Global Warming is like religion
Seon Ferguson
with religion they were times when I would be convinced by an argument but
then an Atheist would bring up a good point and I'd be back to square one.
I'm like that with the cause of global warming (note I accept it is real).
Can anyone point me in a direction of some good sites? And also can anyone
please answer a question that has been bugging me. Why is Mars warming? And
will a carbon really end it? Shouldn't we end our dependence on big oil and
find a renewable source of energy instead?
GovShill
Will a carbon end it? Carbon tax?
Of course not. A carbon tax is governments way of looking like it's
doing something. If governments wanted to *do* something they would,
as you say, be actively introducing all forms of renewable energy,
including, in Australia's case, nuclear.
I have previously given you sites on greenhouses, greenhouse gasses
and the like. You ignored them then. I'm not going to bother again.
Shill #2
Budikka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://tinyurl.com/qxpncw
http://ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
http://tinyurl.com/b4d4uq
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070202085036.htm
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/01/26/global_warming/
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Global worming is nothing to do with atheism or vice versa.
Carl Kaufmann
Greg G.
> On Jun 27, 5:42 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
Greg G.
But the Anthropocentric Global Warming deniers base so much of their
beliefs on the subject on a theistic perspective, either directly or
indirectly. They like to point to Dr. Roy Spencer's studies that have
been discredited, which he still defends. Dr. Spencer is a
creationist. They believe that God will prevent any dangers of global
warming.
Besides, the guy is more likly to get valid information from atheists
than from a source contaminated by theistic ideas.
John M.
> To me Global Warming is like religion. ...<snip> ... (note I accept it is > real).
<snip>
Semasiological contradiction between "religion" and "real"
E.A.
There is no reason to confuse dogma with logic. Religion is based on
faith (blindly choosing to believe something that makes you feel
good). Science is based on evidence (getting the facts and objectively
interpreting them).
Environmentalism-as-religion is a favorite talking point of scientific-
illiterates. They can't tell the difference between figurative and
literal thinking. Lazy minds, basically. People who choose to believe
have different brain chemistry than those who actually do research.
Notice how religious people only have a beef with science when it
questions their chosen beliefs or living habits. Science has learned a
lot since those peasants took up parchment in a desert 20 centuries
ago. They had no way to know what we've learned since then. Something
as simple as a flashlight would have seemed like the Devil's work to
them.
The rest of your comments are convoluted. Mars seems to be warming due
to dust storms:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html
And of course we need to end our dependence on oil. Most importantly,
we need to end mindless population growth (75,000,000 annually) and
live within natural limits. Economists still resist that idea in blind-
faith fashion.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Jesus ISN'T coming and resources ARE finite.
Kirk
>
> http://www.realclimate.org
>
it's a website, so it must be true. don't trust the scientists because
they're part of the big socialist envornazi conspiracy to control us all and
replace christianity with the religon of global warming so we pray to a new
god.
Kirk
> Will a carbon end it? Carbon tax?
>
If it exists at all a collection of cures isn't the answer, we need a silver
bullet, a magic cure all if you will. And the carbon tax isn't it. In the
mean time we must stay the course by burning fossil fuels until that magic
bullet comes along and saves the day.
OuroborosRex
How right you are!
Larry
news:4a45f7a9$0$2625$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
Global Warming MUST be at least a cult.
CO2 is such a tiny fraction of the gasses you're breathing there's
hardly enough of it to feed the plants WE HUMANS LIVE ON! We need MORE
CO2 for PLANTS, not less, stupids!
Greenhouse gasses do cause global warming, but not as much as that big
yellow thermonuclear explosion in the sky theists call the "sun" (or
"son"). Of course, the BIG greenhouse gas, by an astronomical amount
the biggest is WATER VAPOR, not CO2, but how in hell are we going to
blame that on humans and create GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO STUDY THE OBVIOUS?!
Duhh.....Now, not only has it become a cult, but it's a government grant
machine in overdrive!.....with thousands living very comfortably off
it...at our collective expense, of course.
Mars and the Earth are warming because, as it has for MILLIONS (not 6000
as taught to children in christian abuse schools) of years, by a
CONSTANTLY CHANGING SOLAR FURNACE that heats it all in long and short
cycles of advance and recede and there's NOTHING humans will ever be
able to do about it.....except wasting billions/trillions studying
it....
Maybe if the people we put in charge of the Congress weren't just stupid
lawyers who can't make a flashlight work...........Naw, that'll never
happen.
The praying to non-existant aliens continues 24/7/365 unabated across
the planet. Obviously, that isn't working for us, either....
Luke Nichols
"OuroborosRex" <Ourobo...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:7fc7b35d-4a46-40ee...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
How right you are!
We'll probably get nuked by November...
http://www.ashesaid.com
Luke
Larry
@newsfe07.iad:
An excellent link....
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
Catoni
>"But the Anthropocentric Global Warming deniers base so much of their
>beliefs on the subject on a theistic perspective, either directly or
>indirectly. They like to point to Dr. Roy Spencer's studies that have
>been discredited, which he still defends. Dr. Spencer is a
>creationist. They believe that God will prevent any dangers of global
>warming.
>Besides, the guy is more likly to get valid information from atheists
>than from a source contaminated by theistic ideas."
Reply:
Fact is, you can find religious Christians that support
the Gorebull Warming Alarmist side and you can also find Christians
supporting the Skeptic side.
It has little to do with religion. There are atheists and agnostics
on both sides of the issue as well.
There are all kinds of religious pagans on each side. But mostly on
the Gorebull Warming side. (many of these pagans have the Goddess Gaia
as one of the Goddesses they worship.)
I happen to be a Greco-Roman pagan on the Skeptic side.
I'm sure that my pagan friends on the Gorebull Warming Alarmist side
would be shocked to know that.
This has little or nothing to do with religion, anyone's particular
religion, or the lack of religion. On either side of the issue, you
can find all kinds of different people.
Catoni
Greg G. wrote:
>"But the Anthropocentric Global Warming deniers base so much of their
>beliefs on the subject on a theistic perspective, either directly or
>indirectly. They like to point to Dr. Roy Spencer's studies that have
>been discredited, which he still defends. Dr. Spencer is a
>creationist. They believe that God will prevent any dangers of global
>warming.
>Besides, the guy is more likly to get valid information from atheists
>than from a source contaminated by theistic ideas."
Reply:
Fact is, you can find religious Christians that
support
the Gorebull Warming Alarmist side and you can also find Christians
supporting the Skeptic side.
It has little to do with religion. There are atheists and
agnostics
on both sides of the issue as well.
There are all kinds of religious pagans on each side. But mostly
on
the Gorebull Warming side. (many of these pagans have the Goddess
Gaia
as one of the Goddesses they worship.)
I happen to be a Greco-Roman pagan on the Skeptic side.
I'm sure that my pagan friends on the Gorebull Warming Alarmist side
would be shocked to know that.
This has little or nothing to do with religion, anyone's
particular
religion, or the lack of religion. On either side of the issue, you
can find all kinds of different people.
However, many of the Gorebull Warming groups (many of them like to
now call it Climate Change to cover their ass if it doesn't go their
way), do seem to be very fanatical about this issue, and as John
Brignell points out, "Global Warming has become the core belief in a
new eco-theology." There is "Faith and Skepticism", "Sin and
Absolution", "Proselytes and evangelists", "Demagogues and
hypocrites", "Infidels and apostates", "Sacrifice and
ritual","Prophecy and divination", "Puritans and killjoys",
"Censorship and angles", "Control and taxation", "Contradictions and
irrationality", "Wealth and power", "Confession and salvation".
from http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Pretty well everything you need to classify a group as a fanatical
religion. Have fun !
Catoni
Greg G.
Are you one of the deniers that denies that global warming is
happening at all, one that accepts that global warming is happening
but denies it is caused by human activity, or one that switches
between the two positions on alternate days?
Seon Ferguson
"Budikka" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:73784ec6-963d-492a...@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Good links I shall read them after I do my usenet posting.
Seon Ferguson
"E.A." <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:35a66e26-25e5-4ab2...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 3:42 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To me Global Warming is like religion. No I'm not flat out denying it.
>> But
>> with religion they were times when I would be convinced by an argument
>> but
>> then an Atheist would bring up a good point and I'd be back to square
>> one.
>> I'm like that with the cause of global warming (note I accept it is
>> real).
>> Can anyone point me in a direction of some good sites? And also can
>> anyone
>> please answer a question that has been bugging me. Why is Mars warming?
>> And
>> will a carbon really end it? Shouldn't we end our dependence on big oil
>> and
>> find a renewable source of energy instead?
>
> There is no reason to confuse dogma with logic. Religion is based on
> faith (blindly choosing to believe something that makes you feel
> good). Science is based on evidence (getting the facts and objectively
> interpreting them).
>
Good that's all I am trying to do. Get the facts.
> Environmentalism-as-religion is a favorite talking point of scientific-
> illiterates. They can't tell the difference between figurative and
> literal thinking. Lazy minds, basically. People who choose to believe
> have different brain chemistry than those who actually do research.
>
> Notice how religious people only have a beef with science when it
> questions their chosen beliefs or living habits. Science has learned a
> lot since those peasants took up parchment in a desert 20 centuries
> ago. They had no way to know what we've learned since then. Something
> as simple as a flashlight would have seemed like the Devil's work to
> them.
>
Yep I used to be like that. Until I altered my beliefs to fit around
science. Religion without science is blind.
> The rest of your comments are convoluted. Mars seems to be warming due
> to dust storms:
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html
>
Actually that seems pretty rational.
> And of course we need to end our dependence on oil. Most importantly,
> we need to end mindless population growth (75,000,000 annually) and
> live within natural limits. Economists still resist that idea in blind-
> faith fashion.
>
I agree with you on oil but I don't agree with Eugenics one bit.
Seon Ferguson
"OuroborosRex" <Ourobo...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:7fc7b35d-4a46-40ee...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I'm glad someone see's it my way. Instead of tackling the real problems our
politicians want to look like we are doing something to appease voters.
Seon Ferguson
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C37A9DC836...@74.209.131.13...
Yep that's another explanation of global warming. Yet for some reason we
only focus on man made global warming.
BDK
says...
Because you had a dream about it?
Have any of your predictions ever come true?
I seem to remember one about me, and it fizzled, didn't it?
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
Catoni
>"Are you one of the deniers that denies that global warming is
>happening at all, one that accepts that global warming is happening
>but denies it is caused by human activity, or one that switches
>between the two positions on alternate days?"
Reply:
Why would you care what I am or am not? I don't
consider my self to be a deniar. Climate always changes through the
Earth's history. I don't wish to use that fact orf any other excuse,
real or imagined to legislate more control over people and confiscate
more money in taxes.
People are already taxed too much.
But I do consider myself to be a skeptic over whether the tiny
bit of warming we have seen since about 1850 has been caused by us.
After all, I would expect warming as we continue to come out the the
ice age that was at its hight abaout 25,000 years ago, and also as we
come out of the Little Ice Age. Seems normal to get a bit warmer
coming out of those times.
How many Alarmists realize that technically we are still in the ice
age, since we still have ice caps and glaciers and ice sheets? So you
would actually be more accurate to speak of the "present ice age" when
speaking about the ice age that stared retreating about 15,000 -
18,000 years ago.
It isn't over yet.
Sometimes it appears that the Alarmists believe it should not get
warmer as we come out of ice ages. It gets them upset.
I am also a skeptic about whether such a miniscule number like about
100 parts per million of CO2 increase since then is responsible for
the warming.
I am also a skeptic about claims that the little warming will
be a disaster. I would think that a return to Global Cooling and
advance fo the ice sheets would be a much worse disaster.
I find it funny that the Alarmists fret tabout this, and list
all the bad things they say will happen, exaggerate about it and
ignore the postive effects that warming can bring.
Also funny is that these Alarmists are so arrogant as to think
climate should obey them and stay the same.
Gorebull Warming is about political power, money, and
control.
Nothing more.
Any excuse, real or imagined, is good to use to work towards
those ends.
Yeah, I'm a skeptic. But I know how much you idiots like to call
us "deniers" to connect us to the Holocaust Deniers, make us connected
to the Nazis. One of the techniques of the far left, to smear their
opponents with.
Sleepalot
Contributors include Michael Mann, author of the "hockey stick".
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Alan Ford
> Global Warming MUST be at least a cult.
>
> CO2 is such a tiny fraction of the gasses you're breathing there's
> hardly enough of it to feed the plants WE HUMANS LIVE ON! We need MORE
> CO2 for PLANTS, not less, stupids!
>
> Greenhouse gasses do cause global warming, but not as much as that big
> yellow thermonuclear explosion in the sky theists call the "sun" (or
> "son"). Of course, the BIG greenhouse gas, by an astronomical amount
> the biggest is WATER VAPOR, not CO2, but how in hell are we going to
> blame that on humans and create GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO STUDY THE OBVIOUS?!
>
> Duhh.....Now, not only has it become a cult, but it's a government grant
> machine in overdrive!.....with thousands living very comfortably off
> it...at our collective expense, of course.
>
> Mars and the Earth are warming because, as it has for MILLIONS (not 6000
> as taught to children in christian abuse schools) of years, by a
> CONSTANTLY CHANGING SOLAR FURNACE that heats it all in long and short
> cycles of advance and recede and there's NOTHING humans will ever be
> able to do about it.....except wasting billions/trillions studying
> it....
>
> Maybe if the people we put in charge of the Congress weren't just stupid
> lawyers who can't make a flashlight work...........Naw, that'll never
> happen.
>
> The praying to non-existant aliens continues 24/7/365 unabated across
> the planet. Obviously, that isn't working for us, either....
Wow! Impressive. You alone discovered not only the cause for global
warming, but also the vast conspiracy behind the evil forces that are
covering up the real cause.
Psychiatry is -------------> that way.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Greg G.
> Greg G. wrote:
> >"Are you one of the deniers that denies that global warming is
> >happening at all, one that accepts that global warming is happening
> >but denies it is caused by human activity, or one that switches
> >between the two positions on alternate days?"
>
> Reply:
> Why would you care what I am or am not? I don't
> consider my self to be a deniar.
Sorry. I got called away before I could elaborate and sent it as is.
The reason I just wanted to know what position you held before
discussing the issue further to avoid making the wrong choice. It is
frustrating when the other person jumps to the other position every
time you point out a weakness.
> Climate always changes through the
> Earth's history. I don't wish to use that fact orf any other excuse,
> real or imagined to legislate more control over people and confiscate
> more money in taxes.
> People are already taxed too much.
> But I do consider myself to be a skeptic over whether the tiny
> bit of warming we have seen since about 1850 has been caused by us.
> After all, I would expect warming as we continue to come out the the
> ice age that was at its hight abaout 25,000 years ago, and also as we
> come out of the Little Ice Age. Seems normal to get a bit warmer
> coming out of those times.
>
> How many Alarmists realize that technically we are still in the ice
> age, since we still have ice caps and glaciers and ice sheets? So you
> would actually be more accurate to speak of the "present ice age" when
> speaking about the ice age that stared retreating about 15,000 -
> 18,000 years ago.
> It isn't over yet.
> Sometimes it appears that the Alarmists believe it should not get
> warmer as we come out of ice ages. It gets them upset.
> I am also a skeptic about whether such a miniscule number like about
> 100 parts per million of CO2 increase since then is responsible for
> the warming.
The atmosphere has less than 400 parts per million of CO2. A 100 ppm
increase is huge! A small increase of CO2 means a small increase in
temperature which means a small increase in water vapor which means a
bigger increase in temperature and more water vapor until the water
vapor in the atmosphere increases the reflectivity to reach an
equilibrium. It's not just the CO2.
> I am also a skeptic about claims that the little warming will
> be a disaster. I would think that a return to Global Cooling and
> advance fo the ice sheets would be a much worse disaster.
Our crops are suited for this environment. Cooling or warming would
have a big impact. Just moving north or south isn't so easy as no
matter what the temperature is, plants expect a certain length of
daylight vs. night hours. Humans are better adapted to a wide range of
climate than most creatures. We depend on ants more than you may
realize and they don't migrate so well.
> I find it funny that the Alarmists fret tabout this, and list
> all the bad things they say will happen, exaggerate about it and
> ignore the postive effects that warming can bring.
We don't know how bad it can get. When they looked at Venus, they
realized how similar it was to Earth. When the planet warms, no matter
what the original cause of the warming, the ice melts and the ground
releases more CO2 which continues the cycle. If the greenhouse gases
continue to rise after the albedo due to the water vapor is maxed out,
there would be a runaway effect. I expect we will run out of fossil
fuels before that happened.
> Also funny is that these Alarmists are so arrogant as to think
> climate should obey them and stay the same.
If global warming is happening despite what we are doing, we have to
deal with anyway. If we are causing it, we are responsible. Our
civilization is optimized for the temperature range we have now. It is
foolish to think we could create a civilization optimzed for a
different environment without severe growing pains.
>
> Gorebull Warming is about political power, money, and
> control.
BTW, I've never watched Gore's movie. From what I've read of it, it
seems a bit over the top. It served its purpose as a wake up call,
however.
> Nothing more.
Global Warming is about science. The Deniers are about politics and
power. The Deniers are in the back pocket of the current corporations.
> Any excuse, real or imagined, is good to use to work towards
> those ends.
> Yeah, I'm a skeptic.
I was, too, until I examined the arguments. The arguments that
indicate that global warming is real and that it is associated with
CO2 from fossil fuels were very reasonable and I could understand the
science behind them.
The arguments against global warming and AGW sounded like creationist
arguments against evolution. The best scientific studies against GW
have been shown to be flawed. The use of graphs and charts showing
links between global temperatures and the sun are downright dishonest,
because they cherry pick the portions that correlate and cut off where
they diverge. Scientific papers used by deniers to support their
position often as not undermine their position, they just seem to have
a creationist level of understanding.
> But I know how much you idiots like to call
> us "deniers" to connect us to the Holocaust Deniers, make us connected
> to the Nazis. One of the techniques of the far left, to smear their
> opponents with.
Godwin's law. You lose. If you are a skeptic, why are you identifying
yourself with the deniers? I would never have made the connection
between GW deniers and Holocaust deniers. The GW deniers are more like
evolution deniers.
First, you seemed to minimize the amout of global warming, then you
argued the warming was not caused by man, and finally you argued that
maybe global warming would be good. That's the sequence the AGW
deniers have followed the past 15 years. First, they said the Earth
wasn't getting warmer until they realized that was foolish. Then they
said it was because of the sun, not man, until the evidence was
overwhelming against that, and they began to say, "No, it's really a
good thing". The evidence has always been against them.
You seem as if you want to stay a skeptic for fear you might have to
pay taxes.
Larry
@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> Yep that's another explanation of global warming. Yet for some reason we
> only focus on man made global warming.
>
>
Just follow the money.....
Remember back when the Earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze if
Congress didn't spend billions on cooling research? Somewhere in the
70's....
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx
--
-----
Larry
Who should we HANG first for wasting billions of our money on this carbon
bullshit for Global Warming, Algore?
LET 'EM SWING!
The Chief Instigator
>"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a46a939$0$2600$5a62ac22
>@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>> Yep that's another explanation of global warming. Yet for some reason we
>> only focus on man made global warming.
>>
>>
>Just follow the money.....
>Remember back when the Earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze if
>Congress didn't spend billions on cooling research? Somewhere in the
>70's....
No kidding, and down here in this corner of southeast Texas, we've been
flirting with 40� (104�F) temperatures two months before they normally show
up.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
Seon Ferguson
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C382E4FA2...@74.209.131.13...
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a46a939$0$2600$5a62ac22
> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>> Yep that's another explanation of global warming. Yet for some reason we
>> only focus on man made global warming.
>>
>>
>
> Just follow the money.....
>
> Remember back when the Earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze
> if
> Congress didn't spend billions on cooling research? Somewhere in the
> 70's....
>
> http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
>
Good thing they didn't have Al Gore back then. Well they did I guess, he
said he invented the Internet!
Bill Ward
That explanation does not make sense to me. CO2 can play little part in
warming the surface, because radiative cooling of the surface is blocked
by water vapor. CO2 has essentially no effect on convection. Convection,
not radiation, carries most surface energy up to the altitude from which
radiation to space can occur. Above that point CO2 is a cooling agent,
radiating LWIR to space along with WV and other ghgs.
Feedbacks from water clearly seem to be negative, not positive. When the
sun evaporates water, it cools the surface. When the vapor condenses,
clouds form, reflect sunlight and reduce the warming of the surface.
Your theory requires a net positive feedback from water vapor, which does
not seem to be the case.
Can you explain how your theory fits the above facts? Or did you just
buy into someone else's theory without really understanding it?
What A. Fool
wrote:
>temperature....
That is a gross assumption, not fact, not supported by science.
>....which means a small increase in water vapor which means a
>bigger increase in temperature
And that is even worse, it is an obvious untruth, in fact,
an increase in water vapor prevents higher temperature.
>and more water vapor until the water
>vapor in the atmosphere increases the reflectivity to reach an
>equilibrium. It's not just the CO2.
Increase of reflectivity of what, visible light, Infra-Red,
sunlight?
Don't bother to answer, it is clear to me that you have
made an assumption, and based an entire physical process
on that assumption.
The process of the phase change of water to vapor
is a massive cooling process, so much greater than the
energy required to raise the temperature of water one
degree that to assume more water vapor means any
increase in temperature, borders on an insanity.
The phase change of water to vapor at surface
temperatures takes away more than 900 times as much
heat as changing the temperature of that same water
one degree.
And a little wind can increase the rate of evaporation,
all of which is related to atmospheric pressure.
You displayed a lack of knowledge of the water
cycle and phase change physics when you mention
Venus, which has an atmospheric surface pressure
so much greater than that of Earth, there can be no
comparison of temperature.
What A. Fool
wrote:
>On 2009-06-28, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>>"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a46a939$0$2600$5a62ac22
>>@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>>> Yep that's another explanation of global warming. Yet for some reason we
>>> only focus on man made global warming.
>>>
>>>
>
>>Just follow the money.....
>
>>Remember back when the Earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze if
>>Congress didn't spend billions on cooling research? Somewhere in the
>>70's....
>
>No kidding, and down here in this corner of southeast Texas, we've been
>flirting with 40° (104°F) temperatures two months before they normally show
>up.
That's probably because it has been too dry, and the jet stream
has taken a path that puts you in the warm winds, if it was atmospheric
CO2, it would be global, and it isn't global.
fasgnadh
> To me Global Warming is like religion.
.. just another area of intellectual endeavour which completely
baffles you, eh?
> No I'm not flat out denying it.
Of course not, then you would need some facts and evidence. B^D
And where would a windsock like you find any?
You would have to petulantly demand that SOMEONE ELSE finds you some! B^D
"I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
"Yes Atheists have beliefs" - Seon
Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
This is Seon, the Atheist convert, who can't keep his story straight,
claims he's happy believing in God, has no evidence for God, admits
he's irrational for believing in something he has no evidence for,
and wants someone else to provide evidence for HIS irrational (PRETEND)
beliefs..
That is Seon, in a nutshell.. where any atheist nut belongs!
> But with religion they were times when I would be convinced by an
> argument but then an Atheist would bring up a good point and I'd be back
> to square one.
Sure, you are lightweight who can't think for himself and a windsock.
B^)
> I'm like that with the cause of global warming (note I
> accept it is real).
> Can anyone point me in a direction
Sure.. Go tell your mum she wants you! ;-)
> of some good sites?
Sure:
and for you, especially;
Nick looks to be your type, he will do everything
the atheists did to you, without the STD's;
http://www.realdoll.com/cgi-bin/snav.rd?action=viewpage§ion=dollgallery
> And also can anyone please answer a question that has been
> bugging me.
They put you up for adoption because your kept bugging them.
> Why is Mars warming?
Proximity to alt.atheism.
> And will a carbon really end it?
Carbon sustains it
> Shouldn't we end our dependence on big oil
You might find that makes your sessions with Slimer and
Abu Baker produce too much friction.
I know i said someone needs to fuck some sense into you,
but who knew they would take that, like they take everything else,
bent over and literally! B^p
> and find a renewable source of energy instead?
It's called Sol.
As 'renewable' as it gets, in our solar system,
...good for quite a while yet.
--
Seon declares I have converted him to atheism:
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
# Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
# Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
# Message-ID: <49652ef0$0$28522$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> recruits a convert
# >
# >
# > Should you decide to "deconvert", we'd be glad to have you. <G>
# >
# >
# >
# > Yep and you can thank fundamentalists like fags for the new convert.
# >
Seon the Atheist subsequently claims he believes in God: B^p
#From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops - OF A CHURCH!
BWAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA
# Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:09:05 +1000
# Message-ID: <49f79aa8$0$12595$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
#
# I am happy believing in God
Seon the atheist has no evidence for his belief in God
and asks himself why he believes without evidence:
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
# Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
# Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
# Message-ID: <49652ef0$0$28522$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# I have had experiences that have taught me life after
# death is true (but it wouldn't be evidence to you) but no
# evidence of God I'm afraid.
#
# as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?
Getting no sensible answer from himself, Seon the Atheist
decides to ask someone more sensible than himself;
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Is atheism becoming a religion?
# Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:09:04 +1000
# Message-ID: <49f45cf5$0$12614$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists
Seon is told to stop being such a gormless prat, but being a gormless
prat Seon continues to ask others to explain his beliefs to himself!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA
___________________________________________
The Convert!
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
# Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
# Message-ID: <49652ef0$0$28522$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> recruits a convert
# >
# >
# > Should you decide to "deconvert", we'd be glad to have you. <G>
# >
# >
# >
# > Yep and you can thank fundamentalists like fags for the new convert.
Not a nice way to talk about Gays, you homophobe!
# > as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?
Seon Ferguson
"Budikka" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:73784ec6-963d-492a...@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 5:42 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To me Global Warming is like religion. No I'm not flat out denying it.
>> But
>> with religion they were times when I would be convinced by an argument
>> but
>> then an Atheist would bring up a good point and I'd be back to square
>> one.
>> I'm like that with the cause of global warming (note I accept it is
>> real).
>> Can anyone point me in a direction of some good sites? And also can
>> anyone
>> please answer a question that has been bugging me. Why is Mars warming?
>> And
>> will a carbon really end it? Shouldn't we end our dependence on big oil
>> and
>> find a renewable source of energy instead?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
> http://tinyurl.com/qxpncw
> http://ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
> http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
> http://tinyurl.com/b4d4uq
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070202085036.htm
> http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/01/26/global_warming/
>
> Budikka
Ok after reading the links and other sites I have reached a conclusion that
Global Warming started naturally and is a natural cycle however humans have
made things worse. That's why I still think we should end our natural
dependence on oil yadi yadi yada. But good informative links.
Greg G.
As you say, water vapor blocks the radiative cooling of the surface.
The atmosphere can hold a certain amount of water vapor at a given
temperature, so the cooling you mention is finite for that amount of
water vapor. But when water condenses, it releases the same amount of
heat that it took to evaporate it, plus or minus the amount of energy
in the temperature difference. So water can only be a negative
feedback until the air is saturated, then it becomes a positive
feedback component for warming the atmosphere.
Greg G.
Ever hear of the heat of condensation? You sound like your knowledge
of the water cycle and phase change physics comes from creationists.
It is incomplete. The evaporation/condensation cycle has a net effect
of zero.
Greg G.
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:...
>
> > The atmosphere has less than 400 parts per million of CO2. A 100 ppm
> > increase is huge! A small increase of CO2 means a small increase in
> > temperature which means a small increase in water vapor which means a
> > bigger increase in temperature and more water vapor until the water
> > vapor in the atmosphere increases the reflectivity to reach an
> > equilibrium. It's not just the CO2.
>
> You've just described a runaway effect, we haven't seen yet and we'll never
> see.
> Seems in your little birdbrain only positive net forcings exist?
Perhaps your reading comprehension is your problem. In the paragraph
above yours, I mentioned the water vapor in the atmosphere increasing
the reflectivity as a negative feedback property.
>
> But if you are this opinion, then tell me, how much amount of CO2 would
> increase temperature for which amount? Numbers! No guesses!
> And vice versa, how much amount of CO2 (x) should be reduced to drop
> temperature for (y) K?
>
> You can't?
> Then stop speading your rumors!
Concerned Neighbor: Pete, you're house is on fire!
Peter Muehlbauer: Oh yeah? What temperature is the fire? If you don't
know the temperature, stop spreading rumors!
Bill Ward
Which is a completely reasonable attitude when there is no fire to be
found.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Global Warming is like religion."
thats an ignorant statement...
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Which is a completely reasonable attitude when there is no fire to be
found. "
laughing, said the man with flames and smoke rising behind his back...
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Seon Ferguson wrote:
> > To me Global Warming is like religion.
>
> .. just another area of intellectual endeavour which completely
> baffles you, eh?
>
> > No I'm not flat out denying it.
>
> Of course not, then you would need some facts and evidence. B^D
Whatever for? Those. Like fasgnadh, who would impose their own
religions on others do not bother with either facts nor evidence, so it
would seem that in matters of religious belief, facts and evidence are
neither needed nor wanted.
--
Virgil
Greg G.
Must I have point out that the neighbor is the fire marshal? The
politician across the street is telling you, "Don't listen to him. He
could be wrong."
The prudent thing to do would be to investigate what the experts say
and to find out why the politician disagrees.
What A. Fool
wrote:
So, what does your car run on? With gas prices going up,
one would think people would convert their cars to ethanol, propane,
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or battery, and convert the big
semis to dual fuel (diesel on idle, with another fuel inducted for
cruise).
The biggest problem I see is a serious shortage of
mechanics, I hope the new car dealers that have lost their
franchise will begin doing conversions.
Greg G.
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a46a939$0$2600$5a62ac22
> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
> > Yep that's another explanation of global warming. Yet for some reason we
> > only focus on man made global warming.
>
> Just follow the money.....
>
> Remember back when the Earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze if
> Congress didn't spend billions on cooling research? Somewhere in the
> 70's....
>
> http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
>
> http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx
I remember the articles. The scientists were talking about an ice age
in about 20,000 years but they were also warning about the greenhouse
effect in the short run. Why won't the denial lobby tell the truth
about that?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Catoni
>"No kidding, and down here in this corner of southeast Texas, we've been
>flirting with 40° (104°F) temperatures two months before they normally show
>up."
Reply: I hope you aren't mentioning that as evidence of Gorebull
Warming. Where I live, last summer hardly even showed up. It was much
cooler and wetter then usual. Only used the airconditioner for six
days. Much of Canada, some northern states and Alaska was cooler then
usual. Went on for more then two months.
But Gorebull Warming Alarmists tell me that is only weather, not
climate, and they say I can't use that in an argument.
So, to be fair, Alarmists can not use record high temperatures
anywhere in the world for their argument either.
Catoni
>"Concerned Neighbor: Pete, you're house is on fire!
>Peter Muehlbauer: Oh yeah? What temperature is the fire? If you don't
>know the temperature, stop spreading rumors! "
Reply:
Another entry in the Worst Analogy of the Year Contest.
What A. Fool
wrote:
You made up that phrase.
The issue is that evaporation cools the surface where
temperatures are recorded and used in the annual global
average temperature waste of time and money, while
condensation occurs at high altitude where the heat can
escape to space and where clouds form to block sunshine
and reduce energy input.
>You sound like your knowledge
>of the water cycle and phase change physics comes from creationists.
And who gave you the script for the insult, some leftist
atheist tax legislator?
>It is incomplete. The evaporation/condensation cycle has a net effect
>of zero.
Then why mention it, why do the models use positive and
negative feedback?
59 parts of 72 cool the atmosphere, and only 12 parts of
that 72 represent the Infra-Red radiation from the surface to space.
The atmosphere is warmed mostly by convection and
latent heat release at altitude, with other IR radiation being
neutral net quantities, the same in all directions.
GHG function is misunderstood, as only GHGs can
cool the atmosphere where most of the incoming energy
ends up before being radiated to space, GHGs cool the
atmosphere, nothing else can cool the atmosphere, and
that suggests that the atmosphere would be warmer
without GHGs, and it means for certain that only
GHGs cool the atmosphere, GHGs are what cool
the atmosphere.
Bill Ward
I have investigated and find no fire. I find convincing evidence the
"building is fireproof", ie, the expected increases of CO2 cannot cause
significant warming.
Why are you shouting "Fire!" on a crowded planet? Explain in your own
words your reasons for believing CO2 is a warming agent. Appeal to
authority is not convincing.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
I have investigated and find no fire."
now thats a joke....
Greg G.
No, I didn't. Ever hear of the Conservation of Mass/Energy?
>
> The issue is that evaporation cools the surface where
> temperatures are recorded and used in the annual global
> average temperature waste of time and money, while
> condensation occurs at high altitude where the heat can
> escape to space and where clouds form to block sunshine
> and reduce energy input.
The energy absorbed when a water molecule evaporates doesn't just
disappear. When the water condenses, the energy is released again. Do
not take my word for it. Look it up. Ask why the people who tell you
that evaporation cools, don't tell you that the same energy heats up
the atmosphere when it condenses. My answer is that they are trying to
sell you a load of bullshit.
>
> >You sound like your knowledge
> >of the water cycle and phase change physics comes from creationists.
>
> And who gave you the script for the insult, some leftist
> atheist tax legislator?
No, I was reading the arguments of deniers and they had a similar
reliance on canards, half truths, and misunderstandings of science.
>
> >It is incomplete. The evaporation/condensation cycle has a net effect
> >of zero.
>
> Then why mention it, why do the models use positive and
> negative feedback?
Because reality is complex and has positive and negative feedback
elements. If the effects positive feedback loops exceed the effects of
negative feedback loops, the temperature goes up. If the effects of
the negative feedback is greater the temperature goes down. When they
are balanced, the temperature hovers around an equilibrium point.
>
> 59 parts of 72 cool the atmosphere, and only 12 parts of
> that 72 represent the Infra-Red radiation from the surface to space.
>
> The atmosphere is warmed mostly by convection and
> latent heat release at altitude, with other IR radiation being
> neutral net quantities, the same in all directions.
No, the atmosphere is warmed by energy from the sun. The high-energy
waves are absorbed by the earth and then emitted as IR.
>
> GHG function is misunderstood, as only GHGs can
> cool the atmosphere where most of the incoming energy
> ends up before being radiated to space, GHGs cool the
> atmosphere, nothing else can cool the atmosphere, and
Baloney! Basic thermodynamics tells us that heat transfer is a
function of temperature. Everything above absolute zero is trading
energy with everything around it by conduction, radiation, and/or
convection. Warmer things give up more heat than it gets so it cools.
Cooler things gain more energy than it gives up so it warms.
> that suggests that the atmosphere would be warmer
> without GHGs, and it means for certain that only
> GHGs cool the atmosphere, GHGs are what cool
> the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases are like car windows on a sunny day. They allow high-
frequency, high-energy electromagnetic energy (light waves) through.
The sun emits high-energy light waves because it is very hot. The
light is absorbed by the liquids and solids of the earth, which are
opaque to most light from the sun. The solids emit electromagnetic
radiation in the infrared range because they are cooler than the sun.
The water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide are opaque to the longer
wavelengths and absorb the energy of those waves. When a greenhouse
gas molecule absorbs the energy, its kinetic energy is increased. When
it collides with other molecules of any kind, the energy is
transferred.
"GHGs are what cool the atmosphere." <- A perfect example of what I
mean by a creationist-type misunderstanding of science.
hda
<ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sofar I read your view on the warming engine for earth. How
exactly does the cooling engine work according to you.
Where is accumulation of reflected heat ultimately ?
Greg G.
It's that red, orange, and yellow thing crawling up your fire-proof
wall. It's rather obvious. How did you miss it?
>
> Why are you shouting "Fire!" on a crowded planet? Explain in your own
> words your reasons for believing CO2 is a warming agent. Appeal to
> authority is not convincing.
Molecules have a resonant frequency so the electromagnetic radiation
of that frequency excite the molecule which means the energy of the EM
is absorbed by the molecule. When a group of molecules have added
energy, the temperature rises. Temperature is a measure of the average
energies of the molecules so it doesn't make much sense to apply it to
an individual molecule as the range of energies is great. The movement
of gas molecules brings Doppler effects into play so the molecule can
absorb a range of frequencies near the resonant frequency.
Most gases will absorb some range of IR, allowing other frequencies to
pass. The temperature of the Earth is maintained by an equal amount of
energy coming in from the sun and passing out through the atmosphere.
If more comes in than leaves, the temperature goes up. If more leaves
than come in, it cools.
If you add a gas that absorbs a frequency that is not already
completely absorbed by the atmosphere, less energy will pass, so the
temperature must go up until the atmosphere radiates a high enough
energy EM to balance the incoming energy from the sun.
The frequency ranges that methane and carbon dioxide absorb are not
saturated, so an increase in the level of those gases has a large
effect on the amount of energy not allowed to radiate into space. That
is compounded by an increase in the evaporation of water which blocks
more IR and retains more heat.
That is just off the top of my head. If I made a small mistake, are
you going to reject it all on that basis? So what if I am completely
wrong. Do not take my word for it. I am not a scientist. I don't have
a graduate degree.You need to consider what the scientists say.
Greg G.
It is not according to me, it's according to the laws of
thermodynamics.
Have you ever seen a clay pot fired in a kiln? The inside of the kiln
is red hot. When the pot is placed inside, it is easy to see. As it
gets hotter, it, too, gets red hot. The hotter it gets, the higher the
frequency of IR it emits, and the infra-red reaches the visible red
range. (If something gets hot enough, it is emitting up to the ultra-
violet range and is white hot). When it is the same temperature as the
oven, it is emitting electromagnetic radiation at the same temperature
as the oven and it is hard to see. It's sort of camouflaged.
Everything is emitting IR all the time and the highest frequencies
emitted are related to the temperature. Higher frequencies mean higher
energies emitted. So warmer things emit more energy than they recieve
from cooler objects in the vicinity while the cooler objects receive
more energy than they emit. When something emits more energy than it
gets, it cools, so warmer things cool and cooler things warm.
The atmosphere is warmer than space, so it gets less from space than
it emits as IR, except for the energy from the sun.
>
> Where is accumulation of reflected heat ultimately ?
Deep space, just like the energy from the sun that does not hit the
Earth.
Claudius Denk
>
> - Show quoted text -
You didn't make a small mistake as much as you made a gigantic
ommision. You omitted any mention of any experimental evidence that
substantiates the general claim that CO2 causes an increase in
atmospheric temperatures. Instead all you provides us was with the
typical science-based propaganda of the AGW religion.
BTW, there is no experimental evidence that substantiates the general
claim that CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric temperatures. And
the fact that yourself and so many other AGW whackos choose to believe
it exists doesn't mean it does.
Greg G.
Read the post I was replying to. He would have rejected that as an
appeal from authority. He specifically asked for my own words. That is
what you got.
>
> BTW, there is no experimental evidence that substantiates the general
> claim that CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric temperatures. And
> the fact that yourself and so many other AGW whackos choose to believe
> it exists doesn't mean it does.
There is a correlation between rising levels of CO2 and rising
temperatures. We don't have access to another planet to use as a
control in such an experiment. There is a rise in global temperatures
and there is no increase in energy coming from the sun. There is no
indication that the fission reactions inside the planet have increased
so the only remaining thing is that the atmosphere is retaining more
energy than it is releasing. More energy means a higher temperature.
Something is causing it and CO2 is increasing. Maybe you can come up
with something else that is causing the temperature to rise.
Claudius Denk
I did.
> He would have rejected that as an
> appeal from authority.
Bullshit. You didn't provide it because you can't provide something
that exists only in your imagination.
> He specifically asked for my own words. That is
> what you got.
That's all you whackos ever give us.
>
>
>
> > BTW, there is no experimental evidence that substantiates the general
> > claim that CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric temperatures. And
> > the fact that yourself and so many other AGW whackos choose to believe
> > it exists doesn't mean it does.
>
> There is a correlation between rising levels of CO2 and rising
> temperatures.
Not even this adds up when you examine the issue rigorously. And even
if it was true it's hardly cause for concern. Coorelation does not
demonstrate causation.
> We don't have access to another planet to use as a
> control in such an experiment.
Yeah, so?
> There is a rise in global temperatures
Satellite data proves that there is no rise in temperature.
> and there is no increase in energy coming from the sun. There is no
> indication that the fission reactions inside the planet have increased
> so the only remaining thing is that the atmosphere is retaining more
> energy than it is releasing. More energy means a higher temperature.
> Something is causing it and CO2 is increasing. Maybe you can come up
> with something else that is causing the temperature to rise.
Data manipulation by human beings as the cause. We have a lot more
evidence of this than we do of CO2 as the cause.
Bill Ward
And where does it condense? Far above the surface, where the cloud can
radiate broadband to space. When air is heated, it rises. That's what
transports most surface energy to the radiating level, not radiation.
> My answer is that they are trying to sell
> you a load of bullshit.
>>
>> >You sound like your knowledge
>> >of the water cycle and phase change physics comes from creationists.
>>
>> And who gave you the script for the insult, some leftist
>> atheist tax legislator?
>
> No, I was reading the arguments of deniers and they had a similar
> reliance on canards, half truths, and misunderstandings of science.
>>
>> >It is incomplete. The evaporation/condensation cycle has a net effect
>> >of zero.
>>
>> Then why mention it, why do the models use positive and
>> negative feedback?
>
> Because reality is complex and has positive and negative feedback
> elements. If the effects positive feedback loops exceed the effects of
> negative feedback loops, the temperature goes up. If the effects of the
> negative feedback is greater the temperature goes down. When they are
> balanced, the temperature hovers around an equilibrium point.
Nope. Negative feedback stabilizes the system against external inputs,
positive feedback destabilizes. If the temperature is below the set
point, negative feedback increases it, if above the set point, it cools
it. Think of your thermostat as an example.
Negative feedback is like a ball rolling around down in a concave bowl.
Positive feedback is like a ball balanced on top of a convex bowl. The
curvature of the bowl represents the gain. One tends to stay put, the
other runs away with any disturbance. The fact climate has been
relatively stable over hundreds of millions of years rules out any net
positive feedback.
>> 59 parts of 72 cool the atmosphere, and only 12 parts of
>> that 72 represent the Infra-Red radiation from the surface to space.
>>
>> The atmosphere is warmed mostly by convection and
>> latent heat release at altitude, with other IR radiation being neutral
>> net quantities, the same in all directions.
>
> No, the atmosphere is warmed by energy from the sun. The high-energy
> waves are absorbed by the earth and then emitted as IR.
The surface is mostly cooled by winds. Everybody knows what wind chill
factor is, but hardly anyone cares if the sky is clear. Water vapor
prevents radiative cooling of the surface except for a narrow band around
10u, or 250K.
>> GHG function is misunderstood, as only GHGs can
>> cool the atmosphere where most of the incoming energy ends up before
>> being radiated to space, GHGs cool the atmosphere, nothing else can
>> cool the atmosphere, and
>
> Baloney! Basic thermodynamics tells us that heat transfer is a function
> of temperature. Everything above absolute zero is trading energy with
> everything around it by conduction, radiation, and/or convection. Warmer
> things give up more heat than it gets so it cools. Cooler things gain
> more energy than it gives up so it warms.
>
>> that suggests that the atmosphere would be warmer without GHGs, and it
>> means for certain that only GHGs cool the atmosphere, GHGs are what
>> cool the atmosphere.
>
> Greenhouse gases are like car windows on a sunny day. They allow high-
> frequency, high-energy electromagnetic energy (light waves) through. The
> sun emits high-energy light waves because it is very hot. The light is
> absorbed by the liquids and solids of the earth, which are opaque to
> most light from the sun. The solids emit electromagnetic radiation in
> the infrared range because they are cooler than the sun. The water
> vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide are opaque to the longer wavelengths
> and absorb the energy of those waves. When a greenhouse gas molecule
> absorbs the energy, its kinetic energy is increased. When it collides
> with other molecules of any kind, the energy is transferred.
Water vapor absorbs the energy within a few meters of the surface,
heating the air, causing it to convect both sensible and latent heat
upward to the point it can radiate to space. Surface radiation outside
the 10u window is essentially blocked. Here, take a look:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/
Atmospheric_Transmission.png>
> "GHGs are what cool the atmosphere." <- A perfect example of what I mean
> by a creationist-type misunderstanding of science.
How can the air cool without GHGs? O2, N2 and Ar can't emit or absorb
the relevant LWIR. Convection takes the energy up near the tropopause,
then GHGs (including clouds) radiate it to space in the stratosphere.
Try to understand the physics involved rather than just repeating talking
points you've heard. See if you can figure out why water has to be a
negative feedback.
Bill Ward
Good, so you understand the concept of LTE, "local thermodynamic
equilibrium". That is also the condition in the lower atmosphere
regarding surface radiation. All the surface can do is heat the lowest
few meters to the same temperature it is. From there up to near the
tropopause, the atmosphere is just hot gas, in LTE. Only convection can
carry energy. No radiation affecting ghgs can be transmitted, because WV
and clouds block it.
Greg G.
> On Jun 28, 5:33 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 7:26 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 28, 3:56 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 28, 5:19 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
He asked for my reasons for believing that CO2 was a warming agent. If
that existed in my imagination I would have mentioned it.
>
> > He specifically asked for my own words. That is
> > what you got.
>
> That's all you whackos ever give us.
Then why did he reject an appeal from authority from the get-go?
>
>
>
> > > BTW, there is no experimental evidence that substantiates the general
> > > claim that CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric temperatures. And
> > > the fact that yourself and so many other AGW whackos choose to believe
> > > it exists doesn't mean it does.
>
> > There is a correlation between rising levels of CO2 and rising
> > temperatures.
>
> Not even this adds up when you examine the issue rigorously. And even
> if it was true it's hardly cause for concern.
Even the deniers graphs show rising global temperature, even when they
cherry-pick data to minimize it.
> Coorelation does not
> demonstrate causation.
No, but there is a mechanism CO2 to cause the warming. Something is
causing the warming. There is no other proposed mechanism that could
be causing it. Therefore, it is most likely CO2.
>
> > We don't have access to another planet to use as a
> > control in such an experiment.
>
> Yeah, so?
We are essentially doing the experiment right now in real time. You
are rejecting the data because you don't want it to be true, not
because you have a good reason to reject it.
>
> > There is a rise in global temperatures
>
> Satellite data proves that there is no rise in temperature.
Spencer made an algebraic error in his calculations. This was shown
years ago. He acknowledged his error but still defends the conclusion
by starting his data with 1979 because it was particularly warm that
year so the temperature graph looks less steep even though the data
goes back to 1975.
Why aren't your denialist sources honest enough to mention this?
The satellite data supports global warming.
>
> > and there is no increase in energy coming from the sun. There is no
> > indication that the fission reactions inside the planet have increased
> > so the only remaining thing is that the atmosphere is retaining more
> > energy than it is releasing. More energy means a higher temperature.
> > Something is causing it and CO2 is increasing. Maybe you can come up
> > with something else that is causing the temperature to rise.
>
> Data manipulation by human beings as the cause. We have a lot more
> evidence of this than we do of CO2 as the cause.
Disappearing glaciers is manipulated data? Even Spencer's early data
showed a rise in temperatures that was just a bit less than expected
by global warming predictions. When they corrected his math, the data
corresponded with the predictions.
Accusing scientists of manipulation of evidence is more creationist-
type doings.
Larry
news:rrgf4512sd5m02cvv...@4ax.com:
> So, what does your car run on? With gas prices going up,
> one would think people would convert their cars to ethanol, propane,
> Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or battery, and convert the big
> semis to dual fuel (diesel on idle, with another fuel inducted for
> cruise).
>
My cars ('73 Mercedes 220D and '83 Mercedes 300TD wagon (estate)) run on
a mixture of 1 part mineral spirits I buy surplus from painting
contractors that used to dump it before I came along. The mineral
spirits are simply added 1 gallon to a 55 gallon plastic barrel with 50
gallons of clean filtered used vegetable oil our little cartel of 3
people get free from 3 large Chinese restaurants. I also have a '89 Air
Force flight line stepvan with a 6.2L GM Diesel V-8 in it that was a
mistake spending $2600 on a Frybrid that will run in the frigid North or
Canada. (www.frybrid.com) It cranks on #2 diesel fuel, then a computer
watches as the filtered used cooking oil comes up to 160F, heated with
heater hose coolant in the tank, lines, fuel filter and a large heat
exchanger so it can be injected in cold climates after the engine and
oil get hot. From that point on, it runs very nicely, and quieter, on
the slower burning cooking oil.
Our "system" for fuel is horribly simple. The Chinese restaurants cool
the oil and pour it through a large filter funnel back into the plastic-
lined cardboard boxes it comes in. The funnel filters out the large
food particles, the ones you can see. They dump those in their garbage.
The oil I pickup every Friday morning just before they open at 11 from
that week and take to our warehouse owned by one of the cartel members,
George. The box is dated and set aside for more than 60 days to allow
all the tiny particles in it to settle to the bottom in a "cloudy
layer" about 1/2" deep. Using the oldest box first, our truck mechanic,
Mike, 3rd member of our cartel, without moving the box, dips a pipe that
ends about 3" off the bottom of the box into the oil, slowly, then,
slowly pumps the nearly-clean oil through two large truck fuel
filters/water separators, the metering gear pump I put an electronic
motor speed control on so we could control flow, and into the 55 gallon
plastic barrels we recycle over and over as they empty. Some barrels
are marked OIL ONLY for the frybrids we own, like my truck. Others are
marked THINNED OIL for the unmodified diesels, like my two cars.
Mineral spirit-thinned oil wasn't my idea. I watched a YouTube clip
taken from Jeremy Clarkson's great BBC car show where they ran a Volvo
diesel in much colder England off this simple mix quite successfully. I
simply robbed the idea and have quite successfully used it in warm SC,
USA. No real chemical engineering you see on YouTube for biodiesel is
used...a total waste of time.
If someone is going on a trip, we have a portable filter system Mike
made to toss into their trunk that runs off 12VDC. We can pull up to
any restaurant's used oil tankage, suck off what's sorta clean from the
top of the tank through our filter and we're back on the road in 30
minutes for free, usually, the restauranteur glad to be rid of waste
he's paying someone to remove at great expense. The portable unit uses
up filters MUCH faster than our careful settling operation at home. It
has only had one new filter in 2 years! Careful settling makes our oil
nearly free.
We have oil swimming out our ears. There's about 1800 gallons in boxes
settling in the warehouse tonight and about 250 gallons ready-to-burn in
our cars. We're doing the world a favor disposing of its waste,
NATURALLY RENEWABLE energy source, mostly Canola oil created from
sunshine. The only "smell" we get, with no smoke from any of our
diesels at all, is fish, not french fries. Fish oil remains in our raw
material from the cooking. Chinese cook lots of fish, oily fish. It
makes you hungry to stand behind it, and smells exactly like someone
frying fish at the firehouse for dinner. Holding your hand over the
exhaust but not touching it, your hand gets MUCH less carbon than from
dinosaur oil burning. Works great....cost only some labor. I'm
retired, plenty of time to play with it.
I have a 6,500 watt, 1-cylinder Chinese diesel generator to power my
house during hurricanes when our power system may be destroyed like it
was in Hurricane Hugo in 1989. It also runs for free on the oil/spirits
mix without modification. The genset is in a quiet cabinet and is an
acceptable noise source.
My only fuel purchases are about 5 gallons per month to crank the truck
and run that first mile or so to heat the oil.....and 2 gallons a week
of regular gas to power my Honda Reflex 250cc red scooter, my city
transport vehicle when its not raining like hell.
Oil companys and big government can go fuck themselves....
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
Greg G.
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:12:37 -0700, Greg G. wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 6:55 pm, hda <agent33@!!!xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> Sofar I read your view on the warming engine for earth. How exactly
> >> does the cooling engine work according to you.
>
> > It is not according to me, it's according to the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> > Have you ever seen a clay pot fired in a kiln? The inside of the kiln is
> > red hot. When the pot is placed inside, it is easy to see. As it gets
> > hotter, it, too, gets red hot. The hotter it gets, the higher the
> > frequency of IR it emits, and the infra-red reaches the visible red
> > range. (If something gets hot enough, it is emitting up to the ultra-
> > violet range and is white hot). When it is the same temperature as the
> > oven, it is emitting electromagnetic radiation at the same temperature
> > as the oven and it is hard to see. It's sort of camouflaged.
>
> > Everything is emitting IR all the time and the highest frequencies
> > emitted are related to the temperature. Higher frequencies mean higher
> > energies emitted. So warmer things emit more energy than they recieve
> > from cooler objects in the vicinity while the cooler objects receive
> > more energy than they emit. When something emits more energy than it
> > gets, it cools, so warmer things cool and cooler things warm.
>
> Good, so you understand the concept of LTE, "local thermodynamic
> equilibrium". That is also the condition in the lower atmosphere
> regarding surface radiation. All the surface can do is heat the lowest
> few meters to the same temperature it is. From there up to near the
> tropopause, the atmosphere is just hot gas, in LTE. Only convection can
> carry energy. No radiation affecting ghgs can be transmitted, because WV
> and clouds block it.
Sounds right but when we consider the scenario with a higher level of
CO2, the surface emits IR of which more is absorbed in the lowest 10
meters or so, more at the lower level, and that raises the temperature
of the Earth right where it is most important. Right where the
glaciers, oceans, plants, animals, and people are. Then the convection
currents lift that up but it doesn't leave a vacuum, it is replaced by
other currents that are certainly not cooler than they would be
without the additional CO2, and most likely warmer than they would
have been. The upper atmosphere is that much hotter than it would have
been. The troposphere emits the energy through IR, but the extra CO2
reabsorbs some of that and slows the process so it stays warmer as
more warm air rises.
So each LTE would be at a slightly higher temperature because of the
extra CO2.
Bill Ward
Not bad. You should be aware, though, GHGs are the only gases that can
absorb or emit surface relevant LWIR, not N2, O2, or Ar.
> If you add a gas that absorbs a frequency that is not already completely
> absorbed by the atmosphere, less energy will pass, so the temperature
> must go up until the atmosphere radiates a high enough energy EM to
> balance the incoming energy from the sun.
There's your problem. That might be true if radiation were the only way
to get energy from the surface to the layer radiating the energy. On the
Earth, convection must cool the surface, as the lower atmosphere is in
"Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium" because of the optical density of water
vapor. WV absorbs the surface LWIR (except for the unaffected 10u
"window") within a few meters, converting the LWIR into sensible heat,
which simply adds to the conduction from the surface to the air and
resulting convection.
As the air rises, it cools according to the lapse rate. WV often
condenses, releasing its latent heat, and continues to rise up to the
radiating altitude near the troposphere. The average radiating
temperature is about 255K, and is the determining factor in the Earth's
radiation balance, not the surface temperature. Remember, only ghgs and
particulates can radiate LWIR, so at the radiating altitude and above,
they are coolants.
> The frequency ranges that methane and carbon dioxide absorb are not
> saturated, so an increase in the level of those gases has a large effect
> on the amount of energy not allowed to radiate into space. That is
> compounded by an increase in the evaporation of water which blocks more
> IR and retains more heat.
More WV means more convected latent heat and more cooling.
> That is just off the top of my head. If I made a small mistake, are you
> going to reject it all on that basis?
No, actually, you're doing better than most. Your physics seems
basically OK, you just weren't told the whole story, and bought into
something that you don't quite understand.
I started out about the same place you are, and had to dig through a lot
of stuff before I finally figured it out. The key for me was the LTE
due to WV causing convection to overwhelm radiative transport through the
troposphere. In an earlier post, you described LTE accurately, so I'm
pretty sure you can understand enough to see what's wrong with the IPCC
models.
> So what if I am completely wrong.
> Do not take my word for it. I am not a scientist. I don't have a
> graduate degree.You need to consider what the scientists say.
You are obviously perfectly capable of thinking for yourself. Don't be
intimidated by authorities, reason it through until you understand what's
going on, and why. If you have any questions let me know, and I'll try
to help. And there are others in the group who know a lot more than I do
who may also pitch in.
SPierce
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:720e7812-2fed-4743...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
There is a correlation between rising levels of CO2 and rising
temperatures. We don't have access to another planet to use as a
control in such an experiment. There is a rise in global temperatures
and there is no increase in energy coming from the sun. There is no
indication that the fission reactions inside the planet have increased
so the only remaining thing is that the atmosphere is retaining more
energy than it is releasing. More energy means a higher temperature.
Something is causing it and CO2 is increasing. Maybe you can come up
with something else that is causing the temperature to rise.
Since when in science was a correlation a necessary cause.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
hey Greg G, check out this link, and if you like maybe you could take
bill ward up on his offer, and ask him to correlate his points to the
link below.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/8187/2009/acpd-9-8187-2009.pdf
First year of tropospheric CO2 in the Tropics from IASI
First year of upper tropospheric
integrated content of CO2 from IASI
hyperspectral infrared observations
C. Crevoisier1, A. Ch´edin1, H. Matsueda2, T. Machida3, R. Armante1,
and
N. A. Scott1
Claudius Denk
You omitted any mention of the fact that there is no scientific or
peer-revirewed experimental evidence that CO2 causes an increase in
atmospheric temperatures. Instead all you provided us was with the
typical science-based propaganda of the AGW religion.
> > > He specifically asked for my own words. That is
> > > what you got.
>
> > That's all you whackos ever give us.
>
> Then why did he reject an appeal from authority from the get-go?
Because appeald to authority are not scientifically valid, you mental
retard.
>
>
>
> > > > BTW, there is no experimental evidence that substantiates the general
> > > > claim that CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric temperatures. And
> > > > the fact that yourself and so many other AGW whackos choose to believe
> > > > it exists doesn't mean it does.
>
> > > There is a correlation between rising levels of CO2 and rising
> > > temperatures.
>
> > Not even this adds up when you examine the issue rigorously. And even
> > if it was true it's hardly cause for concern.
>
> Even the deniers graphs show rising global temperature,
If a lie is repeated does it become true?
> even when they
> cherry-pick data to minimize it.
Mann and Hansen create data to fit their alarmist goals.
>
> > Coorelation does not
> > demonstrate causation.
>
> No, but there is a mechanism CO2 to cause the warming.
You know this how? Keep in mind we don't have access to your
imagination.
> Something is
> causing the warming.
What warming?
> There is no other proposed mechanism that could
> be causing it. Therefore, it is most likely CO2.
You reason like a 5 year old.
>
>
>
> > > We don't have access to another planet to use as a
> > > control in such an experiment.
>
> > Yeah, so?
>
> We are essentially doing the experiment right now in real time. You
> are rejecting the data because you don't want it to be true, not
> because you have a good reason to reject it.
I'm rejecting it beause I don't want to be taxed to pay for your
delusions.
>
>
>
> > > There is a rise in global temperatures
>
> > Satellite data proves that there is no rise in temperature.
>
> Spencer made an algebraic error in his calculations. This was shown
> years ago. He acknowledged his error but still defends the conclusion
> by starting his data with 1979 because it was particularly warm that
> year so the temperature graph looks less steep even though the data
> goes back to 1975.
>
> Why aren't your denialist sources honest enough to mention this?
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination.
>
> The satellite data supports global warming.
>
>
>
> > > and there is no increase in energy coming from the sun. There is no
> > > indication that the fission reactions inside the planet have increased
> > > so the only remaining thing is that the atmosphere is retaining more
> > > energy than it is releasing. More energy means a higher temperature.
> > > Something is causing it and CO2 is increasing. Maybe you can come up
> > > with something else that is causing the temperature to rise.
>
> > Data manipulation by human beings as the cause. We have a lot more
> > evidence of this than we do of CO2 as the cause.
>
> Disappearing glaciers is manipulated data?
Glaciers have been receding for thousands of years, you idiot.
Even Spencer's early data
> showed a rise in temperatures that was just a bit less than expected
> by global warming predictions. When they corrected his math, the data
> corresponded with the predictions.
Absurd.
>
> Accusing scientists of manipulation of evidence is more creationist-
> type doings.
It's also the doings of UFOlogist and Big Foot believers.
Bill Ward
Most of the surface cooling is due to conduction and convection, not
radiation. The amount of surface LWIR emitted depends only on the
temperature and emissivity, not the CO2 concentration, so the rest of
your explanation from here on is based on an erroneous assumption. See:
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2>
> of which more is absorbed in the lowest 10
> meters or so, more at the lower level, and that raises the temperature
> of the Earth right where it is most important. Right where the glaciers,
> oceans, plants, animals, and people are. Then the convection currents
> lift that up but it doesn't leave a vacuum, it is replaced by other
> currents that are certainly not cooler than they would be without the
> additional CO2, and most likely warmer than they would have been. The
> upper atmosphere is that much hotter than it would have been. The
> troposphere emits the energy through IR, but the extra CO2 reabsorbs
> some of that and slows the process so it stays warmer as more warm air
> rises.
>
> So each LTE would be at a slightly higher temperature because of the
> extra CO2.
The temperature of the ascending air is controlled by the lapse rate. If
air is warmer than its surroundings, it convects upward adiabatically
trying to reach equilibrium. If CO2 warmed the air more efficiently, it
would actually convect faster and thus cool faster.
But CO2 has no significant effect on convection. It's only ~400ppmv,
while the WV is on the order of 20000ppmv, and absorbs more per molecule
(wider bands). There's enough WV to get LTE, so more CO2 doesn't change
much.
Think of the air viewed in LWIR wavelengths as being a dark gray gas.
LWIR is absorbed within a few meters, it can't penetrate upward any
further. Black is black. Hot gas is just hot gas. LWIR is in
equilibrium, just like the orange light in your kiln example.
Greg G.
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:10:44 -0700, Greg G. wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 5:15 pm, What A. Fool <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:31:01 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jun 28, 4:33 am, What A. Fool <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> >> You displayed a lack of knowledge of the water
> >> >> cycle and phase change physics when you mention Venus, which has an
> >> >> atmospheric surface pressure so much greater than that of Earth,
> >> >> there can be no comparison of temperature.
>
> >> >Ever hear of the heat of condensation?
>
> >> You made up that phrase.
>
> > No, I didn't. Ever hear of the Conservation of Mass/Energy?
>
> >> The issue is that evaporation cools the surface where
> >> temperatures are recorded and used in the annual global average
> >> temperature waste of time and money, while condensation occurs at high
> >> altitude where the heat can escape to space and where clouds form to
> >> block sunshine and reduce energy input.
>
> > The energy absorbed when a water molecule evaporates doesn't just
> > disappear. When the water condenses, the energy is released again. Do
> > not take my word for it. Look it up. Ask why the people who tell you
> > that evaporation cools, don't tell you that the same energy heats up the
> > atmosphere when it condenses.
>
> And where does it condense? Far above the surface, where the cloud can
> radiate broadband to space. When air is heated, it rises. That's what
> transports most surface energy to the radiating level, not radiation.
But the upper air is warmer meaning the lower air must reach a higher
temperature before it rises. The air that replaces it is warmer than
it would have been.
>
> > My answer is that they are trying to sell
> > you a load of bullshit.
>
> >> >You sound like your knowledge
> >> >of the water cycle and phase change physics comes from creationists.
>
> >> And who gave you the script for the insult, some leftist
> >> atheist tax legislator?
>
> > No, I was reading the arguments of deniers and they had a similar
> > reliance on canards, half truths, and misunderstandings of science.
>
> >> >It is incomplete. The evaporation/condensation cycle has a net effect
> >> >of zero.
>
> >> Then why mention it, why do the models use positive and
> >> negative feedback?
>
> > Because reality is complex and has positive and negative feedback
> > elements. If the effects positive feedback loops exceed the effects of
> > negative feedback loops, the temperature goes up. If the effects of the
> > negative feedback is greater the temperature goes down. When they are
> > balanced, the temperature hovers around an equilibrium point.
>
> Nope. Negative feedback stabilizes the system against external inputs,
> positive feedback destabilizes. If the temperature is below the set
> point, negative feedback increases it, if above the set point, it cools
> it. Think of your thermostat as an example.
You are correct. I was trying to introduce new concepts using
terminology my correspondent showed some familiarity with. Sometimes
more information can be conveyed by not introducing too much at once.
>
> Negative feedback is like a ball rolling around down in a concave bowl.
> Positive feedback is like a ball balanced on top of a convex bowl. The
> curvature of the bowl represents the gain. One tends to stay put, the
> other runs away with any disturbance. The fact climate has been
> relatively stable over hundreds of millions of years rules out any net
> positive feedback.
What you call "relatively stable over hundreds of millions of years"
would be considered wildly unstable with respect to the time of
civilized man. The planet has been mostly tropical and mostly ice
covered during that time. The temperature swings were much more
gradual than we are seeing today.
>
> >> 59 parts of 72 cool the atmosphere, and only 12 parts of
> >> that 72 represent the Infra-Red radiation from the surface to space.
>
> >> The atmosphere is warmed mostly by convection and
> >> latent heat release at altitude, with other IR radiation being neutral
> >> net quantities, the same in all directions.
>
> > No, the atmosphere is warmed by energy from the sun. The high-energy
> > waves are absorbed by the earth and then emitted as IR.
>
> The surface is mostly cooled by winds.
Yes, but cooled is a relative term.
If the rising covection currents are warmer, they will be warmer at
altitude. The lower level air must then get even warmer to maintain
the convection conveyor.
>
> > "GHGs are what cool the atmosphere." <- A perfect example of what I mean
> > by a creationist-type misunderstanding of science.
>
> How can the air cool without GHGs? O2, N2 and Ar can't emit or absorb
> the relevant LWIR. Convection takes the energy up near the tropopause,
> then GHGs (including clouds) radiate it to space in the stratosphere.
If the IR is not absorbed, it doesn't heat anything so there would be
no need to cool anything.
>
> Try to understand the physics involved rather than just repeating talking
> points you've heard. See if you can figure out why water has to be a
> negative feedback.
Are you talking about more heat from CO2 means more H2O evaporation
meaning a greater albedo effect? The condensation at higher altitudes
means higher temperatures up there and higher temperatures down here.
The convection currents carry CO2 up where it slows the radiation to
space.
Either of those negative feedbacks only stabilizes the system at a
higher temperature.
You have an excellent understanding of the mechanics of the cycle. I
am enjoying our exchange and learning many details from you.
I think what you are overlooking is that the higher energies mean
higher temperatures at every level and that is global warming. The
upper atmosphere is always emitting energy into space because there is
a flux of heat. The air that is cycled in convection currents don't
cool to the temperature of absolute zero because it isn't up there
long enough. It can only emit so much energy in a given amount of
time. For example, 70 degree air takes a certain amount of time before
it cools to 60 degrees. 71 degree air takes a little longer to cool to
60 because it first must cool to 70, then it takes the same amount of
time, all other things equal. But it doesn't get that time because, if
anything, a more energetic cycle runs faster. So the cooler air that
falls to replace the rising convection currents will still retain the
extra heat that didn't have time to dissipate.
I think you understand that it involves a higher temperatures but
don't want to use the GW label for it.
What A. Fool
wrote:
>On Jun 28, 9:05 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
The problem is, the surface is usually cooler than air above
it,so there is no net transfer to the air in most places.
The last 20 years seem to show a remarkable leveling off
or plateau of temperatures, which suggests that it is a data
event rather than changing temperatures, even the normal
up and down spikes are missing.
Greg G.
When it cools faster, it slows down, but if the air above it is
warmer, the air below must get even warmer before it becomes less
dense and more bouyant before it rises.
>
> But CO2 has no significant effect on convection. It's only ~400ppmv,
> while the WV is on the order of 20000ppmv, and absorbs more per molecule
> (wider bands). There's enough WV to get LTE, so more CO2 doesn't change
> much.
But more CO2 means more IR is absorbed closer to the water's surface
which provides more energy for water evaporation and more absorptions.
>
> Think of the air viewed in LWIR wavelengths as being a dark gray gas.
> LWIR is absorbed within a few meters, it can't penetrate upward any
> further. Black is black. Hot gas is just hot gas. LWIR is in
> equilibrium, just like the orange light in your kiln example.
What matters most is the amount of IR absorbed by CO2 in the first 2
or 3 meters. Increasing the level of CO2 increases the absorption and
thus the temperature in that critical range for a period of time.
The extra CO2 also slows the emission of the energy out of the
atmosphere. So you have a higher temperature at the surface and higher
temperature higher up.
I understand what you are saying. Even if the total absorption is at
10 meters and extra CO2 makes the total absorption at 9 meters, then
the energy from those wavelengths is 10% more concentrated and that
means a higher temperature. A higher temperature where water
evaporates means more WV at that level which means more energy is
absorbed at the lower levels and that raises the temperature a notch.
That happens all over the globe so we call it global warming.
Bill Ward
Actually, no. The air expands adiabatically (not gaining or losing
energy) as it rises at what is called a "lapse rate".
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere>
"The temperature of the troposphere generally decreases as altitude
increases. The rate at which the temperature decreases, − dT / dz, is
called the lapse rate. The reason for this decrease is as follows. When a
parcel of air rises, it expands, because the pressure is lower at higher
altitudes. As the air parcel expands, it pushes on the air around it,
doing work; but generally it does not gain heat in exchange from its
environment, because its thermal conductivity is low (such a process is
called adiabatic). Since the parcel does work and gains no heat, it loses
energy, and so its temperature decreases. (The reverse, of course, will
be true for a sinking parcel of air.) [1]"
Assume 300K surface T, +/-5K swings gives ~+/-2% error. Not bad for a
system made out of rocks, water, and air.
>>
>> >> 59 parts of 72 cool the atmosphere, and only 12 parts
>> >> of
>> >> that 72 represent the Infra-Red radiation from the surface to space.
>>
>> >> The atmosphere is warmed mostly by convection and
>> >> latent heat release at altitude, with other IR radiation being
>> >> neutral net quantities, the same in all directions.
>>
>> > No, the atmosphere is warmed by energy from the sun. The high-energy
>> > waves are absorbed by the earth and then emitted as IR.
>>
>> The surface is mostly cooled by winds.
>
> Yes, but cooled is a relative term.
I mean losing heat.
No, that would be an inversion layer, which temporarily stops convection.
When the sun warms the surface, the heat is conducted to the air, which
rises, and breaks the inversion.
>>
>> > "GHGs are what cool the atmosphere." <- A perfect example of what I
>> > mean by a creationist-type misunderstanding of science.
>>
>> How can the air cool without GHGs? O2, N2 and Ar can't emit or absorb
>> the relevant LWIR. Convection takes the energy up near the tropopause,
>> then GHGs (including clouds) radiate it to space in the stratosphere.
>
> If the IR is not absorbed, it doesn't heat anything so there would be no
> need to cool anything.
The LWIR from the surface is absorbed by WV within a few meters. The
surface is primarily cooled by conduction to winds. Think about it a
minute.
>> Try to understand the physics involved rather than just repeating
>> talking points you've heard. See if you can figure out why water has
>> to be a negative feedback.
>
> Are you talking about more heat from CO2 means more H2O evaporation
> meaning a greater albedo effect? The condensation at higher altitudes
> means higher temperatures up there and higher temperatures down here.
No, see "adiabatic lapse rate". When the WV condenses, it speeds
convection. Watch a cumulus cloud form. It starts as a wisp at
condensation level, then billows upward as the latent heat is released.
Some tower into the stratosphere. That's what causes the "anvil" on a
cumulonimbus - the stratospheric winds are blowing the top off.
> The convection currents carry CO2 up where it slows the radiation to
> space.
If CO2 is high enough to radiate to space, its a coolant. Otherwise it
has little effect.
>
> Either of those negative feedbacks only stabilizes the system at a
> higher temperature.
I don't see how that could be. Can you explain?
>
> You have an excellent understanding of the mechanics of the cycle. I am
> enjoying our exchange and learning many details from you.
Thank you. I appreciate your civil responses. I saw you were getting
some flak from Denk. He doesn't speak for me. You posted in
your own words as I asked. I just wanted to make sure you have enough
basic physics to understand what I'm saying, and I think you do.
> I think what you are overlooking is that the higher energies mean higher
> temperatures at every level and that is global warming. The upper
> atmosphere is always emitting energy into space because there is a flux
> of heat. The air that is cycled in convection currents don't cool to the
> temperature of absolute zero because it isn't up there long enough.
Well, no, they sink because they have cooled below their surroundings.
They warm adiabatically as they sink, maintaining the lapse rate.
> It
> can only emit so much energy in a given amount of time. For example, 70
> degree air takes a certain amount of time before it cools to 60 degrees.
> 71 degree air takes a little longer to cool to 60 because it first must
> cool to 70, then it takes the same amount of time, all other things
> equal. But it doesn't get that time because, if anything, a more
> energetic cycle runs faster. So the cooler air that falls to replace the
> rising convection currents will still retain the extra heat that didn't
> have time to dissipate.
It's only density that drives convection. Warmer air is less dense and
rises, cooler air is more dense and sinks. The air remains aloft until
it has radiated away enough energy to be cooler, thus denser, than the
air around it. Only GHGs and particulates can convert the heat to
radiation and send it on its way to space.
>
> I think you understand that it involves a higher temperatures but don't
> want to use the GW label for it.
I'm not discussing global warming, I'm discussing the effect of CO2. I
don't see how CO2 can have any significant effect on surface temperatures.
Try reading the wiki on the troposphere. Also look at this:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png>
Don't believe anything you don't understand.
Australia Mining Pioneer & Founder of the True Geology
> To me Global Warming is like religion. No I'm not flat out denying it. But
Why don't you shut up, Fool ! Who cares about your opinion and the one
of your kind ...
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper &
Gold MIne)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
TRUE GEOLOGY FOUNDATION DOCUMENT
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
Bill Ward
Sorry, I misled you. I should have explicitly said, "cools the surface
faster". It was not clear.
>>
>> But CO2 has no significant effect on convection. It's only ~400ppmv,
>> while the WV is on the order of 20000ppmv, and absorbs more per
>> molecule (wider bands). There's enough WV to get LTE, so more CO2
>> doesn't change much.
>
> But more CO2 means more IR is absorbed closer to the water's surface
> which provides more energy for water evaporation and more absorptions.
NO, WV already absorbs enough LWIR for LTE. Absorbing more in CO2 doesn't
make any significant difference. Black is black. See immediately below.
>>
>> Think of the air viewed in LWIR wavelengths as being a dark gray gas.
>> LWIR is absorbed within a few meters, it can't penetrate upward any
>> further. Black is black. Hot gas is just hot gas. LWIR is in
>> equilibrium, just like the orange light in your kiln example.
>
> What matters most is the amount of IR absorbed by CO2 in the first 2 or
> 3 meters. Increasing the level of CO2 increases the absorption and thus
> the temperature in that critical range for a period of time.
Why do you think 400ppmv CO2 will have any significant effect in the
presence of 20000ppmv of WV, a more effective GHG? All the affected LWIR
is already absorbed. Remember the LTE.
> The extra CO2 also slows the emission of the energy out of the
> atmosphere. So you have a higher temperature at the surface and higher
> temperature higher up.
No, as I said, higher up, CO2 converts heat in the air to 15u IR and
radiates it to space. It's a coolant. It lowers the temperature.
>
> I understand what you are saying. Even if the total absorption is at 10
> meters and extra CO2 makes the total absorption at 9 meters, then the
> energy from those wavelengths is 10% more concentrated and that means a
> higher temperature. A higher temperature where water evaporates means
> more WV at that level which means more energy is absorbed at the lower
> levels and that raises the temperature a notch.
No, what I'm saying is that CO2 isn't significantly involved in
transporting heat to the radiating level. Because of WV causing LTE,
convection has to be the primary energy transport mechanism. Radiation
from the surface is largely irrelevant. Do you really understand the
significance of LTE in your kiln example?
>
> That happens all over the globe so we call it global warming.
I have explained why I don't think CO2 can have anything to do with
global warming. You haven't yet shown me any reason to think it does.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:"I have explained why I don't think CO2 can have anything to do
with global warming. You haven't yet shown me any reason to think it
does."
translation, bill ward holds others to higher standards than he does
himself...
What A. Fool
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:10:31 -0700, Greg G. wrote:
[big snip]
>> I understand what you are saying. Even if the total absorption is at 10
>> meters and extra CO2 makes the total absorption at 9 meters, then the
>> energy from those wavelengths is 10% more concentrated and that means a
>> higher temperature. A higher temperature where water evaporates means
>> more WV at that level which means more energy is absorbed at the lower
>> levels and that raises the temperature a notch.
>
>No, what I'm saying is that CO2 isn't significantly involved in
>transporting heat to the radiating level. Because of WV causing LTE,
>convection has to be the primary energy transport mechanism.
>
>
>Radiation from the surface is largely irrelevant.
Except on clear nights, when it is significant, summer
or winter, just think of how much heat is removed from the
weeds and blades of grass when moisture forms on them,
the condensation must release heat, but that heat must be
radiating to space at a greater rate because the moisture is
colder than the air.
>
>
>Do you really understand the
>significance of LTE in your kiln example?
>>
>> That happens all over the globe so we call it global warming.
>
>I have explained why I don't think CO2 can have anything to do with
>global warming. You haven't yet shown me any reason to think it does.
Science must first recognize that all GHGs cool the
atmosphere, and I would think the really strong ones like
methane that go up high can cause a lot of cooling not
easy to measure.
It is beyond me why some of the stronger GHGs, or
why any of them are considered to cause warming, when
the only way the atmosphere is cooled is by GHG radiation
to space (59 parts of 72), other than night time radiation
from the surface direct to space (12 parts of 72).
Generally, the surface is cooler than the air, especially
so where moisture is evaporating, cooling the surface, and
even cooling the air, the latent heat has to come from both
the evaporating surface moisture, making it colder, and the
water vapor and air in contact with both, with the latent heat
removed cooling both.
The considerable cooling effect of evaporation can
best be appreciated when using a desert water bag.
It just dawned on me, I don't remember seeing any
desert water bags in any video in Iraq or other desert areas,
I wonder why?
What A. Fool
Why don't you take your thoughts revealing an infatuation
with the man to email?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
you take your thoughts revealing an infatuation with the man to
email?"
na i dont see him as you do, but im glad you agree with the
translation, and that is bill ward holds others to higher standards
than he does himself...
Earl Evleth
4a45f7a9$0$2625$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Seon Ferguson"
<seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me Global Warming is like religion.
You are more likely find a person who is anti-global warming and
a creationist that otherwise.
The "like religion" terms is close to being religious, being a believer
by faith not by reason.
It has to be pointed out that the Christian Epoch in Europe is defined
by its battle against reason. Early on books were burned since reason
would cloud faith. The Protestant Revolution is also marked by the war
against reason.
Martin Luther ranted against reason when he said "But since the devil's
bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what
she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then?
Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's
greatest whore."
The antis still possess that characteristic. The global warming conclusion
is based on reason, not belief.
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen of the Planet Earth,
Besides my well known outstanding discoveries in Mining Exploration &
following development of the True Geology, I have discovered as well
some amazing understanding re. Agriculture, Medecine & Physics as
well, which later I plan to implement
But this amazing & very simple "Turcaud Bath' is something with
immediate availability which i wish to share with you today. Indeed
the system is dirt cheap and very easily to implement, and further I
am completely overwhelmed by the lack of an easy tool to alleviate so
easily qualified grave diseases, which are in in fact resulting from
deviation of the "Milieu Intérieur"
Just before publishing such finding for the whole world to benefit, I
just made a last run in measuring the result upon myself by pushing
the cork a bite more than usual
Tuesday 22nd of May 2007 I got into that "Turcaud Bath" at 75 kg
and
3 hours later pulled out at 68.7 kg from the bath tub, having lost
indeed 6.3 kg in 3 hours flat !
Now what is happening is that up to now I have developed that
technique as part of my hygienic way of life, which I have practiced
all the time and which conducted to go through regular fasts and up
to
40 days fast in desert ( twice ) Naturally I do not see any quack nor
believe in their drug pushing industry nor have ever taken any of
their drugs .... and I am showing you in a way a road to Freedom from
diseases & bed-side-mannered quacks thanks to some restored
responsibility over your own future. Indeed I have realised that the
very strong osmosis process generated by such "Turcaud Bath' leads to
evacuation through the skin of the Aluminium & Mercury poisoning
brought in by vaccines and provoking well known nervous disorders '
Cerebral palsy, Multiple sclerosis & Parkinson' and as well the
evacuation of derma stored Organo-phosphorous poisons contained in
pesticide & pesticides polluted food and conducting to Alzheimer
diseases
Of course there are a few things to do prepare such " Turcaud Bath "
is the first thing is enemas & purgation... if not, the result will
not be as promising. Whys so ? Simply because in the circumvolution
of
the both intestines but particularly in the great intestine some
hardened material is there years after years harbouring pathological
cultures.
ENEMA
For those who do not know how to proceed with proper enemas & proper
purgation I will provide now information since at least 10 to 12
litres have to be used for proper Turcaud 's way enemas, where you
introduce 1/2 a litre first and then 2 litres at the time, being for
so doing in the Islamists' so called prayer position ( which I
suspect was the original intent of such position ). The water being
warm you get then your 2 litre reservoir at least 2 m above in your
bathroom and introduce the end of the tube with its cannula into the
rectum up to 2 litres at the time , rejecting it after a 3 or 4
minutes in the toilet bowl. The aim of this type of forced enemas is
to dilate the intestine and loosen something which you carry since
nearly your birth and end up with the water expelled completely
clean.
This technique is the one of the Essenes, although the method as I am
outlaying to you with 10 to 12 litres is special to me.
One thing you will find at the end of such enema which should be the
start of a new life devoted to the knowledge & application of Cosmic
Laws, is the fact that you have lost all craving for food ... for
food
you craved for before ( try to find out the reason ! )
PURGATION
After you have cleaned your great intestine you should know that it
works in reverse, in clear it replenish itself although you are
fasting, hence the need of permanent enema & or purgation during a
fast since the output from the liver will be recycled again in the
blood and indeed not evacuated then by the kidneys. Okay ! Now there
are many ways to take a purgation but I will tell you mine, since it
works well. I do it with a MgCl salts which I put in a solution at
the
following degree 20 g per 75 cl or 20g for 3/4 of a litre of spring
water. Here is how you are going to proceed to take that purgation,
and hence rid yourself of terrible migraines for good.
You sit one morning you are not working with your bottle of MgCl
( magnesium chloride solution ) in your kitchen with a good litre of
hot tea and pack of honey. You pour tea in a bowl & add honey and
pour
a glass of MgCl... ready ? That glass does not taste good and indeed
is very salty. So you drink one bowl and one glass at the time until
all is drunk.. quietly ! At the most 3 hours later you have the
cleaning process going full swing ...so don 'to do it in the evening
or if you go out. I
If you take the purgation at 7am, at noon you can have leek soup, or
any type of FRESH juice you like added with water... and you should
remain on liquid for 3 days to get full benefit.
TURCAUD BATH
This is a bath in salt saturated water and at very high temperature,
the highest you can sustain. In a normal 1.70 bath tub where someone
like me fits easily ( 1.80 m ) I have in the last experiment put 25
kg
of marine salt and stayed as said 3 hours straight.
How to proceed in details :
1) Put at least 25 kg of marine salt in the bottom of the bath
tub ...
25 kg is below the saturation point
2) Run the hottest water as possible while stirring with a stick
3) When the salt has dissolved try to get in after mitigating with
colder
water
4) Add just a little bit of shampoo to control the salt dirt & foam
5) To not add anything at all 'to improve" like alcohol vinegar to
reduce the pH.
4) Stay in for 1h 1/4 hour while being concerned of not suffering
from
cuts or from mucous membrane, if so bear it as long as possible since
for cuts particularly it will pass
5) At this point in time, your wife or husband will have prepared
some
15 to 20 litres of boiling water.
6) Pull out of the bath then being careful to grip it on doing so,
since it really draw on you in this first phase of the bath.
7) Once the boiling water is in, stir the lot again and get in for
the final run up to 2 hours.... since it will be enough to first get
benefit from it and second to understand than in control of your own
life and own health ... and from then learn by yourself the way to
be
free.
8) After the 2 hours are over, pull the bond and have a shower.
9) NEVER DRINK WHILE IN THE BATH
10) Upon getting out you will be very thirsty then and here comes the
best part of the ' Turcaud Bath ' technique
11) I drink alone in with great pleasure ( and thirst indeed ) a full
bottle of Champagne to feast the victory on ignorance for one part
and
to quench my thirst for the second part. Champagne is an excellent
remedy since being reducer & acidic will clean your kidneys.
This what should be administered to people in state of chock
( oxidised & alkali conditions of the Milieu Intérieur then ) For
those objecting to alcohol like children or Islamists take at a 10
lemons juice drink straight
12) Go to bed, since you will be very tired, and take an additional
quilt to sweat more...
13) Last keep on drinking liquids like orange juice for a few days
and especially people suffering from arthritis & other ending .sis
things, and
measure the progression & improvement.
14) Recently an experiment conducted on a Chinese over 120Kg young man
lead to over 20Kg being lost in 3 hours. (non verified de visu by
myself)
Nota :
- Take you weight before and after entering your 'Turcaud Bath' , you
will be in for a surprise.
- If you suffer from Parkinson, Multiple sclerosis etc take a sample
in a bottle of the original bath water before getting in and after the
2 to 3 hours bath. You may take the samples to analysis for control in
ppm of Al, Hg or Pb etc expelled from your body
through the very strong osmosis process.
- I could give you as well some other good ways to take your life in
your own hands but right now just learn 2 things :
First: Never drink nor cook with tap water & keep away indeed at all
cost from the chlorine infected brew. It burns yours kidneys and this
is the first step in all those dizeazezz such as Cancer, Aids etc.
Second; Never believe the Quacks & Drug Pushing Industry or
Government Agencies : They are liars at worse and ignorant fools at
best. The proof ? Those dudes fall preys to the very dizeazezz they
are supposed to cure in others, and die from any of them as well as
their patients .
Conclusion.
As I have said previously brain tumour and all types of
cancer can be cured in few days, we don't need that research from
those bed-mannered clueless
parasites since their inverted logic is conducting to disasters .
Germs, virus, genes do not cause diseases but are mutations
resulting
from drift in the 3 main Physical parameters of the ' Milieu
intérieur'... and that "Milieu intérieur" is influenced mainly by
what you drink and what you eat ! The approach is specific of a
intelligence of the functioning of Human body developed by Prof Louis-
Claude Vincent of France. (although the cures noted are specific of
myself) Of course the DI or Disease Industry knows nothing about that
except what it has stolen
from Natural Science : Vitamins, solar cures, high altitude &
water cures while in fact prevention is so easy. That brain tumor cure
in 2
days max is not available for the time being due to the Australian
Mining & Political Criminals refusal to held a Royal Inquiry into the
Port Arthur Mass Murder by Howard & Co ‘s Govt, as well as a Promised
Royal Inquiry into the Telfer Mine Mass Swindle, by Newmont/ Newcrest/
BHP/ Boral Mining Criminals. I sincerely regret it in light of all
victims, but it is certain that if such discovery was available such
Australian Mining & Political Filth would grab it & run away again
without even a Thanks
Yours faithfully
Perth, WA, 6th of June 2009
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
#Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine ( Australia largest Copper &
Gold MIne)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
#Discoverer recently of 4 subsea deposits of Gold amounting to 100
millions tons
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant (bus ph : +33 6 50 17 14
64)
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
True Geology Foundation document :
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
>
> Besides my well known
insanity? Yes, we know.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
Alan Ford
> Dear Ladies & Gentlemen of the Planet Earth,
>
>
> Besides my well known outstanding discoveries in Mining Exploration &
> following development of the True Geology, I have discovered as well
> some amazing understanding re. Agriculture, Medecine & Physics as
> well, which later I plan to implement
Again? Goddamn!!! You discover amazing discoveries in those fields every
month. You're like a new Edison.
Anyway, last time I requested to buy three of your fines Turd bath
systems, one in blue, one in black and one in pink. What happened to my
order? Please rush the delivery because I have a lot of turds to wash.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Try that
"Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanity
Published by AMERICAN CHRONICLE
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947
John Baker
<oct...@neuf.fr> wrote:
>
>Dear Ladies & Gentlemen of the Planet Earth,
Dear Long-Winded Loon;
Kindly FOAD.
Your timely attention to this request will be most appreciated.
Australia Mining Pioneer & Founder of the True Geology
snip fools comment
You missed a good occasion for you to shut up, Johny Twat !
Now just fuck off...
Some good people might find that system a last resource, especially
obese & diabetes people, and nothing like trying some new approach to
take hold of one own health.... THEN ACTING RESPONSIBLE WITHOUT
RELYING ON PARASITES WHO OBVIOUSLY LIVE ON DIZEAZEZZZ , play on fears
and prey on Ignorance
Remember one thing indeed ; All Dizeazezz are Dezerved !
With best regards
jpturcaud
AStext
<dolt.is.an.imbecile> wrote:
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud wrote:
>
> > Besides my well known
>
> insanity? Yes, we know.
>
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947
This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views,
opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and
news providers are fully responsible for their content. In addition,
the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the
American Chronicle or its affiliates. All services and information
provided on this website are provided as general information only. Any
medical advice, home remedies and all other medical information on
this website should not be treated as a substitute for the medical
advice of your own doctor. We are not responsible for any diagnosis of
treatment made by anyone based on any of the content of this website.
Always consult your own doctor if you are in any way concerned about
your health.
Greg G.
> called the lapse rate. The reason for this decrease is as follows. When a
> parcel of air rises, it expands, because the pressure is lower at higher
> altitudes. As the air parcel expands, it pushes on the air around it,
> doing work; but generally it does not gain heat in exchange from its
> environment, because its thermal conductivity is low (such a process is
> called adiabatic). Since the parcel does work and gains no heat, it loses
> energy, and so its temperature decreases. (The reverse, of course, will
> be true for a sinking parcel of air.) [1]"
After I went to bed, I was thinking about Boyle's Law and rising
parcels of air and realized this on my own. Then I realized that was
the adiabatic process and that came together for me.
I spent several hours Monday reading, researching, and studying.
True, but those swings are thought to have caused the Ordovician-
Silurian extinction, the Triassic-Jurassic extinction, and maybe the
big one, the Permian-Triassic extinction.
>
>
>
> >> >> 59 parts of 72 cool the atmosphere, and only 12 parts
> >> >> of
> >> >> that 72 represent the Infra-Red radiation from the surface to space.
>
> >> >> The atmosphere is warmed mostly by convection and
> >> >> latent heat release at altitude, with other IR radiation being
> >> >> neutral net quantities, the same in all directions.
>
> >> > No, the atmosphere is warmed by energy from the sun. The high-energy
> >> > waves are absorbed by the earth and then emitted as IR.
>
> >> The surface is mostly cooled by winds.
>
> > Yes, but cooled is a relative term.
>
> I mean losing heat.
But then the air would be absorbing more heat that just by IR.
Thank you, that is what I was trying to say, but you used better
words.
>
>
>
> >> > "GHGs are what cool the atmosphere." <- A perfect example of what I
> >> > mean by a creationist-type misunderstanding of science.
>
> >> How can the air cool without GHGs? O2, N2 and Ar can't emit or absorb
> >> the relevant LWIR. Convection takes the energy up near the tropopause,
> >> then GHGs (including clouds) radiate it to space in the stratosphere.
>
> > If the IR is not absorbed, it doesn't heat anything so there would be no
> > need to cool anything.
>
> The LWIR from the surface is absorbed by WV within a few meters. The
> surface is primarily cooled by conduction to winds. Think about it a
> minute.
Your question was, "How can the air cool without GHGs?" WV is a GHG.
Where'd the WV come from all of a sudden?
>
> >> Try to understand the physics involved rather than just repeating
> >> talking points you've heard. See if you can figure out why water has
> >> to be a negative feedback.
>
> > Are you talking about more heat from CO2 means more H2O evaporation
> > meaning a greater albedo effect? The condensation at higher altitudes
> > means higher temperatures up there and higher temperatures down here.
>
> No, see "adiabatic lapse rate". When the WV condenses, it speeds
> convection. Watch a cumulus cloud form. It starts as a wisp at
> condensation level, then billows upward as the latent heat is released.
> Some tower into the stratosphere. That's what causes the "anvil" on a
> cumulonimbus - the stratospheric winds are blowing the top off.
Interesting.
>
> > The convection currents carry CO2 up where it slows the radiation to
> > space.
>
> If CO2 is high enough to radiate to space, its a coolant. Otherwise it
> has little effect.
I haven't got real deep to what is going on at this altitude. It is
not intuitive to me why CO2 would be a better coolant than any other
molecule up there. Can you elaborate, please?
>
>
>
> > Either of those negative feedbacks only stabilizes the system at a
> > higher temperature.
>
> I don't see how that could be. Can you explain?
The negative feedbacks don't remove the CO2. If it snags a few extra
photons, heating the air at water surface, the water evaporates to
cool the air. Then the air is too cool to hold that much water so it
condenses releasing the heat, causing evaporation and a vicious cycle
where the average temperature has increased. Meanwhile the CO2 snags
another photon, causing twice the evaporation. This increases the
albedo enough to reflect just enough incoming energy to reach
equilibrium. The air must be a bit warmer to keep that extra amount of
H2O in vapor so that we have a stable equilibrium.
>
>
>
> > You have an excellent understanding of the mechanics of the cycle. I am
> > enjoying our exchange and learning many details from you.
>
> Thank you. I appreciate your civil responses. I saw you were getting
> some flak from Denk. He doesn't speak for me. You posted in
> your own words as I asked. I just wanted to make sure you have enough
> basic physics to understand what I'm saying, and I think you do.
I have a BSEE from twenmumblemumble years ago though I had a non-
engineering job that paid well enough that I never went into the
field. I enjoyed physics and thermo. I recall the concepts pretty well
but the terminology less so.
I've never been all that interested in this subject but our
conversation has piqued my curiousity. A couple of years ago, a fellow
at work was always wanting to rant about GW. I asked to see some real
science instead of the political stuff he brought in. The first few
papers were denial quotes that mostly contradicted each other. Then he
brought in some articles on science but on closer inspection, they not
only didn't support his claims, they argued against them. Then he
showed me Roy Spencer's website. When I reached the bottom of the
page, he said, "That proves that global warming is not man made." I
replied, "No it doesn't. It says so right there!" I had to point to
each word as I read them as in the concluding paragraph, Spencer had
written, "This does not prove that global warming is not due to man"
or something to that effect. He relented a bit after that.
But while reading Spencer site, I felt like I was reading creationist
material. I did some research and found that to be an accurate
assessment.
Since then, I haven't paid much attention to the arguments of the anti
side.
I posted a comment to one that was cross-posted. So here I am in a
learning situation. That sure ain't a bad thing.
Read that and many of its links on Monday.
>
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transm...>
That has a lot of info I was curious about.
You mentioned that O2, N2 and Ar were not GHG. I researched that and
figured out why they aren't but that confuses me why O2 absorbs in the
UV range.
>
> Don't believe anything you don't understand.
The best way to get accurate information on Usenet is to not ask
questions, just post wrong information.
Bill Ward
I'm glad to hear that. It tells me you are open-minded enough to want to
think for yourself.
But still an indication of fairly strong overall negative feedback. If
overall feedback were positive, the system would have gone to the limit
at the first disturbance, like the ball on top of a convex surface.
>>
>>
>> >> >> 59 parts of 72 cool the atmosphere, and only 12 parts
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> that 72 represent the Infra-Red radiation from the surface to
>> >> >> space.
>>
>> >> >> The atmosphere is warmed mostly by convection and
>> >> >> latent heat release at altitude, with other IR radiation being
>> >> >> neutral net quantities, the same in all directions.
>>
>> >> > No, the atmosphere is warmed by energy from the sun. The
>> >> > high-energy waves are absorbed by the earth and then emitted as
>> >> > IR.
>>
>> >> The surface is mostly cooled by winds.
>>
>> > Yes, but cooled is a relative term.
>>
>> I mean losing heat.
>
> But then the air would be absorbing more heat that just by IR.
The air _is_ absorbing a lot more heat than just that from IR - that's
the point. Radiation is not the primary energy transport mechanism
through the troposphere, conduction and convection are.
I'm talking about cooling by radiating IR to space from the stratosphere,
GHG's and particulates are the only components of the atmosphere that can
radiate at those temperatures. N2, O2, and Ar do not absorb or emit IR
at the appropriate wavelengths. If they did, they'd be GHG's.
>> >> Try to understand the physics involved rather than just repeating
>> >> talking points you've heard. See if you can figure out why water
>> >> has to be a negative feedback.
>>
>> > Are you talking about more heat from CO2 means more H2O evaporation
>> > meaning a greater albedo effect? The condensation at higher altitudes
>> > means higher temperatures up there and higher temperatures down here.
>>
>> No, see "adiabatic lapse rate". When the WV condenses, it speeds
>> convection. Watch a cumulus cloud form. It starts as a wisp at
>> condensation level, then billows upward as the latent heat is released.
>> Some tower into the stratosphere. That's what causes the "anvil" on a
>> cumulonimbus - the stratospheric winds are blowing the top off.
>
> Interesting.
You can learn a lot by going outside, watching clouds, and trying to
figure out what's going on. It's kind of fun.
>> > The convection currents carry CO2 up where it slows the radiation to
>> > space.
>>
>> If CO2 is high enough to radiate to space, its a coolant. Otherwise it
>> has little effect.
>
> I haven't got real deep to what is going on at this altitude. It is not
> intuitive to me why CO2 would be a better coolant than any other
> molecule up there. Can you elaborate, please?
Sure. At high altitudes and temperatures, WV is usually frozen out,
leaving CO2 and the other GHGs as the only components that can radiate.
Since space (~3K) is colder than the surrounding air, GHGs convert the
thermal energy of the air to IR and radiate it to space.
>>
>> > Either of those negative feedbacks only stabilizes the system at a
>> > higher temperature.
>>
>> I don't see how that could be. Can you explain?
>
> The negative feedbacks don't remove the CO2. If it snags a few extra
> photons, heating the air at water surface, the water evaporates to cool
> the air. Then the air is too cool to hold that much water so it
> condenses releasing the heat, causing evaporation and a vicious cycle
> where the average temperature has increased.
I don't think so. What I think happens is an equilibrium, where just
enough water evaporates to keep the air at the temperature required to
maintain equilibrium with the heat lost upward by convection.
> Meanwhile the CO2 snags
> another photon, causing twice the evaporation. This increases the albedo
Why would evaporating water cause an albedo increase?
> enough to reflect just enough incoming energy to reach equilibrium. The
> air must be a bit warmer to keep that extra amount of H2O in vapor so
> that we have a stable equilibrium.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.
>> > You have an excellent understanding of the mechanics of the cycle. I
>> > am enjoying our exchange and learning many details from you.
>>
>> Thank you. I appreciate your civil responses. I saw you were getting
>> some flak from Denk. He doesn't speak for me. You posted in your own
>> words as I asked. I just wanted to make sure you have enough basic
>> physics to understand what I'm saying, and I think you do.
>
> I have a BSEE from twenmumblemumble years ago though I had a non-
> engineering job that paid well enough that I never went into the field.
> I enjoyed physics and thermo. I recall the concepts pretty well but the
> terminology less so.
Looks like it's coming back pretty quickly. You might want to review
some op-amp theory to get a handle on feedback.
> I've never been all that interested in this subject but our conversation
> has piqued my curiousity. A couple of years ago, a fellow at work was
> always wanting to rant about GW. I asked to see some real science
> instead of the political stuff he brought in. The first few papers were
> denial quotes that mostly contradicted each other. Then he brought in
> some articles on science but on closer inspection, they not only didn't
> support his claims, they argued against them. Then he showed me Roy
> Spencer's website. When I reached the bottom of the page, he said, "That
> proves that global warming is not man made." I replied, "No it doesn't.
> It says so right there!" I had to point to each word as I read them as
> in the concluding paragraph, Spencer had written, "This does not prove
> that global warming is not due to man" or something to that effect. He
> relented a bit after that.
>
> But while reading Spencer site, I felt like I was reading creationist
> material. I did some research and found that to be an accurate
> assessment.
The subject has become highly politicized, with people on both sides
believing and defending things they don't really understand.
> Since then, I haven't paid much attention to the arguments of the anti
> side.
>
> I posted a comment to one that was cross-posted. So here I am in a
> learning situation. That sure ain't a bad thing.
Silver lining and all that. ;-)
With that and a temperature profile of the troposphere, you can get a
pretty good overview of the basics. You can see WV blocks most of the
surface radiation, and CO2 is only active down around 200K. The 10u
"window" through the atmosphere to space is barely affected by CO2.
>
> You mentioned that O2, N2 and Ar were not GHG. I researched that and
> figured out why they aren't but that confuses me why O2 absorbs in the
> UV range.
UV converts O2 into O3. That's what makes the ozone layer. Longer
wavelengths don't have enough energy to drive the reaction.
>> Don't believe anything you don't understand.
>
> The best way to get accurate information on Usenet is to not ask
> questions, just post wrong information.
Interesting thought. ;-)
Even then, there's no guarantee. Ask lots of questions, and make sure it
all fits together.
Thanks for your comments.
Greg G.
I'm tryin' to think, but nuttin' happens. -- Curly Howard
Water makes the negative feedback most robust. When temperatures rise,
water forms expanding clouds which attenuates the light reaching the
earth.
That doesn't seem right to me. GHG molecules absorb IR but give up the
energy when they collide with any other molecule. You can't have a
mixture of gases with each at different temperatures. All molecules
emit radiation as black-body radiation. AIUI, no molecule emits black-
body radiation better than another.
>
> >> >> Try to understand the physics involved rather than just repeating
> >> >> talking points you've heard. See if you can figure out why water
> >> >> has to be a negative feedback.
>
> >> > Are you talking about more heat from CO2 means more H2O evaporation
> >> > meaning a greater albedo effect? The condensation at higher altitudes
> >> > means higher temperatures up there and higher temperatures down here.
>
> >> No, see "adiabatic lapse rate". When the WV condenses, it speeds
> >> convection. Watch a cumulus cloud form. It starts as a wisp at
> >> condensation level, then billows upward as the latent heat is released.
> >> Some tower into the stratosphere. That's what causes the "anvil" on a
> >> cumulonimbus - the stratospheric winds are blowing the top off.
>
> > Interesting.
>
> You can learn a lot by going outside, watching clouds, and trying to
> figure out what's going on. It's kind of fun.
I used to do that but I had forgotten most of my 7th grade education
on the atmosphere.
>
> >> > The convection currents carry CO2 up where it slows the radiation to
> >> > space.
>
> >> If CO2 is high enough to radiate to space, its a coolant. Otherwise it
> >> has little effect.
>
> > I haven't got real deep to what is going on at this altitude. It is not
> > intuitive to me why CO2 would be a better coolant than any other
> > molecule up there. Can you elaborate, please?
>
> Sure. At high altitudes and temperatures, WV is usually frozen out,
> leaving CO2 and the other GHGs as the only components that can radiate.
> Since space (~3K) is colder than the surrounding air, GHGs convert the
> thermal energy of the air to IR and radiate it to space.
Is this what you are talking about? I agree with this guy on this,
even though he agrees with you about CO2:
"Another ill-informed assumption is that radiation absorbed by CO2
must be re-emitted by CO2 in exactly the same way it was absorbed,
because electrons jump to a higher orbit when absorbing and must fall
back to a lower orbit when emitting."
>
>
>
> >> > Either of those negative feedbacks only stabilizes the system at a
> >> > higher temperature.
>
> >> I don't see how that could be. Can you explain?
>
> > The negative feedbacks don't remove the CO2. If it snags a few extra
> > photons, heating the air at water surface, the water evaporates to cool
> > the air. Then the air is too cool to hold that much water so it
> > condenses releasing the heat, causing evaporation and a vicious cycle
> > where the average temperature has increased.
>
> I don't think so. What I think happens is an equilibrium, where just
> enough water evaporates to keep the air at the temperature required to
> maintain equilibrium with the heat lost upward by convection.
>
> > Meanwhile the CO2 snags
> > another photon, causing twice the evaporation. This increases the albedo
>
> Why would evaporating water cause an albedo increase?
More clouds reflect incoming sunlight away.
>
> > enough to reflect just enough incoming energy to reach equilibrium. The
> > air must be a bit warmer to keep that extra amount of H2O in vapor so
> > that we have a stable equilibrium.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.
Have you ever made fudge? On a candy thermometer, there is Jelly, Soft
Ball, Hard Ball, Soft Crack, Hard Crack, and maybe others I don't
recall. As you boil the sugar mixture, the temperature rises to the
temperature at these stages then stops rising until whatever volatile
substance has boiled away, then starts rising to the next stage.
Water can evaporate and temporarily cool it a little but then adds to
the IR absorption the process until it reaches 100C when it can stop
the temperature rise until it's all boiled away. The cloud cover turns
down the heat, so to speak, and prevents it.
I was reading up on the IR absorption mechanics at the molecular level
and how the molecules bend and stretch in tune with the wavelengths
absorbed.
>
> >> Don't believe anything you don't understand.
>
> > The best way to get accurate information on Usenet is to not ask
> > questions, just post wrong information.
>
> Interesting thought. ;-)
>
> Even then, there's no guarantee. Ask lots of questions, and make sure it
> all fits together.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
Now, here is what I am looking at now. A couple of pages mentioned the
windows between 5 and 14 µm being where most of the IR escaped
directly to space. The denial websites I saw and our conversation are
focused on the wavelengths of light that are totally absorbed, that is
the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 µm wavelengths. But they ignore the 1.4, 1.6 and
2.0 µm wavelengths like the plague and they are in or at the edge of
those windows.
The energy of a photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength.
There is more energy in shorter wavelength ranges.
They look insignificant on the graph
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
but that is because there is so much more energy to be absorbed. If
the peaks were drawn to a scale by energy absorbed, you would have to
scale it up 7.5 times to compare it to the 15 peak. The 2.0 peak only
looks insignificant because the scale compares it to how much more
energy there is to absorb at that wavelength. The shoulder peak to the
right is at a wavelength that is only one third saturated.
Also, this morning I saw a page that reminded me that as water warms,
the dissolved CO2 would be driven out of solution. If the ocean was a
good sink for CO2, the CO2 in the atmosphere would not have increased
so much over the last 200 years.
So, I have come to agree with you pretty much on the longer
wavelengths, but I think you need to consider the 1.4, 1.6, and
especially the 2.0 µm wavelengths.
Bill Ward
Bingo. The WV not only improves the cooling efficiency (more working
fluid in the climate heat engine), but reflects some of the solar SW back
to space. As an EE, you'd understand the importance of gain in a
feedback system.
Nope. You need to look at Kirchhoff's other law. Anything which is able
to absorb radiation at a given wavelength must also be equally able to
emit at the same wavelength. If that were not true, a cavity made of
different materials would not come to an equilibrium temperature - those
areas that emitted better would be cooler, and those that absorbed better
would be warmer.
That doesn't happen. If it did, you could get free energy by using the
hot and cold areas as a source and sink for a heat engine, and produce
energy from nowhere. It's basically another way of looking at the second
law.
Also, GHG's don't emit broadband (blackbody). They have a band
structure, which can be seen in the Atmospheric Transmission chart.
>>
>> >> >> Try to understand the physics involved rather than just repeating
>> >> >> talking points you've heard. See if you can figure out why water
>> >> >> has to be a negative feedback.
>>
>> >> > Are you talking about more heat from CO2 means more H2O
>> >> > evaporation meaning a greater albedo effect? The condensation at
>> >> > higher altitudes means higher temperatures up there and higher
>> >> > temperatures down here.
>>
>> >> No, see "adiabatic lapse rate". When the WV condenses, it speeds
>> >> convection. Watch a cumulus cloud form. It starts as a wisp at
>> >> condensation level, then billows upward as the latent heat is
>> >> released. Some tower into the stratosphere. That's what causes the
>> >> "anvil" on a cumulonimbus - the stratospheric winds are blowing the
>> >> top off.
>>
>> > Interesting.
>>
>> You can learn a lot by going outside, watching clouds, and trying to
>> figure out what's going on. It's kind of fun.
>
> I used to do that but I had forgotten most of my 7th grade education on
> the atmosphere.
It's just a little more complex than they tell 7th graders. Don't get me
started.
>> >> > The convection currents carry CO2 up where it slows the radiation
>> >> > to space.
>>
>> >> If CO2 is high enough to radiate to space, its a coolant. Otherwise
>> >> it has little effect.
>>
>> > I haven't got real deep to what is going on at this altitude. It is
>> > not intuitive to me why CO2 would be a better coolant than any other
>> > molecule up there. Can you elaborate, please?
>>
>> Sure. At high altitudes and temperatures, WV is usually frozen out,
>> leaving CO2 and the other GHGs as the only components that can
>> radiate. Since space (~3K) is colder than the surrounding air, GHGs
>> convert the thermal energy of the air to IR and radiate it to space.
>
> Is this what you are talking about? I agree with this guy on this, even
> though he agrees with you about CO2:
>
> http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
>
> "Another ill-informed assumption is that radiation absorbed by CO2 must
> be re-emitted by CO2 in exactly the same way it was absorbed, because
> electrons jump to a higher orbit when absorbing and must fall back to a
> lower orbit when emitting."
No, that's just not true. The absorption and emission of IR is
reversible. All items around you, (and you) are constantly emitting and
absorbing IR photons, transferring energy from hot items to cold items,
approaching an equilibrium temperature.
Think of CO2 as a transducer between thermal energy of the gas and IR
photons. It works equally both ways, converting heat to IR, and IR to
heat. Since the atmosphere is warmer than space, more photon energy
escapes to space than is received from space, cooling the atmosphere.
>> >> > Either of those negative feedbacks only stabilizes the system at a
>> >> > higher temperature.
>>
>> >> I don't see how that could be. Can you explain?
>>
>> > The negative feedbacks don't remove the CO2. If it snags a few extra
>> > photons, heating the air at water surface, the water evaporates to
>> > cool the air. Then the air is too cool to hold that much water so it
>> > condenses releasing the heat, causing evaporation and a vicious cycle
>> > where the average temperature has increased.
>>
>> I don't think so. What I think happens is an equilibrium, where just
>> enough water evaporates to keep the air at the temperature required to
>> maintain equilibrium with the heat lost upward by convection.
>>
>> > Meanwhile the CO2 snags
>> > another photon, causing twice the evaporation. This increases the
>> > albedo
>>
>> Why would evaporating water cause an albedo increase?
>
> More clouds reflect incoming sunlight away.
Clouds are _condensed_ water, not evaporated water.
>> > enough to reflect just enough incoming energy to reach equilibrium.
>> > The air must be a bit warmer to keep that extra amount of H2O in
>> > vapor so that we have a stable equilibrium.
>>
>> Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Have you ever made fudge? On a candy thermometer, there is Jelly, Soft
> Ball, Hard Ball, Soft Crack, Hard Crack, and maybe others I don't
> recall. As you boil the sugar mixture, the temperature rises to the
> temperature at these stages then stops rising until whatever volatile
> substance has boiled away, then starts rising to the next stage.
>
> Water can evaporate and temporarily cool it a little
The surface cooling is not temporary. The latent heat of evaporation is
transferred up to cloud base, released on condensation, and billows the
cloud up to a level where the tops can radiate the energy to space.
Permanently.
> but then adds to
> the IR absorption the process until it reaches 100C when it can stop the
> temperature rise until it's all boiled away. The cloud cover turns down
> the heat, so to speak, and prevents it.
From above you should be able to see there's more to it than just the
albedo increase. More IR is radiated away from the planet, increasing
the cooling rate.
Check out the ice core data. The CO2 lags the temperature about 800
years, both rising and falling. The ocean circulation "conveyor belt" is
about the same time scale. Coincidence?
> So, I have come to agree with you pretty much on the longer wavelengths,
> but I think you need to consider the 1.4, 1.6, and especially the 2.0 µm
> wavelengths.
Maybe, but I don't think they're really relevant. My point is that
convection of the latent heat of water carries most of the surface energy
upward. When it reaches the altitude where the optical density allows,
LWIR is radiated to deep space.
CO2 can't significantly affect that, whether you include the minor bands
or not. It's irrelevant in transporting the energy to altitude, as it's
overwhelmed by WV. And in the stratosphere, CO2 actually acts as a
coolant, radiating the thermal energy of the surrounding air to space.
Below, negative feedbacks from the physical properties of water stabilize
the surface temperature by cooling faster when the sun is hotter.
So I don't see how CO2 can cause catastrophic heating of the surface.
I think you may be able to see the significance of this writeup:
<http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction>
(Dr. Noor van Andel)
I'll warn you, it always draws a lot of flak from people in the peanut
gallery who can't understand what he's saying, but I think the physics is
correct.
"Local thermodynamic equilibrium" (LTE) is the principle at issue.
See what you think.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
come to agree with you pretty much on the longer wavelengths, but I
think you need to consider the 1.4, 1.6, and especially the 2.0 µm
wavelengths."
exactly....
What A. Fool
Of course, that is a major H2O region.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:33:43 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> >On Jul 1, 4:29 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:" So, I have
> >come to agree with you pretty much on the longer wavelengths, but I
> >think you need to consider the 1.4, 1.6, and especially the 2.0 µm
> >wavelengths."
>
> >exactly....
>
> Of course, that is a major H2O region.
but you also should check into cirrus clouds causing Rayleigh
scattering of downward longwave radiation (co2 emission of 1.4, 1.6,
and especially the 2.0 µm) through the atmospheric window.
Greg G.
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:29:53 -0700, Greg G. wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 3:06 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
wicked snippage...
> >> I'm talking about cooling by radiating IR to space from the
> >> stratosphere, GHG's and particulates are the only components of the
> >> atmosphere that can radiate at those temperatures. N2, O2, and Ar do
> >> not absorb or emit IR at the appropriate wavelengths. If they did,
> >> they'd be GHG's.
>
> > That doesn't seem right to me. GHG molecules absorb IR but give up the
> > energy when they collide with any other molecule. You can't have a
> > mixture of gases with each at different temperatures. All molecules emit
> > radiation as black-body radiation. AIUI, no molecule emits black- body
> > radiation better than another.
>
> Nope. You need to look at Kirchhoff's other law. Anything which is able
> to absorb radiation at a given wavelength must also be equally able to
> emit at the same wavelength. If that were not true, a cavity made of
> different materials would not come to an equilibrium temperature - those
> areas that emitted better would be cooler, and those that absorbed better
> would be warmer.
>
> That doesn't happen. If it did, you could get free energy by using the
> hot and cold areas as a source and sink for a heat engine, and produce
> energy from nowhere. It's basically another way of looking at the second
> law.
>
> Also, GHG's don't emit broadband (blackbody). They have a band
> structure, which can be seen in the Atmospheric Transmission chart.
Haven't looked at this yet.
Haven't got to this either.
>
> >> >> > Either of those negative feedbacks only stabilizes the system at a
> >> >> > higher temperature.
>
> >> >> I don't see how that could be. Can you explain?
>
> >> > The negative feedbacks don't remove the CO2. If it snags a few extra
> >> > photons, heating the air at water surface, the water evaporates to
> >> > cool the air. Then the air is too cool to hold that much water so it
> >> > condenses releasing the heat, causing evaporation and a vicious cycle
> >> > where the average temperature has increased.
>
> >> I don't think so. What I think happens is an equilibrium, where just
> >> enough water evaporates to keep the air at the temperature required to
> >> maintain equilibrium with the heat lost upward by convection.
>
> >> > Meanwhile the CO2 snags
> >> > another photon, causing twice the evaporation. This increases the
> >> > albedo
>
> >> Why would evaporating water cause an albedo increase?
>
> > More clouds reflect incoming sunlight away.
>
> Clouds are _condensed_ water, not evaporated water.
The water can't condense up there until it evaoprates down here.
big snip...
> > Now, here is what I am looking at now. A couple of pages mentioned the
> > windows between 5 and 14 µm being where most of the IR escaped directly
> > to space. The denial websites I saw and our conversation are focused on
> > the wavelengths of light that are totally absorbed, that is the 2.7, 4.3
> > and 15 µm wavelengths. But they ignore the 1.4, 1.6 and 2.0 µm
> > wavelengths like the plague and they are in or at the edge of those
> > windows.
>
> > The energy of a photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength.
> > There is more energy in shorter wavelength ranges.
>
> > They look insignificant on the graph
>
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/
>
> Atmospheric_Transmission.png
>
>
>
> > but that is because there is so much more energy to be absorbed. If the
> > peaks were drawn to a scale by energy absorbed, you would have to scale
> > it up 7.5 times to compare it to the 15 peak. The 2.0 peak only looks
> > insignificant because the scale compares it to how much more energy
> > there is to absorb at that wavelength. The shoulder peak to the right is
> > at a wavelength that is only one third saturated.
>
> > Also, this morning I saw a page that reminded me that as water warms,
> > the dissolved CO2 would be driven out of solution. If the ocean was a
> > good sink for CO2, the CO2 in the atmosphere would not have increased so
> > much over the last 200 years.
I was doing some math on this. The earth isn't radiating much IR in
these frequencies.
>
> Check out the ice core data. The CO2 lags the temperature about 800
> years, both rising and falling. The ocean circulation "conveyor belt" is
> about the same time scale. Coincidence?
I don't know what you mean by the "ocean circulation conveyor belt".
Please explain.
>
> > So, I have come to agree with you pretty much on the longer wavelengths,
> > but I think you need to consider the 1.4, 1.6, and especially the 2.0 µm
> > wavelengths.
>
> Maybe, but I don't think they're really relevant. My point is that
> convection of the latent heat of water carries most of the surface energy
> upward. When it reaches the altitude where the optical density allows,
> LWIR is radiated to deep space.
>
> CO2 can't significantly affect that, whether you include the minor bands
> or not. It's irrelevant in transporting the energy to altitude, as it's
> overwhelmed by WV. And in the stratosphere, CO2 actually acts as a
> coolant, radiating the thermal energy of the surrounding air to space.
>
> Below, negative feedbacks from the physical properties of water stabilize
> the surface temperature by cooling faster when the sun is hotter.
>
> So I don't see how CO2 can cause catastrophic heating of the surface.
>
> I think you may be able to see the significance of this writeup:
>
> <http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction>
> (Dr. Noor van Andel)
>
> I'll warn you, it always draws a lot of flak from people in the peanut
> gallery who can't understand what he's saying, but I think the physics is
> correct.
>
> "Local thermodynamic equilibrium" (LTE) is the principle at issue.
>
> See what you think.
I didn't get to that either.
I was looking for a chart or some data that showed the black-body
radiation pattern of Earth. I couldn't find any so I started doing the
math myself. Actually I wrote some JavaScripts to do it. I used Wien's
Law to get the wavelength of the peak power output, which happens to
be about 10 µm, then I used the Planck Energy Distribution Formula to
get a figure for the maximum output so I could compare the output at
other frequencies. I got the formulas at:
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/astronomy/blackbody/bbody.html
That showed me that there was very little IR going out at the 2.0 µm
wavelength. I got an idea of the shape and range of where the nearly
all the IR was emitting. Later, I looked at the top of the chart at
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
and realized what the blue area meant and that it was what I was
looking for earlier. When I say "chart" in this portion of my post, I
am probably referring to this.
I'm writing some scripts to analyze the data from the chart. It's not
as accurate as I would have hoped. I want to work out the areas under
the curves to get the sum of the energies for each range but I've
forgotten too much calculus to integrate the Planck Energy
Distribution Formula. Actually I doubt I ever could have integrated
that mess.
I'm focusing on the little bumps in the CO2 portion of the chart just
to either side of the 10 µm wavelength and the shoulder of the big
band at about 14 µm region (about half of which is outside the H2O
absorption band and goes to the 35% mark).
I noticed the spike in the ozone section at 9.6 µm that shows up in
the overall absorption map. That happens in the stratosphere so it
shouldn't have a bearing on the GW issue. That shows that the chart is
showing the remaining intensities from space, not the troposphere,
however, the Beer-Lambert equation, especially the formulation with
the integral and the diminishing density, shows that most of the
energy absorbed by GHG will be very low in altitude, so it likely
doesn't matter for CO2 and definitely doesn't for H2O. Anyway, I am
going to pretend the ozone hump is not there when I am trying to
calculate IR absorption amounts in the troposphere.
Have you noticed that the Beer-Lambert is very analogous to the
formula you would use to determine the voltage on a capacitor as it is
discharging through a resistor at any time (especially if you use
conductance instead of resistance)? The remaining intensity of the
light passing through a gas is analogous to the remaining voltage.
Part of the coefficient is a constant relating to the properties of
the substance. The density of the gas is analogous to the cross-
sectional area of the resistor. The distance is analogous to time. I
think I remember the formula now better than I did on the final exam.
Bill Ward
Exactly the point. Water absorbs heat from the surface, evaporates, and
convects upward, carrying the latent heat along.. When it reaches the
altitude where the temperature drops below the dew point, it condenses,
releasing the heat it picked up at the surface. That sensible heat
causes additional convection, which lifts the cloud droplets to the cloud
tops, where it has a clear shot at space from a broadband (particulate)
source. That process cools the surface.
This is a good place to start:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation>
Exponential decays do seem to look rather similar, wherever you find them.
Good luck with your investigations. Take a look at the link I posted to
Andel's explanation of Miskolczi's work. I think you may have enough
background to understand it. It's closely related to the direction you
are headed. He did a line by line numerical integration of the spectral
lines.
Keep me posted.
Greg G.
OK, I looked at this. We're into quantum mechanics here. I audited a
class in quantum physics back in the late '80's to satisfy some
question I had. I was fascinated by the Exclusion Principle and its
math. I understand what you are saying now.
The process is a heat energy driven process. It can be said to cool
the surface if it is not receiving heat. If the evaporation is
removing heat energy as fast as the energy is coming in, the
temperature is maintained. If the energy is coming in faster than it
is taken away, the temperature goes up. The surface warms in the
morning, but evaporation is taking place the whole time. A pot on the
stove increases in temperature as heat is added while the evaporation
rate increases. At a certain temperature, all the heat energy goes to
evaporation and the temperature stays at that temperature until the
water gone, unless, of course, the pressure changes.
The convection process is the same. To convey a greater sustained heat
flux requires that it operates at a higher temperature.
OK, then I did know what you meant.
The CO2 levels of the last 400,000 years have never approached the
levels we have today. The sharp temperature increases were preceded by
increases in the level of dust. No matter what caused the increased
temperature, the level of CO2 increased. This does not meant that CO2
cannot start a temperature increase, but it is an indication that a
temperature increase, no matter the cause, could elevate the CO2
levels further.
I think we can rule out human activity as being the causes for the
spikes. Unless, the Neandertals were really into BBQ mastodons.
I've been using a simplified version that is for a uniform density of
a gas, The amount of energy taken out of IR is actually greater than
the decay equation because that is where the greatest density is.
>
> Good luck with your investigations. Take a look at the link I posted to
> Andel's explanation of Miskolczi's work. I think you may have enough
> background to understand it. It's closely related to the direction you
> are headed. He did a line by line numerical integration of the spectral
> lines.
I'm still letting this simmer in my mind.
>
> Keep me posted.
A few nights ago before I fell asleep, I was thinking about how the
Earth's temperature put the peak radiation output right in the window
between 8 µm and 14 µm. Then it hit me that it has to be there. A
lower temperature would put the peak for the IR output at the 15 µm
CO2 absorption wavelength and the Earth would receive more energy than
it could release (remember that the evaporation/condensation and
convection cycles would be reduced) so the temperature would be pushed
up. Then I got to wondering if the surface temperature of Venus was in
a similar window at a shorter wavelength. I did the calculations the
next day.
Wien's Law gave the peak wavelength for 740 K to be about 3.9 µm
which is just above the CO2 absorbtion frequency at 4 µm, so the
temperature cannot fall because it cannot release IR through that CO2
absorption barrier. At that peak wavelength, Venus can radiate about
93 times the amount of energy that Earth can at 288 K (15 C), so it
doesn't get warmer, but it can't fall either, unless the Sun output
changes.
If Venus' atmosphere was like Earth's when it formed, because of its
proximity to the Sun, Venus would get twice the intensity of energy as
the Earth. To radiate IR back out at that rate, it would have to be at
251 C. Even an increased convection cycle wouldn't be able to keep it
down below 100 C. When all the water was evaporated and all the
dissolved CO2 was released, the temperature would put the peak
wavelength around 5.5 µm and well within a major absorption range of
H2O, which would completely overlap the CO2 line at 4 µm. So Venus
would warm until it found an IR wavelength that could radiate enough
energy into space to balance the incoming energy from the Sun.
I couldn't find any confirmation of this theory online but I did see
an explanation for Venus not having water. The water would have been
broken down the same way oxygen is broken down to form ozone, except
with H2O, the H2 escapes the atmosphere. I would imagine that water
could form an evaporation/condensation cycle in the sky to transport
some heat but the liquid would never get near the surface. A friend at
work was in Iraq and said that it sometimes rains dirt there. The rain
falls and collects dirt but completely evaporates before reaching the
ground but the dirt balls do.
Anyway, I thought that insight was cool, even if it turns out to be
wrong.