Re: Scientific Americans solution to AGW

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 10:42:57 AM7/10/12

to

> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> > assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
>
> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
>
> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",

The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in
hours. The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be
demonstrated in hours.

The theoretical work on this goes back almost 200 years, not for CO2
in a bottle but for the temperature of the atmosphere.

Barring some inflection that even wing nut deniers have yet to
propose, more CO2 => higher temperatures.

Or do you believe Fourier is part of the global AGW "conspiracy" that
includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?

In the case of ocean acidification, low frequency noise isn't a
problem. Sea water pH drop is documented on a yearly basis with such
a low margin of error no one can bet against it on Intrade.

(In case you deniers are wondering, Intrade doesn't have any place
where you can bet against the sun rising each morning either.)

Bret Cahill

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 12:51:41 PM7/10/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:42:57 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>> > "so-called"
>> > I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>> > happening?
>>
>> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>> > taxes."
>>
>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
>> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>
> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
> in hours.

In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat: CO2 selectively absorbs some
frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.

The atmosphere is already completely opaque to the IR rays in the IR
frequency bands absorbed by CO2. Thus no more IR energy is absorbed at
the ground level when CO2 concentrations are increased. The effect is not
as simplistic as "CO2 traps heat", and the consequences are not as
straightforward as what you claim.

Overall, the possible direct temperature increase induced by CO2 at the
altitude in the atmosphere were it can absorb some IR could not exceed
some 1.2°C (from the residual amount of energy that can be absorbed in
the CO2 absorption bands). So the 2°C increase required in the
environmental conferences will never be reached. No action is required.

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 1:04:06 PM7/10/12

to

> >> > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> >> > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
> >> > "so-called"
> >> > I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
> >> > happening?
>
> >> > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
> >> > taxes."
>
> >> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> >> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> >> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
> >> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>
> > The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
> > The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
> > in hours.
>
> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat

It just causes the thermometer to read higher.

>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.

Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.

Anyway you dodged the rest of the thread:

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 1:05:52 PM7/10/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:42:57 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

> Or do you believe Fourier is part of the global AGW "conspiracy" that
> includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?

Do you know that Fourier ignored that CO2 absorbed only selective IR
bands? It was discovered later. And it had a major importance. As a
matter of fact, this discovery finally revolutionised all the theories in
physics.
Fourier was not wrong, nor part of a conspiracy. Fourier ignored what IR
were, he called them "obscure heat". Physics was just in its infancy and
Fourier understanding of the relation between thermal agitation (heat)
and radiations was still very rudimentary.

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 1:22:21 PM7/10/12

to

> > Or do you believe Fourier is part of the global AGW "conspiracy" that
> > includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?

. . .

> Fourier was not wrong, nor part of a conspiracy.

It looks like everyone agrees they knew about the greenhouse effect
even before humans added significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Bret Cahill

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 2:08:00 PM7/10/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:04:06 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
>>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
>> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.

Read some thermodynamics and stop spouting nonsense.

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 2:12:58 PM7/10/12

to

Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
remotely correct theory of AGW.

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 4:43:17 PM7/10/12

to

> >> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> > It just causes the thermometer to read higher.

No answer?

> >>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
> >> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> > Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>
> Read some thermodynamics

Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 4:46:08 PM7/10/12

to

Just the greenhouse effect which, barring some inflection theory that
even wing nuts have yet to propose, means more greenhouse gases like
CO2 => more global warming.

Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
CO2.

Bret Cahill

Will Janoschka

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 8:54:44 PM7/10/12

to

Paul,
Joe Fourier, was one of the first to use Glasshouse (Greenhouse)
effect
when the "caloric" theory of heat was popular. Fourier, was the
first to
agree with Bill Thompson, when he proved that radiative heat transfer
conforms to the laws of thermodynamics, thus ending the era of
"caloric" and "aether".

The AGW folk conveniently ignore that part of science.
Heat spontaneously always transfer from more Kelvin
to less Kelvin. Heatpumps only increase entropy.-will-

samwormley

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 9:37:47 PM7/10/12

to

On 2012-07-11 00:54:44 +0000, Will Janoschka said:

> The AGW folk conveniently ignore that part of science.
> Heat spontaneously always transfer from more Kelvin
> to less Kelvin. Heatpumps only increase entropy.-will-

The heat building up in the earth's biosphere is primarily
coming from the sun which has a higher temperature. The
mechanism for retaining heat is absorption (and re-emission)
of greenhouse gasses.

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 9:02:37 PM7/10/12

to

Yup. The denier is denying energy eventually ends up as heat.

Bret Cahill

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 11:49:58 PM7/10/12

to

On 7/10/2012 1:04 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>>>>> happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>>>>> "so-called"
>>>>> I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>>>>> happening?
>>
>>>>> "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>>>>> taxes."
>>
>>>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>>>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>>>> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
>>>> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>>
>>> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
>>> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
>>> in hours.
>>
>> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
>> : CO2 selectively absorbs some
>> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.

See I told you Bret would say it's simple!

> Anyway you dodged the rest of the thread:
>
> The theoretical work on this goes back almost 200 years, not for CO2
> in a bottle but for the temperature of the atmosphere.
>
> Barring some inflection that even wing nut deniers have yet to
> propose, more CO2 => higher temperatures.

There you go. Just get a bottle and prove "global warming" to yourself.
What more "science" do you need? If Bret says it's true, then it IS
true! What nobody understands (and Bret does, of course) is that IR
radiation isn't heat...it turns INTO heat! Get the picture!

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 11:51:47 PM7/10/12

to

On 7/10/2012 4:43 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>
>> Read some thermodynamics
>
> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?

Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
Thermodynamics"! That means he knows something about science and you
don't! You are the "looser".

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 10, 2012, 11:57:34 PM7/10/12

to

Sam, I urge you to take some time off from posting nonsense here and
take a few of those "Geezer classes" they let you take for free. I'd
strongly urge you to take one on the physics of heat and thermodynamics.

Since all heat comes from the sun, how is it that all you warmies all
deny that the sun, or orbits, or albedo or clouds or any other such
factors can have any effect on warming? You know that the MOST CO2 can
do is 20% of the total "warming" and that is doubtful. So why are you so
willfully ignorant?

Will Janoschka

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 12:48:33 AM7/11/12

to

Ben,

"All" of the radiative heat transfered from the earth to its its
atmosphere,
is but 0.73% of the total heat tranfered from the earth to its
atmosphere.
CO2 in any amount, can account for to no more than 0.15% of any
Earth warming or cooling. Check my numbers. -will-

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 6:01:45 AM7/11/12

to

On 7/10/12 11:48 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> CO2 in any amount, can account for to no more than 0.15% of any
> Earth warming or cooling. Check my numbers. -will-

See: http://edu-observatory.org/olli/IPCC_SPM.2.png

The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based
actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon
dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon)
cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other
short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.
However, claiming that CO2 has only caused 35% of global warming is a
gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the paper.
In August 2010, Nature published a commentary by Penner et al. which
mainly focused on the uncertainty regarding the effect short-lived
pollutants (such as aerosols and black carbon) have on the climate. As
is often the case, many in the blogosphere misinterpreted and
misunderstood the statements and conclusions in the commentary. Not
surprisingly, the biggest misinterpretation related to the contribution
of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to global warming. Below is the most
misunderstood quote, with emphasis on the key word.

"Of the short-lived species, methane, tropospheric ozone and black
carbon are key contributors to global warming, augmenting the radiative
forcing of carbon dioxide by 65%. Others ï¿½ such as sulphate, nitrate and
organic aerosols ï¿½ cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a
fraction of the warming owing to carbon dioxide."
Numerous blogs have (mis)interpreted this statement to mean that carbon
dioxide is only causing 35% as much global warming as previously
believed. A more accurate reading of the quote is that certain
short-lived pollutants cause warming in addition to carbon dioxide -
quantitatively, approximately 65% as much warming as CO2. And certain
other short-lived species cause a cooling effect which offsets some of
this warming.

This is not a new conclusion. The IPCC puts the radiative forcing from
CO2 at 1.66 W/m^2, compared to the forcing from other greenhouse gases,
black carbon, and tropospheric ozone at approximately 1.4 W/m^2.
Similarly, the negative forcing from aerosols is approximately -1.2 W/m^2.

Figure 1: Radiative forcing estimates from the IPCC FAR

Thus if anything, the 65% figure is an underestimate of the
contributions of short-lived pollutants to global warming, but this
contribution does not change the 1.66 W/m2 radiative forcing from CO2 or
the amount of global warming it has caused.

Much ado has also been made about another quote from the commentary:

"Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate
sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling
effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be
attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from
aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for
future climate change."

This statement gets to the main point of the commentary - that there
remains significant uncertainty regarding the effect of these
short-lived pollutants on the global climate. However, estimates of the
planetary climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 and other
radiative forcings are not solely based on the change in the mean global
temperature over the past 100 years. In fact, the climate sensitivity
parameter has been estimated through many different methods, including:

o climate models
o recent responses to large volcanic eruptions
o recent responses to solar cycles
o paleoclimate data
o data from the last Glacial Maximum
o and yes, data from the instrumental period

All of these different methods show strong agreement, overlapping in
the IPCC climate sensitivity range of 2 to 4.5ï¿½C for a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 (2xCO2).

Figure 2: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from
different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value.
The thin colored bars indicate very likely value (more than 90%
probability). The thicker colored bars indicate likely values (more than
66% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper
bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5ï¿½C) and most likely value (3ï¿½C)
are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively
(Knutti and Hegerl 2008)

Interestingly, Penner et al. find that whether the climate sensitivity
parameter is on the low or high end, reducing anthropogenic emissions of
the short-lived warming pollutants would achieve a significant reduction
in global warming over the next 50-100 years. In the red lines in the
Figure 3, they employ a climate model with a sensitivity of 5ï¿½C for
2xCO2, slightly outside the IPCC likely range. The blue line is a
climate model with a sensitivity of 2ï¿½C for 2xCO2, on the lower end of
the IPCC range. Note that even with the lower climate sensitivity, the
model shows the planet warming 3ï¿½C by 2100 in this emissions scenario
(see the figure caption for further details).

Figure 3: Global mean temperature measurements (black) and projections
based on an IPCC scenario with high emissions (A2) for a climate
sensitivity parameter of 5ï¿½C (upper red) and 2ï¿½C (upper blue). Linearly
decreasing the total anthropogenic radiative forcing owing to methane,
tropospheric ozone and black carbon ï¿½ starting in 2010 and achieving
pre-industrial levels by 2050 ï¿½ results in significant near-term climate
mitigation (lower blue and red curves) (Penner 2010)

Unfortunately, reducing the short-lived cooling pollutants such as
aerosols would cause a warming effect of similar magnitude, and so CO2
remains the primary pollutant of concern. Coincidentally, a group of
scientists from NASA GISS just published a paper in Science entitled
Atmospheric CO2: Principle Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature.

Although it is important to reduce the remaining climate uncertainties,
such as the magnitude of the impacts of short-lived pollutants, it does
not change the fact that CO2 is very likely the driving force behind the
current global warming, or that if we double the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, the planet will likely warm in
the range of 2 to 4.5ï¿½C.

See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 2:04:06 PM7/11/12

to

On 7/11/2012 6:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 7/10/12 11:48 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> CO2 in any amount, can account for to no more than 0.15% of any
>> Earth warming or cooling. Check my numbers. -will-
>
> See: http://edu-observatory.org/olli/IPCC_SPM.2.png
>
> The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based
> actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon
> dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon)
> cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other
> short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.

Wait a minute, "Sam". First you told us over and over and over again
that CO2 was the ONLY and MAJOR cause of warming. You assured us that
all warmist arguments ignoring clouds and water vapor were totally valid
because CO2 "feedbacks" to clouds and water vapor and hence CO2 is the
TRUE cause of Warming. I mean CO2 is going up and temperature is (well,
used to be) going up. "What else could it be?", you said. All
"greenhouse gasses" OTHER than CO2 were "minor" and of little effect,
you told us. And we believed you Sam!

But now suddenly everything is changed. Water vapor and clouds are real,
other gasses are causing almost as much warming as CO2 and some things
might even be causing cooling! What gives? Did the "climate science"
suddenly change? Did the parameters of atmospheric gasses suddenly
change? I think you need to explain this to us Sam, so we can believe
you again! We all WANT to believe you. We want to accept your every word
without question, but you are confusing us. Help us out here!

Bill Snyder

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 2:08:01 PM7/11/12

to

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:04:06 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

>On 7/11/2012 6:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 7/10/12 11:48 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>> CO2 in any amount, can account for to no more than 0.15% of any
>>> Earth warming or cooling. Check my numbers. -will-
>>
>> See: http://edu-observatory.org/olli/IPCC_SPM.2.png
>>
>> The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based
>> actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon
>> dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon)
>> cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other
>> short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.
>
>Wait a minute, "Sam". First you told us over and over and over again
>that CO2 was the ONLY and MAJOR cause of warming.

You're so far gone in delirium now that you can't keep your story
straight even for one sentence? C'mon, shit-bot, is it ONLY or
MAJOR? Consistent minds want to know.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 3:45:15 PM7/11/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:46:08 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> > It looks like everyone agrees they knew about the greenhouse effect
>> > even before humans added significant amounts of CO2 to the
>> > atmosphere.
>
>> Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
>> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
>> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>
> Just the greenhouse effect which, barring some inflection theory that
> even wing nuts have yet to propose, means more greenhouse gases like CO2
> => more global warming.

Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
especially in spectroscopy.

>
> Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
> CO2.

Nice straw man. But, excuse me, I am speaking to someone who thinks that
IR radiations IS heat.

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 4:14:41 PM7/11/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:54:44 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:

> Paul,
> Joe Fourier, was one of the first to use Glasshouse (Greenhouse) effect
> when the "caloric" theory of heat was popular. Fourier, was the first
> to agree with Bill Thompson, when he proved that radiative heat transfer
> conforms to the laws of thermodynamics, thus ending the era of "caloric"
> and "aether".
>
> The AGW folk conveniently ignore that part of science.
> Heat spontaneously always transfer from more Kelvin to less Kelvin.
> Heatpumps only increase entropy.-will-

Here is a link on Joseph Fourier's memoire sur les températures du globe
terrestre et des espaces planétaires where he states clearly that the
greenhouse effect is the result of the absence of movement of the air.

http://tinyurl.com/6wt3fhr (points on
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k32227/f825.image.r=memoires+de
+l'academie+des+sciences)
"En effet, si toutes les couches d'air dont l'atmosphère est formée
conservaient leur densité avec leur transparencde, et perdaient seulement
la mobilité qui leur est proprre, cette masse d'air ainsi devenue solide,
étant exposée aux rayons du soleil produirait un effet du même genre que
celui que l'on vient de décrire".

Will Janoschka

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 10:10:10 PM7/11/12

to

Yes, That is part of his later rejection of the "caloric" The
atmosphere is heated
by convection and phase change from the surface "to" the
atmosphere.
The atmosphere does not heat the earth.

Another scientist the AGW folk ignore when convenientl.

Will Janoschka

unread,

Jul 11, 2012, 11:25:54 PM7/11/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:43:17, Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Bret, I would just love to read "your version" of
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Please state "your version" here on these newsgroups!

The actual, 2nd law refutes "all" of the claims
of the CO2-ClimateClowns.

No Greenhouse Effect!
No Greenhouse Gasses!
No Radiative Forcings!
No Positive Feedbacks!
No Climate Science!
No Science at all!
No Theory!
No Proof!

All madeup claims generated by "The Handbook
of Creative Statistics, Vol2".

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 12:03:59 AM7/12/12

to

That would be "only significant", green teat sucker. Don't you have all
your master's rants memorized by now? So now it's green sucker 101:
Accuse them of what they caught YOU doing! Sure, Bill, nobody will
notice your insanity.

That's right, Snider, I used to say CO2 was the only significant cause
of Global Warming, but now I'm saying it's only ONE of the major
effects. They are ALL "major" effects. You know, the same way that
everybody gets a trophy in sports these days so nobody loses self-esteem.

Sane people don't live in worlds like yours where facts are pliable.

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 1:02:12 AM7/12/12

to

The invocation of the "second law of thermodynamics" by Bret has been
some kind of Pavlovian reflex. He observed the positive effect of
mentioning the second law of thermodynamics on the discussion, and though
he just could play this card. But he does not know when to play this card
to win the point and he ignores its devastating effects on the warmists'
arguments.

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 1:09:34 AM7/12/12

to

> >> > It looks like everyone agrees they knew about the greenhouse effect
> >> > even before humans added significant amounts of CO2 to the
> >> > atmosphere.
>
> >> Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
> >> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
> >> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>
> > Just the greenhouse effect which, barring some inflection theory that
> > even wing nuts have yet to propose, means more greenhouse gases like CO2
> > => more global warming.
>
> Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
> especially in spectroscopy.

Still waiting for that inflection theory.

If you don't have one then everyone agrees more CO2 => more warming.

> > Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
> > CO2.
>
> Nice straw man.

Few would say it was nice but if a straw man is all you have . . .

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 1:12:01 AM7/12/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:46:08 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> Obviously, Fourier, who lived in period when the physical concepts
>> defining heat were still to be built, could not have defined an even
>> remotely correct theory of AGW.
>

[...]

> Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
> CO2.

You, Bret Cathill and your compadre Dawlish appear to have a very
approximate command of the basic concepts of physics, despite your
mouthfuls of "the scientists say...". Being what you are, and knowing
what you know of physics and chemistry, you should refrain from using
that kind of stupid ad hominem.

PS: please note that I said that *your argument* was stupid.

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 1:12:27 AM7/12/12

to

> The atmosphere does not heat the earth.

And the blanket does not warm the body.

The body warms the body . . . with a blanket.

Think you can get a Nobel with stuff like this?

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 1:39:30 AM7/12/12

to

> The atmosphere does not heat the earth.

And guns do not kill people.

People kill people.

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 4:44:58 AM7/12/12

to

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:09:34 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
>> especially in spectroscopy.
>
> Still waiting for that inflection theory.

It is very simple, Bret, the absorption of selective IR rays by CO2
molecule is explained by quantum mechanics. It could not be explained by
the physics known when Joseph Fourier was living.
The fact that CO2 can absorb only selective fractions of the IR spectrum
is really a big change over the pre-quantum mechanics ideas.

But, if you read the Joseph Fourier memoire, you know now that Joseph
Fourier thought the heating produced by the Sun radiations was caused by
the absence of convection.

You will find Joseph Fourier memoir at France National Library Gallica
web site here:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k32227/f827.image.r=memoires+de+l%
27academie+des+sciences.langFR

A quite accurate 19th century translation by E. Burgess is available.

>
> If you don't have one then everyone agrees more CO2 => more warming.
>
>> > Of course, you can now try to deny that burning carbon in O2 creates
>> > CO2.
>>
>> Nice straw man.
>
> Few would say it was nice but if a straw man is all you have . . .

Your frequently resort to all kind of fallacies to make your points. Once
they are put in evidence, the effect is devastating on your credibility.
There are only two reasons why you might use a fallacy: The first is that
you believe them, which is the proof that of your irrationality (cult
oriented belief), the second is that you are trying to make a point even
when you know you are wrong.

Dawlish

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 6:12:34 AM7/12/12

to

The second time someone has "used a fallacy" in one day (deniers get
stuck on new phrases, don't they pauly?) when, in fact, it is a
"fallacy" used by almost everyone involved in climate science,
including every single scientific institution in the *world*. Why do
you think that is the case (you *always* avoid that one, don't you, as
if it doesn't matter. I can assure you that it does).

Of course, the more likely possibility is that you are completely
deluded.............

Bill Snyder

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 9:21:49 AM7/12/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:03:59 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

That one isn't even coherent enough for anyone to figure out what
you're bullshitting about. New meds?

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 10:13:26 AM7/12/12

to

Oh, we get it now. If you can get enough people using the same
fallacies, then that makes them true! (It's a corollary of science facts
are proved by a democratic vote rule). We got it now.

> Of course, the more likely possibility is that you are completely
> deluded.............

Obviously, any person who did not blindly believe some anonymous voice
on the internet, must certainly be insane. And that goes double for
anyone who does not blindly accept your every word, right?

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 10:18:03 AM7/12/12

to

On 7/12/2012 9:21 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:

>> Sane people don't live in worlds like yours where facts are pliable.
>
> That one isn't even coherent enough for anyone to figure out what
> you're bullshitting about. New meds?

English not your primary language, Bill? What you mean to say is that
you are not educated nor sane enough to figure out ordinary English.

No surprise there. Why is all you ever do here is call people insane,
liars, and ignorant? Do you know ANY science at all? You are a teacher,
right? Oh wait. Maybe a government worker!

Bill Snyder

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 10:25:05 AM7/12/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:18:03 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

>On 7/12/2012 9:21 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>>> Sane people don't live in worlds like yours where facts are pliable.
>>
>> That one isn't even coherent enough for anyone to figure out what
>> you're bullshitting about. New meds?
>
>English not your primary language, Bill? What you mean to say is that
>you are not educated nor sane enough to figure out ordinary English.

Drugged/drunken illiterate babble is not "ordinary English,"
unless you define that as being English as it is spoken in the
asylum or the gutter.

>No surprise there. Why is all you ever do here is call people insane,
>liars, and ignorant? Do you know ANY science at all? You are a teacher,
>right? Oh wait. Maybe a government worker!

Wrong twice. What a surprise.

Dawlish

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 10:37:15 AM7/12/12

to

After actually examinning the science, why do they all believe what
you refuse to? What do you know that every single scientific
institution on the planet doesn't?

I'll bet you don't answer that........

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 5:33:09 PM7/12/12

to

No answer?

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 5:32:31 PM7/12/12

to

> >>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>
> >> Read some thermodynamics
>
> > Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>
> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
> Thermodynamics"!

And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."

Care to try again?

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 5:37:05 PM7/12/12

to

> >> > >> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat
>
> >> > > It just causes the thermometer to read higher.
>
> >> No answer?

Notice he never could give an answer?

> >> > >>: CO2 selectively absorbs some
> >> > >> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> >> > > Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.

. . .

> The invocation of the "second law of thermodynamics" by Bret

Is nothing more that the law behind the statement above:

"Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."

If you find this surprising google "2nd Law of Thermo" and then get
back to the discussion.

Bret Cahill

Heyduke Lives

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 7:14:21 PM7/12/12

to

Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>>> Read some thermodynamics
>>> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics"!
>And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."

ROFL!@!!!11

---
Email address: k.chel...@yahoo.com http://www.skeptictank.org/
And a varmint will not quit, ever.

Wally W.

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 7:35:27 PM7/12/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:13:26 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

>On 7/12/2012 6:12 AM, Dawlish wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 9:44 am, Paul Aubrin<chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>> Your frequently resort to all kind of fallacies to make your points. Once
>>> they are put in evidence, the effect is devastating on your credibility.
>>> There are only two reasons why you might use a fallacy: The first is that
>>> you believe them, which is the proof that of your irrationality (cult
>>> oriented belief), the second is that you are trying to make a point even
>>> when you know you are wrong.
>>
>> The second time someone has "used a fallacy" in one day (deniers get
>> stuck on new phrases, don't they pauly?) when, in fact, it is a
>> "fallacy" used by almost everyone involved in climate science,
>> including every single scientific institution in the *world*. Why do
>> you think that is the case (you *always* avoid that one, don't you, as
>> if it doesn't matter. I can assure you that it does).
>
>Oh, we get it now. If you can get enough people using the same
>fallacies, then that makes them true! (It's a corollary of science facts
>are proved by a democratic vote rule). We got it now.

Not only that, they become the "consensus."

If enough people on a bandwagon spew the same fallacies, the news
media will be sure to parrot them.

And momentum builds for the folly.

Or so it did, until the public woke up to the exorbitant cost of the
emperor's new clothes.

Will Janoschka

unread,

Jul 12, 2012, 9:44:04 PM7/12/12

to

> mentioning the second law of thermodynamics on the discussion, and thought

> he just could play this card. But he does not know when to play this card
> to win the point and he ignores its devastating effects on the warmists'
> arguments.

I doubt that Bret will bring up the 2nd Law again.
Canot we have some science here? -will-

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 2:42:26 AM7/13/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:32:31 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> >>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>
>> >> Read some thermodynamics
>>
>> > Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>>
>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics"!
>
> And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."

Now we see that you can become (partly) rational. When you stop with your
recurrent denial.
IR are radiations and interact with matter like radiations.
And don't tell us that you were wrong but it doesn't matter, heat and
radiations behave in a radically different way.

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 2:55:21 AM7/13/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:14:21 +0000, Heyduke Lives wrote:

> Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat.
>>>>> Read some thermodynamics
>>>> Are you now denying the 2nd law of thermo?
>>> Oh my! Now you are in trouble, Paul! Bret actually said "Second Law of
>>> Thermodynamics"!
>>And before that, "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."
>
> ROFL!@!!!11

All the physicists agree with me IR are radiations, radiations are not
heat. Because they didn't understand that distinction, the 19th century
physicists were confronted with what was called "the ultraviolet
catastrophe": unresolvable contradictions in the theories of their time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

Telling that IR is heat is a something like telling that astronomy can be
done as well with the pre-heliocentric theories. After all, the ancient
Babylonians could make nice astronomical predictions.

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 2:56:33 AM7/13/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:37:05 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> The invocation of the "second law of thermodynamics" by Bret
>
> Is nothing more that the law behind the statement above:
>
> "Sure, it's IR -- before it turns to heat."

No. Absolutely not.

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:02:57 AM7/13/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:44:04 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 05:02:12, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>

>> [...]

>
> I doubt that Bret will bring up the 2nd Law again.
> Canot we have some science here? -will-

He dared. This guy spends his time with mouthfuls of "the scientists
say", but he ignores the most basic rudiments of physics.
That confirms the saying: "what characterize assholes is that they will
be deterred by nothing, they will dare anything. It is even the best way
to recognise an asshole".

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:13:28 AM7/13/12

to

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:37:15 -0700, Dawlish wrote:

>> Obviously, any person who did not blindly believe some anonymous voice
>> on the internet, must certainly be insane. And that goes double for
>> anyone who does not blindly accept your every word, right?
>
> After actually examinning the science, why do they all believe what you
> refuse to? What do you know that every single scientific institution on
> the planet doesn't?

We were talking of YOUR fallacies, those you post daily here.
Can you tell us why you need to resort to fallacies if what you pretend
has some sound scientific ground.
For example, all your "if that's not xxx (or yyy), tell me what it is..."
are obvious fallacies. They are worthless arguments. State the real
arguments if you want to make your points.

Dawlish

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:16:04 AM7/13/12

to

Again you dodge. Deniers always do. you dodge for a reason, because I
fear the answer would make you look even more stupid. You are now on a
pin pauly and you are struggling:

What do you know that all these scientific institutions don't? Why do
they all believe that the the main driver of the current warming is
CO2 and you simply deny that?

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:23:18 AM7/13/12

to

1/ Blankets mostly warm by preventing convection.

2/ If you have 5 blankets and add one more, you will hardly feel warmer.
If we use your analogy back to the global-warming ground, at the current
concentrations, at the ground level, CO2 already absorbs 100% of the IR
in its absorption bands. Adding more CO2 will not absorb more.
So if more CO2 has some influence it is not the way you believe. And the
conclusions your draw from your false beliefs probably don't hold.

>
>
> Bret Cahill

Dawlish

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 5:58:47 AM7/13/12

to

pauly comes back and completely ignores the question. Now he'll throw
his toys because he's been asked it again? Do you think the question
will just disappear pauly?

> What do you know that all these scientific institutions don't? Why do
> they all believe that the the main driver of the current warming is
> CO2 and you simply deny that?

Well?

Androcles

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 6:38:28 AM7/13/12

to

"Paul Aubrin" wrote in message
news:4fffc659$0$1721$426a...@news.free.fr...

=========
Classic case of not knowing the difference between heat and temperature.
A glowing cigar has a higher temperature than a boiling kettle, but
nowhere near as much heat.
A laser can burn a CD, it has a higher temperature than the cigar but the
spot it makes is miniscule, it has no significant quantity of heat.
Colour is temperature, heat is energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

Dawlish

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 8:02:39 AM7/13/12

to

> Well?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well?

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 8:38:37 AM7/13/12

to

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:16:04 -0700, Dawlish wrote:

>> We were talking of YOUR fallacies, those you post daily here.
>> Can you tell us why you need to resort to fallacies if what you pretend
>> has some sound scientific ground.
>> For example, all your "if that's not xxx (or yyy), tell me what it
>> is..."
>> are obvious fallacies. They are worthless arguments. State the real
>> arguments if you want to make your points.
>
> Again you dodge.

Again YOU dodge. If you have a better argument than your fallacies, please
state it. Don't wait anymore. Remember:
- it must not be an argument of authority,
- it must not be an argument of ignorance,
- it must not be an ad hominem
I give you a last try. Don't dodge.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 8:44:09 AM7/13/12

to

On Jul 13, 12:23 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets

mostly warm by preventing convection"

are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?

Will Janoschka

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 1:35:04 PM7/13/12

to

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets

> mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
>
>
> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?

An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 1:57:27 PM7/13/12

to

On Jul 13, 10:35 am, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>

> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Blankets
> > mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> > are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.

Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than
standard single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas
molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with
improving a home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are
replace with argon filled double glazed windows?

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 2:37:32 PM7/13/12

to

> > Blankets
> > mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> > are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACEW_enUS332US333&q=mylar+blanket+insulation

130,000 hits

Dawlish

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:08:36 PM7/13/12

to

Amazing. This particular dneir is marking himself as ahving deeper
denial than most others. The devices he tries to employ to avoid
answering a simple question are really quite amazing to behold.

Your squirming is becoming painful to watch pauly. you can stop it now
by answering this simple question. I can assure you it is not a
fallacy and neither are the views of the institutions contained
within, whatever you'd like to believe. Here it is, *again*.

> > What do you know that all these scientific institutions don't? Why do
> > they all believe that the the main driver of the current warming is
> > CO2 and you simply deny that?

It hurts pauly, doesn't it. I predict toys..........

Bill Ward

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:26:40 PM7/13/12

to

Argon has nothing to do with it. In fact, nothing (vacuum) would be
better.

In three clear and concise sentences, Will has exposed cai's abject
ignorance of heat transfer for all to see. Congratulations, Will.

Dawlish

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 3:54:01 PM7/13/12

to

> It hurts pauly, doesn't it. I predict toys..........- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

ditto

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 4:14:25 PM7/13/12

to

Now fill that chamber with another gas, with different properties than
argon, say co2, which will yield the desired results in winter, but
not summertime. The reason being the co2 gas molecules in the chamber,
as opposed to say no molecules at all, the chamber with the co2 will
hold absorb and the heat. And yes the gas will eve radiate energy
back to the room, denials wont work here. The gas is relevant, bills
point is absurd, for if its argon with a large molar mass (stops
conduction), or one that is a good thermal absorber like co2, the gas
in the chamber makes a difference to the energy bouncing around inside.

AM

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 5:52:58 PM7/13/12

to

They work great.

And an added bonus is some soundproofing.

Work great in our house :)

Desertphile

unread,

Jul 13, 2012, 9:40:05 PM7/13/12

to

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:42:57 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
> > > happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write "so-called" I
> > > assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is happening?
> >
> > > "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and taxes."
> >
> > The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
> > experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
> > scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
> > least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",

> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in
> hours. The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be
> demonstrated in hours.

Yes indeed; hundreds of thousands of observations in the pasrt 180
years could have disproved the pysics involved---- and yet every
single observation supported the physics.

WE WON!

> The theoretical work on this goes back almost 200 years, not for CO2
> in a bottle but for the temperature of the atmosphere.
>
> Barring some inflection that even wing nut deniers have yet to
> propose, more CO2 => higher temperatures.
>
> Or do you believe Fourier is part of the global AGW "conspiracy" that
> includes every university on the planet except Liberty U.?
>
> In the case of ocean acidification, low frequency noise isn't a
> problem. Sea water pH drop is documented on a yearly basis with such
> a low margin of error no one can bet against it on Intrade.
>
> (In case you deniers are wondering, Intrade doesn't have any place
> where you can bet against the sun rising each morning either.)
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>

--
Melenkurion abatha! Duroc minas mil khabaal!

Will Janoschka

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 12:56:45 AM7/14/12

to

Argon gas, a reasonable insulator, prevents the infusiuon of nitrogen,
a better
heat conductor. Vacuum would be better, but then stress and leaks.
Low pressure Argon is a good engineering compromise!

What does this have to do with radiative heat transfer? Radiative
heat
transfer is the only thing on the agenda of your CO2-ClimateClowns.
Nonsense only.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 1:24:21 AM7/14/12

to

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 3:15:04 AM7/14/12

to

Are you entirely stupid? ENSO is net neutral to global temperatures.
Every scientist on earth knows that the short-term ENSO fluctuations
can be far greater than the strength of the underlying warming signal.
*Every one*.

You somehow think this negates the signal. How stupid can you get?

bjacoby

unread,

Dawlish

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 6:20:03 AM7/14/12

to

Quite incredible how far a denier will go to justify his onw denial.
Best to go and do some research on what the connection is between ENSO
and GW is, pauly.

ENSO is neutral with respect to GW. i.e. over time, it has no effect
on global temperatures.............but GW continues.

Bill Ward

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 11:21:53 AM7/14/12

to

CO2 may be too reactive with adhesives, spacers, etc. Xenon and Krypton
are used in incandescent bulbs precisely because they have low thermal
conductivity, minimizing conductive loss from the filament.

The low TC of CO2 compared to air is the principle behind many of the two-
bottle parlor tricks used to convince kids that CO2 "traps heat" in the
atmosphere.

This may be interesting to some:

<http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/thermal-conductivity-gases.htm>

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 11:46:56 AM7/14/12

to

> >>> Blankets
> >>> mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> >>> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> >> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> >> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> >> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
>

> >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACEW_...

>
> > 130,000 hits
>
> Hey guys! Science by democratic vote again!

Google hits are "votes?"

Above a denier was denying that blankets reflect heat.

All the denier had to do was google to find out that mylar blankets
reflect heat.

Bret Cahill

Tom P

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 11:58:39 AM7/14/12

to

On 07/10/2012 06:51 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:42:57 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>>>> I mean "so called AGW." Everyone knows human-caused climate change
>>>> happened; why put in "so called" (the idiot meant to write
>>>> "so-called"
>>>> I assume) when it is an observed fact that it happened and is
>>>> happening?
>>>
>>>> "So-called gravity." "So-called sunlight." "So-called death and
>>>> taxes."
>>>
>>> The difference with gravity and sunlight is that we can do every day
>>> experiment on gravity or sunlight (note that "sunlight" is not a
>>> scientific theory or candidate theory). From you, AGWers, it needs at
>>> least 30 years to do an experiment in "climate science",
>>

Or we can observe Venus.

>> The effect of CO2 trapping heat can be demonstrated in a lab in hours.
>> The effect of _more_ CO2 trapping even _more_ heat can be demonstrated
>> in hours.
>

> In the labs, CO2 doesn't trap heat: CO2 selectively absorbs some
> frequencies in the IR spectrum. IR, actually, is not heat.
>
> The atmosphere is already completely opaque to the IR rays in the IR
> frequency bands absorbed by CO2. Thus no more IR energy is absorbed at
> the ground level when CO2 concentrations are increased.

What happens at ground level is not really relevant. What is relevant is
that CO2 absorbs LWR in the higher atmosphere above the cloud level.

The effect is not
> as simplistic as "CO2 traps heat", and the consequences are not as
> straightforward as what you claim.
>
> Overall, the possible direct temperature increase induced by CO2 at the
> altitude in the atmosphere were it can absorb some IR could not exceed
> some 1.2°C (from the residual amount of energy that can be absorbed in
> the CO2 absorption bands). So the 2°C increase required in the
> environmental conferences will never be reached. No action is required.
>
>

Apart from ignoring the feedbacks, you conveniently ignore the fact that
the CO2 absorption bands overlap the WV bands. The saturation vapor
pressure of water drops rapidly with temperature, which means that above
around 8km, CO2 becomes the dominant GHG, and this CO2 absorbs the LWR
from the WV at a lower altitude. This effect can be seen quite clearly
in IR spectral measurements made from satellites.
Are you saying you did not know this?

Peter Webb

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 12:04:27 PM7/14/12

to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:o9mdnXFOeY8ME5zN...@giganews.com...

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:02:56 +0000, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:26:40 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:
>>
>>>> Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
>>>> efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than
>>>> standard single pane windows. So are you claiming the argon gas
>>>> molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do with
>>>> improving a home’s insulating efficiency when single pane windows are
>>>> replace with argon filled double glazed windows?
>>>
>>> Argon has nothing to do with it. In fact, nothing (vacuum) would be
>>> better.
>>
>> I confirm. Argon is not used for its radiative properties (like all
>> mono- atomic gases is transparent to radiations). Argon is used because
>> its thermal conductivity coefficient is only 0.016 W/m.K when air is
>> 0.024 W/ m.K.
>>
>> In this example, once again, the greenhouse effect is the result of
>> isolation, not of some radiative properties.
>>
>> Are there CO2 filled double or triple glazed windows?
>
> CO2 may be too reactive with adhesives, spacers, etc. Xenon and Krypton
> are used in incandescent bulbs precisely because they have low thermal
> conductivity, minimizing conductive loss from the filament.

Nope. The precise reason they are used is because they are almost completely
inert, their low thermal conductivity is just a bonus.

Tom P

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 12:26:24 PM7/14/12

to

I've been away for a while and so I'm jumping into the thread at various
places. As far as the double glazing thing is concerned, I don't believe
that LW radiation, or absorption thereof, is the primary issue. Windows
lose heat mainly by simple conduction. The relevant thermal
conductivities are -
Air 0.026 (W/mK)
Ar 0.018
CO2 0.017
H2 0.182
N2 0.026
Glass 0.96

In other words, a 1 cm layer of CO2 or Argon will insulate as well as
1.5 cm of air or 55 cm of glass. Since we don't really want windows
nearly 2 feet thick, it makes sense to use double glazing.
Why Argon rather than CO2? A good question. According to Wikipedia
the reason is that the higher viscosity of Argon reduces convection
within the structure. Of course a vacuum would be even better but the
diminishing returns of maintaining the structure against the surrounding
air pressure make it economically less attractive. In the final analysis
there is no point in making the windows better insulators than the walls.

Bill Ward

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 12:32:57 PM7/14/12

to

I'd think if that were the case, argon would be used, as it's much
cheaper, and just as inert:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb>

"While inert gas reduces filament evaporation, it also conducts heat from
the filament, thereby cooling the filament and reducing efficiency. At
constant pressure and temperature, the thermal conductivity of a gas
depends upon the molecular weight of the gas and the cross sectional area
of the gas molecules. Higher molecular weight gasses have lower thermal
conductivity, because both the molecular weight is higher and also the
cross sectional area is higher. Xenon gas improves efficiency because of
its high molecular weight, but is also more expensive, so its use is
limited to smaller lamps.[61]"

Thanks for your comment.

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 12:57:07 PM7/14/12

to

On 7/14/2012 11:46 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:

> Google hits are "votes?"
>
> Above a denier was denying that blankets reflect heat.
>
> All the denier had to do was google to find out that mylar blankets
> reflect heat.
>
>
> Bret Cahill

Bret, I know this is hard for you to do, but try to work your brain JUST
a bit?

Mylar "blankets" are NOT "blankets" in spite of the popular name! A
million "hits" on Google does not make them insulators. They are
metalized thin plastic sheet. They do NOT act as "insulators" (How warm
is a metal blanket?) They act by reflecting radiation.

Sure word games is all you warmistas know how to do, but this was
already clearly explained to you above. Insulation does not stop
radiation. It takes REFLECTION. MIRRORS. METAL! duh.

Come on, Bret, you are making yourself look bad again.

Here let me explain it so even you can understand. When a stoner says,
"hey, I scored some good shit!", he doesn't mean he just bought some
feces, it means he got some good drugs for his stash. Sometimes the same
word can imply totally different things.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 1:33:02 PM7/14/12

to

On Jul 14, 12:25 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/2d683c9332d85392

> On 7/13/2012 2:37 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> >>> Blankets
> >>> mostly warm by preventing convection"
>
> >>> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
>
> >> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective
> >> heat transfer, not radiative heat transfer. Only a reflector
> >> can prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
>

> >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACEW_...

>
> > 130,000 hits
>
> Hey guys! Science by democratic vote again! Huh. huh. huh. He said
> (mylar space) BLANKET! Well that sure proves that insulation stops
> radiative transfer, doesn't it? And anyway, it's already been proved
> that CO2 is a mirror! So there you have it. Metalized mylar is an
> insulator and CO2 is a radiation mirror. You guys just can't keep up
> with the word games, can you? Perhaps some "science" education is in
> order...

Think of a blackbody with a cavity kept at room temperature, filled
with argon gas, and 1 opening with a double pane glass window filled
with co2. Spectrum analysis confirms the energy loss from the emitted
black body spectrum, as the co2 gas filled window would filter out the
15 um energy passing through the cavity opening, and an argon filled
window would not. Co2 impedes the flow of the emitted energy by
absorption, resulting in the average kinetic energy of the co2
molecules increasing, its a non-reflective insulator. The resulting
increase in co2 molecular average kinetic energy produces more
collisions with other co2 molecules, and the glass walls. Perhaps,
you could address reality, instead of running away.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 2:49:52 PM7/14/12

to

On Jul 14, 9:26 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/9a3b019fabf47cc6

> On 07/14/2012 09:23 AM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 11:15 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/09a1452ae8f8967...

I understand thanks, but the point is that co2 may not make a
practical efficient insulator, but neither is the atmosphere, thats
why the comparison is reasonable. I am not arguing that argon doesn’t
make the best gas to fill the double paned window, it molecular mass,
the facts it a noble gas, and its cheap make it practical, but
practical is not the point. Bjacoby declared an insulator must be
reflective, and i have shown how co2 a non-reflective gas will absorb
a portion of the emitted energy from a blackbody source; it will
impede the flow of energy.

The room (cavity of the blackbody source) has a double walled window
transparent to IR say 2-20um (no coatings) which allows thermal
emitted energy to pass through. If the gas between the glass panes is
co2, the 15um band will be subtracted out of from the observed
spectrum, while a pane filled with argon will not. This absorption is
an impedance to the flow of energy, the co2 in this case acts as an
insulator partially due to the fact it absorbs part of the energy
passing through.

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 2:52:37 PM7/14/12

to

> Mylar "blankets" are NOT "blankets" in spite of the popular name! A
> million "hits" on Google does not make them insulators.

Mylar has infinite thermal conductivity?

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 3:09:55 PM7/14/12

to

> >> Quantum mechanics is not just a slight variation of classic mechanics,
> >> especially in spectroscopy.
>
> > Still waiting for that inflection theory.
>
> It is very simple, Bret, the absorption of selective IR rays by CO2
> molecule is explained by quantum mechanics.

Still waiting for that inflection theory.

> It could not be explained by
> the physics known when Joseph Fourier was living.
> The fact that CO2 can absorb only selective fractions of the IR spectrum
> is really a big change over the pre-quantum mechanics ideas.

Still waiting for that inflection theory.

> But, if you read the Joseph Fourier memoire, you know now that Joseph
> Fourier thought the heating produced by the Sun radiations was caused by
> the absence of convection.

Still waiting for that inflection theory.

> You will find Joseph Fourier memoir at France National Library Gallica
> web site here:
>
> http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k32227/f827.image.r=memoires+de+l%
> 27academie+des+sciences.langFR

Still waiting for that inflection theory.

> A quite accurate 19th century translation by E. Burgess is available.

Still waiting for that inflection theory.

> > If you don't have one then everyone agrees more CO2 => more warming.

Everyone is settin' on the edge of his chair waiting for you to
explain why more green house gases don't cause more warming.

Bret Cahill

bjacoby

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 4:05:29 PM7/14/12

to

On 7/14/2012 3:09 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

> Everyone is settin' on the edge of his chair waiting for you to
> explain why more green house gases don't cause more warming.
>
> Bret Cahill

Um, Bret, that would be because CO2 is a MINOR factor in over all
warming. Your Gods at NASA say so.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml

It's pretty much "established science", Bret.

unread,

Jul 14, 2012, 5:50:42 PM7/14/12

to

My point was countering the assertion by bill that the gas makes no
difference, and my point is that, it does, when the gas absorbs in the
ir region of the electromagnetic spectrum. This absorption by the
glass increases the vibrational motion of molecules which causes a
slight decrease in the index of refraction, but does not stop
transmission in the 2-20um. The example of the gas filled window was
used to set up a comparison to the earth atmosphere, a blackbody
source with emitted energy passing through a filter. The co2 filter is
not highly efficient but impedes the flow of enough by effecting the
rate of change, which slightly increase the average kinetic energy in
the system.