
something obviously have never done!

>
> > > > Oh I see you always start science thinking by starting with
> > > > what some politician told you.
> >
> > > You must have me confused with an alarmist.
>
> No apology.

Not from me ever. you have no knowledge of what you are.
>
> > > > > All gasses are GHGs more or less. śIt's a meaningless distinction..
> >
> > > > Ok tell us by your standard scientific literature. świth no drama

> > > > here.
> > > > What percentage of the atmosphere's sensible and latent heat
> > > > is radiated away to space by:

> > > > N2 ś ś >
> > > > O2 ś ś >
> > > > Ar ś ś ś>
> > > > H2O ś>
> > > > CO2 ś>
> > > > O3 ś ś>
> > > > CH4 ś >
> > > > SO2 ś>
> > > > And several others. śWhen you get to 100%
> > > > ratio that into H2O+CO2 ś to be able to tell Joe
> > > > "What cools the atmosphere?" śDo not forget the H2O

> > > > in the thermosphere. This H2O cannot form water so can
> > > > only radiate.
> >
> > > what's the point here?  I think you are preaching to the choir and you
> > > don't realize it.
> >

You are not the choir. You refuse to answer a simple question
because you refuse to think . You are the one that your standard
scientific
literature. with no drama. has all the data . So look it up
and answer the question.

> > > > There is NO Science in the concept of Greenhouse

> > > > Effect! śThe entire concept is a scam

> >
> > > My point exactly.  And this is what I was trying to explain to Joe
> >
> > Joe already knows,  Put in the numbers and prove it to yourself.
>
> What exactly? (Science never suffers from be too precise with
> terminology or too explicit.)

Joe knows what cools the atmosphere. He is trying to get you
to think. Put in the numbers and prove it to yourself.

> > Please answer Joe's question, "What cools the atmosphere"?
>
> Entropy.

Entropy cools nothing. Entropy is generated when energy changes
"form" in a non-reversible process Energy in the Atmosphere is
radiated outward from the Atmosphere in a non-reversible process.

Which gasses in the atmosphere Radiate 96% of that energy
thereby cooling the atmosphere?

[Will Janoschka]

Yes indeed, but many refuse to understand that CO2 also
cools the atmosphere and more of it cools a bit more.

H2O and CO2 cause no warming at all.

[Will Janoschka]

And you are truly the first of that same many people!

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:09:54 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
Janoschka) wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:53:43, Claudius Denk
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

> > On Apr 22, 3:32ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 21, 9:19˜pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > > > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
> > > > > head based on rumors and conjecture.
>

> > > > Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is ÿ Do you agree or not?

> > >
> > > No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be
> >
> > If you did it wouldn't be ethereal.
> >
> > > I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!
> >
> > Uh, what?

> No such thing as Greenhouse effect!

Then why is Earth not frozen solid? LOL!


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
scientific truth." --Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:47:52 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:09:54 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>Janoschka) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:53:43, Claudius Denk
>> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 3:32ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > > > On Apr 21, 9:19˜pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>> > > > > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
>> > > > > head based on rumors and conjecture.
>>
>> > > > Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is ÿ Do you agree or not?
>> > >
>> > > No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be
>> >
>> > If you did it wouldn't be ethereal.
>> >
>> > > I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!
>> >
>> > Uh, what?
>
>> No such thing as Greenhouse effect!
>
>Then why is Earth not frozen solid? LOL!

N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:48:37 -0400

A that is reason why Earth
would cold place just with them.

What does not radiate, does not absorb.

What does not absorb, allows all radiation go through.

What allows all radiation go through, allows stronger Earth cooling.




--
Poutnik

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 23, 12:09 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:


> Which gasses in the atmosphere  Radiate 96% of that energy
> thereby cooling the atmosphere?

So, basically, your answer is CO2. Right?

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:39:42 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

I think that is the flawed thinking that led
to the myth that the GHGs make the Earth
warmer and that it would be colder without
them.

This discussion isn't for you because I
don't think you or the true warmies would
ever allow any logic or reason to change
your thinking, it is made in the hope that
there will be people that are able to think
and maybe it will result in more ideas.

Water is the game changer, while water
becomes the most plentiful GreenHouse
Gas, and absorbs the most IR from both
the Sun and the solid and liquid surface
of Earth, it also prevents the surface from
getting anywhere near as hot in daytime.

Without water and water clouds, the
surface of Earth would get as hot or
hotter than the moon, the only reasons
it might not get quite as hot is the heat
from the molten core of Earth, and the
difference in the length of daylight and
darkness.
The surface of Earth would also get
colder at night than it does now, but
may not get as cold as the moon, as
the length of the day/night periods are
not as long.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temperature_on_the_moon%27s_surface

"As you may have learned, the moon doesn't have any air around it. The
air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm and
comfy! But the moon, since it doesn't have this blanket, gets much
colder than the earth and much hotter than the earth."

Note that the above states it is the
air that keeps the Earth warmer than
the moon, is there a reason it does
not say it is the GreenHouse Gases
that keep the Earth warmer?


http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-moon%27s-temperature-in-fahrenheit-and-celsius

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/new-nasa-temperature-maps-provide-102070.aspx


And obviously, the Earth doesn't
get as hot as the moon, because of
water, and the water clouds shielding
the sun over part of the Earth.

The polar regions on Earth would
be different than on the moon, maybe
getting even colder than the moon
gets in darkness, but nowhere near
as cold in the six months of daylight.

The important thing is that, without
water and GHGs, the surface of Earth
in daylight would reach over 200 degrees
F, and the air in contact with the hot
surface would bounce away violently,
transferring part of that energy to the
other molecules of N2 and O2 that
it comes in contact with.

There is some question here about
what temperature is, and how it is
transferred, but speed of molecular
motion is a big part of temperature,
and it will take more thinking to be
able to decide just how hot the air
composed of only N2 and O2 would
get in the absence of water and GHGs.


Is there any doubt the N2 and O2
air would get hotter than it gets now
without water, water clouds, and the
GHGs? I don't think so.

And without the GHGs, the air
of only N2 and O2 molecules would
have no way to cool except by some
contact with the surface after the
surface cools in darkness.

That cooling would not reach
anywhere near the rate of energy
transfer as the warming in daylight
because the molecules of air would
not bounce with as much speed,
and would not absorb as much of
any other aspect of temperature
as it does in being heated.


I have to assume that the air
of only N2 and O2, without water
and water clouds would get hotter
than now, and without GHGs
would have almost no cooling
at all.

A guess can be made about
what the temperature of the air
without GHGs would stabilize at,
but it would be nearer the hottest
temperature the surface reaches
in daytime than the average
temperature.

The surface would get a lot
hotter and a lot colder without
GHGs and water and water
clouds, but the air would not
have the cooling ability, and
would assume a stable warmer
temperature than now.


The flaw that I see is in the
thought that it is GHGs that
absorb the heat, without the
consideration that it is water
that prevents the extreme
increase in temperature in
daytime.

The GHGs, by both absorbing
and radiating IR, moderate the
temperature of the atmosphere,
but cool it more than the GHGs
warm it.

The cooling by IR radiation
to space exceeds the warming
by absorption from all radiation,
because the atmosphere is
warmed by contact with the
surface, and by UV interactions.


There is a good chance that
no real study of what the Earth's
temperature would be without
water has ever been made, too
much of science is based on
prior published ideas and not
as informed assumptions.

Water is the defining gas
and liquid, in both warming
and cooling, no assumption
can be made about temperature
without considering the role
of water.

That is probably how the
flaw in climate science arose,
by only considering the IR
radiation, and not the other
aspects of what water does.

[Poutnik]

Claudius Denk posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:48:18 -0700 (PDT)

Which gasses have warmed up the atmosphere
to be able to radiate what they absorb ?


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:03:19 -0400

> >>
> >> N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
> >
> >A that is reason why Earth
> >would cold place just with them.
> >
> >What does not radiate, does not absorb.
> >
> >What does not absorb, allows all radiation go through.
> >
> >What allows all radiation go through, allows stronger Earth cooling.
>
> I think that is the flawed thinking that led
> to the myth that the GHGs make the Earth
> warmer and that it would be colder without
> them.

It follows physics, while you do not.

>
> Water is the game changer, while water
> becomes the most plentiful GreenHouse
> Gas, and absorbs the most IR from both
> the Sun and the solid and liquid surface
> of Earth, it also prevents the surface from
> getting anywhere near as hot in daytime.

IS water GH component ? YES.


--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:20:45 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

Water is what prevents the
temperature of the whole Earth
from getting as hot.

Water is what transfers a lot
of the heat absorbed by the
surface to the upper atmosphere.

GHGs cool the atmosphere.

CO2 has minimal effect.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:03:19 -0400

>

> This discussion isn't for you because I
> don't think you or the true warmies would
> ever allow any logic or reason to change
> your thinking, it is made in the hope that
> there will be people that are able to think
> and maybe it will result in more ideas.

You have chance to persuade me
my understanding physics is wrong.
But as you have troubles with basic phenomena, I doubt that.

While it is cross-posted to sci.physics, it is for me either.
Otherwise stick at AGW.

>
> "As you may have learned, the moon doesn't have any air around it.

And this makes it non comparable.

> The air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm
> and comfy!

GH gases... Moon oscillates between +150 and -150 deg C.

>
> And obviously, the Earth doesn't
> get as hot as the moon, because of
> water, and the water clouds shielding
> the sun over part of the Earth.

Combined GH, convective, heat capacity and latent heat effect.

This changes many parameters and does not allow
you to evaluate GH effect. Every scientist knows
if you want to evaluate influence of one parameter,
you have to keep the others constant as much as possible,
otherwise it is (almost) impossible evaluation.

To evaluate GH effect ALONE, you have to evaluate
physical behaviour of atmosphere
as it is, and what is behaviour of N2/O2 mix.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:32:20 -0400

>
> Water is what prevents the
> temperature of the whole Earth
> from getting as hot.

No, water has much more complex effect.
It keeps temperature from extremes
by its heat capacity and latent heat.

It increases the average temperature of surface
and atmosphere by IR absorbtion/emission,
same as other GH gases.

>
> Water is what transfers a lot
> of the heat absorbed by the
> surface to the upper atmosphere.

No, only within low atmosphere called troposphere.
above 7-16 km, latitude dependent, it has low power.
>
> GHGs cool the atmosphere.

Based on ignorance of physics,
they warm up atmosphere to be able to emit
as much as they absorb.
>
> CO2 has minimal effect.

Based on ignorance of physics,
as it has major absorption in main region
of Earth IR radiation.


--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:52:58 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:32:20 -0400
>
>>
>> Water is what prevents the
>> temperature of the whole Earth
>> from getting as hot.
>
>No, water has much more complex effect.
>It keeps temperature from extremes
>by its heat capacity and latent heat.
>
>It increases the average temperature of surface
>and atmosphere by IR absorbtion/emission,
>same as other GH gases.
>>
>> Water is what transfers a lot
>> of the heat absorbed by the
>> surface to the upper atmosphere.
>
>No, only within low atmosphere called troposphere.
>above 7-16 km, latitude dependent, it has low power.

I call the top of the towering
thunder clouds part of the upper
atmosphere, the amount of the
mass above that is less than 10%.

>> GHGs cool the atmosphere.
>
>Based on ignorance of physics,
>they warm up atmosphere to be able to emit
>as much as they absorb.

No they don't, they cool by
everything they absorb plus what
the conduction with the surface
warms, plus the latent heat of
the precipitated water, plus the
UV warmed stratosphere, plus
any other heat gained by the
atmosphere.

>> CO2 has minimal effect.
>
>Based on ignorance of physics,
>as it has major absorption in main region
>of Earth IR radiation.

Nothing is being ignored, but
you obviously are fixated with the
flawed assumptions of the very
complexities you claim I don't
consider.

The GHGs cause _ALL_
of the cooling of the atmosphere,
but not all the warming, that
means the net and the total
effect is of cooling, which
does not mean getting colder,
it means just getting rid of
excess heat so the temperature
is almost constant.

I but my thoughts into words,
no need to say more.

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:48:37 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
frozen solid?

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 24, 8:39 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:48:37 -0400, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:47:52 -0700, Desertphile
> > <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:09:54 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> > >Janoschka) wrote:
>
> > >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:53:43, Claudius Denk
> > >> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Apr 22, 3:32ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > >> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> > > > On Apr 21, 9:19˜pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > >> > > > > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
> > >> > > > > head based on rumors and conjecture.
>
> > >> > > > Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is ÿ Do you agree or not?
>
> > >> > > No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be
>
> > >> > If you did it wouldn't be ethereal.
>
> > >> > > I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!
>
> > >> > Uh, what?
> > >> No such thing as Greenhouse effect!
> > >Then why is Earth not frozen solid? LOL!
> > N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
>
> If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
> frozen solid?

If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?

[Poutnik]

Claudius Denk posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT)

> > > N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
> >
> > If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
> > frozen solid?
>
> If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?

Some people just do not get the definition.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Dne 24. dubna 2013 10:16:12 UTC+2 emoneyjoe napsal(a):

> > No, only within low atmosphere called troposphere.
> > above 7-16 km, latitude dependent, it has low power.
>
> I call the top of the towering thunder clouds part of the upper
> atmosphere, the amount of the mass above that is less than 10%.

You mean part of upper troposphere, it is always good
to use usual terminology to avoid confusion.
At middle attitude it is typically 30 %.
( Near 15% near equator, near 50% at poles.)

> > > GHGs cool the atmosphere.

> > They warm up atmosphere to be able to emit as much as they absorb.

>
> No they don't, they cool by everything they absorb plus what
> the conduction with the surface warms, plus the latent heat of
> the precipitated water, plus the UV warmed stratosphere, plus
> any other heat gained by the atmosphere.

So let take it piece by piece, as you have made a soup from that....

Adsorption / emission :
For radiative cooling of air by GHG, the air that radiates
must be warmer than surrounding the radiation is absorbed from.
That is not the case of air.

Conduction was convince from being negligible,
being 6 orders smaller that surface radiation.

Latent heat transferred by evaporation is less than 20%
of energy radiated by surface.

Warmed stratosphere is in equilibrium by ion recombination.
These energies are far way too high for thermal IR effects.

And last, but not least:
More than 60% of emitted radiation is absorbed by surface.

> Nothing is being ignored, but you obviously are fixated with the
> flawed assumptions of the very complexities you claim I don't consider.

Nothing but physical rules you are not aware of.

I am fixated to physics the gases obey.
The fact we talk atmosphere does not change anything on that.

> The GHGs cause _ALL_ of the cooling of the atmosphere,
> but not all the warming, that means the net and the total effect
> is of cooling, which does not mean getting colder,
> it means just getting rid of excess heat so the temperature
> is almost constant.

As above in major section.

Physics calls cooling when something gets colder.
If not, it is called dynamical equilibrium.


--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:39:48 -0700, Desertphile

<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:48:37 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:47:52 -0700, Desertphile
>> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:09:54 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>> >Janoschka) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:53:43, Claudius Denk
>> >> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Apr 22, 3:32ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>> >> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> > > > On Apr 21, 9:19˜pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>> >> > > > > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
>> >> > > > > head based on rumors and conjecture.
>> >>
>> >> > > > Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is ÿ Do you agree or not?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be
>> >> >
>> >> > If you did it wouldn't be ethereal.
>> >> >
>> >> > > I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!
>> >> >
>> >> > Uh, what?
>
>> >> No such thing as Greenhouse effect!
>
>> >Then why is Earth not frozen solid? LOL!
>
>> N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
>
>If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
>frozen solid?

If you had a brain, and actually paid
attention, you would see I never said
there is no GreenHouse Effect.

But that is ok, since you never write
anything interesting, I can continue
the bulk delete, how can anybody post
so many messages with no content
at all.

[emoneyjoe]

N2 and O2 do not radiate much, that
is as close to a GreenHouse Effect as
any.

No matter how much or how little
energy the N2 and O2 gain from the
surface from conduction, they hold
that energy, and that is what makes
the Earth warmer than the moon.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:52:47 -0400

> >If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?
>
> N2 and O2 do not radiate much, that
> is as close to a GreenHouse Effect as
> any.
>
> No matter how much or how little
> energy the N2 and O2 gain from the
> surface from conduction, they hold
> that energy, and that is what makes
> the Earth warmer than the moon.
>

There are several mistakes here....

First
Earth is rotating 27 times faster than Moon.
Even if Earth had not had atmosphere at all,
it would never reached as high temperatures
as are in Moon high noon.

Second
There would be strong unshielded Earth IR radiation.
With same irradiation from Sun,
surface would be much colder than now.

Third
There would be thermal convection, taking a lot of energy.

Fourth
It will not hold energy,
but would conduct it back to surface,
if avg T of surface layer is higher than of Earth.
And this happens especially in nights for sure.



--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:41:16 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

HVAC.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:14:30 -0400
>
> HVAC.

....keeps dynamic equilibrium as well.




--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:33:30 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:14:30 -0400
>>
>> HVAC.
>
>....keeps dynamic equilibrium as well.

If all the units work properly, when the A/C
is first turned on, it cools, and as long as it
is running, heat is moved to the outside,
I don't call that equilibrium.

The GHGs are constantly cooling
the atmosphere, it gets colder at night,
but even when it is getting warmer
during the day, the GHGs are still
cooling the atmosphere.

The HVAC journal has always had
a lot of information on all sorts of ways
to heat and cool indoor spaces, some
of it about passive solar thermal.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:02:25 -0400

>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:33:30 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:14:30 -0400
> >>
> >> HVAC.
> >
> >....keeps dynamic equilibrium as well.
>
> If all the units work properly, when the A/C
> is first turned on, it cools, and as long as it
> is running, heat is moved to the outside,
> I don't call that equilibrium.

When it reaches constant temperature,
it keeps dynamic equilibrium
of net room heat flow equal zero.

>
> The GHGs are constantly cooling
> the atmosphere, it gets colder at night,
> but even when it is getting warmer
> during the day, the GHGs are still
> cooling the atmosphere.

Ignoring my previous post allows you
to repeat physical nonsenses.

In average is surface always warmer than athmosphere,
so surface keeps air warm enough
to radiate all what it absobs.

In fact, with linear temperature lapse rate,
it could be said they constantly warm up atmosphere.

As due nonlinear nature of radiantion dependency on temperature,
total absorbed income is very slightly higher
than radiation outcome.

Total upward IR radiation flow
is decreasing with height.

The difference is radiated downward to surface.




--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:43:20 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:02:25 -0400
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:33:30 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:14:30 -0400
>> >>
>> >> HVAC.
>> >
>> >....keeps dynamic equilibrium as well.
>>
>> If all the units work properly, when the A/C
>> is first turned on, it cools, and as long as it
>> is running, heat is moved to the outside,
>> I don't call that equilibrium.
>
>When it reaches constant temperature,
>it keeps dynamic equilibrium
>of net room heat flow equal zero.

No it doesn't, it shuts off, and the
room gets warmer, when the temperature
goes up the amount the thermostat
is sensitive to, the A/C turns back on.

>> The GHGs are constantly cooling
>> the atmosphere, it gets colder at night,
>> but even when it is getting warmer
>> during the day, the GHGs are still
>> cooling the atmosphere.
>
>Ignoring my previous post allows you
>to repeat physical nonsenses.

Your posts sound pretty much
like garbage to me.

>In average is surface always warmer than athmosphere,
>so surface keeps air warm enough
>to radiate all what it absobs.

Total vagueness, the atmosphere
has many temperatures, if talk about
the N2 and O2 in contact with the
surface, I am talking only about the
contact region, not the whole atmosphere.

>In fact, with linear temperature lapse rate,
>it could be said they constantly warm up atmosphere.

Who, what?

>As due nonlinear nature of radiantion dependency on temperature,
>total absorbed income is very slightly higher
>than radiation outcome.
>
>Total upward IR radiation flow
>is decreasing with height.
>
>The difference is radiated downward to surface.

You should be talking to Tom and John,
very little radiation makes it down to the
surface, that is a myth, downward radiation
is absorbed within a few hundred meters
at most.


I have no interest is fairy tales.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:06:38 -0400

>
> No it doesn't, it shuts off, and the
> room gets warmer, when the temperature
> goes up the amount the thermostat
> is sensitive to, the A/C turns back on.

Does not matter, it keeps DE in pulse mode.

>
>
> >> The GHGs are constantly cooling
> >> the atmosphere, it gets colder at night,
> >> but even when it is getting warmer
> >> during the day, the GHGs are still
> >> cooling the atmosphere.
> >
> >Ignoring my previous post allows you
> >to repeat physical nonsenses.
>
> Your posts sound pretty much
> like garbage to me.

Same as would Newtons Principia Mathematica
to a cavemen.

>
> >In average is surface always warmer than athmosphere,
> >so surface keeps air warm enough
> >to radiate all what it absobs.
>
> Total vagueness, the atmosphere
> has many temperatures, if talk about
> the N2 and O2 in contact with the
> surface, I am talking only about the
> contact region, not the whole atmosphere.

Sure it does have, being a volume absorber / emitter,
so it does have effective temperature.

And if talking about N2/O2 atmosphere,
than only the contact region,
where air keeps zero net heat flow between
surface and air.

>
>
> >In fact, with linear temperature lapse rate,
> >it could be said they constantly warm up atmosphere.
>
> Who, what?

A caveman...
GHGes.

>
>
> >As due nonlinear nature of radiantion dependency on temperature,
> >total absorbed income is very slightly higher
> >than radiation outcome.
> >
> >Total upward IR radiation flow
> >is decreasing with height.
> >
> >The difference is radiated downward to surface.
>
> You should be talking to Tom and John,
> very little radiation makes it down to the
> surface, that is a myth, downward radiation
> is absorbed within a few hundred meters
> at most.

Low layers emit the most.
Especially at wavelengths where they absorb.

You do know GHG are emitters, dont you ?

>
> I have no interest is fairy tales.

Than stop saying them and finally learn yourrself
at least basics of atmospheric physics.

Until now I had to explain you all of that.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:29:25 +0200

>
> emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:06:38 -0400
> > >
> >

> > You should be talking to Tom and John,
> > very little radiation makes it down to the
> > surface, that is a myth, downward radiation
> > is absorbed within a few hundred meters
> > at most.

P.S.:
Such nonsense can be said only by someone
who does not understand radiation physics.

For such wavelengths air emits downwards
with intensity near to blackbody emitter,
emitting to surface even more, than surface to air,
in case of air is warmer then surface.

[Will Janoschka]

Do you ignorant asshole have a definition?
Does it include the non existent back radiation?

[Will Janoschka]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:09:30, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>
> emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:52:47 -0400
>
>
> > >If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?
> >
> > N2 and O2 do not radiate much, that
> > is as close to a GreenHouse Effect as
> > any.
> >
> > No matter how much or how little
> > energy the N2 and O2 gain from the
> > surface from conduction, they hold
> > that energy, and that is what makes
> > the Earth warmer than the moon.
> >
>
> There are several mistakes here....
>
> First
> Earth is rotating 27 times faster than Moon.
> Even if Earth had not had atmosphere at all,
> it would never reached as high temperatures
> as are in Moon high noon.
>
> Second
> There would be strong unshielded Earth IR radiation.
> With same irradiation from Sun,
> surface would be much colder than now.
>

You cannot demonstrate the the that at all.
The amount of thermat energy from the sun to the surface,
and from the surface hase not been measured.
It is an easy measurement, but never done by your
Climate Clowns as that would ruin their fantasies.

> Third
> There would be thermal convection, taking a lot of energy.
>

And radiating that energy to where?

> Fourth
> It will not hold energy,
> but would conduct it back to surface,
> if avg T of surface layer is higher than of Earth.
> And this happens especially in nights for sure.

Not once the atmosphere were at the same
temperature as the surface

[Will Janoschka]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:48:18, Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Apr 23, 12:09ĸpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>
>
> > Which gasses in the atmosphere ĸRadiate 96% of that energy

> > thereby cooling the atmosphere?
>
> So, basically, your answer is CO2. Right?

H2O is about 93% CO2 2-3%, none is returned to the earth surface.
It actual radiance of the surface is i9nto 1 steradian noy pi
steradian
and the earthy surface would be above the boiling point of water
is it were not that is being radiated to space by atmospherec
H2O. Both H2O AND CO2 are cooling gasses.

[emoneyjoe]

It looks like the Global Warming idiots have
gone berserk, they seem frantic, with no science
at all, just goofy comments and verbal abuse.

I don't understand why you have the stand
on radiation you do, either the so-called GHGs
absorb and radiate or they don't, but any idea
must be consistent.

It would be interesting to know just how
much N2 and O2 can absorb and radiate IR,
is it enough to even consider.

[emoneyjoe]

I am sorry to say his eager objections
make no sense at all to me, it sounds
like he is faking knowledge, even using
terms like convection where it can not
apply.

It is as if some school was teaching
advanced concepts without the students
ever learning basic physics.

Has any warmie ever mentioned the
fact that higher frequencies carry more
energy?

The surface must absorb the energy
in visible light if it is not reflected.
And contact conduction must surely
provide a faster transfer of energy than
long wave Infra Red.

Water provides cooling anyplace the
water is cooler than the surface, with
79 percent of the surface being water,
taking away the water should mean
probably double the amount of solar
energy being absorbed.

My assumptions are based on these
things, and nobody but one guy has
tried to claim that the basics are wrong.


The chatter about metal plates in
a subject that is mostly concerned
with gases seems bizarre, showing
possibly that some of the participants
are not able to do problems with gases
as gases involve absorption and
radiation of a 3-D volume of gas
instead of the simple 2-D plates.

Radiation and absorption in gases
must proceed with two different
reductions with distance, the inverse
square law, and what is absorbed
has to be subtracted from the flux.

That should make it obvious that
radiation from high up never reaches
the surface, and I consider anybody
that claims gases at below freezing
temperatures could send energy
from above 10 miles to warm the
above freezing surface, crazy as
a loon.


But gossip is like a freight train,
once it gets going, no stopping it.
And to make it worse, the left
leaning warmies actually make up
false gossip on purpose to support
the ignorant leftist causes.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:06:38 -0400

>
> You should be talking to Tom and John,
> very little radiation makes it down to the
> surface, that is a myth, downward radiation
> is absorbed within a few hundred meters
> at most.

> I have no interest is fairy tales.

Than you may like puzzles....

You have an isolated system,
where is surface and air at the same temperature.

Air absorbs IR radiation of surface.
What must air do to keep the same temperature as surface ?


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:02:25 -0400

> The GHGs are constantly cooling
> the atmosphere, it gets colder at night,

Because of Earth surface night radiative cooling.
The effect is strongest at surface.

It is usual water calm down if you stop heating the kettle.

With N2/O2 atmosphere such cooling would be much stronger.

> but even when it is getting warmer
> during the day, the GHGs are still
> cooling the atmosphere.

A sweater you may wear in cold season,
a blanket you cover yourself in bed,
are constantly cooling you as well.

It would be better to put them off,
to cool yourself just on your own.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:07:30 +0200

> emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:02:25 -0400
>
>
> > The GHGs are constantly cooling
> > the atmosphere, it gets colder at night,
>
> Because of Earth surface night radiative cooling.
> The effect is strongest at surface.
>

P.S.:
In the mornings the surface is often
more than 5 deg C colder than 2 m high air.

Near surface air is cooling down itself,
slowing dowm surface radiative cooling by its own IR radiation.

This effect is with attenuation propagated to upper air layers.


--
Poutnik

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 24, 10:15 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:48:18, Claudius Denk
>

> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 12:09ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>
> > > Which gasses in the atmosphere ÿRadiate 96% of that energy

> > > thereby cooling the atmosphere?
>
> > So, basically, your answer is CO2.  Right?
>
> H2O is about 93%   CO2 2-3%,  none is returned to the earth surface.
> It actual radiance of the surface is i9nto 1 steradian noy pi
> steradian
> and the earthy surface would be above the boiling point of water
> is it were not that is being radiated to space by atmospherec
> H2O.  Both H2O AND CO2 are cooling gasses.

Makes perfect sense. Really.

But is the notion that N2 and O2 aren't also cooling gasses based on
genuine experimental data or just the peanut gallery. I mean, who
told you that N2 and O2 lack any kind of radiance profile? Some
"warmy", I bet. Let's face it, when it comes to facts the warmies
have a pretty terrible track record.

All gasses are cooling gasses. (All matter is cooling matter.)

[emoneyjoe]

But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,
it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
my contention about an atmosphere without
water or GHGs being warmer than now.

http://earth.huji.ac.il/Data/File/caryn/lecture%204%20N2%20and%20O3%20absorption%20spectra(1).pdf

There is a lot of information listed about
N2 and O2, but being they are not listed
as GHGs, it must mean something.

[Poutnik]

Claudius Denk posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:50:29 -0700 (PDT)

> > and the earthy surface would be above the boiling point of water
> > is it were not that is being radiated to space by atmospherec
> > H2O.  Both H2O AND CO2 are cooling gasses.

If not radiated by cold H2O and CO2,
it would be radiated more by warm Earth surface.

Simple rule of T^4.
>
> Makes perfect sense. Really.

GHG would be cooling gases,
if upper troposphere had been warmer than lower one.

Same as a blanket or a sweater would have been cooling you,
if their outer surface had been warmer than inner one.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 04:22:26 -0400

>
> But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,
> it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
> my contention about an atmosphere without
> water or GHGs being warmer than now.

Can you show the radiation balance calculations supporting this idea ?

As with no IR air thermal radiation, atmosphere of Earth
will cool itself down to radiate just what it receives from the Sun.

The air temperature will follow this cold.

> http://earth.huji.ac.il/Data/File/caryn/lecture%204%20N2%20and%20O3%20absorption%20spectra(1).pdf
>
> There is a lot of information listed about
> N2 and O2, but being they are not listed
> as GHGs, it must mean something.
>

It means they are listed somewhere else.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:19:22 +0200

>
> emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 04:22:26 -0400
> >
> > But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,
> > it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
> > my contention about an atmosphere without
> > water or GHGs being warmer than now.
>
> Can you show the radiation balance calculations supporting this idea ?

Even more interesting would be calculations
showing cooling by GH gases....

>
> As with no IR air thermal radiation, atmosphere of Earth
> will cool itself down to radiate just what it receives from the Sun.
>
> The air temperature will follow this cold.
>

--
Poutnik

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 25, 1:22 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:50:29 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 24, 10:15 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:48:18, Claudius Denk
>
> >> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 23, 12:09ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>
> >> > > Which gasses in the atmosphere ÿRadiate 96% of that energy
> >> > > thereby cooling the atmosphere?
>
> >> > So, basically, your answer is CO2.  Right?
>
> >> H2O is about 93%   CO2 2-3%,  none is returned to the earth surface.
> >> It actual radiance of the surface is i9nto 1 steradian noy pi
> >> steradian
> >> and the earthy surface would be above the boiling point of water
> >> is it were not that is being radiated to space by atmospherec
> >> H2O.  Both H2O AND CO2 are cooling gasses.
>
> >Makes perfect sense.  Really.
>
> >But is the notion that N2 and O2 aren't also cooling gasses based on
> >genuine experimental data or just the peanut gallery.  I mean, who
> >told you that N2 and O2 lack any kind of radiance profile?  Some
> >"warmy", I bet.  Let's face it, when it comes to facts the warmies
> >have a pretty terrible track record.
>
> >All gasses are cooling gasses.  (All matter is cooling matter.)
>
>       But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,

How do you frikin know this? It's a simple question. Why not provide
a simple and honest response.

> it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
> my contention about an atmosphere without
> water or GHGs being warmer than now.
>

> http://earth.huji.ac.il/Data/File/caryn/lecture%204%20N2%20and%20O3%2...

>
>      There is a lot of information listed about
> N2 and O2, but being they are not listed
> as GHGs, it must mean something.

If the notion of GHGs was based on something empirical rather than on
propaganda I would agree with you. But it's not.

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:19:22 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 04:22:26 -0400
>>
>> But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,
>> it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
>> my contention about an atmosphere without
>> water or GHGs being warmer than now.
>
>Can you show the radiation balance calculations supporting this idea ?
>
>As with no IR air thermal radiation, atmosphere of Earth
>will cool itself down to radiate just what it receives from the Sun.

If there was no GHGs and no water, how
could the atmosphere cool itself, it would
continue to absorb some visible and UV,
and gain heat from contact with four times
as much area of rock as now.


If you are going to write stupid stuff
like above, please don't respond to me.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:39:16 -0400

>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:19:22 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 04:22:26 -0400
> >>
> >> But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,
> >> it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
> >> my contention about an atmosphere without
> >> water or GHGs being warmer than now.
> >
> >Can you show the radiation balance calculations supporting this idea ?
> >
> >As with no IR air thermal radiation, atmosphere of Earth
> >will cool itself down to radiate just what it receives from the Sun.
>
> If there was no GHGs and no water, how
> could the atmosphere cool itself, it would

Learn physics yourself, you would know than....

> continue to absorb some visible and UV,

There is no absorption without emission.
This part remains the same as for real atmosphere.

> and gain heat from contact with four times
> as much area of rock as now.

Or release heat to the same surface, it depends what is warmer.
As surface has great feature of cooling itself by radiation.

Overnight cooling would be especially ugly...

>
> If you are going to write stupid stuff
> like above, please don't respond to me.

When you are going to learn
stupid stuff of physics, let us know.

Until than your claims are fairy tales you do not like.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:39:16 -0400

> and gain heat from contact with four times
> as much area of rock as now.
>

Have you ever calculated, how much will be these rocks
busy by radiation and by collecting all energy available to do so ?


--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

Don't the AGW crowd say so? :-)

Really, if N2 did radiate much, tripling
CO2 wouldn't mean anything.

>> it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
>> my contention about an atmosphere without
>> water or GHGs being warmer than now.
>>
>> http://earth.huji.ac.il/Data/File/caryn/lecture%204%20N2%20and%20O3%2...
>>
>>      There is a lot of information listed about
>> N2 and O2, but being they are not listed
>> as GHGs, it must mean something.
>
>If the notion of GHGs was based on something empirical rather than on
>propaganda I would agree with you. But it's not.

Are you sure? All it takes to find
out is try different gases, no instruments
are needed,comparison works always.


Surely to God with all the money
being spent somebody has enough
brains to be able to say which gas
absorbs and radiates the most, and
which gases do not absorb or emit
IR radiation at all,

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:30:54 -0400

> Really, if N2 did radiate much, tripling
> CO2 wouldn't mean anything.

Based on what physical knowledge ?

>
> Surely to God with all the money
> being spent somebody has enough
> brains to be able to say which gas
> absorbs and radiates the most, and
> which gases do not absorb or emit
> IR radiation at all,

Surprisingly this is well known
for loooong time, and for low money.

--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:54:11 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:39:16 -0400
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:19:22 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 04:22:26 -0400
>> >>
>> >> But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,
>> >> it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
>> >> my contention about an atmosphere without
>> >> water or GHGs being warmer than now.
>> >
>> >Can you show the radiation balance calculations supporting this idea ?
>> >
>> >As with no IR air thermal radiation, atmosphere of Earth
>> >will cool itself down to radiate just what it receives from the Sun.
>>
>> If there was no GHGs and no water, how
>> could the atmosphere cool itself, it would
>
>Learn physics yourself, you would know than....
>
>> continue to absorb some visible and UV,
>
>There is no absorption without emission.
>This part remains the same as for real atmosphere.

You are so full of it, you must be joking,
if N2 absorbs UV, it sure as hell is not
going to radiate UV.

Bye.

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:56:27 -0400

> >
> >> continue to absorb some visible and UV,
> >
> >There is no absorption without emission.
> >This part remains the same as for real atmosphere.
>
> You are so full of it, you must be joking,
> if N2 absorbs UV, it sure as hell is not
> going to radiate UV.
>
> Bye.

Physics must have for you plenty of surprises.

Learn yourself some funny stuff from spectroscopy,
about electron excitation and spontaneous emission.


--
Poutnik

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Apr 24, 8:39�am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:48:37 -0400, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
> > wrote:

> > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:47:52 -0700, Desertphile
> > > <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:09:54 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> > > >Janoschka) wrote:
> >
> > > >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:53:43, Claudius Denk
> > > >> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> > On Apr 22, 3:32�pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > >> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >> > > > On Apr 21, 9:19�pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > >> > > > > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
> > > >> > > > > head based on rumors and conjecture.
> >
> > > >> > > > Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is � Do you agree or not?
> >
> > > >> > > No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be
> >
> > > >> > If you did it wouldn't be ethereal.
> >
> > > >> > > I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!
> >
> > > >> > Uh, what?
> > > >> No such thing as Greenhouse effect!
> > > >Then why is Earth not frozen solid? LOL!

> > > N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
> >
> > If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
> > frozen solid?

> If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?

No.

Now then. If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is
Earth not frozen solid?


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
scientific truth." --Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:03:44 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>
> Claudius Denk posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT)

>
>
> > > > N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
> > >
> > > If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
> > > frozen solid?
> >
> > If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?
>

> Some people just do not get the definition.

The stupid shit has been educated in the subject several hundred
times. I suspect mental illness.

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:20:39 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
><claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 8:39 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:48:37 -0400, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
>> > wrote:
>
>> > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:47:52 -0700, Desertphile
>> > > <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:09:54 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>> > > >Janoschka) wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:53:43, Claudius Denk
>> > > >> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> > On Apr 22, 3:32ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>> > > >> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:14:18, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > On Apr 21, 9:19˜pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > That would be your sandcastle notion of GHG's in your
>> > > >> > > > > head based on rumors and conjecture.
>> >

>> > > >> > > > Uh, I stated that the GHG notion is ÿ Do you agree or not?

>> >
>> > > >> > > No I have no idea of what your ethereal may be
>> >
>> > > >> > If you did it wouldn't be ethereal.
>> >
>> > > >> > > I claim that "Greenhouse Effect is not!
>> >
>> > > >> > Uh, what?
>> > > >> No such thing as Greenhouse effect!
>> > > >Then why is Earth not frozen solid? LOL!
>> > > N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
>> >
>> > If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
>> > frozen solid?
>
>> If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?
>
>No.
>
>Now then. If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is
>Earth not frozen solid?

Because without GHGs and without water,
which turns into a greenhouse gas, and without
water clouds, the Earth with an N2 and O2
atmosphere would be warmer than now.

Good scientists would not base their
every word on the work of a guy guessing
over a century ago.

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:21:12 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:03:44 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Claudius Denk posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>
>> > > > N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
>> > >
>> > > If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
>> > > frozen solid?
>> >
>> > If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?
>>
>> Some people just do not get the definition.
>
>The stupid shit has been educated in the subject several hundred
>times. I suspect mental illness.

Educated by the nuts and liars and the
gullible here? Ha!

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:26:14 -0400

> Good scientists would not base their
> every word on the work of a guy guessing
> over a century ago.

Good scientists
would at the first time base his words
on what science does know about matter behavior.



--
Poutnik

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 25, 12:30 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:


> >> >All gasses are cooling gasses.  (All matter is cooling matter.)
>
> >>       But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,
>
> >How do you frikin know this?  It's a simple question.  Why not provide
> >a simple and honest response.
>
>        Don't the AGW crowd say so?  :-)

Hearsay. Hearsay from loons. That's it?

>        Really, if N2 did radiate much, tripling
> CO2 wouldn't mean anything.

The fact is you don't know.

>
> >> it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
> >> my contention about an atmosphere without
> >> water or GHGs being warmer than now.
>
> >>http://earth.huji.ac.il/Data/File/caryn/lecture%204%20N2%20and%20O3%2...
>
> >>      There is a lot of information listed about
> >> N2 and O2, but being they are not listed
> >> as GHGs, it must mean something.
>
> >If the notion of GHGs was based on something empirical rather than on
> >propaganda I would agree with you.  But it's not.
>
>         Are you sure?      All it takes to find
> out is try different gases, no instruments
> are needed,comparison works always.

Yet nobody has ever done it?

>        Surely to God with all the money
> being spent somebody has enough
> brains to be able to say which gas
> absorbs and radiates the most, and
> which gases do not absorb or emit
> IR radiation at all,

When all else fails look for facts, don't take the word of whackos.

[Claudius Denk]

On Apr 25, 12:51 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:


> Surprisingly this is well known
> for loooong time, and for low money.

Well then show us, you putz.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I disagree; the "null" is "no atmosphere;"
the best insulator is vacuum; why?

> > of glass houses at one longitude & various lattitudes....
> > certainly, it does not "work" for a huge glass house,
> > sorrounding Eaaarth....  although,
> > even a computerized simulacram of such would be instructive
> > -- and surely destructive of "global" warming.
>
> > anyway, water vapor is by far the freater glass house gas,
> > with a much larger absorptive spectrum.
>
> Yes indeed,  but many refuse to understand that CO2 also
> cools  the atmosphere and more of it cools a bit more.
>
>  H2O and CO2 cause no warming at all.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

fi you can find the Exploratorium's poster
of all radiation & its uses,
you will see it farily graphically; also,
it gives the ranges of the varying nomenclature
for radiation, like "wavenumbers" -- yeecchh!

> Well then show us

the absorptive spectrum therefrom
of water vapor is much, much greter than CO2's,
presumably also teh emmissive spectrum;
(this is actually a datum from Westinghouse Research Assoc.,
presumably rendered graphically
by a bunch of Mac-o-philes .-)

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:18:26, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:51:19 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:09:30, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> emoneyjoe posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:52:47 -0400

> >> > >If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?

> >> > N2 and O2 do not radiate much, that
> >> > is as close to a GreenHouse Effect as
> >> > any.
> >> > No matter how much or how little
> >> > energy the N2 and O2 gain from the
> >> > surface from conduction, they hold
> >> > that energy, and that is what makes
> >> > the Earth warmer than the moon.
> >>
> >> There are several mistakes here....
> >>
> >> First
> >> Earth is rotating 27 times faster than Moon.
> >> Even if Earth had not had atmosphere at all,
> >> it would never reached as high temperatures
> >> as are in Moon high noon.
> >>
> >> Second
> >> There would be strong unshielded Earth IR radiation.
> >> With same irradiation from Sun,
> >> surface would be much colder than now.
> >>
> >You cannot demonstrate the the that at all.
> >The amount of thermat energy from the sun to the surface,
> >and from the surface hase not been measured.
> >It is an easy measurement, but never done by your
> >Climate Clowns as that would ruin their fantasies.

> >> Third
> >> There would be thermal convection, taking a lot of energy.
> >>
> >And radiating that energy to where?

> >> Fourth
> >> It will not hold energy,
> >> but would conduct it back to surface,
> >> if avg T of surface layer is higher than of Earth.
> >> And this happens especially in nights for sure.
> >
> >Not once the atmosphere were at the same
> >temperature as the surface
>
> I am sorry to say his eager objections
> make no sense at all to me, it sounds
> like he is faking knowledge, even using
> terms like convection where it can not
> apply.
>
> It is as if some school was teaching
> advanced concepts without the students
> ever learning basic physics.
>
> Has any warmie ever mentioned the
> fact that higher frequencies carry more
> energy?
>
> The surface must absorb the energy
> in visible light if it is not reflected.

Very little as sensible heat (that will change
temperaturer) A great deal is absorbed
as a chemical change, reduction of CO2 to
C, and the latent heat of evaporation.

Both happen above the surface not "at"
it, providing cooling to the surface.

> And contact conduction must surely
> provide a faster transfer of energy than
> long wave Infra Red.

Radiative heat transfer is very low at a small
delta T Conductive heat across anythng
with unconstrained molecules is high.

Atmospheric gasses are only constrained
by the force of gravity. As they increase in
temperature they "must" move in a direction
opposed to the force of gravity. This is known
as convection., a better heat transport than
conduction.
>
> Water provides cooling anyplace the
> water is cooler than the surface, with
> 79 percent of the surface being water,
> taking away the water should mean
> probably double the amount of solar
> energy being absorbed.
>
That is pritty close. Wave motion introduces
many other variables.

> My assumptions are based on these
> things, and nobody but one guy has
> tried to claim that the basics are wrong.
>
Your assumptions are good. You can at least
explain why you made them, Not so the Clowns.
>
> The chatter about metal plates in
> a subject that is mostly concerned
> with gases seems bizarre, showing
> possibly that some of the participants
> are not able to do problems with gases
> as gases involve absorption and
> radiation of a 3-D volume of gas
> instead of the simple 2-D plates.

Yes indeed and also why they assume
equal radiation in all directions. Radiative
heat transfer is quite picky about geometry.
Everything is different in each direction.
.
> Radiation and absorption in gases
> must proceed with two different
> reductions with distance, the inverse
> square law, and what is absorbed
> has to be subtracted from the flux.
>
> That should make it obvious that
> radiation from high up never reaches
> the surface, and I consider anybody
> that claims gases at below freezing
> temperatures could send energy
> from above 10 miles to warm the
> above freezing surface, crazy as
> a loon.
>
Not crazy, if you doing politics not science.
>
> But gossip is like a freight train,
> once it gets going, no stopping it.
> And to make it worse, the left
> leaning warmies actually make up
> false gossip on purpose to support
> the ignorant leftist causes.
>
Yes and you can bet this nonsense
will cost you lots.

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:02:32 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will

Doesn't convection only move the
warm molecules into position to make
energy transfer more wide spread?

Maybe not, my heating bill is
now about $400 a year less, the
direct vent natural gas wall heaters
are saving me money.

[josephus]

this is a record of the progression of linear slopes for NOAA data.
it is a nonlinear curve. approximately a parabolic curve maybe.
but if you print the image then turn it sideways the years are X
values then you can see the problem. the ranges of the temperature
data is increasing so the slope curves upward.

josephus

Correlation coefficient is 0.99995
My linear data is +
The data is *
Collisions are %
0.3397449| 0.4663263| 0.5929078|
--------------------------------------------------------
2012 40 | . +*|

2010 38 | . +* |

2008 35 | . +* |

2006 33 | . + * |

2004 30 | . + * |

2002 27 | . +* |

2000 24 | . +* |

1998 22 | .+* |

1996 18 | % . |

1994 15 | *+ . |

1992 14 | % . |

1990 13 | +* . |

1988 10 | % . |

1986 7 | *+ . |

1984 7 | +* . |

1982 5 | +* . |

1980 3 | % . |

1978 1 | % . |

1976 1 | % . |


--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:51:07 -0500, josephus <dog...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Claudius Denk wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 12:51 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Surprisingly this is well known
>>> for loooong time, and for low money.
>>
>> Well then show us, you putz.
>>
>
>
>this is a record of the progression of linear slopes for NOAA data.
> it is a nonlinear curve. approximately a parabolic curve maybe.
>but if you print the image then turn it sideways the years are X
>values then you can see the problem. the ranges of the temperature
>data is increasing so the slope curves upward.
>
>josephus
>
> Correlation coefficient is 0.99995

Not more computer output.

Can't you do it with image files
in a binary newsgroup?

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 07:50:29, Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Apr 24, 10:15ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:48:18, Claudius Denk
> >
> > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 23, 12:09˜pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> >
> > > > Which gasses in the atmosphere ˜Radiate 96% of that energy
> > > > thereby cooling the atmosphere?
> >
> > > So, basically, your answer is CO2. ÿRight?
> >
> > H2O is about 93% ÿ CO2 2-3%, ÿnone is returned to the earth surface.

> > It actual radiance of the surface is i9nto 1 steradian noy pi
> > steradian
> > and the earthy surface would be above the boiling point of water
> > is it were not that is being radiated to space by atmospherec

> > H2O. ÿBoth H2O AND CO2 are cooling gasses.

>
> Makes perfect sense. Really.
>
> But is the notion that N2 and O2 aren't also cooling gasses based on
> genuine experimental data or just the peanut gallery. I mean, who
> told you that N2 and O2 lack any kind of radiance profile? Some
> "warmy", I bet. Let's face it, when it comes to facts the warmies
> have a pretty terrible track record.
>

> All gasses are cooling gasses. (All matter is cooling matter.)
>

OK guy the, O2 and N2 absorb much below 0.4 micron
wavelength, 8% of what the Sun produces at 6000 Kelvin.

At 200 Kelvin they can radiate nothing. Both of these
are warming gasses, because they absorb more energy
than they emit.

The rest of the atmospheric gasses are a mixed bag,
because they get energy from the planet via conduction,
convection, and latent heat of evaporation of water.
Not just from radiation from the surface.,

All of this heat (energy) is radiated to space. None is
returned in any way to the warmer earth surface.

Rain is returned but only after all latent heat has
been radiated away.

[Poutnik]

Claudius Denk posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:35:36 -0700 (PDT)

I do not have enough spoons for spoon-feeding.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:44:23 -0400

>
> Doesn't convection only move the
> warm molecules into position to make
> energy transfer more wide spread?

Thermal convection just moves air
while it is warmer then surrounding.

Forced convection moves air either warmer or colder
then surrounding either up either down,
depending of value of lapse rate.

BTW there is no such thing as warm molecules,
only warm gas. A molecule of the same energy
can belong to huge range of gas temperatures.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:56:58 +0200

P.S.: I understand you took dark side of Will.
It is easier and more attractive,
but it is not science.

He has troubles with entropy, with temperature
and with the whole 2nd TD law,
where entropy makes the core of it.

That spoils all his understanding of energy transfer.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:56:58 +0200

>
> emoneyjoe posted Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:44:23 -0400
> >
> > Doesn't convection only move the
> > warm molecules into position to make
> > energy transfer more wide spread?
>

> BTW there is no such thing as warm molecules,
> only warm gas. A molecule of the same energy
> can belong to huge range of gas temperatures.

P.S.: Same as you with your age
can belong to huge range of people groups
with wide range of avarage age.

--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:55:37, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:39:01 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:

> >On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:03:44, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> Claudius Denk posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > > > N2 and O2 do not radiate IR much.
> >> > > If there is "no such thing as Greenhouse effect," why is Earth not
> >> > > frozen solid?

> >> > If there is a greenhouse effect why can't it be defined?

> >> Some people just do not get the definition.
> >

> >Do you ignorant asshole have a definition?
> >Does it include the non existent back radiation?
>
> It looks like the Global Warming idiots have
> gone berserk, they seem frantic, with no science
> at all, just goofy comments and verbal abuse.
>
> I don't understand why you have the stand
> on radiation you do, either the so-called GHGs
> absorb and radiate or they don't, but any idea
> must be consistent.

Joe, 35 years of studying and measuring thermal
radiation, mostly at wavelengths longer than
3 Microns. All is consistent, and very consistent
with all the laws of classical thermodynamics.
Violate any, and your numbers are for shit.

>
> It would be interesting to know just how
> much N2 and O2 can absorb and radiate IR,
> is it enough to even consider.

N2 and O2 absorb almost all sunlight below
0.4 microns. 7-8% of all energy from a 6000
Kelvin Sun. These two at 200 Kelvin can radiate
nothing in any direction. They are warming
gasses, the only two. O3 is quite weird!

[Claudius Denk]

There is no such thing as a gas that (under non-controlled conditions)
that does not emit at the same frequency and same wavelength that it
absorbs. IOW, there is no such thing as a "warming gas."

> The rest of the atmospheric gasses are a mixed bag,
>  because they get energy from the planet via conduction,
> convection, and latent heat of evaporation of water.
> Not just from radiation from the surface.,
>
> All of this heat (energy) is radiated to space. None is
> returned in any way to the warmer earth surface.
>
> Rain is returned but only after all latent heat has
> been radiated away.

When you get your knowlege/information from the turds of global
warming alarmism don't expect it to smell nice.

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:07:47 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will

I have seen a couple of other posters say
that any gas that absorbs energy, emits energy,
and that is pretty much true, except they are
not specific enough.

If N2 absorbs UV, then sure, it will emit
UV, but only at the same wavelength it
absorbed.
And N2 is probably not going to be
hot enough to radiate below 0.4 microns.

>The rest of the atmospheric gasses are a mixed bag,
> because they get energy from the planet via conduction,
>convection, and latent heat of evaporation of water.
>Not just from radiation from the surface.,
>
>All of this heat (energy) is radiated to space. None is
>returned in any way to the warmer earth surface.
>
>Rain is returned but only after all latent heat has
>been radiated away.

I tried to make the point before that
cold is not an entity like heat, but when
doing energy transfer work, if the rain
is colder than when it left the surface,
the difference in energy needs to
be subtracted even though the latent
heat was accounted for, rain, hail
and snow and sleet can be colder
than when it left the surface, and
that represents a minus energy
value that should be accounted
for in any silly vain attempt at
energy budgeting.

[emoneyjoe]

Right, but free N2 in the atmosphere of Earth
is not going to be 5000 + degrees any time in
the next Billion years, so it absorbs UV, but
does not radiate much of anything.

>> The rest of the atmospheric gasses are a mixed bag,
>>  because they get energy from the planet via conduction,
>> convection, and latent heat of evaporation of water.
>> Not just from radiation from the surface.,
>>
>> All of this heat (energy) is radiated to space. None is
>> returned in any way to the warmer earth surface.
>>
>> Rain is returned but only after all latent heat has
>> been radiated away.
>
>When you get your knowlege/information from the turds of global
>warming alarmism don't expect it to smell nice.

He definitely is not a warmie or an alarmist,
any more than I am.

I am getting very concerned about the
thinking of the AGW crowd, for the last
5 years I have been finding one thing
after another with their assumptions
and ideas and accepted science,
and if it continues it could change
the direction of science progress
into something akin to the dark
ages.

I am assuming the dark ages
was caused by the plagues and
a lack of understanding the causes,
and the gossip that reduced the
societies to poverty and despair.

The present situation is like
that with Spain having 27%
unemployment and the US
not far behind if the actual
numbers were obtained.
AGW nuts are doing
everything possible that can
and will cause less business
activity and more jobless people.

All because of gossip about
CO2.

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:54:11, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> When you are going to learn
> stupid stuff of physics, let us know.
>
> Until than your claims are fairy tales you do not like.
>
>

So says the pompous idiot Sputnik, Who self proclaims
himself genius that knows all science. He has never
gotten even one answer correct,

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:34:28, Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 12:30яpm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >All gasses are cooling gasses. я(All matter is cooling matter.)
> >
> > >> я я я But N2 probably doesn't radiate much IR,
> >
> > >How do you frikin know this? яIt's a simple question. яWhy not provide

> > >a simple and honest response.
> >

> > я я я яDon't the AGW crowd say so? я:-)

>
> Hearsay. Hearsay from loons. That's it?
>

> > я я я яReally, if N2 did radiate much, tripling

> > CO2 wouldn't mean anything.
>
> The fact is you don't know.
>
> >
> > >> it may absorb higher energy radiation, reinforcing
> > >> my contention about an atmosphere without
> > >> water or GHGs being warmer than now.
> >

> > >>http://earth.huji.ac.il/Data/File/caryn/lecture%204%20N2%20and%20O3%2....
> >
> > >> я я яThere is a lot of information listed about

> > >> N2 and O2, but being they are not listed
> > >> as GHGs, it must mean something.
> >
> > >If the notion of GHGs was based on something empirical rather than on

> > >propaganda I would agree with you. яBut it's not.
> >
> > я я я я Are you sure? я я яAll it takes to find

> > out is try different gases, no instruments
> > are needed,comparison works always.
>
> Yet nobody has ever done it?

The clowns refuse as it would destroy their argument!

> > я я я яSurely to God with all the money

> > being spent somebody has enough
> > brains to be able to say which gas
> > absorbs and radiates the most, and
> > which gases do not absorb or emit
> > IR radiation at all,
>
> When all else fails look for facts, don't take the word of whackos.

You, Claudius, are the one that said all this data has been measured
and is in
standard scientific text. Indeed it all is. Why oh why, do you
refuse to look it up?

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:06:05 -0400

> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >There is no such thing as a gas that (under non-controlled conditions)
> >that does not emit at the same frequency and same wavelength that it
> >absorbs. IOW, there is no such thing as a "warming gas."
>
> Right, but free N2 in the atmosphere of Earth
> is not going to be 5000 + degrees any time in
> the next Billion years, so it absorbs UV, but
> does not radiate much of anything.

This is not thermal emission,
such emission is independent on gas temperature.

Matter does not need to have temperature of millions Kelvins
to emit X-rays of energy of 10 keV.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:54:46 -0400

> > At 200 Kelvin they can radiate nothing. Both of these
> >are warming gasses, because they absorb more energy
> >than they emit.
>
> I have seen a couple of other posters say
> that any gas that absorbs energy, emits energy,
> and that is pretty much true, except they are
> not specific enough.
>
> If N2 absorbs UV, then sure, it will emit
> UV, but only at the same wavelength it
> absorbed.

If emission is between different electron energy levels
than absorption, than it can emit at diferent wavelength.

> And N2 is probably not going to be
> hot enough to radiate below 0.4 microns.

This is NOT thermal emission.

Electon energy levels are not in this case
in thermalďż˝ equilibrium with energy of other degrees of freedom.

50K cold metal can easily emit even 1 nm Xray radiation.


--
Poutnik